2026-03-04 3 1 0 House of Reps 0 1

Wednesday, 4 March 2026

The SPEAKER ( Hon. Milton Dick ) took the chair at 09:00, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.

BILLS 1 BILLS Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility Amendment Bill 2026 1

Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility Amendment Bill 2026

First Reading 1 Second Reading 1 09:01 Ms MADELEINE KING 102376 Brand I move: That this bill be now read a second time. This bill makes important updates to the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility Act 2016 ('the NAIF Act') to ensure that the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility ('NAIF') can continue to support economic growth, job creation and investment across the north in a stable, reliable and accountable way. Because a strong north means a strong Australia. The bill proposes four key amendments. Extending NAIF's investment decision-making period. Strengthening accountability for compliance with the Investment Mandate. Establishing joint responsibilities for the responsible Ministers—the Minister for Northern Australia and the Minister for Finance—in accordance with standard practice of the specialist investment vehicles of the Commonwealth. Refreshing statutory review requirements to allow for two future reviews of the operation of the NAIF Act. This bill extends NAIF's statutory investment decision-making window by 10 years, from 30 June 2026 to 30 June 2036 at section 8 of the NAIF Act. Under the current legislation, NAIF would be prohibited from making investment decisions after 30 June 2026. This amendment responds to the recommendations of the 2024 statutory review of the NAIF Act and preserves the facility's capacity to continue investment in transformational projects across Northern Australia. This is a practical measure that provides certainty to investors and project proponents. It ensures that NAIF, after having already delivered commitments exceeding $4 billion supporting economic development in Northern Australia, remains a reliable source of development finance well into the future. The bill strengthens accountability in relation to NAIF's investment mandate by inserting new provisions into section 9 of the NAIF Act. These provisions will require the NAIF board to notify the responsible ministers when NAIF or a subsidiary fails to comply with the investment mandate and enables the responsible ministers to direct the board to take corrective action. Further, the bill will confirm that noncompliance with the investment mandate does not affect the validity of NAIF transactions. These amendments strengthen NAIF's governance framework and reflect recommendation 8 of the 2024 statutory review of the NAIF Act, which emphasised the importance of legislative certainty. The amendments ensure that inadvertent noncompliance cannot undermine financing arrangements or the confidence of project proponents and financiers. This approach is consistent with comparable legislation establishing other Commonwealth specialist investment vehicles, including the National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Act 2023. The bill will ensure the NAIF Act aligns with current administrative arrangements for specialist investment vehicles with respect to the role of the Minister for Finance. The addition of the Finance minister to the ministerial responsibilities set out in several places throughout the act will ensure an appropriate level of oversight and accountability consistent with arrangements for all such Commonwealth vehicles. Finally, the bill updates the statutory review requirements in section 43 to provide for future reviews of the NAIF Act as soon as practicable after 30 June 2029 and 30 June 2034. The amendments clarify that the first review (after June 2029) will not consider extending the investment decision-making timeframe, whereas the second review (after June 2034) will. This ensures parliament receives structured and timely evaluations of the operation of the NAIF Act during its extended investment period. Northern Australia is a vast and extraordinary place, rich in resources with remarkable people and communities. Yet it faces challenges that are unique to Australia's north, including great distances, transport, infrastructure, a lower population than southern Australia, and the challenges of that wonderful tropical climate, with cyclones, storms and floods. That is why NAIF is so important. The Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility helps overcome those challenges by supporting finance for projects, helping to remove some of the risk for projects and commercial investors. NAIF also supports our government's wider northern Australia agenda, driving sustainable development, creating jobs, supporting First Nations communities, building resilient infrastructure, and positioning Australia as a leader in critical minerals. Since it was first established in 2016, NAIF has become an integral part of the investment landscape across northern Australia. It has been a catalyst in getting crucial projects off the ground and helping to diversify the economy of northern Australia. Our government is a strong supporter of NAIF. In our first budget in 2022, we demonstrated that commitment by providing an extra $2 billion in funding to the facility. That has given the NAIF a total of $7 billion to invest in economic development, jobs and opportunities across the north. We have also made sure that NAIF remains fit for purpose. In our first term, the Albanese government commissioned a statutory review to consider the operation of the NAIF Act. The government thanks the Hon. Warren Snowdon, the former member for Lingiari; Professor Peter Yu; and Doctor Lisa Caffery for their work on the review. Their report found overwhelming support for NAIF across government, industry and the public. Since its establishment, NAIF has now made 37 investment decisions across Queensland, Western Australia and the Northern Territory. These loans total more than $4.3 billion, and the projects they support are forecast to create more than 18,000 jobs in a range of sectors including infrastructure, agriculture, resources, critical minerals, housing and ports. NAIF projects are contributing to wider government policy objectives. For example, in January 2024, NAIF made an investment decision to provide up to $200 million to Arafura for the Nolans Rare Earths Project near Alice Springs in the Northern Territory. The project aims to develop one of the world's largest deposits of neodymium and praseodymium, which are essential for the permanent magnets used in electric vehicles, wind turbines, robotics and defence technologies. The finance will support the construction of mining and processing facilities to diversify the global supply chain of rare earths and strengthen Australia's national security. The project will also deliver significant economic benefits to the community of Alice Springs and the wider Northern Territory. It is expected to generate more than 300 jobs. Importantly, NAIF's support of Arafura's Nolans Rare Earths Project aligns with, and contributes to, the advancement of the government's Critical Minerals Strategy. In Queensland, NAIF made an investment decision in August 2024 to provide up to $140 million to Community Housing Ltd and Tetris Capital for the Cairns Seniors Community Housing Project in Queensland. In partnership with Housing Australia and the Queensland government, the project aims to address the housing shortage in northern Queensland by constructing a purpose-built seniors' community in Cairns. The project will build 490 dwellings to house around 690 people and will be comprised of 245 social, 223 affordable, and 22 specialist disability accommodation apartments. The project aligns wholly with the housing policy of the government. It is forecast to create more than 300 jobs across construction and operation across the Cairns region. In Western Australia, NAIF has made an investment decision worth up to $220 million for the Perdaman Urea Project, supporting what will be Australia's largest urea plant. The Perdaman project near Karratha is worth $6.5 billion and it is estimated that it will create 2½ thousand jobs during construction and 200 ongoing jobs once operational. Once completed, it will produce approximately two million tonnes of urea per year. It is expected that just under half the urea will be kept for Australia, with the rest to be exported to the Asia-Pacific, Brazil and the United States of America. The investment decision will create a new multibillion dollar fertiliser industry in Australia. The Perdaman Urea Project is one of the largest downstream processing investments in Australia's history. Starting production in 2027, this investment will ensure Australian farmers have a reliable and secure supply of urea to maintain food production. In turn, this contributes to our food security across our continent. A smaller investment, but no less important, is the $34 million NAIF loan to the Kimberley cotton gin in Kununurra in northern Western Australia. This cotton gin is a prime example of the impact NAIF is having on regional communities in the north. The project is forecast to return a public benefit of around $248 million and establish the Ord River Irrigation Area as a major cotton region. The project is a productivity game changer for the local cotton industry. Cotton crops can now be processed locally, saving the added cost and burden of sending the cotton hundreds of kilometres away for processing. The project will be supported by the expansion of port and border services at the nearby port of Wyndham, which will allow exports directly from the region. While this investment in Kununurra is far from the largest NAIF loan, it is among the NAIF loans with the highest local impact. The Kimberley cotton gin project demonstrates how the diversity of projects the NAIF backs in supports northern communities in all sorts of ways. It shows how NAIF is helping to diversify the economy of northern Australia. The NAIF continues to be a central pillar of the government's commitment to fostering sustainable economic development across northern Australia—supporting infrastructure, unlocking industry potential and helping communities to thrive. The bill strengthens NAIF's legislative foundation, improves accountability, maintains certainty for investors and ensures the framework remains fit for purpose through the next decade. I commend the bill to the House. Debate adjourned. Parliamentary Frameworks Legislation Amendment (Reviews) Bill 2026 3

Parliamentary Frameworks Legislation Amendment (Reviews) Bill 2026

First Reading 3 Second Reading 3 09:13 Mr GORMAN 74519 Perth I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The Parliamentary Frameworks Legislation Amendment (Reviews) Bill 2026 would amend the Parliamentary Workplace Support Service Act 2023, known as the PWSS Act, the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act 1984, known as the MOP(S) Act, and the Parliamentary Business Resources Act 2017, known as the PBR Act, to allow the forthcoming statutory reviews of these acts, each of which is required to be conducted during the 48th Parliament, to be combined as part of a holistic review of the systems and frameworks that govern Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces. The bill would also align the frequency of future periodic reviews of the PWSS Act and the PBR Act to allow them to be combined or conducted separately. The parliamentary ecosystem comprises a nexus of legislative frameworks governing the provision of resources to parliamentarians, the employment of their staff and the services and supports to enable parliamentarians to perform their democratic role. The administration of these frameworks is the responsibility of a number of entities, with support provided to parliamentarians and their staff across the country. The PBR Act established the legislative framework for the provision and use of public resources by parliamentarians in connection with their parliamentary business. The provision of staff to assist parliamentarians with their parliamentary business is governed principally by two acts: the MOP(S) Actandthe PWSS Act. The MOP(S) Act establishes the legislative framework for parliamentarians and officeholders to employ people on behalf of the Commonwealth. The PWSS Act established the Parliamentary Workplace Support Service, known as the PWSS, to provide centralised human resources and other employment related support to parliamentarians and their staff. The PWSS Act later established the Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission, known as IPSC, to independently and impartially investigate conduct in breach of the parliamentary behaviour codes. Since 2016-17 significant reforms have fundamentally reshaped the parliamentary ecosystem, including: the enactment of the PBR Act as a new scheme for the administration and oversight of parliamentary work expenses; the establishment of the Independent Parliamentary Expenses Authority, known as IPEA, and the expansion of IPEA's functions from 1 July 2026; and the implementation of Set the standard: report on the independent review into Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces (Set the standard). The implementation of Set the standard further led to: the adoption of behaviour codes and standards for parliamentarians, their staff and Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces the establishment of the PWSS and the IPSC; and the modernisation of employment arrangements of parliamentarians' staff under the MOP(S) Act. A holistic review of the systems and frameworks that govern Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces Review of the progress of implementation of Set the standard reforms and the statutory reviews of the PWSS Act, MOP(S) Act and PBR Act are due within the current parliamentary term: The periodic independent review of the PBR Act is aimed at ensuring that the PBR Act continues to meet its objectives of improving the accountability and transparency of parliamentary work expenses. The MOP(S) Act was amended in 2023 to ensure that the employment framework continues to be fit for purpose and reflects contemporary employment settings. The amendments included the one-off statutory review requirement and its timing—at least three years after and within five years of the amendments—and was calibrated to allow for consideration of how the new provisions have worked in practice and whether further amendments are desirable. The periodic review of the PWSS Act aims to ensure that the PWSS's performance and the underpinning legislative frameworks are operating effectively to further the objectives of the PWSS Act on a regular basis. Combining these reviews within a broader review of the systems and frameworks that govern Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces provides an opportunity to examine how the recent reforms are maturing in a holistic way—in particular, to ensure the ecosystem and its supporting legislative frameworks continue to be fit for purpose and accord with community expectations. Incorporating the PWSS Act, MOP(S) Act and PBR Act statutory reviews within the broader review of the systems and frameworks that govern Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces will enable an integrated examination of these statutes. This approach will remove the risk of contradictory outcomes and reduce 'review fatigue' for parliamentarians and their staff. However, the existing legislated timeframes prevent a contemporaneous review: the first statutory review of the PWSS Act is required to commence no later than 22 July 2026; the one-off review of the MOP(S) Act is required to be completed by 17 October 2028; however, the MOP(S) Act expressly provides that the review must not commence prior to 17 October 2026; and the next statutory review of the PBR Act must commence as soon as practicable after 2 August 2027. The bill will amend the PWSS Act, MOP(S) Act and PBR Act to allow these reviews to be combined as part of the broader review of the systems and frameworks that govern Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces, which will be able to commence as soon as possible from 23 March 2026. Alignment of future statutory reviews of the PWSS Act and PBR Act Review of the PWSS Act within the 48th Parliament is timely and appropriate, given this government's substantial reforms to Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces in its first term. However, a statutory review every parliamentary term will deliver diminishing benefits following the inaugural review and will not allow sufficient time for the implementation of any prior review recommendations and maturing of associated changes to administration before a subsequent review must be conducted. The bill will therefore amend the PWSS Act to extend the frequency at which its periodic statutory review must occur—from each parliamentary term (as currently), to as soon as practicable from 23 March 2031, and every five years thereafter. The PBR Act already requires a statutory review every five years, from 2 August 2022. The bill will make minor amendments to this provision to align the timing of future PBR Act reviews with future PWSS Act reviews. That is, the bill will require ongoing PBR Act reviews to be conducted as soon as practicable from 23 March 2031 and every five years thereafter, rather than each fifth anniversary of 2 August 2022. This will provide future governments the flexibility to combine the statutory reviews of the PWSS and PBR acts or to conduct them separately. Conclusion In summary, this bill will enable the statutory reviews of the PWSS Act, PBR Act and MOP(S) Act to be conducted as part of the broader review of the systems and frameworks that govern Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces, which will consequently be able to commence from 23 March 2026. The bill will also align the timing of the future periodic reviews of the PWSS Act and the PBR Act to allow them to be conducted concurrently, combined or separately. I commend the bill to the House. Debate adjourned. BUSINESS 5 BUSINESS Orders of the Day 5 09:21 Ms RYAN 249224 Lalor I declare that Federation Chamber orders of the day Nos 2 to 4, government business, Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2025-2026 and two related appropriation bills, are returned to the House for further consideration. STATEMENTS ON SIGNIFICANT MATTERS 5 STATEMENTS ON SIGNIFICANT MATTERS Domestic, Family and Sexual Violence 5 Reference to Federation Chamber 5 09:21 Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR Ballarat I move: That further statements on the Domestic, Family and Sexual Violence Commission's yearly report to Parliament be permitted in the Federation Chamber. Question agreed to. COMMITTEES 5 COMMITTEES Privileges and Members' Interests Committee 5 Report 5 09:21 Mrs ELLIOT DZW Richmond I present the report from the Standing Committee of Privileges and Members' Interests concerning an application from Professor David Lindenmayer AO for the publication of a response to a reference made in the Federation Chamber. Report—by leave—agreed to. BILLS 5 BILLS Commonwealth Entities Legislation Amendment Bill 2026 5

Commonwealth Entities Legislation Amendment Bill 2026

Report from Federation Chamber 5 Third Reading 5 09:23 Ms ROWLAND 159771 Greenway by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Treasury Laws Amendment (Building a Stronger and Fairer Super System) Bill 2026, Superannuation (Building a Stronger and Fairer Super System) Imposition Bill 2026 6

Treasury Laws Amendment (Building a Stronger and Fairer Super System) Bill 2026

Superannuation (Building a Stronger and Fairer Super System) Imposition Bill 2026

Second Reading 6 09:24 Ms COKER 263547 Corangamite 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. This is commonsense reform. The concession rate applying to future earnings on balances above $10 million will be 40 per cent, and both the $3 million and $10 million thresholds will be indexed. These reforms maintain the concessional treatment of super but ensure it is provided in a more equitable and sustainable way. Our superannuation system provides concessional tax treatment because super has a clear objective: to provide income for a secure retirement. This government legislated that objective. Concessional tax treatment is justified because it encourages long-term savings for retirement. Importantly, these changes ensure that tax concessions are better targeted and more sustainable. Labor built Australia's superannuation system, and under this government we are strengthening it in significant and practical ways. We have legislated the objective of super: to provide income for a secure retirement. We have increased the superannuation guarantee to 12 per cent, the culmination of decades of effort. We are paying super on government funded paid parental leave, helping to close the gender gap on retirement savings. We've legislated payday superannuation so that, from July this year, workers will receive their super at the same time they receive their wages—not once a quarter, not when it suits the employer, but every payday. For a 25-year-old on an average wage, that could mean around $6,000 more at retirement. We have expanded the coverage of the superannuation performance test from around 80 products to more than 800, driving accountability and better outcomes for members. We've announced mandatory service standards and are reforming the retirement phase to ensure Australians are supported as they transition from work to retirement. And today we introduce legislation to increase LISTO and better target super tax concessions. This is a coherent reform agenda. It is a reform agenda that's about fairness. It's about sustainability and it's about confidence in superannuation. Millions of Australians are approaching retirement over the coming decade. For them, the decision they make at this time is significant and can sometimes be daunting. This bill will help strengthen their confidence in super, knowing it can and will deliver for them. It ensures that low-income workers are not disadvantaged by the tax system. It ensures that concessions are proportionate and responsible. And it does so while maintaining the core concessional framework that has made Australia's super system. Voting against this bill would be a vote against a fairer super system, and it would be a vote for larger tax breaks for those who already have millions in their super accounts. This is not the choice this government is prepared to make. We believe in a superannuation system that reflects Australian values—a system that rewards work, a system that supports families, a system that provides dignity in retirement and a system that is strong enough and sustainable enough to endure for generations to come. When I speak with older constituents in my electorate—people who have worked hard all their lives—I see the difference that superannuation makes. I also think about my two daughters, who are part of a generation that will contribute at 12 per cent across their entire working lives. With the right settings, they will retire with greater security than any generation before them. That only happens if we maintain the integrity of the system. That's what this bill is all about: strengthening the system, making it more sustainable and, importantly, making it fairer for all. This bill will enable the strengthening of superannuation for those on low incomes. It ensures tax concessions are better targeted and it reinforces the legislative objective of super: to provide income for a secure retirement. Our superannuation system is a national achievement, and we should all be very proud of it. This legislation ensures it continues to deliver for millions of working Australians, today and into the future. 09:30 Mr SMALL 291406 Forrest The one word missing from this debate is 'sorry'. The Treasurer should be saying sorry to the Australian people, particularly those aspirational Australians who believe in reward for effort and the incentive to strive in this country. Ultimately, we're only here today with a massive policy backtrack from this government because of sustained pressure, led by the coalition and backed in by everyday Australians across this country, to force this Labor government to abandon the taxation of unrealised gains, leading to the indexation of the new proposed threshold, which was a sorry absence from the previous proposal. It would seem that the government has been found out by everyday Australians. For all of their talk about lower taxes and people keeping more of what they earn, this was a sneaky and devious taxation proposal that would have left Australians poorer, particularly everyday Australians, who ultimately would have been caught by the $3 million threshold in the absence of indexation. Thanks to sustained scrutiny from the coalition, from the superannuation sector itself, from small-business owners—including the farmers from my electorate—and from everyday Australians, Labor have been forced to step back from the most outrageous proposals of this particular policy. But, let's face it, it is still an unashamed tax grab by a government that is addicted to spending. It was a proposal that was aimed not just at hurting retirees, but at ultimately stealing from future generations—younger Australians—without their knowledge or understanding, because, at the end of the day, things like the indexation of taxation thresholds aren't front of mind for young Aussies, for whom the dream of homeownership in this country has become something of a nightmare. Having exposed a clear breakdown in the relationship between the Prime Minister and his Treasurer, the original design to tax unrealised capital gains for the very first time in this country—which represented a fundamental break with the longstanding conventions of our tax system in this country—has seemingly been thrown in the bin. Australians have always understood that a fair go, a fair deal with the government, would be that tax is paid when you've got income being realised. If you've got cash in your pocket, it's fair for the government to grab a share of it. To propose taxing paper gains, particularly in volatile asset classes, wasn't just a minor tweak; this was the abolition of a cornerstone of the taxation system in Australia. We in the coalition believed it was a dangerous precedent, because it was a structural shift that would have led to people in Australia facing massive tax bills without the cash in their pocket to pay them. There's no better example of this than the farmers in my electorate, who are, at the end of the day, small businesses, and who, for a variety of reasons and reflecting the longstanding principles of the superannuation system, have put family assets like the farm into self-managed super funds. These aren't massively lucrative businesses operating on massive margins, particularly when you look at the pressures in the dairy sector for which the South West of WA is renowned. These are small family businesses who would have faced tax bills in the hundreds of thousands of dollars just because a paper valuation on the family farm had gone up. There's no extra money in the kitty to pay for it, and that's what was so dangerous about this proposal. The fact that the original $3 million threshold wasn't indexed ultimately led to a situation where everyday Australians earning an average income would have eventually been tangled in this tax—no more so than in the inflationary environment that we see today, which has been made worse by the Treasurer's failure to control spending and indeed his willingness to pour debt petrol on the inflation fire that is raging in this country. Over time, more and more Australians would have been caught, not because they were wealthier in real terms but because inflation simply would have eroded the real value of the threshold. It's effectively bracket creep by design, the so-called thief in the night given free rein in our community by the Treasurer of Australia. It wasn't just flawed policy; it was a sneaky trick to take more of your hard earned savings, all the while talking about being a government committed to lower taxes and Australians keeping more of what they earned. The government's backdown demonstrates one thing very clearly—that this was never settled policy based on sound principle; rather, it was a blatant tax grab that, when exposed, collapsed under the weight of public scrutiny in Australia. At the last election, Australians were not presented with a policy to tax unrealised gains in superannuation. They were not told that the longstanding superannuation settings in this country would be fundamentally altered, and they were not warned that indexation would be stripped away. Promises should matter in a democracy like Australia. Major structural tax changes should be put clearly and transparently to the Australian people. Instead, this was a proposal out of left field by a government that has simply run out of money. With limited consultation and a rushed legislative timetable, it is fortunate that the debate has resonated so strongly with Australians, who instinctively understand when something just isn't fair. When it comes to retirement savings in Australia, the nest eggs that are built over decades of hard work should be sacrosanct, and the bar for legitimate debate should be even higher than normal. Instead, we've seen a government that simply can't be trusted with the hard earned savings of Australians. The Treasurer, addicted to spending as he is, found himself without money. We always know what happens when Labor run out of money; they come after yours. We were told by this government that they were going to make life easier for families, for young Australians and for those who want to work hard to get ahead. Life has been harder under the Albanese government, and everyday Australians know that—whether they're paying the mortgage, paying the bills, simply leaving the supermarket or opening their power bills after a long hot summer—because they feel poorer. Their real standards of living are declining. The cost of living is rising, and the only thing that isn't is their real wages. The fact of the matter is that inflation is high. Interest rates are high because inflation and government spending are out of control. The government has been beaten by inflation in the economy. Perhaps most startling of all was that there were Labor voices against this proposal, and they varied. The ACTU's Sally McManus warned: I do think it's got to be indexed because you've got to make sure eventually people don't end up there— meaning, of course, those everyday Australians on ordinary wages who would have fallen victim to a $3 million threshold, had that not been indexed. The ACTU's former secretary Bill Kelty said: I think taxing unrealised capital gains is bad policy. It distorts the effective tax, changes your income flows, and if it was on superannuation generally, there would be a revolution about it. It would destroy super. It seems that the government has finally listened to some of its own critics, and that is a pleasing result. But, at the end of the day, it doesn't belie the fact that they have a spending problem, not a revenue problem. There's a structural spending growth in our country that is outpacing sustainable economic growth. Indeed, with the economy stuck in first gear because of regulation, high inflation, high interest rates and the red tape that is crippling private business investment in our country, the reality is that the government is spending beyond its means and so it is reaching for new taxes to fill the gap. The Liberal Party and the National Party are committed, in coalition, to always be the parties of lower taxes. That means we're not supporting this blatant tax grab. Rather than confronting waste, prioritising programs and restoring fiscal discipline, Labor's simply on the hunt for new pools of your money to spend. As I said, trust is fundamental in tax reform in our country. I think there are many across the chamber who recognise that we should have robust debate about taxation reform in Australia. But, it should be principled, predictable and based on broad consultation. It should be about enabling better economic growth in our country, rather than simply grabbing more of the hard-earned money of Australians and spending it as the government does. Ordinary Australians don't accept retrospective tinkering, ad hoc changes and ideological experiments dressed up as modest adjustments. Indeed, this proposal is simply emblematic of a broader pattern: higher spending first and then new taxes to pay for it later. It's not reform; it's just fiscal mismanagement. When we consider the additional risks in this new proposal beyond the headline rate and the threshold changes, the legislation introduces serious structural risks. The removal of the effective death tax exemption creates uncertainty for families in Australia at precisely the moment they are most vulnerable. In their darkest hours of grief, surviving spouses who rely on the superannuation balances of a partner to maintain stability after a death in the family shouldn't face additional tax complexity and reduced security. Total and permanent disability benefit recipients are another cohort whose needs need to be considered carefully. These are Australians who, through no fault of their own, are no longer able to work. Their superannuation is not an abstract investment vehicle or some piggybank to be raided by the government. It is a lifeline. Any change that introduces volatility, reduces predictability or complicates access to those funds carries real and devastating consequences for those individuals. The reality is that tax policy can't be designed in isolation from the lived reality of those Australians it impacts. When Australians' retirement income settings are destabilised, confidence in the superannuation system overall is eroded. The government's pointed to increases in the low-income superannuation tax offset, the LISTO, as evidence of balance in its proposal. Indeed, any measure that supports low-income earners building their retirement savings is welcomed by the coalition. But we have to be honest about the scale and the timing. The LISTO adjustments, while positive at the margin, do not put money back into household budgets today. Ultimately, from the power of compounding, we understand that Australians who are able to invest today will do better in the decades ahead, and they do not have the ability to do so while grocery bills, power bills and their mortgages are going through the roof. Australians are facing immediate cost-of-living pressures because inflation is running rampant in this country. A future offset adjustment to super does little to relieve those stressors now and it reduces the ability of Australian families to set themselves up for a prosperous retirement. If the government is serious about helping Australian households, it needs to tackle inflation at its source today. Excessive spending and weak economic growth in Australia are the priorities for economic reform, rather than reshuffling offsets within the retirement income system. This leaves us looking at a situation where this might well be the beginning of Labor's high-tax, high-spending agenda, where the money is spent first and then they come hunting for the tax grab afterwards. We can't view this proposal in isolation. It is simply about this government spending more and pouring debt petrol on the inflation fire that is raging in our country. Let's not misunderstand—this is a fire that has been burning out of control since long before the recent events in the Middle East caused further concern with spiking energy prices and the likely impacts on the economy here in Australia. We'll see when the national accounts come out later today, but Australians have very real cause to be uneasy. 09:45 Mr NG 316052 Menzies I rise today to speak in support of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Building a Stronger and Fairer Super System) Bill 2026. As the Australian people know, Labor is the party of superannuation. It was in 1992 under the Keating Labor government that we undertook one of the most significant social and economic reforms in modern Australian history: the introduction of compulsory employer superannuation contributions. It was the Hawke and Keating Labor governments that negotiated the original superannuation reforms through the accord, embedding retirement savings into the wages system and laying the foundation for a retirement system that is now the envy of the world. Superannuation doesn't just provide for a dignified and safe retirement; it has also made available capital that can be invested into the market to grow Australian businesses and the Australian economy. It was the Rudd and Gillard Labor governments that strengthened superannuation by increasing the superannuation guarantee rate to 12 per cent, expanding coverage and improving fairness for low-income earners through measures such as the low-income super contribution. And now it is the Albanese Labor government that is legislating to make superannuation fairer and more sustainable. This bill is about strengthening Australia's superannuation system and ensuring it remains fair, sustainable and fit for the future. Superannuation plays a central role in providing dignity and security in retirement, and it is important that the system works for all Australians, not only those with large balances. Through this legislation we are making superannuation fairer from top to bottom, helping workers across the economy build a more secure retirement. It means disability and aged-care workers, retail and hospitality staff, early childhood educators and nurses, who work hard every day, will have the security that their retirement savings will support them later in life. The bill delivers two key reforms. First, it boosts the low-income superannuation tax offset, or LISTO, ensuring low-income earners receive a fairer tax concession on their super contributions. This makes up part of the government's broader plan to help low-income workers earn more and keep more of what they earn. Second, the legislation reforms superannuation tax concessions so they are better targeted towards very large balances. These changes improve the sustainability of the system while maintaining strong incentives to save for retirement, ensuring superannuation remains equitable and effective for generations to come. The Liberal and National coalition have always hated superannuation. They opposed it when it was introduced in 1992. They opposed increasing the super rate. The Howard government froze super increases. The Rudd-Gillard Labor government legislated an increased to 12 per cent, as I've said, and that was originally scheduled to start in 2015. Then the Abbott coalition government deferred it by six years. That's millions of dollars in retirement savings that have been forgone because of the coalition's ideological opposition to super. It's only under this government that super contributions have finally reached the promised rate. Like with Medicare, since the coalition know that the Australian people overwhelmingly support super, they try to hide that they'd love to abolish it. When they couldn't scrap it, they sought to undermine it at every opportunity—death by a thousand cuts. The coalition have seized on every chance to let people raid their super early. That happened during COVID, as emergency payments. One of the scarce bits of policy that they have to address the housing crisis is to let people raid their super. Forget the fact that super compounds and that you can only have a dignified retirement if you have a large enough superannuation balance from when you're young, which builds until when you're older. These kinds of measures will mean that people's superannuation balances aren't enough to sustain them in retirement. Now we have a shadow treasurer, the member for Goldstein, who has said he'd like to abolish compulsory superannuation. They're saying the quiet bits out loud. While those opposite will always seek to scrap or weaken our superannuation system, this government will always look to protect and strengthen it. With these reforms, from July next year the government will strengthen retirement outcomes for low-income Australians by increasing the maximum low income superannuation tax offset, or LISTO, by $310 and lifting the eligibility threshold from $37,000 to $45,000 from 1 July 2027. Workers earning between $28,000 and $45,000 will see the greatest impact, with eligible individuals receiving an average increase in LISTO payments of around $410 each year. Over the course of a working life, this additional support could mean delivering approximately $15,000 more in retirement savings, depending on income levels and contribution patterns. By making these changes, the government restores alignment and ensures that low-income workers continue to receive an appropriate offset in their compulsory superannuation contributions. The maximum LISTO payment will increase to $810, reflecting the rise of the superannuation guarantee to 12 per cent. This adjustment ensures that the offset continues to compensate eligible workers for the contributions tax paid on their superannuation, balancing the parity between low-income earners and those on higher incomes, who benefit the most from concessional tax treatment. In updating the maximum payment in line with the higher contribution rate, the reform preserves the integrity of the policy and strengthens retirement balances over time. Importantly, both the eligibility threshold and the maximum payment will automatically adjust alongside future changes to income thresholds from the superannuation guarantee rate, ensuring the policy remains viable over time. This ensures that low-income workers continue to receive a fairer tax concession. In 2027-28, more than 770,000 additional Australians are expected to become eligible for LISTO as a result of the higher threshold. At the same time, approximately 490,000 current recipients will receive a higher annual payment due to the increase in the maximum offset. In total, around 3.1 million Australians will qualify for LISTO once the reforms are in place, with women projected to represent close to 60 per cent of beneficiaries. The workers who stand to benefit most include more than 100,000 sales assistants, over 50,000 administrative workers and more than 50,000 aged- and disability-care workers. Young Australians will also benefit significantly, particularly those under 30, who are in the early stages of building their retirement savings. By strengthening LISTO, schedule 4 of the bill improves equity within the superannuation system and reinforces its core objective: to preserve savings to deliver income for a dignified retirement. Alongside these measures, schedules 1 to 3 of the bill, together with the accompanying imposition bill, introduce reform designed to make superannuation tax concessions fairer and more sustainable by better targeting generous tax breaks towards their intended purpose. The legislation maintains concessional treatments for all taxpayers while modestly reducing the concessions available to individuals with total superannuation balances exceeding $3 million. From the 2026-27 financial year, earnings on balances below $3 million will continue to be taxed at concessional rates of up to 15 per cent, unchanged from current arrangements. Earnings attributable to balances between $3 million and $10 million will be subject to a concessional headline rate of up to 30 per cent, while earnings on balances above $10 million will face a rate of up to 40 per cent. Both thresholds will be indexed to the consumer price index to maintain their real value over time and ensure consistency with broader superannuation policy. These changes are expected to affect fewer than 0.5 per cent of Australians with superannuation accounts in 2026-27, with the higher rate applying to balances above $10 million impacting fewer than 0.1 per cent of account holders. Those opposite talk about everyday Australians, but we know that they will always govern for the top end of town, for the elites. By voting against this bill, their true colours are on full display. They don't want low- and middle-income workers to have the benefits of the LISTO. They don't govern for the many; they govern for the few, the vanishingly small few—not even the one per cent but the 0.5 per cent or the 0.1 per cent. It's the stage 3 tax cuts all over again. They wanted to flatten the tax system, with the largest benefit flowing to workers with the highest income. Our stage 3 tax cuts benefited more working Australians, who needed greater tax relief. Superannuation tax concessions currently cost the budget more than $60 billion annually. They're projected to exceed the cost of the age pension by the 2040s. This is not sustainable. A disproportionate share of tax concessions flows to high-income earners, with approximately 38 per cent of earnings concessions going to the top 10 per cent of earners and 54 per cent going to the top 20 per cent. These reforms are consistent with the government's legislated objective of superannuation: to preserve savings and to deliver income for a dignified retirement, alongside government support, in an equitable and sustainable way. Since coming to office, the Albanese Labor government has delivered a comprehensive program of reform to strengthen superannuation. We have increased the superannuation guarantee, so it has finally reached 12 per cent, which has boosted retirement savings for millions of workers. We are paying superannuation on government funded paid parental leave to help close the gender pay gap in retirement savings and improve economic security for women over the course of their working lives. From July this year, payday superannuation will require contributions to be paid at the same time as wages, which will reduce unpaid super and improve transparency for workers. We have also expanded the superannuation performance test from about 80 products to more than 800, which has increased accountability and helped Australians achieve better outcomes for their retirement savings. Financial reporting requirements for super funds have also been aligned with those applying to public companies, which has strengthened transparency and confidence in the system. In addition, the government has announced mandatory service standards to improve member experiences alongside ongoing reforms for the retirement phase of superannuation. These measures are designed to ensure Australians receive clearer guidance and better support as they transition from accumulating savings to drawing a sustainable retirement income. Australia's superannuation system is the envy of the world. This bill builds on that success by delivering more support to low-income workers through an increased LISTO while better targeting concessions to large balances. Together, these reforms ensure superannuation continues to provide a stronger, fairer and more secure retirement for millions of Australians both today and into the future. 09:57 Ms WATSON-BROWN 300127 Ryan This bill, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Building a Stronger and Fairer Super System) Bill 2026, shows that this country has an absolute mountain to climb when it comes to making our tax system fairer, especially for young working people, who are getting smashed while the richest of the rich have a smorgasbord of tax minimisation options to choose from. The 10 richest super funds in Australia have an average balance of $423 million each. Clearly, superannuation is being used as a tax shelter, and over its 32 years compulsory super has strayed far from its original purpose of providing working people with a dignified, comfortable retirement. This bill is merely tinkering at the edges of this mountainous system. It will not stop superannuation being used for tax and estate planning, and it will not restore super to its purpose of supporting hardworking people in retirement. Under the changes in this tax bill the 10 richest super funds, each with $423 million in their account, will still face a lower tax rate when they sell shares or investment properties than every single full-time worker in Australia. Even a full-time worker on the minimum wage will pay 30c in every dollar earned while these super funds, each with $423 million in their account, will pay 27c on every extra dollar their super fund earns from capital gains. Our tax system is turbocharging intergenerational inequality, and this bill will not meaningfully change the trajectory that we're on. A super account with $5 million in it will only face a tax rate of 14 per cent on capital gains under this bill while a bartender or a nurse that works part time and earns $20,000 a year faces a tax rate of 16c for every dollar earned. If you think this new tax system is bad, here's the painful bit: this bill is an improvement. Right now, that $5 million account or an account with $423 million in it, enjoys an effective tax rate of 10 per cent on capital gains. This is a difficult proposition. The tax change is a tiny step forward, but is wholly, almost laughably inadequate to deal with economic unfairness in our tax system. The 10 richest Australians will still pay a lower rate of tax than the nearly three million Australians on the minimum wage. No wonder there's such frustration out in the community, and we've heard it in my electorate where people are working harder but falling behind while they see others already with wealth racing further ahead. While the Greens will be supporting this super change in the House, we're reserving our position in the Senate. I want to make an important distinction here, because this watered-down super tax was announced alongside a long-overdue increase in the low-income super tax offset. The Greens wholeheartedly support this part of the changes, two-thirds of which will flow to women's retirement. 10:01 Ms THWAITES 282212 Jagajaga The Treasury Laws Amendment (Building a Stronger and Fairer Super System) Bill 2026 is important legislation because goes to the heart of what sort of superannuation system we want in Australia and what superannuation means for Australians both now and for future generations. Superannuation is absolutely one of the great achievements of the Australian Labor movement. It is a reform that has been grounded in fairness, in dignity and in opportunity. It was built on a simple but powerful idea that, after a lifetime of work, Australians should be able to retire with security, independence and dignity, not with uncertainty. As superannuation was built, it was never intended to be a vehicle for unlimited tax advantages. It was designed to support working Australians—cleaners, nurses, teachers, retail workers, tradies, carers—to ensure that older Australians could look forward to retirement with dignity and security. This bill strengthens that original purpose. It ensures that our superannuation system remains fair, sustainable and focused on delivering income in retirement, alongside government support, in an equitable way. It is important to look at the complete picture of what the government is doing to reform superannuation in Australia, first by better targeting superannuation tax concessions so that they do remain sustainable and fair, and second by strengthening retirement outcomes for low-income Australians, particularly women, who have historically retired with less superannuation and less security. I pay tribute to the number of women who have spoken to me about this inequity and who have campaigned for reform in this space, and I'm pleased that this Labor government is bringing this forward. Superannuation tax concessions represent one of the largest investments governments make in Australians' future wellbeing. These concessions now cost the budget more than $60 billion each year, and without reform they are projected to exceed the cost of the age pension in the decades ahead. That means that we have a responsibility not just to today's taxpayers but to our future generations to ensure that these concessions are properly targeted. At present, a disproportionate share of superannuation tax benefits flow to individuals with very large balances, and go well beyond what's required to fund a comfortable retirement. I have heard from people in my electorate who have very comfortable superannuation balances but say to me: 'We want to see a fairer future for all Australians. We want all Australians to be assured dignity in retirement.' At the moment, around 38 per cent of super earnings concessions go to the top 10 per cent of income earners, and more than half go to the top 20 per cent. That is not consistent with the purpose of superannuation I outlined at the start of this speech. Schedules one to three of this bill implement modest, carefully designed changes to ensure concessions remain fair while preserving incentives for Australians to save. From the 2026-27 income year, earnings on superannuation balances below $3 million will continue to be taxed at up to 15 per cent, exactly as they are today. Earnings on balances between $3 million and $10 million will be taxed at up to 30 per cent, and earnings on balances above $10 million will be taxed at up to 40 per cent. Both thresholds will be indexed to inflation to maintain fairness over time. It's important to be clear about what this means. These changes affect fewer than 0.5 per cent of Australians with superannuation accounts. The highest rate applies to fewer than 0.1 per cent. So, for the overwhelming majority of Australians, for the millions of workers out there who are working and saving for their retirement, nothing will change. Their concessions remain intact. Their retirement savings remain supported. What this reform does is make sure that those with extremely large balances are not receiving a tax treatment that is far more generous than what was intended when the superannuation system was created. It strengthens the sustainability of our superannuation system so that it can continue supporting Australians for decades to come. This is the work that Labor governments do, and it is the purpose that we bring to this place, not just to protect the dignity and security of Australians who are retiring now but to protect those to come. This is part of a broader set of reforms that the government is bringing, and I want to talk about some of those other reforms, which are really about lifting outcomes for those who, traditionally, have been at the bottom end of our super system. The low income superannuation tax offset, or LISTO, which means that low-income workers who often pay tax on their super contributions, even when they pay little or no income tax—without the LISTO provision, the system would effectively penalise people on lower incomes for saving for retirement. What we are doing here is correcting that imbalance. We will lift the LISTO eligibility threshold to align it with broader income tax settings and also increase the maximum payment to reflect the rise of the superannuation guarantee to 12 per cent. These are thresholds that haven't kept pace with broader tax changes, and they have meant that many low-income earners have missed out on support that they should rightly receive. I have had a number of people raise this issue with me, particularly those who are advocating on behalf of Australian women, because it is often Australian women who, as the latest gender pay gap data shows us, are earning less and are more likely to be in a position where they are retiring into a more uncertain outcome. So, for those people, this change is going to mean they are looking at a fairer superannuation system. Again, we're putting in place those principles of having a system that supports people who work hard, who want security and who are looking for dignity in retirement. It's not special treatment; it is about making sure that we are equitable in how we are treating our system and how we are supporting working Australians into the future. I am particularly passionate about this reform in terms of what it will mean for women who are retiring and for the women who are working in aged care and in child care, who do, over their lifetimes, earn lower average wages, who take time out of the workforce to care for children or family members or who may be working part time more often. I know that this benefit will very much strengthen their retirement outcomes and their retirement security. Of course, it comes along as part of a suite of changes that we have made as a government to support working women including putting superannuation on paid parental leave, acknowledging that this very important payment is something that, just like any other workplace entitlement, deserves to receive superannuation. The work we are doing to drive down the gender pay gap—and I note that, while it is too high, it is heading in the right direction, and that is a direct result of the focus that this government brings to improving the conditions for working Australian women, to improving their wages in industries like aged care and also to improving the security and the dignity they can look forward to when they come to retirement age. We are recognising that the work they are doing in our communities is vital and deserves to be supported into the future. I am particularly pleased to see this reform as part of the broader work that the government is doing to strengthen our superannuation system and to make sure it is fit for purpose. This is the work that Labor governments do. Superannuation was built by Labor to ensure that Australians have security and dignity in retirement, and it has absolutely served our country well. I know there are many countries around the world that look to copy the Australian system because they have seen the effect it has had for us as a country and for individuals in this country as well. It is our responsibility to make sure that system remains fair and remains something that is supporting all Australians to retire with security and dignity. The people who benefit from these reforms are working Australians—people who work in our shops, the people who are our carers and our administrative staff and, of course, the young people to come and who are just now starting their working lives. These people deserve retirement outcomes that rely on consistent policy settings that support them fairly over time. These reforms will reinforce their confidence that the superannuation system works for everyone and not just for the fortunate few. I do want to briefly mention that, of course, in bringing these reforms forward the government has consulted widely. We understand that they are changes that will affect people. This is evidence based policymaking, and we thank everyone who's been involved in the consultation to help us get to this point of careful design where we are strengthening retirement outcomes for low-income workers and building a sustainable super system that will deliver for Australians now and into the future. 10:11 Mr CONAGHAN 279991 Cowper I'm very pleased but somewhat concerned to rise and speak to the Treasury Laws Amendment (Building a Stronger and Fairer Super System) Bill 2026 and the Superannuation (Building a Stronger and Fairer Super System) Imposition Bill 2026 because these bills represent a fundamental shift in how the government views Australians' retirement savings. For decades we've known that superannuation has been built on a simple understanding that Australians would lock away part of their hard-earned wages during their working lives, invest those savings productively and have in return certainty in the future of a secure retirement. But unfortunately this government increasingly sees superannuation not as Australians' savings but as a convenient pool of revenue for government spending. That is why we're seeing new taxes, new thresholds and new rules that reduce choice throughout the system. The real problem facing this government is not that Australians are paying too little tax. The real problem is that this government cannot control its spending. When governments run out of fiscal discipline, they start looking for new places to collect revenue, and that is with the taxpayer. Today it's super balances above $3 million. Tomorrow that threshold can change quickly. We know there is a massive Labor deficit, and they have endless wasteful new spending to add to it. It's worth remembering how we arrived at this point. When the Treasurer unveiled his first superannuation tax proposal, Australians reacted very swiftly, and we, the coalition, opposed it. The community raised serious concerns about the Treasurer's proposal. Even voices on that side—it cannot be denied—raised questions within their own ranks and began to question in. The original proposal crossed a very clear line in our tax system. It would have taxed unrealised gains, paper increases in asset values that existed only on a spreadsheet. No sale, no income received, but what you would have seen is people like farmers and business owners who, under the then rules, would have had to sell off their businesses, carve up their farms or simply walk off the property because of an overreach of this government. Australians rightly pushed back on that. They also noticed something else. The Treasurer had quietly refused to index the threshold meaning inflation would slowly drag more and more Australians into that tax overtime. The way we see inflation growing at its current rate would only expedite that. The art of taxation, it has been said, is to pluck the goose with the least hissing. Labor thought they could do it here, but Australians have hissed loud enough that even the Prime Minister heard it. So the Treasurer was forced to retreat, but now he's back again with his latest proposal to tax retirement savings. Let us be clear here. This is not the policy the government took to the last election. This is something completely different. In one important respect, it is something much worse, because the original bill explicitly excluded the tax from applying to when someone dies. That safeguard has now very quietly disappeared. Australians abolished death duties in the 1970s because they were widely recognised as unfair, punitive and ineffective, yet here we are in 2026, watching their quiet re-emergence under this Labor government. Under Labor, Australians are taxed when they work. We all accept that. It pays for our hospitals, our schools, Medicare—all those services that you rightly deserve. They are taxed when they retire, and now you're going to be taxed when you die. At some point we have to ask: when does it stop? I do acknowledge it is easy to see the politics in this proposal. The government says this tax applies only to balances above $3 million and imposes an even higher rate on balances above $10 million. Clearly, in a cost-of-living crisis that is only getting worse under Labor, many Australians would say they're not going to lose any sleep over that. In my electorate, the average super balance is $170,000. I say to the people of my electorate: I get it; I understand. You look at somebody with a super balance over $3 million and you would say, 'Well, they can pay it.' People are focused more on mortgages, rents, groceries and energy bills, not multimillion dollar retirement accounts. I get it; Labor politics—I withdraw that. It is very tempting to say, 'We'll let this one go through to the keeper,' but where does it stop? The real problem facing this government is not that the Australian people are paying too little tax. The real problem is this government cannot control its spending. Tax receipts today are already at historically high levels as a share of the economy. They are at levels we have not seen since the Howard years, but there's a very important difference there. When the Howard government benefited from strong revenues generated by growing an economy, they returned those revenues to the Australian people, and they did so through broad based tax relief. This government sees historically high tax returns and immediately starts looking for ways to take even more, because this government cannot live within its means. There is, of course, a small increase to the low-income superannuation tax offset now attached to this bill, and we support that. It's a tax cut, but it's small—only around one-fifth of revenue collected by that tax—and, in a cost-of-living crisis, it is pretty strange that this government didn't choose to deliver more immediate tax relief. That is the stark difference between this government and what was done under the Howard government. That brings us to a much deeper issue in this debate, and that is the integrity of the superannuation system itself. Superannuation was built on a contract. Australians would set aside part of their wages during their working lives. Those savings would be invested productively across the economy, and, in return, they would have security and certainty in retirement. But that system depends on one crucial ingredient, and that is trust—trust that, if the Australian people followed the rules, the rules would not constantly change and trust that, when people make long-term decisions about saving for retirement, governments won't move the goalposts halfway through the game. Superannuation is not a short-term investment. People make decisions about their retirement savings in their 30s and 40s that will affect their lives decades later. They structure their investments, they plan how much they contribute and they plan the kind of retirement they want and that they can afford. They do all of that on the assumption that the rules governing the system will remain stable. But what this government has done with these bills is fundamentally change that system. Now we have a different tax rate depending on the size of someone's super balance. It's a wealth tax. There's no denying that. The government says it's about aligning superannuation with what it calls dignified retirement. Dignified retirement is your choice and my choice, not the government's choice. The problem with the argument by Labor is very simple. As I said, who decides what counts as dignified? Today the government says that the line in the sand is $3 million. But this bill raises around $2 billion a year—that is it. In the context of a $1 trillion debt, that's not a structural solution to the government's fiscal pressures. When $2 billion inevitably proves insufficient, the temptation will be obvious: lower the threshold, expand the tax and bring more Australians into the net. Maybe the line becomes $2 million, maybe $1 million. Maybe they'll just tax all super and give everyone a $20,000 dignified retirement stipend. Who knows? We simply cannot trust this government and we simply cannot trust this treasurer. Once the government begins to treat superannuation as a convenient revenue source, the pressure to keep expanding that revenue will never go away. We can already see the broader direction of travel. We hear discussions about making changes to capital gains tax and about changes to negative gearing. We hear discussions about trusts. Each time the argument begins the same way. First, they deny they are considering new taxes. Then they say that it will only apply to the rich. But, when the spending pressures continue to grow, the definition of 'rich' inevitably changes. That's why this bill matters. Once one of the principles established is that retirement savings are simply another pool of revenue for the government to draw from, the integrity of the entire system begins to erode. That has consequences not just for retirees but for the whole of the Australian government. Those superannuation balances Labor is taxing are not sitting idle. They represent capital invested across Australia that is backing businesses and infrastructure and helping companies to expand, hire workers and innovate. The coalition understands a very simple economic truth: if you want better hospitals, better schools and stronger public services, you need a stronger economy. It is the only way. You cannot cheat your way to prosperity. Governments can't distribute wealth that has not first been created. Prosperity comes from growth, from investment and from people working, saving and building businesses across this great country. That is how living standards rise. It's also how sustainable government revenue is generated. Superannuation plays an important role in that story, but it only works if Australians have confidence in the system—confidence that their retirement savings will not become a convenient target whenever government finds itself short of revenue. Superannuation is not government money; it's your money. It represents the wages that people earn through decades of work and set aside for their own retirement. The coalition respects that and always will, and we believe governments should control their spending before reaching further into Australian people's savings that they have worked decades to build. For those reasons, the coalition will oppose this bill. 10:24 Mr LIM 300130 Tangney I rise to speak to the Treasury Laws Amendment (Building a Stronger and Fairer Super System) Bill 2026 and the Superannuation (Building a Stronger and Fairer Super System) Imposition Bill 2026. These bills deliver more help to low-income workers and reform the superannuation system to make it stronger, fairer and more sustainable. From 1 July 2027 we are boosting the low-income superannuation tax offset, also called LISTO, by $310 to $810, and the eligibility threshold will go from $37,000 to $45,000. These changes are to ensure that low-income workers receive a fairer tax concession on their superannuation contributions. This aligns with the government's third round of tax cuts, which will take effect in 2027. With these changes, more than 770,000 additional Australians will be eligible for LISTO in 2027-28, and 490,000 Australians will receive a higher LISTO payment. These changes bring the total number of Australians eligible for LISTO to 3.1 million, of which around 60 per cent are women. These changes will have an impact across Australia, including in my electorate of Tangney—especially for women in Tangney. The gender superannuation gap is worse in Tangney than in many other electorates in Australia, with a 37 per cent gap between men's and women's super savings across all age groups. Unfortunately, this gap only widens with age as people near retirement. The median woman in Tangney aged 50 to 59 has 41 per cent less in super than the median man in Tangney of the same age. A few months ago I met with a woman in my electorate of Tangney. She is a former educator who later changed careers to work in the aged-care sector. She currently works part time as a support worker in aged care with elderly clients who depend on her and really value all the assistance and care she dedicates to them. Her career has been devoted to serving and caring for others. Her job is not easy, and her salary is not very high. She's one of the women in Tangney who work in the sectors that traditionally have been lower paid and heavily feminised. When we met, we discussed some of the challenges she is facing as she approaches her retirement age, including superannuation. These challenges are all weighing heavily on her shoulders as she decides on when she can afford to retire and what her retirement might look like when she does stop working. After years of hard work and contributions to Australian society and community, she would like to have peace of mind and stability in her retirement. Her story and her words sit with me as we discuss this legislation. Women's economic equality is a core focus of our government, and I see how these changes will help address the current superannuation gender inequality that we see in our communities. These reforms build on other important changes that we have made since coming to office, including promoting greater equity in women's superannuation, paying superannuation on paid parental leave and introducing payday super. Women currently take the majority of Commonwealth paid parental leave, so this change also helps to address the superannuation gender gap that develops during this period in a family's life. When I think back to my constituents who approached me, I know there are other women in Tangney who are in similar challenging positions. Lifting the LISTO is a step that will help make super fairer for women and help narrow that gap. The workers who stand to benefit from this change represent an essential part of our workforce. This includes more than 100,000 sales assistants, 50,000 administrative workers and 50,000 aged and disability carers, carers like my constituents who provide important day-to-day support for some of the most vulnerable members of our community. These proposed changes in this bill mean a boost to the super of more than 9,300 low-income workers in Tangney. Of these 9,300 people in Tangney, 62 per cent of the beneficiaries will be women. Depending on an individual's income over their careers, workers could receive a potential benefit at retirement of around $15,000. I think it is important to talk about who will benefit from these changes and how many people are expected to be impacted. These changes will benefit around 1.3 million Australians, including around 750,000 women and around 550,000 young people under the age of 30. More than 750,000 additional Australians with income between $37,000 to $45,000 will now become eligible to LISTO, including more than 450,000 women, and almost 500,000 Australians with income below $37,000 will receive a higher LISTO payment, including almost 300,000 women. It is also important to note that there are 14 times as many people who will benefit from the boost to LISTO as there are people with more than $3 million in their superannuation. This legislation also implements the government's policy to better target the tax concessions that are available to individuals whose superannuation balances are greater than $3 million. The legislation maintains the concessional treatments of superannuation for all taxpayers while also making superannuation tax concessions more targeted for those with large balances. It is helpful to go through the background on these changes. Superannuation tax concessions cost the budget more than $60 million a year. They will exceed the cost of the aged pension in 2040. The existing tax breaks strongly benefit a small number of people with high balances that go well beyond what is needed for a comfortable and dignified retirement. Around 38 per cent of the super earning concessions go to the top 10 per cent of income earners, while 54 per cent of the super earning concessions go to the top 20 per cent. In making such changes, superannuation concessions will be better and more targeted. These reforms reflect practical changes to the design and implementation of the original policy and take into account more than two years of feedback. Starting in the 2026-27 financial year, the tax rate applied to earnings on superannuation balances between $3 million and $10 million will be up to 30 per cent. The tax rate applied to earnings on balances above $10 million will be up to 40 per cent. There will be no change to the taxation of earnings corresponding to balances below $3 million, which will continue to be taxed at up 15 per cent. These changes are expected to affect fewer than 0.5 per cent of Australians with super accounts, and the higher tax rate on balances of more than $10 million will affect fewer than 0.1 per cent of people with super. These changes we are making are consistent with the government's legislated objective of superannuation. That is to preserve savings to deliver income for a dignified retirement, alongside government support, in an equitable and sustainable way. The changes to LISTO have had strong support in my community and in families across all of Tangney. In my conversation with families, women and young people, it is clear these changes are both fair and practical. There are changes designed to ensure people on a lower income are not placed at a disadvantage. These changes provide a fairer tax concession on their super contribution while also making a real difference in efforts to narrow the superannuation gender gap. These changes make sure everyone has concessions to save for retirement through super while also improving the equity and sustainability of the superannuation system by reducing concessions for small numbers of individuals with very large super balances. I support this bill. 10:37 Mr BIRRELL 288713 Nicholls I too rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Building a Stronger and Fairer Super System) Bill 2026 and the related bill. I think the best thing we could say is that Labor's super mess is back, but this time it's not the original; it's a sequel. I'm trying to forget the original because that was a horror movie. But the sequel's worse. When the original came out, audiences recoiled in fear, not just at the fact that it was an unfair tax grab but at the sheer unworkability of the legislation. People in my electorate, who work hard and smart to get ahead financially—and a lot of those are farming businesses and family businesses—faced a tax on unrealised capital gains in their superannuation. To propose taxing paper gains isn't a minor tweak; it is a structural shift that would have set a dangerous precedent across the entire tax base. Equally concerning was the government's refusal to index the $3 million threshold. Over time, more and more people would have been caught up, because bracket creep, something that the current government has refused to address, was part of the design. People were going to find themselves in a situation of having $3 million of unrealised capital gains. Labor failed to understand that, for many farming businesses across Australia and in my electorate of Nicholls, the main asset in their superannuation is the farm. The farm might go up in value, but it won't be realised. The farmers want to keep farming. There will be some years that they make a profit, and there'll be some years that they make a loss. If they make a loss but the farm value has gone up, how are they supposed to pay the tax that would be created for them because, on paper, their asset base has gone up? The agriculture sector has one of the highest retirement ages in Australia, at around 68 years of age. This flawed policy was just a sneaky trick to take their money, to take their hard-earned savings. We on this side often say, 'When Labor run out of money, they come after more of yours.' On this side we fought hard and, with the help of community pressure, we forced Labor to abandon the taxation of unrealised gains and an indexation freeze. Thanks to the sustained scrutiny from the coalition, the superannuation sector, small-business owners and just everyday Australians who could see what a mess this was, we forced Labor to step back from the most outrageous elements of this proposal. The government backdown tells us that this was never a principled policy decision. It was a blatant grab for revenue to prop up their budget. There's a question of trust here too. At the last election, Australians were not presented with a policy to tax unrealised capital gains in superannuation and here were Labor trying to legislate it. They were not told that longstanding superannuation settings would be fundamentally altered, but it was there in black and white in legislation before the parliament. They were not warned that indexation would be stripped away, but Labor tried to do it anyway. Superannuation is not a windfall gain. It's a nest egg. We support superannuation. We do. Mr Khalil 101351 Really? Mr BIRRELL 288713 Yes, absolutely. I hear those untruths from the other side that we don't support it. We do support it. But the emphasis we have on it is that it belongs to the people who have the superannuation funds. What we worry about is that the Labor Party tend to act like it's their money. It's not the government's money. Superannuation belongs to the people who have the superannuation funds. It comes out of their wages. They earn it. They work for it. On this side of politics, we've always tried to emphasise that, if it's your money, there needs to be a certain amount of freedom about what happens to it. Many people's superannuation—everyone's superannuation, for that matter—is built over decades and decades of hard work, and the bar is rightly set higher for consent to make substantial changes. It should be. Labor tried to bypass that by making major structural tax changes without putting them clearly and transparently to the Australian people. Instead, this proposal appeared out of nowhere, with limited consultation and a rushed legislative timetable. The Labor luminaries didn't support it. From the ACTU, Sally McManus warned: I do think it's got to be indexed because you've got to make sure eventually people don't end up there. But that's a very long time in the future. Bill Kelty and Paul Keating, the father of modern superannuation, didn't embrace it. And now Labor's super policy is back. I just want to have a think about the mindset of a team that decides that taxing unrealised capital gains is a good idea. I sit in question time here and I hear the Treasurer interject across the chamber, calling people 'geniuses' in a pejorative way—'Come on, genius,' or, 'Yes, genius!' or, 'Ask me another question, genius.' Well, what type of genius comes up with a tax plan to tax unrealised capital gains? There were so many unworkable issues with this. I had people asking: 'Am I going to have to get my farm valued every year or every three years? How are they going to work out what the value is? Do people understand how much it costs to value a farm?' Mr Khalil 101351 Unbelievable, Sam! The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265979 Order! The member is entitled to be heard in silence. Mr BIRRELL 288713 I don't know why they're trying to defend the taxation of unrealised capital gains. It's such a terrible policy. What I'm trying to outline is that the mindset that thinks that is a good idea is designing our taxation settings. That's what's worrying me. That's what's worrying people in my electorate. Mr Tim Wilson IMW It's going to fund organised crime. Mr BIRRELL 288713 Absolutely. So what's different in this bill? Unrealised capital gains were removed, thanks to the pressure from the coalition and others, and that's a good thing. The government will not be taxing unrealised capital gains, but, by gosh, we had to work hard to get that taken out. Instead, a 30 per cent tax will apply only to realised earnings, actual cash profit for balances between $3 million and $10 million. To address concerns of bracket creep, the thresholds will now be indexed. But there are new risks in this new legislation. The removal of the effective death tax exemption creates uncertainty for families at precisely the moment they are most vulnerable. Surviving spouses who rely on superannuation balances to maintain stability after the loss of a partner could face additional tax complexity and reduced security. Total and permanent disability benefit recipients are another cohort that must be considered carefully. These are Australians who, through no fault of their own, are no longer able to work. Their superannuation is a lifeline. Any change that increases volatility, reduces predictability or complicates access to those funds carries real human consequence. There are low-income superannuation offset increases, and they are welcomed. But they are modest, and they don't go anywhere near addressing the cost-of-living pressures—and the cost-of-living pressures, at the moment, for Australian people are manifest. Real wages are going down. Interest rates are going up. Inflation's going up. Energy costs are going up. And why is all this happening? It's happening because of bad policy. Bad policy means that people's standard of living is going backwards, and people's standard of living won't improve unless we get some good policy. Good policy needs to be about growing the economy. A future offset adjustment in superannuation does little to relieve all the cost-of-living stresses now, and the government must tackle inflation at its source. Labor has a spending problem, not a revenue and tax problem. I heard this debate yesterday. It is relevant, when Labor is proposing a tax, for the coalition to try and shed some light on what it wants to spend the tax on. It's people's money. It's people's own hard work. And, if that money goes towards the Victorian government not managing it properly—on infrastructure bills—and that money finds its way towards corrupt activities, then that is relevant to this debate, because we're talking about taxing people's superannuation accounts. It's their hard work. Where that money goes is relevant, important and absolutely critical. In my state of Victoria, we're incredibly worried about how much we're being taxed—and this is another tax. But not only are we worried about how much we're being taxed; we're worried about how that money is being spent, and that's a right thing to worry about. Geoffrey Watson SC, in his report on CFMEU corruption, said that the Victorian taxpayers—and the Australian taxpayers, because a lot of the money goes into the Victorian government from the federal government—have had to pay $30 billion extra for infrastructure payments because of corruption in the CFMEU. That is relevant when we're talking about taxation. Today, it's about superannuation balances above $3 million, but what's it going to be about tomorrow? What's the next threshold? What's the next asset in the attempt to claw more money from Australians? I can't support this bill, and we in the coalition will be holding the government to account on the bad policy, including this policy, that is failing to grow the economy and causing cost-of-living pressures to escalate. We will also be holding the government to account, when they do tax people, on whether the money is spent correctly and wisely, because it's the people's money, not the government's money. 10:48 Mr HOLZBERGER 88411 Forde I rise in support of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Building a Stronger and Fairer Super System) Bill 2026 and the Superannuation (Building a Stronger and Fairer Super System) Imposition Bill 2026. As a first-term member, I'm always happy to learn from people who've been here for a long time, and I appreciate that now we can address policies which used to exist but don't exist anymore. So I'd like to talk about Fightback—former prime minister Paul Keating's dog-eared copy used to sit in that very drawer there—and John Hewson's prosecution of Fightback. Mr Hewson talked about a GST on food—here was the LNP pushing a policy of a GST on food in that Fightback document, which used to sit in that very drawer, a policy which was prosecuted by the other side. I'm glad that I can have that lesson in what's actually allowed in the parliament. You're allowed to talk about a point which has absolutely nothing to do with the bill—a fantasy which is being pursued by the LNP. This is what's got the other side into trouble. They're out there pursuing fantasies, pursuing things which the public aren't one little bit interested in. They've got this ideological obsession with certain things that are completely disconnected from reality in the community. That's why they are of ever-diminishing relevance in the Australian political landscape. I'm very glad that the new shadow treasurer is here. In fact, I can't believe my luck. There are two things that I can't believe. One is that I woke up one morning and the member for Goldstein was the shadow Treasurer. I couldn't believe my luck on that one. Mr HOLZBERGER 88411 I can't believe my luck now that he actually gets to sit here—unlike the member for Monash, who has had the opportunity to sit through many of my speeches now. I'm just wondering whether the member for Monash engineers it so he's on the speaking list so he can listen to me as a political— Opposition members interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265979 Order! I just should interrupt. Much as I appreciate the history lesson from both sides, it's not a two-way conversation, please. The member should be heard in silence. Mr HOLZBERGER 88411 Thank you for the protection, Deputy Speaker. I'm not sure the member for Goldstein has had the unique pleasure of listening to one of my speeches, so I feel very lucky that he is here today to listen to that. On my own personal and political journey, one of the many books I read—I live by one of the maxims in that, which is 'Seek first to understand and then to be understood'. Unfortunately, standing up in parliament, despite the opportunity for people to interject, isn't exactly a good opportunity for me to listen to what the shadow Treasurer has to say. I would like to talk a little bit about whether I've got it right—what the shadow Treasurer actually believes. While he may not be able to interject throughout this to set me right, I would like to see whether or not I'm correct on this. I think I know where the shadow Treasurer is coming from. In many ways, he has a very admirable world view. Even if it is ultra-ideological and totally impractical, I sort of get the theory. There's a little bit of my own story that I'd like to tell through all of this as well. I came into politics quite young, from Broken Hill, a country town. Mr Tim Wilson IMW On a point of order on relevance, I don't understand what on earth the member is speaking about, so there is no way it could be relevant to this bill. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265979 I think that this is a nuanced argument, but I would remind the member for Forde to be relevant to the topic. Mr HOLZBERGER 88411 If it assists the deputy speaker, my point of relevance is this. We have now woken up, and while in some ways—politically—we can't believe our luck that we've got the member for Goldstein as the shadow Treasurer, the dread that Australian workers should feel that the alternative Treasurer in charge of economic policy, in charge of superannuation— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265979 Order! I think you do need to be relevant to the topic, in this speech. Mr HOLZBERGER 88411 Thank you, Deputy Speaker. I will obviously take that. The thing is that superannuation has been under threat. At every opportunity that the opposition have had to spike it or to sabotage it, they have. That's why the 12 per cent came in last year. The original 12 per cent was scheduled to come in in 2019, but it was deferred by the previous government—by those opposite. That deferral between 2019 and 2025 would have cost—the actuaries could work it out—billions or hundreds of millions at least. For an individual, it would potentially be a loss of thousands of dollars to an individual's superannuation account. So this bill really does build on the superannuation policies of the government, but really of the Labor Party. What we have at the moment is very much where I see—I do want to absolutely keep this relevant to this debate. For superannuation as a whole, though, I understand that there is a theory out there that individuals should be able to make decisions about their own financial choices on the road to financial freedom. Mr Tim Wilson IMW Superannuation is a hole? Mr HOLZBERGER 88411 As a w-h-o-l-e—so superannuation as a w-h-o-l-e should be able to make decisions about its financial future. In some ways, when government gets involved in that, it distorts the individual need to take care of one's own finances. I sort of do understand that. But the thing is that, without superannuation, there wouldn't be somewhere around $4.3 trillion in national savings, which people are able to retire into at the moment. Without superannuation, people would be retiring into a bleak future. One of the things that I learned along the way was this idea of pay yourself first. You should put 10 per cent away so that you can create a pool of savings, which will ultimately act as a buffer if you get yourself into some sort of financial trouble. But sooner or later it will turn into a pool in which you can invest, and then, if you live carefully and frugally and adjust your outgoings so that your incomings match, then you can retire. So I really do understand that if you can take that personal responsibility over your own finances you can achieve financial freedom. I think that is a goal which is achieved on both sides. Where I think there is a difference of opinion, though, is that there is that ideal, but then there is a reality, and life gets in the way. What compulsory superannuation does is take that 10 per cent—now up to 12 per cent—put it away for people and invest it in something that's not risky and that's sensible so that ultimately people can achieve financial freedom. While it is a noble goal for people to take charge of their own finances, when you actually look at the whole community, individual circumstances mean that that doesn't happen in practice. That's why I really do implore those on the other side to—they're going to be making decisions about their superannuation policy that they take to the next election. The last policy they took would have been disastrous. It would have meant that people would have raided their balances, it would have pushed house prices up, and it would have been disastrous. For example, in February 2021, when the now shadow treasurer was the chair of the Standing Committee on Economics, an article in the Saturday Paper said: The Liberal backbencher says that if people could use the money in their super account—all of it, if necessary—they might be able to fund the deposit for a … home. Mr Tim Wilson IMW Yes. Mr HOLZBERGER 88411 Yes, so there you go. This is a policy which would have had the twin negative of raiding people's retirement balance, which is what superannuation is for, and not letting them pay themselves first and at the same time pushing up house prices in the community. Somehow this policy—which the shadow Treasurer just enthusiastically said yes to, which is a bit of a sign that it might be the policy they take to the next election—would have somehow had two, twin, disastrous outcomes. This bill really builds on the long history of superannuation. Let's just remember that superannuation is not something which has been gifted to workers. Superannuation, when it was introduced in the nineties was exactly their money—as the shadow Treasurer has just said it, It was exactly their money. It was a tax cut which they forgave back nineties. It was a wage rise which they forgave. It is exactly their money. The shadow Treasurer is shaking his head again. I seek first to understand and then to be understood! But I was there, I was watching it at the time. I know that it was a tax cut which they gave up and put into super, and it was a pay rise, as part of the accord, which they gave up. So it is indeed workers' money. From the very inception there, when it was their money, to the increase of 12 per cent, which the opposition fought against, and to allowing it to be used for things like housing, this bill builds on all of that. One of the most important things in this bill is what the LISTO does. Here we have an attempt to right that imbalance between the income tax that a worker would pay and what the tax rate is on that superannuation. In Forde, for instance, something like 11,353 people are going to benefit from the LISTO to the tune of something like $4.6 million. That's because the LISTO is about helping lower-income earners, somewhere around 60 per cent of whom, in Forde, are women. It is about lifting up the super balances of lower-income earners, particularly women. Superannuation is one of those things that, if you look historically at gender pay gap, was only really in the last few years held by women. It rose from below 40 per cent, and it is now it is now into the 40s, but it is still not equal. Measures like the LISTO will go towards fixing that imbalance. In Forde, it is particularly important because in working-class areas like Forde people really have been doing it tough. In fact, for the bottom five postcodes within Forde, the super balance is somewhere around $68,000. The top super balance in Forde is $183,000. When you compare that to a national average of 160 grand, the bottom of five are $66,000, $78,000, $88,000, $92,000 and $95,000. There is a problem that needs to be fixed up, and fixing the LISTO will go some of the way to fixing this problem. Thank you for the opportunity to talk about super, something which is very important to the Labor plan and to the Labor cause of helping people economically. I urge you to support this bill. 11:03 Ms ALDRED 11788 Monash Too often, I see regional Australians bearing the brunt of unintended consequences at the hands of this federal Labor government. That the government has backed down on its proposal to tax unrealised gains in superannuation tells us one thing very clearly, and that is: it wasn't a very good policy to start with. It's only because of sustained pressure from the coalition, from the superannuation sector, from small-business owners, from farmers and from everyday Australians that the government has been forced to retreat on some of the most outrageous and egregious elements of this proposal. It was not a minor policy tweak. This has been a fundamental shift in proposing how Australians are to be taxed, and had it not been challenged it would have set a very dangerous precedent across our entire taxation system. The coalition has always stood on principle when it comes to taxation—that Australians pay tax when income is realised, when a gain is crystalised, when the money is actually in hand. But what this government has proposed is something entirely different. They are proposing taxing paper gains, gains that exist only on paper and may disappear the next day. Anyone who is invested in markets, property or business assets understands volatility. Values rise and values fall. They change with economic conditions, circumstances, interest rates and market cycles. Taxing unrealised gains ignores that reality. This is an area I have had very strong feedback on from my regional electorate of Monash. I came to this place to make a strong stand on behalf of farming families in my community, who do so much to contribute to our national wealth and prosperity and ask for very little in return. Under this proposal, they would have been punished severely. Many older farmers in electorate have their farms in self-managed super funds, and they have done that with the intention of leaving their farms eventually to their children. That helps generate retirement income for the parents while the next generation looks to build and continue to build the family business—but not under Labor's proposal. We know that land prices have increased quite dramatically in some areas, and that does not always reflect the earning capacity of those businesses. I looked up how many farming families this might affect, particularly those with self-managed super funds. There are around 17,000 accounts that hold farmland, and, of those, 3,500 have more than $3 million in assets. That would severely cripple and hurt and disadvantage fair dinkum, hard-working farming families in my electorate of Monash, and that is why I cannot support this bill. It represents a fundamental break with the longstanding principles of Australia's tax system, and that is why Australians from city to country have reacted so strongly and so vehemently. Equally concerning is the government's refusal to index the $3 million threshold that I've just spoken of in relation to its impact on regional communities including mine. In an inflationary environment, one that's only been made worse by this Treasurer's unwillingness to address debt fuelled spending and the impact that has on the inflation fire, failing to index those threshold amounts would amount to a silent tax increase. Over time more and more Australians would have been captured by this measure but not because they were wealthier in real terms. Many farming families are what you'd call asset rich but cash poor, and they work really, really hard. I believe that, because inflation would quietly erode the value of the threshold, this is bracket creep by design, and if it was not flawed policy then it would be a sneaky way, by sure, to take more of Australians' hard earned retirement savings. That is not the government's money. That is the money of everyday Australians, who work hard, who save hard and who do the right thing just to get ahead, and they cannot get ahead under this current government. What we've seen over the last few weeks is a government that's been found out, a government that's retreating under pressure and a government that was clearly not prepared for the scrutiny this proposal would receive. The backdown demonstrates something very important—this was never settled policy grounded in sound economic principles. It was a blatant revenue grab, and once it was exposed it collapsed under scrutiny. But beyond the policy flaws themselves lies another serious issue, and that is trust. It is the trust the Australian people put in their government to do the right thing, to make sound decisions and to go to elections where they put forward a set of values and policies and say: 'This is our word. If we are elected, these are the things that we will do.' The quiet part is being honest with the Australian people and not, by stealth, trying to creep in new taxes. In this case, Australians were not told of this intention to tax unrealised gains in superannuation. This government was not honest with its intentions, and that is a breach of trust. It is a breach of the compact between the Australian people and the parties of government that seek to represent them—in this case, the Labor Party that went to the last election not being upfront about its future policy intentions. People were not warned that indexation protections would be removed. Now, promises matter in a democracy. Major structural tax reform should have been clearly put to the Australian people for their review, consideration and ultimate decision-making. Instead, this proposal has appeared suddenly, with limited consultation and a rushed legislative timetable. Australians instinctively understand when something has been slipped in without their consent, in this case at five minutes to midnight. And when it comes to retirement savings, those nest eggs have been built over decades of hard work—hard work by people in my community who spend long hours on their feet and working with their hands to make an honest day's living. The bar for legitimacy must be higher. Superannuation is not a plaything for governments looking for new revenue streams. It represents the lifetime savings of Australians who have worked hard, sacrificed and planned responsibly for their own retirement. Unfortunately, this episode reinforces a broader pattern we are seeing from this government. Australians were promised that inflation had been beaten. They were promised that interest rates would stabilise. They were promised that life would become easier and fairer and better for Australian families. Yet, the reality for Australians today is a very different story. Families have less flexibility. They have less choice. They are finding it harder than ever to pay the mortgage, pay the energy bills and keep up with everyday costs. I had a woman approach me the other week saying she regularly has to make a decision about whether to buy groceries to put food on the table or to pay her electricity bills on time. That is not a safe, secure, sustainable and prosperous Australia. Australians deserve better. They have been beaten down by this Treasurer, with his empty promises and silent tax grabs. And when governments lose control of spending, they inevitably start looking for new taxes—and this is exactly what we are seeing here. And it's not just the coalition saying so. Even voices traditionally aligned with Labor have warned about the dangers of this proposal. When you've got Sally McManus, Bill Kelty and Paul Keating all raising concerns about the same policy, you know something has gone pretty badly wrong. The ACTU's Sally McManus warned that the threshold must be indexed, otherwise Australians would eventually be caught. Former ACTU secretary Bill Kelty went further, saying taxing unrealised capital gains is bad policy because it distorts the tax system and disrupt income flows. And the architect of Australia's superannuation system, Paul Keating, has warned that workers would find themselves ultimately caught in this net. Industry analysis has also made clear that the government's claim this would only affect a small number of Australians just simply doesn't add up. In fact, analysis suggests that up to 1.8 million Australians could eventually be impacted—1.8 million Australians who work hard, save hard and do the right thing to get ahead and live self-sufficiently. And many of those Australians would be small-business owners. Small-business owners in my electorate of Monash have never had to work harder for less and face more risk and red tape. This is just another example on top of the pile, because in Australia small-business owners often hold their assets through superannuation structures as part of their retirement planning. So despite the government's rhetoric, this proposal was never going to affect only a handful of people. It would have expanded over time, because that is exactly what happens when thresholds are frozen and inflation continues to rise as we have seen under this federal Labor government, where inflation is sitting well outside the RBA's recommended band. But let's take a step back and look at the broader issue confronting our country. Australia does not have a revenue problem; Australia has a spending problem. Structural spending growth is now outpacing sustainable economic growth. We are living outside our means. When governments spend beyond their means, they inevitably begin looking for new taxes to fill the gap. Rather than confronting waste, prioritising programs and restoring the fiscal discipline, which is always a hallmark of every coalition government, Labor has chosen to hunt for new pools of capital to tax. Trust is fundamental when it comes to tax reform. Australians will accept reform when it is principled, predictable and properly consulted on. They will not accept retrospective changes, sudden policy shifts and ideological experiments dressed up as modest adjustments. There are other risks in this legislation that should concern every member of the House, and I'll go into those shortly. But the name of this bill includes 'building a stronger and fairer super system'. There are many aspects that are not stronger, and they're certainly not fairer. They're having an everyday impact on communities like mine and on constituents like the ones I represent. I want to briefly tell the story of Jan—I'll say Jan is her name—in my community who approached me last year. Her husband had a terminal illness. He had an account with AustralianSuper. He was eligible for early an payout of those death benefits because he had an imminent, terminal illness. AustralianSuper mucked him around for six weeks. Before he passed, Jan's husband wanted to have a conversation with their children to say: 'Look, this is not going to fix everything, but here is a little bit of money to help you get ahead in life. While I'm here, I want to be able to tell you that in person.' They shifted him from call centre operator to call centre operator, mucked him around and basically made his last few weeks an absolute heartache. After Jan's husband died, she spent nearly nine months trying to get money which was due to her. It was her money. They mucked her around, so I inquired with ASIC whether there is a mandatory minimum payout time on death benefits. And the answer is that, no, there is not. The answer is that it should be paid out as soon as practicable. This is not good enough, because this was Jan's money. It was not AustralianSuper's money. I think this is a fundamental unfairness—this is a personal view I have—that we have aspects of the superannuation system that do not act fairly and that do not make a stronger system. I will continue to raise my constituent's case on this issue in any context relating to improving Australia's superannuation system, because I feel like this is a gross miscarriage of natural justice and of fairness. This was my constituent's money, and to have a large corporation like AustralianSuper continue to muck her around and, it turns out, thousands of others who are in the same boat, is grossly unfair. I call on the government to consider reforming that aspect so that people are not disadvantaged for months and months in seeking to access what is rightfully theirs. This is a bad bill. On behalf of the farmers and small-business owners in my electorate, I cannot, in good faith, support it. 11:18 Ms CLAYDON 248181 Newcastle I rise to speak in support of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Building a Stronger and Fairer Super System) Bill 2026 and the Superannuation (Building a Stronger and Fairer Super System) Imposition Bill 2026. This legislation is about strengthening what is one of Australia's most important social institutions, our superannuation system. It's about fairness, boosting retirement savings for everyday Australians, closing loopholes that benefit the very wealthy and addressing structural inequalities that have left, in particular, many women retiring with significantly less super than they should have. This bill is a substantial piece of reform and one that reflects core Labor values—fairness, equity and opportunity. Why does this bill matter? Australia's superannuation system is rightly regarded as world leading. It ensures savings for retirement so that millions of Australians do not enter old age solely dependent on the age pension. It underpins retirement security and reduces future pressure on governments and taxpayers. But the system is not perfect, and the bill before us responds to some clear problems and imbalances that have emerged over time. First, it recognises that the tax concessions in superannuation have been unjustly skewed towards those who are already wealthy. This reform, by introducing a fairer tax structure on very large super balances, particularly through what is known as division 296, ensures that people with exceptionally large super savings pay their fair share. It targets concessions on balances above the $3 million and $10 million thresholds, with tax rates that reflect capacity to pay. This is the basis of our taxation system. Second, the LISTO 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, which are taxed at a flat rate of 15 per cent. Because of changes in tax brackets and increases in the superannuation guarantee, some low-income earners are now paying more tax on their super than on their take-home pay. That is plainly unfair. Schedule 4 of this bill lifts the income thresholds from $37,000 to $45,000 and increases the minimum rebate from $500 to $810. In Newcastle alone this will boost the super of more than 8,200 low-income earners, delivering around $3.2 million per year into super accounts across my electorate. Importantly, 55 per cent of these beneficiaries will be women, reflecting the reality that women are more likely to be in lower paid and part-time work and therefore more exposed to inequalities in the super system. Strengthening the LISTO is a very practical step towards closing the gender super gap. Third, this bill forms part of a broader effort to fix structural problems in the super system, including unpaid super. I've heard some members opposite talking about super being their constituents' money, and in many respects this is true. A lot of my constituents have had their money stolen from them in the form of unpaid super. That is a problem in my electorate, and it has been for some time. We need a remedy. Almost 22,000 workers in Newcastle—that is 27 per cent of workers in my electorate—were not paid their proper superannuation entitlements in 2022-23. That's the last lot of data we have. I want those 22,000 people to have that money in their pockets when they retire. They deserve every cent of it. We've got to fix this system so that they get their entitlements. If you were wondering what 22,000 workers missing out on super tallies up to, it's $38.8 million in unpaid super across Newcastle in just one year. That is why this bill is before this House. If you think that is just, you need to rethink your position. I would love to see members opposite supporting this bill, but it seems that's not going to be the case. I want you to think about all those workers in your electorates who are being ripped off. There are a lot of them. You can look up the data. I've given you the data for my electorate. You're going to have to explain to the thousands in your electorates why you vote against this bill. Nationally we know there are 3.3 million Australians missing out on some $5.7 billion in their legal super entitlements in any year. That is money workers earned, and it's money for women who already, as I've noted, retire with significantly less superannuation on average. Unpaid super can compound lifelong financial inequality, and that is why we're linking up initiatives like payday super. It's so critical that that reform is in place. We're ensuring that workers receive their super as part of their pay cycle so there is no more of this waiting three months, six months or nine months to figure out if your employer has been making contributions or not. Those days have ended, thank goodness. So who stands to benefit from this bill? Well, let me be very clear. This bill is not about penalising everyday Australians. The National Party in particular are going to want to note this. It's about strengthening outcomes for working people and ensuring that those wealthier Australians, many of whom are not living in your regions—I'm a regional seat holder. I know the income levels in my seat. I think that those people that you represent are disproportionately impacted by the current system of super, and they stand to benefit from the reforms here rather than the existing tax concessions that are disproportionately impacting people in your electorates. That is unfair for the vast majority of people that you represent. I remain forever optimistic for hope and seeing people coming onto a unity ticket here in supporting those typically not-wealthy regional Australians that we represent in this chamber. It's those everyday workers who stand to benefit from this bill, with stronger protections in their super entitlements thanks to reforms like the payday super—a crackdown on unpaid super that costs Newcastle workers, as I've already said, $38.8 million every single year—and enhanced support for low-income workers through the expanded low-income superannuation tax offset. That's the benefit. If you've got women in your electorate, which I'm sure you have—women and carers—they are big beneficiaries of these reforms. Women will benefit significantly. They currently retire with about 25 per cent less superannuation than men in your electorates—and that's on average, that figure—reflecting the structural realities of the labour market, including lower average wages, higher rates of part-time work and time taken out of work for us to undertake caring responsibilities. That's the burden women carry. Measures like strengthening the low-income superannuation tax offset ensure that those low-income earners are not being penalised by that flat 15 per cent tax on super contributions, because women are more likely to fall into the low-income brackets or part-time roles. They will disproportionately benefit from this bill. It helps even up that unequal ledger that exits. Reforms such as payday super will also make a real difference for women, ensuring that super gets paid at the same time as their wages, reducing that risk of unpaid or delayed contributions. That's a problem that particularly affects workers in sectors where women are strongly represented, including retail, hospitality, health and care services. You all have them in your electorates. Taken together, these reforms are practical steps towards narrowing the gender super gap and improving retirement security for Australian women. Most importantly, millions of Australians saving for retirement can be confident that our super system will continue to deliver on its fundamental purpose: a dignified retirement and reduced reliance on the aged-care pension. Why does this matter for Newcastle? I've already articulated how many people are ripped off by the current scheme, and we need to do better. But I'm a very proud Novocastrian. It's a great community of workers, families, tradies, small-business owners, healthcare professionals, teachers, carers and retirees. Across Newcastle, superannuation matters deeply to these people. Many of my constituents work hard throughout their lives, contribute to our community and rightly expect that, when they retire, they will have a fair and secure nest egg. This bill delivers for everyday Novocastrians—for those workers—by strengthening protections, ensuring fairer tax rules and making sure that employer contributions are paid properly and on time. It protects the principle that your retirement should be supported by your hard work and contributions, not reliant on an outdated system that allows special treatment for the most advantaged. For Newcastle's small and medium enterprises, reforms like payday super also offer clarity and fairness. Modernising rules that bring super payments into the rhythm of modern payroll is a change that boosts confidence and compliance. It's worth pausing to reflect on Labor's record on the economy, on wages and on the standard of living, because this bill does not exist in isolation. It sits within a broader coherent approach to strengthening the economy and supporting working families. Labor has unequivocally been supporting wage growth. We championed increases to the minimum wage and supported wage increases that help ensure that work pays. We've stood against calls from those opposite to see stagnant wages and no real improvement in living standards. Three consecutive increases to the minimum wage mean $9,000 going into the pockets of the lowest income earning people in Australia. That's a good thing. It was, of course, a Labor government that created superannuation. Under prime minister Paul Keating, Labor introduced compulsory superannuation, a reform that transformed retirement in this country and became one of the most significant economic and social achievements in modern Australian history. Before Labor acted, millions of Australians retired with little more than the age pension. Labor's vision was simple but profound: working Australians deserve dignity and independence in their retirement. Since then, Labor has consistently defended and strengthened super against attacks and attempts to water it down. And you can be sure we will forever do so. We've overseen the gradual increase of the super guarantee to 12 per cent, a historic boost that means everyday workers have put more away in their super accounts than at any other time in history. Now we're acting again, cracking down on unpaid super and strengthening the LISTO to ensure low-income workers are not left behind. This bill continues that commitment, strengthening a cornerstone of our social contract—superannuation—for the long term and for all Australians. It's also important to examine the alternative—the record from members opposite. For years, the coalition have opposed meaningful reform to superannuation that would improve fairness in the system. It seems like that's going to be the same again this time around, although I keep pleading that members opposite might reconsider. Rather than supporting workers and retirees, their instinct has been to protect tax concessions for those that are already doing very well, even at the expense of a stronger retirement system for ordinary Australians. When proposals were first mooted to address unjust super tax concessions, the opposition decried them as 'super big and super bad'. That's not because they were unfair. It's because the opposition feared that any measure that asks the wealthy to pay a fairer share would be too difficult a step. Even now, when the nation's super scheme has been modernised and protections strengthened for everyday workers, the opposition are digging in their heels rather than offering a constructive solution. I don't give up hope, though. This is an important bill. It's an important step forward, and I really appeal to members opposite to get on board and support these reforms. 11:33 Mr BATT 315478 Hinkler I rise to speak to the Treasury Laws Amendment (Building a Stronger and Fairer Super System) Bill 2026. Pressure from this side of the House and our communities across the nation, including regional communities like Hinkler, forced the taxation of unrealised gains to be abandoned. People power had a small win. But it is clear that this government cannot be trusted with tax reform. Labor doesn't have a revenue problem; the government has a spending problem. This is the first tax that Australia did not vote for at the last election, less than 12 months ago. Yet here is Labor, ramming it through. I represent the people of Hinkler, the regional cities of Hervey Bay and Bundaberg and the country town of Childers. My community is experiencing a decline in living standards. In fact, Australia has had the biggest fall in living standards of household disposable incomes in the developed world. The Nationals know how to get a cheaper, better and fairer deal for regional Australia. As a coalition, we absolutely stand for lower inflation, lower interest rates and lower taxes. In stark contrast, Labor's reckless spending is keeping inflation higher for longer. Regarding this bill, coalition and community pressure forced Labor to abandon taxation of unrealised gains and the indexation freeze. The government, called out again, retreated under pressure thanks to sustained scrutiny from the coalition, from the superannuation sector itself, from small-business owners and from everyday Australians. We forced Labor to step back from the most outrageous elements of this proposal. This was not a proposal that was just aimed at hurting retirees; this was aimed at hurting future generations, stealing the future of younger Australians away from them without their knowledge or understanding. The original design to tax unrealised gains represented a fundamental break with longstanding principles of the Australian tax system. Aussies know that tax is paid when income is realised, when a gain is crystallised and when cash is at hand. To propose taxing paper gains, particularly in volatile asset classes, was not a minor tweak. This was a structural shift that would have set a dangerous precedent across the entire tax base. Equally concerning was the government's refusal to index the $3 million threshold. In an inflationary environment being made worse by this Treasurer and his willingness to pour debt petrol on this inflation fire, failing to index thresholds was a silent tax hike. Major structural tax changes must be put clearly and transparently to the Australian people. Instead, this proposal appeared out of nowhere with limited consultation and a rushed legislative timetable. The people of my electorate of Hinkler were told by this government that they were going to make life easier for families. The reality is less flexibility and less choice. Life has been harder for hardworking Australians—to pay the mortgage, to pay the bills, to pay the power bill and to make ends meet. Labor has a spending problem, not a revenue problem. Under Labor, Australians' real wages are falling while costs are rising. Trust is fundamental in tax reform. Australians accept reform when it's principled, predictable and based on broad consultation. What they do not accept is retrospective tinkering, ad hoc changes and ideological experiments dressed up as modest adjustments. What faces us today reinforces a broader pattern: higher spending first then new taxes to pay for it later. That is not reform; that is fiscal mismanagement. Beyond the headline rate and threshold changes, the legislation introduces serious structural risks. The removal of the effective death tax exemption creates uncertainty for families precisely at the moment they are most vulnerable. Tax policy cannot be designed in isolation from lived reality. When retirement income settings are destabilised, confidence in the entire system is eroded. Regional Australians must get a fair go into their future, and we must help them now. A future offset adjustment in superannuation does little to relieve the stresses of today. If the government is serious about helping households in Hinkler, it must tackle inflation at its source—excessive spending and weak growth—rather than reshuffling offsets within the retirement income system. This proposal should not be viewed in isolation. Today, it is superannuation balances above $3 million. Tomorrow, it may be another threshold, another definition or another asset class. Once the principle of taxing unrealised gains is entertained, it does not remain neatly contained. Is this Labor government opening a new chapter in a high-tax, high-spending approach to governing? All the evidence points to it from what I see. That is why the coalition will not be supporting this bill. 11:39 Ms SITOU 298121 Reid At its heart, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Building a Stronger and Fairer Super System) Bill 2026 asks a simple question: what and who is superannuation for? Is it for ordinary working Australians—our teachers, nurses, early educators and police officers—who are putting aside a little each fortnight so they can retire with dignity and security? Or is it a vehicle for unlimited tax concessions for balances so large they far exceed what anyone would need to fund a dignified retirement? This legislation answers that question clearly. Superannuation exists to deliver income for a dignified retirement for everyday Australians, not to provide indefinite, uncapped tax advantages. This legislation strengthens that principle responsibly and proportionately. Labor built Australia's superannuation system, and it remains one of the most significant economic and social reforms in modern Australian history. It reshaped retirement in this country. It lifted retirement incomes, it reduced reliance on the age pension and it created one of the largest pools of national savings in the world. We ought to be incredibly proud of it. Most importantly, it gave working Australians a retirement they could look forward to with financial security. Before compulsory superannuation, too many Australians faced retirement with little more than the pension. Today, millions retire with a combination of superannuation and government support and with greater financial independence. We on this side of the House are proud to have created superannuation. We are proud to defend it whenever it's attacked by those opposite. We're proud to strengthen it at every turn and at every opportunity because we understand something that those opposite too often forget. Superannuation is not a bonus, it's not a windfall and it's not some spare change. It's deferred wages. It's income earned through hard work set aside to provide security in retirement. It should always work to serve ordinary working Australians. The difference between the two sides of this House on superannuation could not be clearer. Under those opposite, superannuation was treated as negotiable. They froze the superannuation guarantee at 9.5 per cent for years, denying workers thousands and thousands of dollars in retirement savings over their lifetimes. They fought against increasing it to 12 per cent. They described compulsory super as a burden on business. They entertained policies that would have allowed super to be raided in ways that risk permanently eroding retirement balances. Some on their side have even questioned the very foundations of compulsory superannuation itself, including the newly minted Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Treasurer. They presided over a system where unpaid super became a systemic problem. By contrast, Labor has increased the superannuation guarantee to 12 per cent. We are paying super on paid parental leave. We are introducing payday super so that workers are paid what they are owed when they are owed it. Through this bill, we are continuing that work. This bill is the latest part of our suite of reforms to make sure that our superannuation system remains world class. We are taking steps to make it even better, fairer and stronger. Superannuation tax concessions cost the budget more than $60 billion each year. This is not a small figure, and it is projected to grow. At this current rate, that figure is projected to exceed the cost of the age pension itself in the 2040s. That is a structural budget reality that demands responsible stewardship. Right now, those concessions are heavily skewed towards top income earners. Thirty-eight per cent of super-earning concessions go to the top 10 per cent of income earners, and 54 per cent go to the top 20 per cent. That is not what superannuation was designed for. This bill better targets concessions where balances exceed $3 million. For 2026-27, earnings on balances between $3 million and $10 million will be taxed at up to 30 per cent. Earnings on balances above $10 million will be taxed at up to 40 per cent. Let me say this really clearly: there is no change to the taxation of earnings on superannuation balances below $3 million—none. Those earnings will continue to be taxed at up to 15 per cent. This reform affects less than 0.5 per cent of Australians with superannuation accounts. The higher rate of 40 per cent above $10 million affects less than 0.1 per cent of Australians. That's less than one in 1,000 Australians. In the vast majority of cases, even under these reforms, this will still end up being a concessional tax treatment. It's still under the top marginal personal income tax rate. The thresholds of $3 million and $10 million will be indexed to CPI. Earnings will be calculated using established income tax concepts and realised gains. Defined benefit schemes will be treated in a similar way. Superannuation funds will calculate and report relevant earnings to the ATO to ensure integrity. So, when we hear scare campaigns claiming retirement tax grabs from those opposite, the numbers tell a different story. This is not radical. This is targeted, it's measured, it's proportionate and it reflects more than two years of consultation and feedback. This is careful policy and it is restoring balance in our superannuation system. It preserves concessional treatment for the overwhelming majority of Australians and it recognises that, when balances reach $5 million, $8 million or $12 million, we are no longer talking about retirement adequacy. We are talking about wealth accumulation supported by large taxpayer subsidies. Taxpayers are entitled to expect that those subsidies are proportionate, fair and reflect a reasonable boundary. The superannuation system must remain credible for the prosperity of Australians, and credibility depends on fairness. When concessions grow without limits at the very top, public confidence in the system erodes. But fairness is not only about what we better target at the top. It's about who we lift at the bottom as well. We are strengthening the low-income superannuation tax offset, the LISTO. We are increasing it from $500 to $810, and we are lifting the eligibility threshold from $37,000 to $45,000 from 1 July next year. Without LISTO, some low-income earners effectively pay more tax on their superannuation contribution than they do on their wages. This undermines the whole purpose of concessional rates of tax for superannuation. This isn't fair or aligned with the principle of concessional treatment. This reform corrects that. This reform ensures low-income workers receive a fairer concession, coming at the same time as the government's third round of tax cuts this next year. Under this Labor government, Australians are continuing to earn more and keep more of what they earn. That principle applies here as well. Put into real terms, workers will receive up to $810 per year into their super, and the average increase will be at about $410. Over time, that would mean about $15,000 more at retirement. From 2027 to 2028, over 770,000 additional Australians will be eligible for LISTO. Around 490,000 Australians will receive a higher payment and, in total, 3.1 million Australians will be eligible for LISTO. Around 60 per cent will be women. That's around 750,000 women who will benefit. Around 550,000 young Australians will also benefit. Many of the people benefiting from LISTO—this increase—will be those who are working and juggling family and caring responsibilities. There are 14 times as many people who will benefit from this boost to LISTO as there are people with more than $3 million in super—14 times as many people will be better off. Ultimately, this legislation is about protecting and strengthening the integrity of superannuation. We believe super belongs to everyday Australians. Under Labor, it is improved, safeguarded and anchored to its purpose. Under the coalition, it was undermined, weakened and questioned. We strengthen superannuation; they stall it. We lift retirement incomes; they freeze it. We make sure that super works for each and every Australian. They want to transform it into a wealth accumulation tool for the privileged few. This bill draws that difference clearly. This is not radical reform; it is responsible and fair reform which supports hardworking, ordinary Australians—predominantly women and young Australians—who deserve a fairer deal. Labor built superannuation, Labor are strengthening it with this bill and Labor will always defend it from those who seek to undermine it because we are proud of our superannuation system. In 2009 I was part of an Australian volunteer program working for a Chinese NGO. As part of that program, I got to deliver a talk to a range of people in China, including Chinese government officials and people working in the NGO sector, about Australia's three-pillar retirement system of the age pension, private savings and, key to all of it, the superannuation system. I was extraordinarily proud to talk about the advancements that we have made when it comes to retirement incomes. Subsequent to that presentation, I was then invited to talk about it at an ageing conference at Montana university in the United States. This is an example of great policy entrepreneurship that Australia developed many decades ago that is being looked at by other countries around the world and is being adopted. We are proud of that legacy. We will continue to strengthen that legacy. I look forward to the coalition getting on board with finally recognising the importance of the superannuation system. 11:52 Ms BELL 282981 Moncrieff The member for Reid says that this is not radical policy reform, but how is moving the goalposts on Australians' superannuation accounts not radical policy? It undermines certainty in the whole system of superannuation across Australia. The Treasury Laws Amendment (Building a Stronger and Fairer Super System) Bill 2016 is a bill—make no bones about it—that goes to the heart of Australians' retirement savings, to the trust that they, or you, place in this parliament, in this 'all roads lead to tax' government that we now have running our country, and to the principles that have underpinned our tax system for generations. We know that the more you tax, the less you get. The government spin about earning more and keeping more of what you earn evaporates when inflation goes up, by the way—it's gone; it's all spin and no substance. Let's be very clear, from the outset, that the coalition and community pressure forced Labor to abandon its most egregious elements: the taxation of unrealised gains—that's paying tax on money that you don't actually have; that's how dangerous this so-called non-radical reform is—and the freezing of indexation. The government has been found out, and it's now retreating under pressure. It was not of its own volition that it reconsidered these measures. It was because of sustained scrutiny from this side—from the coalition—from the superannuation sector, from small-business owners who hold up this country, from financial experts and from Australians who understood instinctively that something was deeply, deeply wrong. This was not simply a proposal aimed at hurting retirees; it was aimed at hurting young people, the future of our nation. It was quietly stealing from younger Australians without their knowledge or consent in the future. I give warning to all young Australians: this Labor government was going to tax you at that level. It sought to change the rules of the game for retirement savings in a way that would have echoed for decades. In the course of this debate, we also expose what appeared to be a clear breakdown between the Prime Minister and his Treasurer—a lack of clarity, a lack of unity, a lack of principle in the design of this policy. The original proposal to tax unrealised gains represented a fundamental break with longstanding principles of the Australian taxation system. Australians have always understood a simple truth: tax is paid on income realised. That makes sense to Australians, doesn't it? You pay the tax when you've actually earned the money. In other words, you don't have to sell your house in order to pay a tax that the government is wanting to collect. You can see how retrograde that is. Australians have always understood that simple truth, to tax when a gain is crystallised, when cash is actually in hand. To propose taxing paper gains—not real gains, gains that are on paper, gains that exist only on a balance sheet and can evaporate overnight, particularly in volatile asset classes—was not a minor tweak. This is not a minor tweak. It was a structural shift that they were proposing. It would have set a dangerous precedent across the entire tax base. It's not modest reform. Equally concerning was the government's refusal to index the $3 million threshold. In an inflationary environment that's about to get more inflationary, made worse by this Treasurer's willingness to pour debt petrol on the inflation fire, failing to index thresholds is a silent tax hike in itself. This government is addicted to spending, and it will tax in order to spend. That means the government will come after your money when it runs out of your money. Over time, more Australians would have been captured not because they were wealthier in real terms, not because they'd become tycoons, but because inflation eroded the value of the threshold. That is bracket creep by design. That is what 'bracket creep' means. That is flawed policy in itself, and if it wasn't flawed policy, then it was a sneaky trick to take more of Australians' hard-earned savings. The government's backdown demonstrates one thing clearly: this was never settled policy grounded in principle. It was a blatant revenue grab that collapsed under scrutiny. At the last elections Australians were not presented with a policy on tax to unrealised gains on superannuation. They were not told that longstanding superannuation settings would be fundamentally altered. They were not warned that indexation would be stripped away. Promises matter in a democracy. Major structural tax changes should be put clearly and transparently to the Australian people. Instead, this proposal appeared out of nowhere, with limited consultation and a rushed legislative timetable. Australians instinctively understand when something has been slipped in without their consent. You can't get much past Australians. They know when they can smell a rat, and when it comes to retirement savings, their nest eggs built over decades of hard work—decades and decades of hard work, sacrifice and deferred consumption—the bar for legitimacy must be higher. We were promised by Labor and by this Treasurer that inflation had been beaten—remember that? We're on the other side of inflation now! We were promised that high interest rates were under control—remember that? Then interest rates went up again. We were told that life would be easier for families around this country. We were promised a $275 reduction in our electricity bills. How did that work out for the government, with electricity prices up 40 per cent? Instead, families have had less flexibility, less choice and more and more and more pressure piled on them by this government's mismanagement of the economy. It's harder to pay the mortgage, it's harder to pay the bills, it's harder to pay the energy costs, it's harder to make ends meet. The fact of the matter is inflation is high and interest rates are high and have been beaten by this Treasurer and this government. Inflation and interest rates have beaten the government; the government hasn't beaten them, which is what it's supposed to do for all Australians. When the government overspends and loses control of inflation, it starts looking for new revenue sources. So they're addicted to spending, perhaps there are fewer people working, so there is less tax coming in. So then they've got to find other ways of getting money in so that they can send it out into the economy and push inflation up. It is not only the coalition that have raised concerns. Prominent voices from Labor's own ranks, from within their own ranks, warned against this approach. When Sally McManus, Bill Kelty and Paul Keating say this is a bad idea, that means it's probably a pretty bad idea. Sally McManus said it must be indexed and warned that without indexation people would eventually be captured. Three million dollars in super doesn't sound like much now. But think 10 or 20 years ahead to when young people will retire, and then it is a big problem, because that's probably how much you will need to retire at that time. Bill Kelty called taxing unrealised capital gains bad policy and said it would distort income flows and undermine superannuation itself. Paul Keating, the architect of the system, warned that workers would be caught up. Industry suggests that up to 1.8 million people could eventually be impacted. Small businesses were rightly alarmed. So many Australians who own small businesses hold their assets in their superannuation. This proposal would have forced complex liquidity decisions and would have potentially compelled asset sales based on paper gains. What does that mean? It means you have to sell something to pay the bill. You have to sell an asset that you've worked for your whole life to pay a tax bill. If it wasn't already clear, it is now. Labor has a spending problem, not a revenue problem. The structural issue confronting our country is spending growth that is outpacing sustainable economic growth. We need to grow the economy, not grow the spending from the government. The more they spend, the more inflation goes up. Does everyone understand that? It's a basic principle that everyone seems to understand, and pay for, except for this government. When governments spend beyond their means, they inevitably reach for new taxes to fill the hole, and that's precisely what we are witnessing. Rather than confront wasteful spending, rather than prioritise programs and rather than restore fiscal discipline, Labor has chosen to hunt for new pools of capital to tax. Trust is fundamental in tax reform. Australians accept reform when it's principled, when it's predictable and when it's based on consultation. What they do not accept is retrospective tinkering, ad hoc changes and ideological experiments dressed up as modest adjustments. This proposal reinforces a broader pattern from the government: spend first and tax later. That is not reform; that is fiscal mismanagement at its worst, and beyond the headline changes lie new risks. The removal of the effective death tax exemption introduces uncertainty for families at precisely the moment they are most vulnerable. Surviving spouses that rely on super balances to maintain stability after the loss of a partner could face additional complexity and reduced security. Total and permanent disability recipients must also be considered. These Australians, through no fault of their own, are no longer able to work, and their superannuation is not an abstract investment; it's a lifeline. Any change that increases volatility, reduces predictability or complicates access carries real human consequence. Tax policy cannot be designed in isolation from lived reality. When retirement income settings are destabilised, confidence in the entire system is eroded. The government points to increases in the low-income superannuation tax offset as evidence of balance. Any measure that supports low-income earners building retirement savings is of course welcome, but let us be honest about scale and timing. The low-income superannuation tax offset adjustments do not lower grocery bills today. They do not ease mortgage repayments today. They do not reduce electricity costs today or tomorrow. Australians are facing immediate cost-of-living pressures now. A future offset adjustment in superannuation does little to relieve those stresses now. If the government is serious about helping households, it must tackle inflation now for everyone, for every single Australian. Inflation impacts your everyday spending because you get less in your shopping basket every time inflation ticks up. The government must tackle inflation at its source, not reshuffle offsets with the retirement income system. This proposal should not be viewed in isolation. It's about enabling more spending. That's what it's about. It's about pouring more debt petrol on the inflation fire. When spending accelerates without structural reform, governments reach the limits of conventional revenue sources. They test new boundaries: thresholds left unindexed, new bases for taxation, new definitions of income. Today, it is superannuation balances above $3 million. Tomorrow? Who knows. It could be another threshold, another definition, another asset class. Is the family home next? Will Labor tax your family home when they run out of money to spend? That's a question that all Australians should be asking, because it's a slippery slope with this government. Once the principle of taxing unrealised gains is entertained, it does not remain neatly contained. Australians deserve clarity with their investments and for their future, especially young Australians. As the shadow minister for youth, I stand up for young Australians and I say: 'Watch this government. They are coming after your money. And not just now, but into the future.' Or is it the opening chapter of a high-tax, high-spending approach to governing? What about revenue raising? It's like parking tickets and the local council, isn't it? 'Let's raise some revenue. How can we tax our constituency?' This debate, this proposal, this retreat under pressure is what life under a Labor government looks like into the future. Have a look into the crystal ball. The coalition will always stand for a tax system grounded in principle, for retirement savings that are stable and predictable, for fiscal discipline that protects future generations rather than quietly taxing them. We forced this government to retreat once, and we will continue to hold them to account for the sake of retirees, for the sake of small businesses and especially for the sake of young Australians. Those opposite say they support our young Aussies, but the truth is that their future savings are at risk of being stolen by this big-spending, big-taxing Labor government. 12:06 Ms SWANSON 264170 Paterson I rise today to speak in support of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Building a Stronger and Fairer Super System) Bill 2026 and the Superannuation (Building a Stronger and Fairer Super System) Imposition Bill 2026. These bills are about fairness. They are about dignity in retirement. But before I talk in depth about those, I just cannot help but pick up on what the opposition are saying when they talk about fairness and taxation. Remember, this is an opposition that rejected both tax cuts that have been provided by this government. They voted against them. Never forget it. They are about making sure the superannuation system in Australia, the system built by Labor, is unfair. This bill is about fairness. Superannuation is a bit like compound interest; it is one of the modern marvels of investment in the future. It builds upon itself. Superannuation is about working for every Australian. It works for millions of Australians who rely on it, not just for a very few who have extraordinarily large balances. In my electorate, very few people have more than $3 million in their superannuation accounts. Nationwide, it's about 87,000 people out of a population of nearly 29 million. I just want to say that again: around 87,000 people in Australia have a balance of more than $3 million. And good luck to them. They've worked hard and they've accrued that, but it is a very small number across a population of 29 million. It's less than half a per cent. Superannuation provides working Australians with choices—choices as to how and where you live in retirement and how you choose to spend your retirement savings. It might be with your family; you might join the grey nomads; or you might simply enjoy the garden that you've worked on throughout your working life and will now have more time to spend in it. The Australian superannuation system is designed to ensure that your quality of life does not diminish when you finish your working life. I was 22 when superannuation was introduced as compulsory, and I'm very grateful to have been a recipient of this incredible legislation and forethought. My generation's retirement wealth has increased significantly due to this fair and significant legislation that creates a secure retirement for all working Australians. Like all legislation though, it must be amended for the challenges and changes of our time. We have to be nimble in government, with an eye to the future too. That's why, since we've returned to government, we have increased the superannuation guarantee to 12 per cent, in keeping with inflation. We've legislated the objective of superannuation—'to preserve savings to deliver income for a dignified retirement, alongside government support, in an equitable and sustainable way'—to ensure that your personal super works for you. We've committed to paying super on paid parental leave, and that's massive. It's so that women are no longer left behind simply because they take leave to have a family and support that family. We've introduced payday super—that's such an important thing too—so that workers are paid their entitlements when they earn them, to ensure that they're the beneficiaries of those earnings from the moment they earn them. And now, through this legislation, we are better targeting super concessions and delivering more help to low-income workers. This is careful reform, it's principled reform, and it's reform that's grounded in fairness—the very basis of the superannuation system. Let's be clear about what this bill does and, quite frankly, what it doesn't do. Balances under $3 million will continue to have earnings taxed at up to 15 per cent—exactly as they are now. I say to everyone in my electorate: have a look at the balance of your super today. To clarify, if you have less than $3 million in your super, there will be no change. This is the case, and, if you're like me, it does not change. It does not change the concessional treatment of superannuation for you, which means that you won't pay any more tax than you do now. Don't believe some of the mistruths that are being peddled around on this. It does better target concessions for those very, very few Australians who do have a very large super balance—those that have more than $3 million in their account. If this is not you, then you don't need to worry about that. Super tax concessions cost the budget more than $60 billion a year, and that figure is projected to exceed the cost of the age pension in the 2040s. That means that those really-high-income earners with a huge amount of superannuation are paying the same tax as you. Around 38 per cent of super earnings concessions go to the top 10 per cent of income earners. That just doesn't seem right to me, and it probably doesn't seem right to those people that aren't earning that as well. Fifty-four per cent of those concessions—that's more than half—goes to the top 20 per cent of earners, and that's just not fair. If we want to ensure superannuation and a comfortable retirement for everyone, then that's not suitable either. Put simply, superannuation was not designed to reduce the taxation of the wealthy—it just wasn't—banking their excess funds in low-taxing safety nets. That is not the premise of superannuation. It is meant to be fair. It was designed to provide a fair go for workers who work hard, pay their tax every week and strive to have a better life for themselves and their family. That is truly what superannuation is about. It's not about being a tax shelter. For the 2026-27 income year, earnings on superannuation balances between $3 million and $10 million will be taxed at up to 30 per cent. Earnings on balances above $10 million will be taxed at up to 40 per cent. Earnings on balances below $3 million will remain taxed at up to 15 per cent. In my electorate, the number of people impacted by this measure could comfortably fit inside the front bar of the Commercial Hotel in Morpeth. Meanwhile, the benefits of a stronger, more sustainable super system flow to millions—flow to many. That is not about punishing success either—it really isn't; good luck to those people with those big balances—but it is about making sure that the system is sustainable, designed to deliver retirement income and used for exactly that purpose. Superannuation is about providing income for a dignified retirement, not about warehousing tens of millions of dollars in concessionally taxed environments. These changes are simply about ensuring that superannuation is used for what it's designed for and that it's not a gateway to avoiding paying your fair share of tax. Australians are a proud people. We are diverse, we are humble and we value a fair go—'fair shake of the sauce bottle,' someone once said. I want to ensure that superannuation is fair, that it works and that it remains sustainable for my children and my grandchildren—and for everyone else's in this country, to be honest. While a very small number of Australians with very, very large balances will be required to pay a minimal increase to their concession, affecting their overall wealth minimally, it will mean that those with lower incomes, like childcare workers, nurses and police officers, will receive a boost, meaning that they will be able to retire well with less reliance on the Commonwealth system. From 1 July 2027, the low-income offset will increase by $310, from $500 to $810. The eligibility threshold will rise from $37,000 to $45,000. This will ensure that low-income workers receive a fairer tax concession on their super contribution, aligning with the government's third round of tax cuts. Remember those tax cuts—the ones that the opposition did not support and did not vote for? What does this mean in practice? It means that a worker can receive up to $810 per year paid into their super account. On average, affected workers will receive around $410 more. Over a working life, that's around $15,000 extra at retirement. That may not seem like a lot to someone who is very wealthy, but, to someone who isn't wealthy, $15,000 can be a game changer. It can be the difference between choosing to turn on your air conditioner on a 40-degree day and upgrading to solar power to reduce your electricity bills. In communities like mine, $15,000 can mean the difference between financial stress and financial stability or between relying entirely on government support and having a little bit of your own savings to draw on. We also need to acknowledge that there is a gender gap in super. Women retire with significantly less super than men, often because part-time work and time out of the workforce caring for children or elderly parents make their average wages lower. By boosting the income offset, paying super on paid parental leave and strengthening the system overall, we're addressing structural inequality. This is not just economic reform; it is social reform, and it's important. It recognises that care work, paid and unpaid, has real value—and I want to thank the women in my community who do so much work that goes unpaid. It ensures that women who have contributed so much to our families and our communities aren't left behind in retirement. Women in their 50s are the most likely to become homeless in Australia and are the most likely to find it difficult to find work in our ever-changing times. Their super balances are significantly smaller than their male counterparts. If all is okay, it is likely that they will be working into their 70s to ensure their super balances will sustain them, yet they're the most likely to have worked full time since their teens. Most have done unpaid work, and many have volunteered more than most. We can fix this for future generations, and therefore we should. And it's really that simple. If we're serious about protecting superannuation for future generations, we must ensure its sustainability. Tax concessions are a form of government support, and, like all government support, they should be targeted where they are needed most. 'Self-funded' can be an oxymoron if, by that simple term, you are forgetting that tax concessions are in fact a form of support. Let's not sugar-coat that. I want nothing more than to be a self-funded retiree and pay my fair share, and I want other generations to be able to do that too. I'm Labor like that; I believe in fairness. You need to work hard and pay your way, but you should get what you're entitled to as well. That's what we believe in. This bill does this. It preserves concessions for everyone saving for retirement, it improves equity by reducing concessions for a very small number with extremely large balances and it strengthens the budget in a responsible way, because, if we don't take measured and sensible action now, the cost of super concessions will continue to balloon, placing pressure on future budgets and limiting our ability to invest in essential services. We can support retirement incomes, we can support fairness and we can support fiscal responsibility all at the same time. That is what this legislation does. It ticks all the boxes of what it means to be Australian: proud, fair and generous. When I speak to people in my electorate, they don't ask for special treatment. They ask for fairness. They ask for security. They ask for the opportunity to retire with dignity after decades of hard work. And, let me tell you, in my seat I've got some of the hardest working people in some of the toughest industries that generate the most income and wealth for our nation. I see them driving to work and doing that work every single day, and I respect them for it. This legislation reflects my values and it reflects their values. They are, largely, Labor values. These values mean that the system should work for ordinary Australians, that concessions should be targeted fairly, that women and low-income earners deserve support and that sustainability of the system really matters over the long term. Superannuation is one of the greatest achievements of modern Australia. It has transformed the retirement of millions and, quite frankly, those superannuation funds have changed the trajectory of the investment of our nation as well. They are an incredible wealth for our country. We must continue to refine it and strengthen it, to ensure that it serves its core purpose. These bills do exactly that. They deliver more help to more people. They better target concessions. They strengthen equity. They safeguard sustainability. For the factory worker, for the aged-care worker, for the young apprentice working to be a tradie, for the enrolled nurse, for the hospitality worker, for the shiftworker, for the miner, for the part timer and for the casual, these bills are changing Australia for the better. It's a reform that builds a stronger, fairer super system and I commend it to the House. 12:21 Mr BOYCE 299498 Flynn I rise to make a few brief comments on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Building a Stronger and Fairer Super System) Bill 2026. Instead of regurgitating all the talking points that we all get given on both sides of the House, I would like to draw my comments from some personal experiences in my life as a businessman, and what it actually means for real Australians. The biggest issue that most Australians face at the moment is what we loosely term the cost-of-living crisis. The fact is that our grocery bills are going up, our electricity bills are going up, our insurance bills are going up and the cost of educating our children is going up. These are all issues that average Australians have to deal with on a daily basis. To me, the reality of that is that it is all, literally, connected to energy policy. As the price of energy goes up, businesses and so forth pass their costs on to the consumer. The people who work in these businesses, the wage earners and so forth, are the ones who are suffering most when it comes to having to pay their daily bills. Way back in the early nineties, then treasurer Paul Keating introduced the superannuation regime, which we now live under. It has got good merit and good principle. However, Mr Keating is on the record that he does not support the changing of these superannuation tax proposals by the government. I'd like to make a few comments in respect of the taxing of unrealised profits on superannuation, which has now been abandoned by the Labor government. That had huge ramifications for people's lifetime savings. How can you possibly tax something that people haven't got? That's the reality of it. Why are we changing and shifting the goalposts on tax policy and financial strategy that average Australians have used over their lifetime to build wealth for their retirement? That is why a lot of people are seriously concerned about where this is going. Many of the speakers from the other side have pointed out in their contributions that this will make it fairer for the low-income earners and the average Australian. That is arguable, but I would argue that, with inflationary pressures and interest rate pressures, which were all brought about by the financial mismanagement of the government, that will erode any sort of gain that they could possibly get. The old adage is: when the government runs out of money, they're going to come after yours. If you have built any sort of a wealth nest egg in your lifetime, that is what they're coming after. I understand that it is a small percentage of people in Australia, who are deemed to be wealthy—one per cent, I've heard some of the speakers say. Well, that's all very well, but the reality is: why should those people have to suffer further and higher tax costs because they played under the rules and under the system? What the government is proposing to do is tax over-$3 million thresholds at a rate of 30 per cent and over-$10 million thresholds at a rate of 40 per cent. That is an extraordinary rate of tax in this day and age. I came to work this morning and on the bridge down there where we all drive past in the cars when we come to work was a big sign from one of the protesters—'tax wealth, not workers'. That, to me, says that people who are wealthy don't work, and nothing could be further from the truth. People who accumulate wealth over their lifetimes, you will find, are extremely prudent and hard workers. They are people who have managed the system. They've invested wisely in our capitalist society that we all live under. They are the ones that should enjoy the rights and benefits that that provides, not somebody else. That is what this government is doing, as I've said—when they run out of money, they come after yours. A government who has bad fiscal policy, has bad monetary policy and is overseeing increasing inflation and increasing interest rates will take away any gain that the lower-income earners might get out of this 'fairer and stronger' system that the government is proposing. I put it to you that this whole idea that this is going to make it better for the average Australian is nonsense. 12:27 Ms CLUTTERHAM 316101 Sturt I rise today to speak in support of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Building a Stronger and Fairer Super System) Bill 2026. Australia's superannuation system is a savings system for retirement, and it is the envy of the world. It has a simple foundation. Over your working life, your employer puts money on top of your wages into a super account which stays invested until you retire. It's pretty clear: the more savings you've invested, the more you have to live on in retirement. As of 1 July 2025, the minimum amount—called the superannuation guarantee—is 12 per cent of an employee's wage. Our national superannuation rates have increased from three per cent, when the modern super system was established in 1992, rising incrementally to nine per cent by 2002 and then significantly higher in July 2025. There are two main reasons super is such a powerful way to save for retirement. Firstly, it is taxed concessionally at a lower rate than other forms of taxable income. Secondly, super is reinvested and compounds over time, meaning that, in some cases, up to 75 per cent of the final balance at retirement has been generated by earnings rather than employer contributions. Super was created to boost the financial security of Australians in retirement. Its objective, as stated in section 5 of the Superannuation (Objective) Act 2024, is: … to preserve savings to deliver income for a dignified retirement, alongside government support, in an equitable and sustainable way. It's now compulsory, but it wasn't always so. In the 1970s, most Australians relied on the aged pension in retirement, and only about one-third of the workforce, mainly public servants and white-collar males, received super. It wasn't portable, and the payment was restricted to workers who retired with the employer controlling the fund. In the 1980s, the Australian Council of Trade Unions began a concerted effort to extend the benefits of superannuation to their members, which included blue collar workers, and a concerted effort to ensure that contributions were well managed and governed in funds that were designed to benefit members. When the Hawke Labor government took power in 1983, they had as a key objective the creation of a universal superannuation system so that all Australians, not just some, could benefit. Labor is and always has been the party of working Australians, and benefits to workers after they conclude their working life are a natural extension of this. A decade later in the early 1990s, the superannuation guarantee was passed, and all workers became entitled to minimum superannuation rates of three per cent. Coverage grew over time, and by 2019 national superannuation coverage increased to just under 80 per cent. Today it is over 90 per cent. Super is now the key driver of retirement savings. It's there together with the aged pension and personal savings and assets, but it's the key driver. All three of these pillars work together, and there will be a different mix for everyone. But super not only provides the bulk of retirement savings. It boosts living standards and drives investment. Other features in place to make it equitable and sustainable in accordance with its objective include tax concessions and the practice of paying super into employer default funds, all of which must be MySuper compliant. This is important so workers who are perhaps not financially literate or just not interested—and there are some—still receive employer contributions. Stapling and performance benchmarks set by the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority are also key elements underpinning the integrity of the superannuation system together with the equal representation model, where profit-to-member boards comprise an equal number of employer and worker representatives, keeping a focus on the best interests of members. Super in Australia is good policy and good politics. It is essential that the objective of super remains front of mind and that improvements and adjustments are made fairly and transparently to further those critical objectives of equity and sustainability. At its heart, this bill speaks to the objectives by making Australia's super system stronger by examining those foundational principles of equity and sustainability. In terms of equity, the bill operates to boost the low-income superannuation tax offset, or LISTO, so low-income workers receive a fairer tax concession on their super earnings. From July 2027 the maximum LISTO payment will increase by $310 to $810, and the eligibility threshold will increase from $37,000 a year to $45,000. The number of low-income workers, mainly women, who are eligible for LISTO, will increase to over three million working Australians, with each of those receiving an average LISTO increase of $410, resulting in an average extra $15,000 in retirement. This will depend, of course, on the trajectory of the person's career, but an extra $15,000 will make a difference. Importantly, the LISTO eligibility threshold and maximum payment amount will automatically adjust in line with any future changes to income tax thresholds and the superannuation guarantee rate. Another key feature of this bill is the reduction of tax concessions available to people with balances over $3 million. This feature can be found in schedules 1 to 3 of the bill. Under this arrangement, the headline concessional tax rates applying to superannuation earnings are as follows. Firstly, for superannuation balances up to $3 million—that's almost every single working Australian—the concessional tax rate will remain at 15 per cent on earnings. This is unchanged. Secondly, for superannuation balances between the $3 million large superannuation balance threshold and the $10 million very large superannuation balance threshold, it's up to an overall 30 per cent on a percentage of earnings equal to the percentage of the individual's total super balance between these thresholds. Thirdly, for superannuation balances above the $10 million very large superannuation balance threshold, the rate is up to an overall 40 per cent on a percentage of earnings equal to the percentage of the individual's total superannuation balance above $10 million. The amendments in schedules 1 to 3 reduce the tax concessions by imposing additional tax of 15 per cent on earnings based on the percentage of the total superannuation balance exceeding the $3 million threshold and a further 10 per cent on earnings based on the percentage of the total superannuation balance exceeding $10 million, with the thresholds being indexed to CPI each year. We've heard statistics quoted in this House today that this will affect about 0.5 per cent of the working Australian population. This bill is instructive of the way governments seek to maintain sustainability and equity. The difference in financial position between someone with an annual taxable income of $45,000 and someone with a total superannuation balance of $3 million or $10 million is stark. Whatever bucket you fall into or whether you fall somewhere in between, like most Australians, you've worked hard to get there, and the government respects that. You've worked hard to build a nest egg of whatever size to seek to provide for yourself in retirement and to enjoy a retirement as dignified and fulfilling as possible. The government respects that and, in crafting this bill, respects that but also, in this instance, places the weight of sustainability and equity of the superannuation system on those best placed to bear it. Risks and burdens are part of equity and sustainability and should be borne by those best placed to manage them. That is the fairest way to ensure the sustainability of our superannuation system. Managing risks and burdens is an essential consideration in every aspect and in every transaction, because risk determines whether a transaction is viable, and it is always a component of the total overall cost of any transaction. The effective allocation of risks and burdens reduces the likelihood of failure. Poorly or unfairly balanced risk allocation, by contrast, can increase cost, deter participation, lead to unintended consequences and frankly defeat the purpose of the objective—in this case, a dignified retirement for all Australians founded on equity and sustainability. Systems and transactions can never be completely devoid of risks and burdens entirely, but these can be managed intelligently if the aim is to fairly allocate each risk to the party best placed to control it or bear it. When this reform to large and very large superannuation balances was being floated, I was contacted by a small but concerned group of individuals in my electorate of Sturt who had concerns with initial suggestions that earnings on large and very large thresholds would not be indexed and that unrealised gains would form the basis upon which the new headline concessional rates would be applied. I thank those residents who wrote to me and came to see me for a number of reasons. Firstly is for civic engagement. My door is always open to people who wish to share feedback and have a constructive, courteous and professional discussion with me, and pleasingly that was the tone of every discussion that I had on this topic. Secondly, I thank those residents for explaining patiently the genuine consequences—what might happen—if their concerns were realised, and the genuine arguments against some of the initiatives that were being floated. I listened to those and passed those concerns on, as did a number of my colleagues, which has resulted in a bill that is fairer, is built on solid principles and is justifiable. That is civic engagement at work. Thirdly, what really struck me in all of these conversations that I had, particularly with two gentlemen, Paul and Nigel, both of whom had built successful careers and businesses—along with others who came to see me, they absolutely understood and in fact accepted that they were best placed to bear the risks and burdens associated with the ongoing equity and sustainability of the superannuation system. Did they love extra tax on their large super balances? Of course they didn't. But they understood and accepted the rationale for it. And this came across to me very clearly in every discussion I had and in most of the email correspondence that was sent to me on this topic. Many speakers in this House have spent most of their time talking about unrealised capital gains and the lack of indexation. They have asked a lot of questions about that, instead of spending their speaking time discussing what's actually in this bill. What's not in the bill is the taxing of unrealised capital gains. It's not there. What is in the bill is indexation of thresholds. That is there. So neither of those concerns remains justifiable; they are not in the bill. This bill is the product of genuine consultation with communities like mine, and it reflects the collective spirit of Australians who want to see the superannuation system become stronger and even fairer so that it continues to deliver a more secure retirement for millions of working Australians today and into the future, and not just some working Australians. Of the three pillars of retirement savings in this country—the age pension, super and personal savings and assets—super needs to be maintained as the driver, and this bill is part of the reform necessary to further the objective of an equitable and sustainable system, providing all working Australians with a dignified retirement. I commend the bill to the House. 12:42 Mr BUCHHOLZ 230531 Wright To my fellow Australians: in speaking on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Building a Stronger and Fairer Superannuation System) Bill 2026—for those in the gallery, I want to draw your attention to the very carefully crafted title of this bill, and I want you to focus on the word 'fairer'. I'm going to make a contribution, and I'm going to ask you to adjudicate from the gallery as to whether or not, at the completion of my small contribution, you think that you can make a judgement—let's pretend you're going to be down here voting on this bill—that this is in any way fairer. That's what I'm going to ask you to consider. I know from a business perspective, having been a business owner before coming to this place, that only too often, when the Australian Labor Party run out of their money, they'll come looking for yours. Superannuation is one of those little buckets that is just too tempting to those on the other side for them to keep their hands off it. You were promised, with the creation of super—your wealth, your money—that it would stay with you and it would never be raided. What you are not hearing from those on the other side during this debate is that this bill is a revenue raiser, and its intention is to raise over $2 billion in the forward estimates. They are snipping at your superannuation and they are masking it as being fair. 'It's fair to take your money. It's fair to raid the superannuation system. It's just fair.' I tell you this is anything but fair. A good opposition is vital because, if they had had their way, it would have been much, much worse. The largest contributor to GDP in my electorate is agriculture. They're humble people—sophisticated with technology use, but humble people. I'm going to give you an example of what would have happened if it weren't for us intervening. I'm going to give you an example of a simple farmer, Joan, whose husband, Ron, passed away. She's got a couple of boys and they have a small 100-acre farm. The farm was handed down to them from Joan's husband and, before that, it was Ron's parents' farm. There are many stories like this across my electorate. Those opposite will have you believe that it only touches half a percent, that it's only the rich and the extravagant that are going to be affected. A couple of years ago that farm was worth about $1 million. Today it's worth over $3 million. Back in the late eighties, there was an accounting practice in the district where the accountants dealt with succession planning for farms and transferring family assets. They put stuff into self-managed super funds. Joan was going to get caught out here; this was an unintended consequence of this bill until we made sure that it was retracted. They farm their 100 acres. They grow potatoes; they grow carrots—it's very labour-intensive. They've got high input costs with fuel, fertiliser, water and irrigation licensing. They drive old machinery because there is not enough money, after they pay their expenses, to update the machinery they have on the place. It's ageing, as the margins from the retailers become less and less. They have a net profit of about $50,000 a year after expenses, but they're asset rich. They have an asset in their self-managed super fund which is $3 million. If your place used to be worth $1 million but is now worth $3 million, that's $2 million in unrealised capital gain. Under this bill, these guys are saying: 'Let's clip your ticket, and we're going to do it under the presumption of fairness, because it's fair for us to take your money. In fact, we're going to take that capital gain. We're going to tax it at the rate proposed in this bill, which is 30 per cent—$2 million at 30 per cent is $600,000. Write out a cheque to the tax office.' Labor is calling that fair! Where does Joan get the $600,000 from? She doesn't have it; she earns $50,000 a year. She's flat out putting food on the table. She's not eligible for any Centrelink payments or any government support because she doesn't meet the asset test, so the only thing she can do is sell the farm. 'But it's only half a per cent; wave it through. Don't worry, because we're doing it under the auspices of fairness.' It reminds me a poem, 'First They Came' by the Lutheran pastor Martin Niemoller. This is an adaptation of his very famous poem: First they came for the rich, and I didn't speak out—because I wasn't rich. Then they came for the self-funded retirees, and I never reached out—because I wasn't a self-funded retiree. Then they came for the trusts, and I never spoke out—because I didn't own a trust. Then they came for the working class, and I never spoke out—because I wasn't working class. Then they came for me—and there was no-one left. The original poem was penned almost a hundred years ago, but it's still very salient today when we look at the fairness test of what this government is building. They're running out of money. It's a revenue-raising bill. It creates $2 billion over the forward estimates. At face value, they're saying, 'Only the wealthy are going to pay for this, and we call that fair.' At the same time, they're spending. My advice to the Labor Party is don't bring to this place bills that cost people money. Bring to this place spending reductions. Spending has expanded under this government to around 26.4% of GDP. That's over $727 billion in total payments, well above the long-run average. That means they are spending at a rate much greater than previous governments. And what's happening? There's a thing called structural spending. The spending happening under their watch is what economists would refer to as spending that is being baked into our system. That cannot be unpicked. That's spending on things like the National Disability Insurance Scheme, health costs and interest costs. They continue to outpace the revenue that we are bringing in in the form of receipts. So, it is incumbent on them to bring bills to this House that raid your superannuation to compensate for their incompetent spending, and they're disguising it as being fair. The coalition and the community pressure forced Labor to abandon the taxation of unrealised capital gains. That's something that we're extremely proud of. This is a government that's been found out and is now retreating under the pressure, thanks to sustained scrutiny from our opposition, from the superannuation sector, from the small-business sector and from everyday Australians. We forced Labor to step back from the most outrageous elements of this proposal. This was not a proposal that was just aimed at hurting retirees. This was aimed at hurting future generations, stealing the future of a young Australian away from them without their knowledge or even their understanding. The original design to tax unrealised gains represented a fundamental break with longstanding principles of the Australian tax system. To propose taxing paper gains, particularly in volatile asset classes, was not a minor tweak. This was a structural shift that would have set a dangerous precedent across the entire tax base. This was a desperate government, running out of money, looking for ways to create new revenue streams. In an inflationary environment being made worse by this Treasurer, and his willingness to pour debt petrol on the inflation fire, failing to index households was a straight-out silent tax hike. Over time, more Australians would have been captured, not because they were wealthier in real terms but because inflation eroded the value of the threshold and the bracket crept by design. It's flawed policy. Basically, we made sure, with the support of some Labor luminaries, in the way of Bill Kelty, Paul Keating and Sally McManus—none of them suggested that the indexation on that $3 million should not be adjusted. It wasn't a flawed policy. It was a sneaky trick to make more money and to capture hardworking Australians. At the last election, Australians were not presented with a policy to tax unrealised capital gains in super. They were not told that longstanding superannuation settings would be fundamentally altered. They were not warned that indexation would be stripped. Promises matter in a democracy. Major structural changes should be put clearly and transparently to the Australian people. Instead, this proposal appeared out of nowhere, with limited consultation and a rushed legislative timetable. I remember, early on, Labor had a round table. The best and brightest minds were brought. I don't remember this being an outcome of those best and brightest minds, where we say: 'Let's raid super. Let's raid the wealthy. Let's call it a robin hood tax and take from the wealthy and give to others.' It's disguised as that, but really it's a revenue raiser. We have a government that can't be trusted. We were promised by Labor—by this treasurer—that they'd beaten inflation and high interest rates. Well, that's not the case. The inflation dragon is breathing down their necks. Normally, from a business perspective and for most on this side, we have buffers in our businesses. We have retained earnings. When things get tough and when economic choppy waters present themselves, as they do through the economic cycle—whether it's every five years, seven years or whatever it might be, you can predict when you're going to have those choppy waters—prudent businesses make sure they've got capacity to deal with those choppy times. Well, fellow Australians, can I say that there are choppy times in front of us in the international geopolitical space in the Middle East, and we should have a management that has got that capacity to deal with the buffer. Instead, we have a very poor government whose economic rationalism is to provide the Australian public with deficits as far as the eye can see. That doesn't mean a lot to people who don't think they're going to have to pay the money back, but I'll tell you how it affects you when you're backing a government that has got deficits as far as the eye can see. There's an inconvenient truth that one day the people that we borrow our money from want that money back. The interest rates also get higher and higher and higher. To tickle my fellow Australians' interests as to how much interest we're serving on debt at the moment, it's just under $30 billion a year. As that debt gets higher, that interest component gets higher. When you say, 'Well, that debt doesn't mean anything to me,' it may not mean anything to you until you're not getting that hospital or until you're not getting that road. This is a government who has lost its way when it comes to bringing fairer legislation to this House. I'd ask this government to rethink. 12:57 Ms BRISKEY 263427 Maribyrnong This legislation is about a promise. It's about a promise that, after a lifetime of work and after years of showing up, contributing, caring for your family, volunteering in your community and paying your taxes, you retire with dignity—not just scraping by and not just surviving, but secure, independent and able to enjoy the years you've earned. That promise has a name. It's called superannuation, and it exists because Labor made it law. Before compulsory superannuation, retirement security in this country was not universal. It was selective. If you were in the right job with the right employer or born into the right circumstances, you might retire comfortably. If you weren't, you retired almost entirely on the age pension. Labor believed working Australians deserved better than that, so, in partnership with the union movement, Labor built a system that changed the country. We made retirement savings a right, not a privilege. We embedded the principle that every worker, no matter their industry or income, should accumulate savings in their own name. It was one of the great nation-building reforms of modern Australia. Like all great reforms, it must be maintained, protected, and, when necessary, refined. That is what this bill does. It strengthens the integrity of the system and better targets concessions so they flow where they are actually needed. It lifts support for low-income workers and ensures the long-term sustainability of a system that is now one of the largest pools of retirement savings in the world. This is not radical; it is the next chapter in a proud story. Since coming into office, this government has treated superannuation as the national asset it is. We lifted the superannuation guarantee to 12 per cent, which delivered on what working Australians were promised. We enshrined the objective of super in law to ensure it remains focused on providing income in retirement—not being distorted for other purposes. We legislated superannuation on paid parental leave, because women should not be penalised in retirement for having children, and we are delivering payday super so workers receive their contributions at the same time as their wages. This ends the quiet scandal of unpaid super that has cost Australians billions. This bill continues that work, but let us be honest about why it's necessary. Superannuation tax concessions now cost the budget more than $60 billion every year. Treasury projections show that without reform that figure will overtake spending on the age pension within two decades, and those concessions are not evenly distributed. About 38 per cent of super earnings tax concessions flow to the top 10 per cent of income earners, and 54 per cent flow to the top 20 per cent. That means more than half the benefit goes to the highest earners. Meanwhile, millions of Australians with modest balances—the very people this system was designed to serve—receive only a small share. That's not balance, that's not fairness, and that is not sustainable. A system built to deliver dignity in retirement should not become a vehicle for a very large tax preferred wealth accumulation at the top end. This bill restores that balance. From 2026-27, earnings on superannuation balances between $3 million and $10 million will be taxed at up to 30 per cent. Earnings on balances above $10 million will be taxed at up to 40 per cent. Even at those rates, super remains concessionally taxed—below the top marginal income tax rate. These are still concessions. They are simply better targeted. It is critical to say clearly that nothing changes for the overwhelming majority of Australians. Balances below $3 million will continue to have earnings taxed at up to 15 per cent, which is exactly as it is now, but thresholds will be indexed over time. The people affected by this change represent less than half of one per cent of Australians with superannuation accounts at the $3 million threshold and less than one-tenth of one per cent at the higher threshold. So, for 99.5 per cent of Australians, there's no change at all. In my electorate of Maribyrnong, the numbers tell a very clear story. The median super balance is about $69,000. For residents approaching retirement, those in their 50s, the median is approximately $192,600. These are hardworking people: retail workers, carers, teachers, tradespeople, office staff and small-business employees. They have contributed consistently over decades. They are not sitting on multimillion dollar balances. They are building what they can—often while juggling mortgages, rent, school fees, caring responsibilities and rising living costs. They deserve a system that protects their savings, not one that directs disproportionate concessions to accounts holding more than most Australians will ever accumulate in total wealth. This bill ensures that the public support is directed where it makes the greatest difference. That includes strengthening support at the other end of the income scale, because this is about making sure our system is not only sustainable but fairer from top to bottom. The low-income superannuation tax offset, LISTO, exists to ensure that low-income workers do not pay more tax on their super contributions than they do on their wages. Under this reform, the maximum LISTO payment will increase from $500 to $810. The income threshold will rise to $45,000 from July 2027. That means there's more support for people who need it most. These are not abstract policy adjustments; they are tangible improvements in the retirement savings of real people. In Maribyrnong, more than 7,600 low-income earners are expected to benefit from these changes, and nearly 70 per cent of those payments will go to women. That matters, because the gender super gap remains one of the most persistent economic inequalities in Australia. It reflects a lifetime of structural disadvantage, lower average wages, higher rates of part-time work, career interruptions for caring responsibilities and historical inequities in pay. Women retire with significantly less super on average than men. That is not a reflection of effort; it is a reflection of inequality. The government is addressing this directly through LISTO, through paying super on paid parental leave, through closing the gender pay gap and through strengthening secure work. Each measure matters on its own, but together they begin to shift the trajectory. There is another critical reform embedded in our broader superannuation agenda: payday super. Too many workers have been short-changed. Unpaid super is not a technical glitch; it is wage theft by another name. In Maribyrnong alone, more than 23,000 workers were underpaid super in a single year, losing around $35 million from their retirement savings. That is $35 million that should have been compounding for their future. By aligning super payments with wages, payday super closes the loopholes that have allowed contributions to be delayed, avoided or quietly lost. It strengthens enforcement, it restores trust and it ensures that what workers earn is what they actually receive. There has been opposition to these reforms. This is not new. The history of superannuation in this country is a history of Labor building it and those opposite opposing it. When compulsory super was introduced, it was opposed. When the superannuation guarantee was increased, it was opposed. In 1996, the Howard government froze the scheduled increases. In 2014, the Abbott government froze them again, arguing that money would flow into wages instead. Shock, horror, it didn't. Wages did not rise to compensate, but retirement balances were permanently lower. Independent analysis at the time estimated that freeze cost the average worker thousands of dollars in retirement savings. Then, during the pandemic, the early access scheme allowed Australians to withdraw up to $20,000 from their super. Around three million Australians accessed the scheme; approximately $38 billion was withdrawn. For many people facing immediate hardship, it was a difficult but understandable decision, but the long-term cost is real. More than half a million Australians reportedly withdrew their balances to zero. For young workers especially, that means decades of compound growth lost. That means lower retirement savings and higher reliance on the age pension in the future. Superannuation is not a rainy-day account; it is long-term savings designed to compound over a lifetime. When we treat it casually, the consequences echo for decades. Even now, there are calls to weaken the system. There have been suggestions of cutting the superannuation guarantee and proposals to allow large withdrawals for housing deposits—arguments to dilute the objective of super. Each proposal chips away at the same principle—that superannuation exists to provide income in retirement. Labor rejects that erosion. We believe that superannuation is a pillar of both personal dignity and national strength. It reduces pressure on the age pension, it funds long-term infrastructure investment, it gives millions of Australians a direct stake in our economy and it gives individuals independence in retirement. These bills strengthen that pillar. They say clearly that superannuation concessions are designed to support retirement income, not unlimited tax preferred wealth accumulation. They ensure sustainability, they improve fairness and they protect the integrity of the system for future generations. When I speak to people in Maribyrnong, they're not asking for special treatment; they're asking for fairness. They're asking for a system that protects their contributions, a system that does not tilt towards those already at the very top and a system that keeps faith with the promise made many decades ago: if you work hard and contribute, you will retire with dignity. This legislation honours that promise. It reflects Labor's values, spreading opportunity, strengthening security and backing working people. It ensures that the benefits of superannuation are better targeted, better balanced, better for everyone—better and fairer from top to bottom. That's why I commend these bills to the House. 13:08 Mr KENNEDY 267506 Cook Let's be clear on what this debate on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Building a Stronger and Fairer Super System) Bill 2026 and the Superannuation (Building a Stronger and Fairer Super System) Imposition Bill 2026 is really about. This isn't a narrow, technical adjustment to superannuation settings. This is not a small tweak of superannuation. This is a question of trust with the Australian people. It's a test of principle. It's a test of whether this government really believes retirement savings belong to Australians, everyday Australians, or whether it believes they're simply another revenue source to be mined and to be taxed. Over recent months, Australians have watched this piece of legislation and this proposal unravel. What began as a somewhat bold attempt to fundamentally rewrite longstanding tax principles has been scaled back and has collapsed under pressure—pressure from the coalition, pressure from the superannuation sector, pressure from small-business owners and pressure from everyday Australians, who instinctively understood that something stunk about this proposal. The government has retreated, and this retreat tells its own story. The original design of this proposal was anything but modest. It was not incremental. It represented a fundamental break with how Australia has approached taxation over the last 100 years. For 100 years or more, Australians understood a simple principle: you pay tax when you recognise income. When a gain is crystallised, when you actually have that cash in your hand, you pay tax on it. Treasurer Chalmers wanted to upend this principle and our entire taxation system. The government's initial plan was to tax unrealised gains—paper increases in asset values. This would have torn at the very foundation of our taxation system, particularly in very volatile asset classes such as venture capital, farms or, in the right environment, even housing. Taxing paper gains is a complete structural shift. It creates liquidity pressures where people have to keep a certain amount of the fund in cash and it introduces artificial volatility. Once that precedent is set in one part of the system, there's a danger and a risk that every Australian should be alive to: what unrealised gain are they going to come after next? It's a very dangerous path. I don't know of another Western nation that does it. There may be some, but I've looked high and far and I can't find one. More concerning than that was the refusal to index the $3 million limit. Inflation has been above the band for this government's entire time in office. The Reserve Bank is forecasting it to be above the band for this entire term, which will make it six years above the inflationary band. In an inflationary environment, failing to index thresholds is not neutral; it's a silent tax increase every single year. That's what they were doing. They were baking in an annual tax increase that was a little bit sneaky. Over time, more and more Australians would have been captured, not because they were wealthier but because inflation devalued that threshold. This is bracket creep by design. That's another thing we have with this Treasurer and this government. It's a government addicted to bracket creep. We had it in superannuation and we have it in income tax. That is the reason 42 per cent of Australia's taxation revenue comes from income tax. The OECD average is just 23 per cent. We have a tax on Australian aspiration. When Australians work more, this government taxes more. On this side of the House, when Australians work more, we want them to get more. You should be rewarded. The more effort you put in, the more you take out. This wasn't accidental. This flawed policy design was a deliberate attempt to expand the tax base over time. But this government's backdown demonstrates something important. This wasn't settled policy grounded in principle or grounded in the Henry tax review. This didn't even mention the Henry tax review. The Henry tax review has a lot of fantastic ideas that have never been implemented. This government reached into its bag of tricks and pulled this out because what this really is is a revenue measure—how do we get more money?—and it collapsed under scrutiny. At the last election, Australians were not told that our longstanding superannuation tax settings would be fundamentally redesigned and disrupted. They were not told unrealised gains could be brought into the taxation system. They were not told indexation would be stripped away from superannuation balances. Major structural taxation changes such as this should be transparently taken to the Australian people so they can make informed decisions. They should be debated openly, and they should be consulted on thoroughly. My worry is that this is pattern behaviour. We've got a government addicted to spending and, like all addicts, they keep this poor pattern behaviour going. What is next? Is it CGT discounts that aren't being taken to the Australian people and are being snuck in? Is it carbon taxes? Is it cash flow taxes? What is coming next? Every Australian should worry, because we're going through a cost-of-living crisis where disposable income is getting stripped away. The average family is paying $21,000 more on a mortgage since Labor came to office. On top of that, the money you have left over—that increasingly small bundle of money you have left over that's being eroded away by inflation—is the target of further taxes. Australians are, rightly, protective of their retirement savings. These are nest eggs built over decades, through overtime shifts, small-business people taking risks, delayed holidays and disciplined saving. The bar for legitimacy in retirement income policy must be higher. Prominent Labor figures criticised this proposal. Paul Keating—Labor royalty—was critical of this. Graham Richardson was critical of this. And it was not just him. Ken Henry was critical of this. Ken Henry has done thorough work on taxation. It sits on the shelf, gathering dust—actual, real taxation reform that could make this economy more competitive and that could see the speed limit lifted on this economy. Right now, this economy is unable to grow any faster than two per cent per annum, and, when it does, you get poorer through inflation because we don't have that structural reform. Instead of attacking Ken Henry's reforms—of which there are many—we've got this cash grab. This isn't a fringe concern. Industry analysis suggested the impact could expand well beyond the narrow cohort initially described. People were projecting that, in 30 years, up to 50 per cent of the population could be captured by it. We know many small-business owners legitimately hold assets within superannuation structures. For them, it wasn't theoretical. This was about real questions. It was about valuation, volatility, liquidity and compliance risk. Beyond the design flaws, there is a deeper flaw at play. Australia doesn't have a revenue crisis that we need to fix with more taxation; it has a spending discipline crisis. Right now spending as a percentage of GDP is 26.9 per cent. What does this abstract figure mean? This abstract figure is the highest percentage of federal government spending in 40 years outside of the pandemic. In 40 years, outside of the pandemic, spending has never been higher than today. The only day at risk of being higher than today is tomorrow, because it is not forecast to come down. This structural spending growth is running far ahead of our sustainable economic growth. When governments expand their spending commitments without corresponding reform, we get inflation—persistent inflation. When we get inflation, we get higher interest rates. When we get higher interest rates, Australians get poorer. That is the cycle we are living through right now—increased government spending, increased inflation, increased interest rates, Australians getting poorer—and we are rinsing and repeating that cycle. Rather than restoring fiscal discipline, rather than making tough choices on prioritising programs, attacking rorting or waste in the NDIS or attacking large grant programs, like the HAFF program—the housing fund building 900 houses with $11 billion—rather than actually going after these big buckets of money, we are instead attacking Australians' retirement savings income. Spend first, tax later. This is pattern behaviour, not reform. Taxation trust is central. You have Australians, you have businesses and you have international investors making decisions based on trust. When they are allocating capital to superannuation, which is often over many decades, they are doing this believing that it will not be taxed differently retrospectively. This initial piece of legislation was violating that trust. Australians will accept change. They accepted the GST when we took it to an election. We debated it out in the open. We had the to-and-fro. It's been a very big success when it's principled, predictable and properly consulted on, but what Australians won't accept is retrospective tinkering, ad hoc structural shifts and ideological experimentation dressed up as some modest adjustment. These bills raise additional structural concerns that deserve further scrutiny. The removal of the longstanding protections around the death benefit taxation introduces new uncertainty for families at precisely the moment they are at the most vulnerable, when they lose a loved one. When a mourning spouse is adjusting to loss, the last thing they need to confront is added tax complexity or instability on their retirement income base. Similarly, Australians receiving total and permanent disability benefits rely on superannuation not as an abstract investment vehicle but as a lifeline. Changes that increase volatility or reduce the predictability carry human consequences. These are disabled Australians and mourning spouses who are struggling to continue on with their lives. The government points to adjustments to the low-income superannuation tax offset as evidence of balance, and we welcome that. Any measure that supports low-income Australians building retirement savings is welcome, particularly in this cost-of-living crisis, but these adjustments do not fix the cost-of-living crisis. They don't lower mortgage repayments. They don't ease electricity prices. In this cost-of-living crunch, a future superannuation tax offset does not relieve everyday Australians struggling to make ends meet, struggling to pay school fees and struggling to pay electricity bills. Renters don't benefit from the home battery program or this long-term superannuation tax offset. They need relief here and now. If the government is serious about households, it must tackle inflation at its source—tackle excessive government spending that's increasing demand, increasing inflation, increasing interest rates and crushing Australians. The experience Australians have had over recent years has been sobering. We were told inflation was under control. It wasn't. We were told relief was around the corner. It wasn't. We were told life would be easier. For families and many families in my electorate, it's become so much harder—harder to service a mortgage, harder to pay your energy bills, harder to buy a house, harder to find a rental, harder to pay your school fees and harder to get ahead. In that environment, confidence in the retirement system matters more than ever. Superannuation is built on long-term trust—trust the rules won't shift unpredictably, trust that thresholds will not be quietly eroded with inflation and trust that core principles of our taxation system will be adhered to. Undermining that trust carries long-term costs. You lose the trust of the Australian people. You lose the trust of outside investors who want to invest in Australia, invest in our energy grid, invest in our manufacturing companies, invest in our cities and our data centres, and invest in AI. The coalition believes in a superannuation system that's stable, predictable and principled so that Australians can make long-term investment decisions and that international investors can make those long-term investment decisions. We believe in a stronger Australia for each of those people, not a weaker Australia that's marred by increased spending, a higher cost of living and opportunistic tax grabs. I would ask this government to rein in government spending and address the problem at its source rather than steal from hardworking Australians and their retirement incomes. 13:23 Ms WITTY 316660 Melbourne Superannuation is not a privilege; it's a promise. It is the promise that if you spend a lifetime working, contributing, caring and building this country you will not be faced with insecurity at the end of it. That promise was not accidental. It was built. It was built by the union movement, built by working people who knew that dignity in retirement should not be reserved for the fortunate few, built by Labor governments who were prepared to back working Australians with a system that endures. The Treasury Laws Amendment (Building a Stronger and Fairer Super System) Bill 2026 and the Superannuation (Building a Stronger and Fairer Super System) Imposition Bill 2026 not only defend that promise; they strengthen it. Super has a purpose. It is not ambiguous. It is not optional. It is not whatever the market decides it is. The objective is to preserve savings to deliver income for a dignified retirement, alongside government support, in an equitable and sustainable way. That purpose matters, because systems only endure when they stay true to why they were created. If super is used to build up excess wealth instead of being used to provide income in retirement, confidence erodes, and, when confidence erodes, working Australians pay the price. This bill restores that confidence. It does that in two clear ways. First, it better targets tax concessions for those with very large balances. Second, it strengthens support for low income workers so that super works for the people it was meant to serve. Super tax concessions are deliberate policy choice. They exist to encourage people to save for retirement. They exist so that ordinary working people can build for their retirement over time. But those concessions must be sustainable, they must be justified, and they must be targeted fairly. Right now, too large a share of earning concessions flows to those at the very top end of the system. This bill adjusts the concession tax treatment for super earnings on amounts above a very high limit. From the 2026-27 income year, earnings on super balances below $3 million will not change. Earnings on balances between $3 million and $10 million will be taxed at up to 30 per cent. Earnings on balances above $10 million will be taxed at up to 40 per cent. I want to say this clearly because it matters. If you have less than $3 million in super, this change does not apply to you. If you have less than $3 million in super, nothing changes—not the rate you pay on earnings, not the treatment of your contributions and not the structure of super for you or your family. This reform is targeted at the very top end of the system, and it is modest. It affects less than half of one per cent of Australians with super accounts. That is what we are debating. It is easy in this place for debates to become abstract. It is easy for the loudest voices to turn a targeted adjustment into a cultural war. This is a question of purpose. This is a question of legitimacy, because, if a system built for working people becomes skewed towards the already secure, it loses public confidence, and super must never lose public confidence. Super was designed for dignity. It was designed so that a person who works hard, who pays rent and bills and who shows up year after year can retire without fear. It was designed so that ordinary working Australians can build security over time—week by week, pay by pay, year by year. That is the moral foundation of super, and this bill protects that foundation. The second part of this bill matters just as much, and in many ways it matters more for the community I represent. This bill strengthens support for low-income workers through the low-income super tax offset, LISTO, and it exists for a reason. It exists because low-income workers can end up paying more tax on their super contributions than they pay on their wages. That is not fair, and for too long the threshold settings have not kept pace with broader tax and super settings. From 1 July 2027, the entitlement threshold will rise to $45,000. This aligns with the top of the second income tax bracket. The maximum payment will increase to reflect increases in the super guarantee. This means more people will receive support, it means more low-income workers will keep more of what they have earned, and it means retirement savings will stay in the accounts of the people doing the work. That is what equity looks like in a tax system. I am honoured to represent the electorate of Melbourne. It is a city of shift workers, students who work while they study, casual and part-time workers, carers, nurses, researchers, teachers, hospitality staff, retail workers and early childhood educators. It is a city built on contribution. When I am in the community I hear it constantly. I hear it from women in their 40s and their 50s who have worked for decades and still feel insecure about retirement. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. The member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed. STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS 40 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Red & Yellow Day 40 13:30 Dr SCAMPS 299623 Mackellar Today is Red & Yellow Day, a nationwide celebration of the volunteers who dedicate their time, energy and courage to keeping Australia's beaches safe. The heroism of our surf lifesavers has never been more evident than over the last season when responding to several shark attacks, including in my electorate of Mackellar. It was a difficult summer for Sydneysiders, with two beautiful lives lost tragically through shark attacks, including local Long Reef surfer Mercury Psillakis and 12-year-old Nico Antic in the electorate of Wentworth. I want to extend my deepest condolences to their families and friends for their immense loss. I would also like to send my very best wishes to those recovering from their injuries, including 27-year-old Andre de Ruyter, also from the northern beaches of Sydney. These incidents have had a lasting impact on our beach-loving community, and so I want to reassure beachgoers that, with the support of Surf Life Saving NSW, protection measures have been increased, including expanded drone surveillance, the installation of shark listening stations for faster detection, and an expansion of the SharkSmart education program. Today, on Red & Yellow Day, I want to acknowledge the extraordinary contribution of our lifesavers and thank them for their countless hours of training and patrolling our beaches to keep our communities safe. You guys are legends. Thank you. Aldcroft, Mr William Thomas (Bill), OAM 40 13:31 Mr DAVID SMITH 276714 Bean Vale, Bill Aldcroft. Born in east London in 1922, Bill left school at the age of 14 barely able to read or write. Not letting that stop him, Bill served as a paratrooper during the Second World War, across Africa and Europe. He was captured in Holland and served eight to nine months in a work camp in Poland. He retrained as a marine engineer before making Australia his home. He worked on the Snowy hydro scheme and used his spare time there to volunteer, teaching English to workers that had come to Australia from all around the world. Upon moving to Canberra, he became an early advocate for a prison in the ACT and a Canberra based parole system to ensure those caught up in the system were not separated from their families. He volunteered for years with Prisoners Aid and within the legal system and was awarded the Order of Australia for this work in 2012. Bill was a lifelong member of the Labor Party. We'll never be able to thank Bill enough for his services to our party and to his community. When being interviewed by the ABC for his 100th birthday, Bill said: You've got a life ahead, and mine's just about at the end, but you've got a life to go. So keep going forward, never looking back. I wish to extend my condolences to Bill's family and his many friends. He'll be greatly missed by us all. Labor Government 41 13:32 Mr BUCHHOLZ 230531 Wright Are you finding it harder under this terrible Labor government? Are you finding it harder to make ends meet? Is the cost-of-living pressure biting you? If it is, there's a good reason for it. Insurance costs are up around 40 per cent. Energy prices under this terrible government are up 40 per cent. Rents are up 22 per cent. Health costs are up around 20 per cent, and there's going to be more of that coming in the health sector very soon. Educating your kids is up 17 per cent. Food—just to put food on the table—is up 16 per cent. To make matters worse, when we left office there were 412,000 trainees and apprentices in the system. Today, under this terrible government, there are 100,000 less. We were building 200,000 to 220,000 homes in this country every single year. Today, under this government, 30,000 fewer homes are being built. This is all in an environment where we've got record immigration to this country, with nowhere for them to stay. Can I suggest to the Australian Labor Party that it spend less time trying to bring ISIS brides home and more time focusing on the economy. World Obesity Day 41 13:34 Mr REPACHOLI 298840 Hunter Today is World Obesity Day, an important day to recognise one of the biggest health challenges facing Australia. Across our country, millions of Australians are living with being overweight or with obesity. Along with that comes an increased risk of serious health conditions, like heart disease, type 2 diabetes, stroke and some cancers. Obesity is not a simple matter of willpower or personal choice. It's a complex health issue influenced by many factors, including lifestyle, environment, genetics, mental health and access to the right support. Too often, people living with obesity face stigma or embarrassment. That can make it harder for people to seek help, talk to their doctor or access the support they need to improve their health. The reality is that no-one should feel ashamed about asking for help. Early conversations with a GP or a health professional can make a real difference. The right advice, practical strategies and ongoing support can help people make sustainable changes that improve their health and wellbeing over time. World Obesity Day is also a reminder that improving health outcomes is a shared responsibility. Governments, health systems, communities and individuals all have a role to play in supporting healthier lifestyles and creating environments that make healthier choices easier. At the end of the day, better health outcomes can often start with something simple: a conversation with a GP or a conversation with a mate. It's okay to have a chat if you're feeling a bit down because of your weight. Make sure you get out and have a chat to someone. Cheers. Macclesfield War Memorial: 100th Anniversary 41 13:35 Ms SHARKIE 265980 Mayo The 100th anniversary of the Macclesfield War Memorial was held just last weekend. It was an important commemorative service to mark 100 years of the Macclesfield War Memorial. When you stand at the memorial, you can understand the motivation of those who first envisioned it and why they believed it was essential to have a permanent place of remembrance. Since its unveiling on 20 March 1926, this memorial has played an important role, serving as a focal point for remembrance, particularly on Anzac Day. There's the very special Anzac twilight service that the Maccie RSL holds, and, of course, there's one on Remembrance Day. It's a lasting reminder of the region's contribution to Australia's defence service. The weekend event brought together community members, descendants of those whose names are inscribed on the memorial and official representatives, including our South Australian governor, Her Excellency the Honourable Francis Adamson AC. Our community is so very grateful to the Macclesfield RSL sub-branch and its president, Dennis Oldenhove, and all of the volunteers who have worked tirelessly for this commemoration and for the great work they do in Macclesfield to bring our community together. A local memorial, such as this, ensures that the stories of those who served are preserved, honoured and not forgotten. Lest we forget. HMAS Yarra 42 13:37 Mr GOSLING 245392 Solomon I want to wish the Royal Australian Navy a happy 125th birthday and mark that today, 4 March, marks the 84th anniversary of the sinking of HMAS Yarra in 1942 while escorting a convoy from South-East Asia through to Fremantle in WA during the darkest days of the Second World War. This was within a month of the bombing of Darwin, and Broome had just been bombed the day prior, on 3 March. Australia's fate hung in the balance. It would be six months before the tide started to turn at Milne Bay and on the Kokoda Track. HMAS Yarra's badge features a kookaburra, and its motto is 'hunt and strike'. But, on that fateful day in March 1942, its mission was to protect and defend the convoy. Encountering a Japanese fleet during the escort, and being vastly outnumbered and outgunned, the Yarra's commander, Lieutenant Commander Robert Rankin, laid down a smokescreen and commanded the convoy to scatter. Despite fighting valiantly and bravely, the Yarra and the three ships in the convoy were all sunk. Of the Yarra's complement of 150 souls, only 13 would survive. In 2013, HMAS Yarra and her ship's company were awarded the Unit Citation for Gallantry retroactively. This was a fitting and poetic recognition of her bravery. Well done to HMAS Yarra. Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme 42 13:38 Mr THOMPSON 281826 Herbert 'I'm begging the health minister to help save my son's life.' Those are the words from Debbie for her son, Clinton. They join us in the gallery today. Clinton has a cancer, and he needs some medication that isn't listed on the PBS. Debbie has travelled down from Townsville to meet with the health minister and the shadow health minister to talk about this medication that will save her son. Clinton is a father of three. He is a husband and he is a son. Today, he gave a very powerful message to the Australian people. He said, 'I want to walk my daughter down the aisle if she chooses to get married.' Clinton, I can say—on behalf of, I think, everyone in this parliament—that we stand with you, brother. We'll do everything we can to make sure that you get the help, the treatment, the medication and the support you need. To Debbie: I love you. Thank you for your fierce advocacy. Thank you for continuing to be in the fight, because this matters. Saving a life matters—but it's so important because he's your son. Menzies Electorate: Manningham State Emergency Service 42 13:40 Mr NG 316052 Menzies Last week, I had the pleasure of visiting the Manningham SES unit as they celebrated the arrival of their new truck, an important addition to their fleet that will strengthen their capacity to respond to emergencies across our community. It was a proud moment for the unit and a reminder of the commitment that defines our local SES volunteers. When fires and floods affect Warrandyte and other parts of our community, when there are fallen branches or car accidents in Doncaster or Templestowe, it is the volunteers at the Manningham SES who stand ready at all hours to keep our community safe. They give up weekends, evenings and time with family to assist people at their most vulnerable. I extend my sincere thanks to every member of the Manningham SES unit for their dedication and resilience. Thank you to Steven and Vincent for the tour of the facilities and for sharing a snag. It is clear that Manningham SES not only provides an invaluable service; it is also a fantastic community in itself. They put donations and contributions into making their facilities more modern and more comfortable for their volunteers, to reflect the appreciation they have for everything that those volunteers give to our community. If you live in Manningham, I encourage you to volunteer and to contribute to this essential service that helps our neighbours when they need it most. Australian Parliament 42 13:41 Mr HAMILTON 291387 Groom Spoiler alert! One of the following names will be the future member for Groom: Hayley, Emmy, Penny, Annabelle, Emily, Gracie and Sofie. No, I am not giving away early retirement plans! I am simply heralding the next generation of great leaders coming through Groom, who I met in the Year 12 legal studies class at Fairholme College. This is a great group of kids, and I'm sure everyone around this chamber would agree that speaking to kids about our parliament and our democracy is one of the most important things we do. I want to take this opportunity to repeat to them, and to any other kids listening, the message I passed on. It was a message that came from Ron Boswell, a good friend who we recently laid to rest. It is: no matter what your beliefs are, get involved in politics. Kids, get involved. Protesting is fun, and it's cool. You get to march with people and you get to wear some cool shirts. Kids, get out there. Learn the issues. Find the policy levers that you need to pull to make change happen. Build a mandate. Learn how to go and converse with people who disagree with you and work together with them. Kids, get out there and understand how democracy works and how you can make a change. This is such an important thing. Politics is about doing the right thing. Kids, don't be afraid of the appearance of conflict that you're going to see in a few minutes here, in QT; across the chamber, there are strong bonds between people who want to get things done and want to make good things happen for the Australian people. You should believe that. Watch that, and believe that. Women's Health 43 13:43 Ms DOYLE 299962 Aston Twelve months ago, the Albanese Labor government made a landmark commitment: an almost $793 million investment in the health of Australian women and girls. Today, we stand proud not just of a promise made but of a promise delivered. Already, more than 660,000 women across the country have accessed cheaper medicines for contraception, menopausal hormone therapies and endometriosis treatment through the PBS. For the first time in over 30 years, new contraceptive pills have been listed, and, for the first time in more than two decades, new menopausal hormone therapies have been added, giving women more choice and real savings at the pharmacy. Since the start of this year, PBS prescriptions have been capped at $25, while concessional patients continue to pay $7.70, easing pressure on household budgets. But this reform goes beyond medicines. Since July last year, more than 71,000 women across the country have accessed dedicated menopause health assessments through Medicare. The Albanese Labor government has invested $49 million to expand care for complex gynaecological conditions. We are increasing bulk-billing for IUDs and implants, saving women up to $400 a year, and, with 33 endometriosis and pelvic pain clinics operating nationwide alongside new national menopause guidelines, we are transforming the way women's health is treated in this country. For women in my electorate of Aston, this means more affordable care, better support at every stage of life and a health system that takes their concerns seriously. Economy 43 13:44 Mr BIRRELL 288713 Nicholls The Treasurer is fond of saying that the economy is 'in better nick'. Really? Real wages are down, energy costs are up and inflationary pressure is driving interest rate increases. The size of government and government spending is expanding significantly, but are people's lives getting better? The standard of living is going backwards. We can arrest Australia's decline—and it is a decline, I'm very sad to say. But we can arrest it. We need to do a few things and understand a few principles. We need to back private enterprise. Get out of the way of people who want to start business, grow business, invest and employ people. Make this the central pillar of economic management. The people out there who want to do this are saying to me, 'The government should be there to help,' but, under Labor, the government hinders. Often the best way that government can help private enterprise is to get out of the way. They certainly shouldn't be increasing the costs of inputs that are critical to run those businesses. We need to fix the energy market with a technology-agnostic and sensible transition that reduces emissions in a way that doesn't force economic activity offshore. We need to approach migration policy as a lever to get the skills we need but make the numbers sustainable and in line with infrastructure and housing. I came into this place and held up an apple to illustrate how difficult it is to run businesses, including orchards, and things have not got better. They've got worse. Anyone who thinks that the economy is in better nick is delusional and should probably nick off. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 You're skating a thin line there. Bendigo Sports Star Awards 43 13:46 Ms CHESTERS 249710 Bendigo I rise to share with the House the news that the Bendigo Sports Star Awards have achieved another milestone. On Friday, it was their 60th anniversary. The Bendigo Sports Star Awards are the longest continuing regional sports awards of their kind and date back to March 1965. Locals share with me stories of how they used to gather around and watch the live broadcast of the event for many years. The first ever recipient was Eaglehawk cyclist Frank McCaig, a name which is synonymous with local cycling in my community. Each month, the panel selects a sports star, and those athletes are then considered for the main award, the Bendigo Sports Star of the Year, for which people gather on this night. The Bendigo Sports Star of the Year for 2025 was Dyson Daniels, a Bendigo local and a name that many of us in this place would know because of his achievements on the international scene. We know him in this place for his work in the NBA with the Atlanta Hawks and as an Olympian, but Dyson was first and foremost a basketballer locally. I can recall meeting him at the Local Sporting Champions event in my electorate. Dyson was a worthy winner and presented, by video, a message to local kids, including the local kids of his former primary school, Camp Hill Primary School. Economy 43 13:48 Mr VIOLI 300147 Casey We've seen Labor this week focus on cheap political stunts and scoring political points when they should be focused on the Australian people and the economic and national security challenges they face. As a coalition, we're focused on restoring Australians' standard of living and protecting their way of life, because Australians know and many in my community know that it is tough economically. I could spend hours sharing stories, but I just want to share one story about how tough it is for the community today. Pat from Coldstream wrote to me about how she had to cancel her car insurance to afford rent and then ended up moving, for reduced rental cost, to a house with no air conditioning—at a time when we've seen 35- to 40-degree days in Victoria. But what do we have? We have a treasurer and his mentor, the former treasurer Wayne Swan, telling us how great the economy is and that we've never had it better. We have a treasurer who has no answers to the economic challenges the Australian people face. For four years, he has failed to treat the symptoms of the challenges that we face. He has not treated the symptoms. He has not treated the causes. He has made the situation worse. We have been abandoned by this treasurer. Watch him in question time; he will go personal. He will attack the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Treasurer because he has no answers to the economic challenges that the Australian people face today. Labor Government: Women 44 13:49 Ms JARRETT 298574 Brisbane In honour of International Women's Day this Sunday, I say to all women across the country and in Brisbane: this government's delivering for you. Let's start with health—660,000 women have accessed more than two million cheaper scripts since our historic women's health package was announced. Contraceptives Yaz, Yasmin and Slinda, are now capped at $25, or $7.70 if you're on concession. There are now more affordable IUD and birth control implants, and we've opened new endo and pelvic pain clinics across the country. In the workplace, we've seen real gains in reducing the gender pay gap. We've delivered pay rises for women in early childhood education, aged care and other care sectors, we've expanded paid parental leave to six months and legislated superannuation on top of that to help close the gender retirement gap, and we have cheaper child care for over one million families and a three-day guarantee. Let's talk housing. We are helping more women buy a home with our five per cent deposit scheme, and we're investing in crisis accommodation for women and children fleeing domestic violence. Women make up 50 per cent of the population, and those opposite haven't put forward a single meaningful policy to improve the lives of women around Australia. Just when you thought they were in a position to be better, they dumped their first female leader. We have more work to do, but I'm proud to be part of a Labor government that's delivering for women. (Time expired) Macular Degeneration 44 13:51 Mr CONAGHAN 279991 Cowper Today I'm once again asking the Minister for Disability and the National Disability Insurance Scheme, Minister for Health and Ageing and Deputy Leader of the House not to force regional patients with macular degeneration to choose between going blind or going broke. And while I thank the minister for answering my calls last year on behalf of the hundreds of constituents in my electorate affected by the proposed policy change, I am disheartened to see that after a 12-month agreed deferral period, this devastating change is back on the table. From 1 July, patients receiving intravitreal injections will no longer be able to claim health fund benefits if the procedure is performed in private hospitals or day surgeries. Instead, they'll be forced into the overstretched regional hospitals or be made to pay the full cost at private ophthalmology clinics, a cost that is simply too high for too many. This is city-centric policymaking from Labor that completely ignores regional reality. For patients in electorates like mine, access to public ophthalmology services is extremely limited, with hospital waiting lists too long for a condition like this. Travelling hundreds of kilometres to metro hospitals every month is the only alternative, which is physically impossible for many. Please, Minister, listen. Don't take away a regional patient's sight with this short-sighted decision. Reverse it today. Economy: Women 44 13:52 Ms CAMPBELL 312823 Moreton We are the dominant force in controlling consumer spending. When we participate in the workforce, we drive productivity and competitiveness. And when our full potential is unlocked, the economic impact is unreal, in the tens and tens of billions of dollars. We are women, and, if the economy matters to you, then women matter to you. As we approach International Women's Day, it's worth reflecting on the achievements of the Albanese Labor government in this space—expanded paid parental leave, including superannuation; tax cuts that leave 90 per cent of women better off; and gender pay gap reporting, which was released yesterday and shows that gap closing. These are not nice-to-haves; they are key and core drivers of our nation's economic outcomes. Yesterday we were reminded of the shadow Treasurer's comments about women. The shadow Treasurer said: … It's not my choice that women have children; it's genetic. It is not just revealing about his attitude towards women; it is also revealing about and is an indictment on his fundamental economic credentials to be an alternative treasurer of this nation. Labor Government 45 13:54 Mr HASTIE 260805 Canning People are now poorer after four years of Labor. Life is harder, families are stressed and hard work doesn't seem to pay off any more. People don't feel like they can get ahead because the Aussie dream is dying under Labor. The truth is that our standard of living has dropped 10 per cent under this Labor government. Labor's home-grown inflation is dissolving the purchasing power of working Australians. Australians can buy less with every single dollar they earn. Fuel prices are up, electricity prices are up, gas prices are up, food prices are up, health premiums are up, mortgages are up and rents are up. And we know that real wages for working Australians are now 2.1 per cent lower than four years ago, and the Reserve Bank forecasts that it's going to get worse. I think that's crushing news for Australian families who are barely keeping their heads above water. Why is this happening? Why can't the average person who works hard get ahead, buy a home and build a better life? Here's the bottom line: after four years of Labor, the government is growing faster than the private sector, but it's small business and not bureaucrats who build wealth and create jobs. After four years of Labor, 1.9 million people have been added to our population, and that's pressure on housing and services, driving inflation. After four years of Labor we are less productive and less competitive as a nation, and that's why the Australian people are now poorer. Rail Infrastructure 45 13:55 Ms JORDAN-BAIRD 316021 Gorton I'm really proud to be a gunzel, and let me tell you what that means. It means I grew up with two parents in the railways, spending my weekends seeing level crossings with my dad and my two sisters, and it means I know the difference between standard and broad-gauge rail track. It also means I'm so proud to support our government's agenda to improve rail connectivity across the country for passengers and freight alike. Ed Sheeran said it best: … we found love right where we are. That's right here in Australia with our rail network that he took from Sydney to Melbourne last week during his Australian tour. But don't let me lose my train of thought. I am so excited that the Albanese Labor government is going full steam ahead, laying the foundations for high-speed rail in Australia. Rail is back on track, and this is a significant first step in the delivery of faster, more reliable rail transport which will reshape how Aussies live, work and travel. It's not the only thing our Labor government is doing for rail. Closer to home and just this week, construction has officially begun on stage 1 of the Melbourne Airport rail link project. Transforming Sunshine Station is a critical step in the new airport rail link project, and sorting out the signalling issues here means we can get on with electrifying the Melton line, meaning more services and more stations for my growing community in Melbourne's western suburbs, because that's where real change matters. Economy 45 13:57 Mr TIM WILSON IMW Goldstein The national accounts have now confirmed what Australians are living. They're going to the supermarket and having to put items back because real wages are going backwards while prices are rising. This treasurer has been out there avoiding responsibility, but his own data shows that public sector growth is twice that of the private sector. Australia has experienced the largest collapse in living standards among all developed countries. We weren't diagnosed with this problem on Sunday. The problem is the Treasurer keeps pouring debt petrol on the inflation fire, and he's been fuelling it for four years. You know, there's a Billy Joel song that sounds kind of relevant: 'The Treasurer did start the inflation fire. The inflation is burning while the Treasurer is squirming. The Treasurer did start inflation fire. Yes, he poured debt petrol on it, and he cashed organised crime to fuel it.' The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 Order! It's a face-off of lyrics. Mr TIM WILSON IMW We are focused on restoring our standard of living, and we are protecting our way of life while they are focused on assaulting our way of life and inflating our standard of living out. And I just want to say hello to Firbank's Sandy House. Domestic and Family Violence 45 13:58 Ms KARA COOK 316537 Bonner As a former domestic violence lawyer, I have represented women and children at the most terrifying moments of their lives. I have seen the courage it takes to leave, and I've seen firsthand that, when a woman finally reaches out for help, the response she receives can mean the difference between life and death. That is why I am so proud of today's announcement of $292 million to boost our frontline domestic and family violence workforce. This increases our election commitment where we have already delivered 500 frontline workers for every state and territory. This is not just a budget measure; it is a statement of values. This funding secures the future of workers who are the advocates securing safe housing, the counsellors helping children process trauma and the specialists guiding women through safety planning and the legal system. In my community of Bonner it means that organisations like the Red Rose Foundation, who are the only strangulation trauma centre in the country, can continue to save lives. This is what happens when you have a majority-women government, when women's safety is not an afterthought and when lived-experience survivors and frontline workers inform policy and decision-making. I am proud to be part of a government that is delivering safety for women and children. The SPEAKER 53517 In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 46 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Economy 46 14:00 Mr TAYLOR 231027 Hume My question is to the Prime Minister. Under Labor, Australia is the only advanced economy where living standards have gone backwards. The US, UK, Germany, Canada, France and Denmark have all seen rising living standards whilst ours have reversed. After four years of Australians going backwards, when will the Prime Minister finally accept the buck stops with him? 14:01 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler Dennis Shanahan picked it. He broadcast it this morning. He told us that the Liberals had decided that Wednesday was going to be 'economy day'. They've gone two days without asking a single question on the economy or cost of living. We've had the clown who's the shadow Treasurer singing at the dispatch box, which is a human rights issue for all those who had to listen to it. But the deputy leader was out there this morning—that is, the deputy leader in this House not in the other House, because in the other House the deputy leader isn't even on their tactics committee and not in the leadership group though she's the deputy leader of the Liberal Party. The member for Canning tried to resist the Shanahan push this morning. He said, 'Just because commentators like Dennis Shanahan don't like our question time strategy doesn't mean it's wrong.' Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! Members on my left and right! We are going to bring the House to order. There is far too much noise and interjection. This is question No. 1, so we're going to take the temperature down. The Manager of Opposition Business is now going to take his point of order. Show him the respect he deserves. Mr Tehan 210911 It goes to direct relevance. This is question time, not quotation time. The SPEAKER 53517 Resume your seat. The SPEAKER 53517 The Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives is not helping. The Prime Minister will return to the question. Mr ALBANESE R36 They always talk Australia down, which has faster economic growth than Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the UK or the United States. The UK and Germany have recently experienced recessions. Australia has a lower unemployment rate than Canada, France, Italy, the UK and the United States. We have stronger employment growth than Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan and the United States and higher participation rates than Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United States and the UK. And, unlike G7 nations, Australia's budget has been in surplus in recent years along with having the smallest gross debt. That's our record. I got asked a question about international comparisons to the economy. Mr Taylor 231027 Living standards! Living standards! The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The Leader of the Opposition has asked his question. Mr ALBANESE R36 When it comes to living standards, I'll tell those opposite what'll benefit living standards. It's the tax cut we're going to deliver on 1 July, the one that was opposed by those opposite. The other thing that might just help is the 1.2 million jobs that we have created on our watch since we came to office. It's the best employment record of any advanced economy in the world. That is what we are dealing with. We know there are global challenges behind the economy, but what we're doing is continuing to work each and every day in the interests of Australians. The SPEAKER 53517 Before we go any further, the member for Forrest and the Leader of the Nationals interjected seven and eight times respectively during that one answer. So I'm going to request their assistance to the House to not interject any more—otherwise, they won't be here for any more questions. Middle East 47 14:05 Mr NG 316052 Menzies My question is to the Prime Minister. How is the Albanese government working to support and advise Australian nationals impacted by the recent conflict in the Middle East? 14:05 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for Menzies for his question and for his representation of the interests of many of his constituents who have relatives who are impacted by the events that we're seeing in the Middle East. I can confirm right now there are over 200 Australians in the air on flight EK414 from Dubai making their way to Sydney. This is good news after the disruption that has occurred. I spoke last night with my friend His Highness Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed, the President of the United Arab Emirates. On that call, I conveyed Australia's support for and solidarity with the UAE and other regional partners amid the escalation in the Middle East conflict, countries that have not been a party to any attacks on Iran but who have been subjected to the random attacks that Iran is subjecting people right across the gulf to. I reiterated Australia's clear position that there is no justification for Iran's attacks on civilian areas in Abu Dhabi, Dubai and other areas of the UAE and of the gulf states. We have called for Iran to cease these indiscriminate attacks immediately. I had the opportunity to thank His Highness for the generous support that the UAE is providing to Australians who have had their plans disrupted due to the conflict, including providing accommodation and food. We understand this is a very distressing and challenging time for Australians who have been caught up in these events. Many of them would have been in transit through those routes that are so familiar to Australians and found themselves in a conflict zone. Their loved ones here in Australia continue to be disturbed by what they see on the TV every night. The safety of Australians in the region is our government's first priority, and we'll continue to do all that we can to provide Australians with information and support. I was able to discuss with His Highness the importance of the resumption of these commercial flights when it's safe to do so. There are around 115,000 Australians in the region. The resumption of commercial flights continues to be the best avenue to ensure the safest and quickest way for Australians to return. Australian passengers facing flight delays or other issues should check with both their insurer and the airline about their options for cancelled flights. Of course, DFAT is playing a role as well in keeping people informed. It has activated its crisis centre, which is providing consular support to Australians in the region. We're also deploying further resources to the region to assist. Our thoughts are with all those caught up in this conflict. We continue to engage. I've had personal conversations, as I'm sure many others in this chamber have, with people who are visiting the region and are concerned. We say: continue to listen to advice and stay safe. We want to see every Australian able to come home safely. 14:09 Mr TAYLOR 231027 Hume on indulgence—I associate the opposition with the remarks from the Prime Minister a moment ago. It is a frightening time for any Australians who are in the gulf or the Middle East. They are seeing this very real conflict in front of them. We agree with the position of the government that the Iranian attacks are unjustified. Our thoughts are with those Australians in the region and, of course, their families back here in Australia. This is a frightening and difficult time for them. We also stand ready and offer any assistance and support we can to the government to ensure that Australians can get back to safety as soon as possible. Economy 47 14:10 Mr TIM WILSON IMW Goldstein My question is to the Prime Minister. Under Labor, Australia is the only advanced economy where living standards have gone backwards. Real wages are now 2.1 per cent lower than four years ago, and the Reserve Bank forecasts they will continue to fall this year. After four years of Australians going backwards under Labor, when will the Prime Minister finally accept the buck stops with him? 14:10 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for his question on 'economy day' for those opposite, apparently. We congratulate him on getting a question on the economy today. I thank him for not singing the question! I thank him sincerely. He spoke about the economy, how Australia is going and how, according to those opposite, who continue to talk Australia down—they must have missed the recession that took place in countries. Just look across the ditch at New Zealand, for example, as well as the UK and other countries. They must have missed the fact that 1.2 million jobs have been created. The member who asked the question asks about standard of living and the impact on quality of life. Well, they've also missed the fact that paid parental leave will hit the full six months in a little while. The shadow Treasurer described it as a 'very bad scheme'. They must have missed the fact that the shadow Treasurer has advocated a flat tax. He said: We must stop fiddling at the margins. … we have to move towards a simpler 20 per cent flat personal, company and consumption tax … The SPEAKER 53517 The manager on another point of order. Mr Tehan 210911 It goes to direct relevance. Once again, the Prime Minister is quoting rather than answering. This was about falling real wages, and we'd ask you to come back to— The SPEAKER 53517 The difference is this was a very broad question that contained quite a lot of moving parts and a political question at the end. If you're going to ask a political question—and I appreciate that sometimes they're not; they're short answers. This one is in that category. The Prime Minister is going to go a bit broader, as all prime ministers have done in question time. Mr ALBANESE R36 I'm surprised that they suggest that this was a narrow question about wages, because those opposite wanted real wages to fall. That was actually their plan. They have also opposed all of the measures that we've taken to assist people. They opposed the fact that, since the election in July, we cut student debt by 20 per cent for more than three million Australians. That helped them to the tune of $5,500 dollars each. In August we protected penalty rates for weekend and overtime pay. That has something to do with wages. Those opposite opposed it. In September we increased all the social services payments for five million Australians. In October we expanded our five per cent deposit plan for every first home buyer, which has now benefited 225,000 Australians. In November we tripled the bulk-billing incentive for every Australian, boosting bulk billing. In December we opened six more urgent care clinics. In January we had 1800MEDICARE go live, and we reduced the cost of medicines from $30 down to $25. It was $42.50, was what we were left with. That helps people as well. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! There were too many interjections during that answer and the one before, and the member for Cook has been continually interjecting. He'll leave the chamber under 94(a). The member for Cook then left the chamber. The SPEAKER 53517 We simply can't have people non-stop interjecting all throughout the week. There are consequences for actions. The yelling, the interjections—it's too much. A government member interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order, members on my right! Now that the House has come to order, we shall hear from the honourable member for Adelaide. Fuel 48 14:15 Mr GEORGANAS DZY Adelaide My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. How has the Albanese Labor government acted to strengthen Australia's fuel security? Why has this been so critical after a decade of mismanagement? 14:15 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon The very concerning events in the Middle East have led Australians, quite rightly, to ask about fuel security and how we're placed and have led to many questions about Australia's position. I'm pleased to tell the House and to inform Australians that we enter this period of great international instability very well prepared. In 2023, the Albanese government instituted the minimum stockholding obligation on Australia's refining companies. There had been no obligation before 2023 for Australia's refineries to hold minimum stocks. I can tell the House that in Australia currently we hold 1½ billion litres of petrol and three billion litres of diesel in our minimum stock obligation, which is in effect a strategic reserve, and those stocks are held in the electorates of Corio and Bonner, which is where we think they should be held—here in Australia, not in Texas or Louisiana. We think the minimum stock obligation, the strategic reserve for our country, should be held in our country. That is the approach of the Albanese Labor government, which was a change of policy in 2023 over that which we inherited. In addition, I want to talk to Australia's truckies and to those who rely on Australian trucking and say we know how important AdBlue is for the importance of Australia's trucking industry. When we came to office, there was no stockpile of urea. I can tell the House that we now have a stockpile of five weeks worth of urea, 7½ thousand tonnes, which adds to the 12 weeks held by the private sector, which means we have substantial reserves when it comes to urea, which is necessary for trucking and for AdBlue, which is a very good thing indeed as well. In 2021, Australia's only producer of urea in Gibson Island announced its closure, and that meant we had no domestic sovereign capability. I'm also pleased to tell the House how much the government welcomes—they ask what we're doing about it—Perdaman's decision to develop a urea-manufacturing facility in the Burrup basin with the support of the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility. which is now under construction—sovereign capability in Australia for Australians. We've built a stockpile while we are waiting for that to happen. It's now being built under this government. That's what a future made in Australia looks like. That's what sovereign capability looks like. The Albanese government can't guarantee that there won't be international instability. We can't guarantee that there won't be impacts on prices and there won't be impacts across the energy supply chain. But we can guarantee that we enter this crisis better prepared than ever before, with the highest fuel stocks in 15 years, rebuilding sovereign capability on things like urea, and with a country that is prepared for the worst the world can throw at us. That's the Albanese government's approach. DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 49 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS Acknowledgement 49 14:18 The SPEAKER 53517 I'll now do some acknowledgements and welcome people to the parliament. I see in the gallery today the Hon. Annastacia Palaszczuk, former premier of Queensland; Nick Dametto, the Mayor of Townsville; members of Townsville Enterprise; Liz Schmidt, the Mayor of Charters Towers; and Pierina Dalle Cort, the Mayor of Burdekin. And it's nice to see Jenny Ware, the former member for Hughes, in the gallery today. Paul Sadler, the chair of Meals on Wheels Australia, is accompanied by Tennille Valensisi, the board director of Meals on Wheels, and Professor Len Notaras, Executive Director of the National Critical Care and Trauma Response Centre based in Darwin, as guests of the member for Solomon. Welcome to you all. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 49 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Public Sector Governance 49 14:19 Dr SCAMPS 299623 Mackellar My question is to the Prime Minister. The review of public sector board appointments found that the current appointments process is not fit for purpose and often looks like patronage and nepotism. The review found: … the public's confidence in the integrity of appointments is so low that the clarity and assurance of legislation is required to rebuild trust and embed integrity in board appointment processes. Can the government explain why they ignored this recommendation to legislate an independent appointment process, instead releasing a seven-dot-point non-binding framework? 14:19 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin Thanks to the honourable member for her question, which I'll answer in my responsibility for representing Minister Gallagher in this place. We take our responsibilities to appoint the best people we can very seriously. Certainly, the appointments that I've made in the Treasury portfolio are appointments that I'm very proud of. We have reformed the system of appointments to make them more about merit and the national interest. When we came to office, ministers had virtually unchecked power to reward people and fill boards with political favourites. By the end of the previous government, we saw some particularly shameless behaviour in terms of jobs for mates. This government did commission the Briggs review, as the honourable member knows, and in response we've instituted whole-of-government reform through the new framework that the honourable member refers to. Our framework actually goes further than the Briggs review itself recommended. We're extending it beyond government boards to cover departmental secretaries, agency heads and statutory office holders across the Commonwealth. The seven principles of the framework establish that all appointments must be made on merit in the public interest, with ministers fully accountable for each decision that they make. Under the framework, appointments must reflect Australia's diversity, uphold integrity and high standards, and be made through flexible, proportionate processes that are informed by rigorous skills and capability assessments. That's all underpinned by mandatory transparency and reporting requirements, and that transparency is how we make sure ministers and the government are accountable to the Australian people for the quality of the appointments that we make. We put in place a new system of appointments that will get the best people into the right roles so that government bodies can deliver for Australians. That means real accountability to cabinet, to parliament and to the Australian people—as it should be. We welcome the honourable member's scrutiny on government appointments, but we think that the best model is to have ministers responsible and accountable, in this way, to the Australian people for the appointments that we make. Fuel 49 14:22 Mr MONCRIEFF 316540 Hughes My question is to the Treasurer. What steps has the Albanese Labor government taken to prevent price gouging by fuel suppliers following the events in the Middle East, and is the Treasurer aware of any alternative approaches? 14:22 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin ():  I acknowledge the immense contribution the member for Hughes is already making in this place. I also acknowledge his predecessor in the public gallery, as I'm sure he would like me to do. We've got some good news in the economy today. Our economy grew 0.8 per cent in the quarter and 2.6 per cent through the year. This means that growth in our economy is now stronger and broader, and it's very welcome. This is faster growth than every major advanced economy. It means per capita growth is now the strongest in more than three years. It's the strongest GDP growth in almost three years. But it's the composition of that growth which is especially encouraging because there's more growth in business investment, there's more growth in dwelling investment and there's growth in market sector productivity and also in consumption—even though consumption came in a bit weaker than we expected. These are encouraging numbers which provide a really robust foundation to confront the intense global economic volatility which has been dialled up by escalation of the conflict in Iran and the Middle East more broadly. We have very serious challenges in our economy, but these numbers show that we have very substantial advantages as well. We are very well placed to deal with what's coming at us from around the world. What these numbers show is that 2025 is all about the big recovery in the private sector in particular. Private demand grew faster and contributed over three times more to economic growth than public demand, in annual terms. Within a year, annual private demand growth more than tripled but annual public demand growth more than halved compared with 2024. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! Members on my left, until the House is silent I'm not going to call anyone. You're interjecting on the government. You're also interjecting on your own people. Honestly! The Treasurer was asked a question. He's giving information to the House. I fail to see how this could possibly be a point of order on relevance, but the manager is getting a fairly good go this week. He's new in the role. I'm fair with everyone. I call the Manager of Opposition Business. Mr Tehan 210911 It goes to direct relevance. The question was on price gouging. You've got the wrong one. You're doing national accounts. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Resume your seat. As I said, I have been generous with the manager. But, after that point of order, that tap's now been turned off. You can't get up and make smart alec remarks every time you take a point of order. I have a long list of times when Speakers have not taken points of order, including of managers. So I have the ability not to take points of order. Do not put me in that position. The Treasurer will continue. Dr CHALMERS 37998 The reason that I have spoken about the global conditions and the domestic political economic conditions is that I acknowledge, as everyone should, that the challenges in our economy are dialled up by what we're seeing happening overseas. A lot of these challenges existed before—our inflation challenge, our productivity challenge and global economic uncertainty. But developments in Iran and the Middle East more broadly are having an impact. That's why we've been monitoring developments very closely in the Middle East. It's why I wrote to the ACCC to make sure that service stations are not engaging in price gouging, that they're not taking Australian motorists and Australian consumers for mugs. Not everyone supports our efforts to prevent price gouging. The new shadow Treasurer this morning was criticising our efforts to make sure that motorists aren't taken for mugs. At the same time, he was once again horrendously wrong. It's his second big gaffe in the space of two weeks. He said that the petrol excise is attached to the price of petrol and not to volume—wrong once again. We're taking steps. The economy is in good shape. We know there's more work to do. Economy 50 14:27 Mr HOGAN 218019 Page My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, under Labor, Australia is the only advanced economy where living standards have gone backwards. Today's national accounts show the government's share of the economy growing twice as fast as the private sector, which economists and business leaders say is fuelling inflation. After four years of Australians going backwards under Labor, when will the Prime Minister finally accept the buck stops with him? 14:27 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin I thank the honourable member for his question. He asks me about living standards and public spending in the economy. There are two very important developments in today's national accounts that I want to bring his attention to and I want to bring the House's attention to. Given it's Wednesday and that appears to be 'economy day' and they're asking us about the economy at last, you would think that, having taken a three-day run-up to ask a question about the economy, they would have some understanding of what's happening with living standards. I refer those opposite— Opposition members interjecting— Dr CHALMERS 37998 listen up!—to the living standards measure in today's national accounts. Today's national accounts show that the living standards measure—real disposable incomes per capita—rose 0.6 per cent in the quarter. This means that living standards have gone up two per cent through the year. Remember, in the quarter we came to office, living standards were falling 1.5 per cent. This quarter, they've gone up 0.6 per cent, and they've gone up two per cent through the year. They asked the Prime Minister before for some international comparisons on living standards. I want to make this clear. Growth in annual per capita incomes is more than twice the average of major advanced economies, according to the OECD. I'm also asked about public spending and private spending. If those opposite knew anything about the economy, they would know that private demand grew faster and contributed over three times more to economic growth than public demand in annual terms. Within a year, annual private demand growth more than tripled, but annual public demand growth more than halved compared with 2024. The thing that is especially relevant to their criticisms of public spending is, if you look at the public demand growth in the quarter that was released today, a key driver of that spending growth is defence spending, which they've called for more of. The key driver of public demand that they're criticising, they've called for more of, and that just absolutely torpedoes their economic credibility that began with the member for Hume and continues today with the member for Goldstein. Living standards went up in today's data. They really should know that. National Security 51 14:30 Ms STANLEY 265990 Werriwa My question is to the Attorney-General. Following the antisemitic attacks directed by the Iranian regime in Australia in 2024, what steps have been taken by the government to keep Australians safe? 14:30 Ms ROWLAND 159771 Greenway I thank the member for her question. Australia stands with the brave people of Iran in their struggle against oppression. For decades, the Iranian regime has been a destabilising force, including through its brutal acts of political violence and intimidation, and its use of proxies and cut-outs to engage in acts of terror in foreign countries. I remind the House that the Iranian regime directed at least two antisemitic attacks on Australian soil in 2024. These attacks were intended to drive fear into the Australian Jewish community, to undermine our security and to tear at our social cohesion. These were attacks on all Australians, and the government responded decisively. Following advice from the relevant agencies, the Albanese government moved quickly to introduce and pass the Criminal Code Amendment (State Sponsors of Terrorism) Bill 2025 to enable the listing of a foreign state entity as a state sponsor of terrorism for the very first time. The listing of a foreign state entity enlivens a range of criminal offences, including for providing funding to, recruiting to or being a member of a listed entity. They provide both a strong deterrent and appropriate punishment for supporting an appalling organisation. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps was listed by this government on 28 November 2025, and as a result criminal offences are now in effect. I want to be clear: if evidence surfaces that any person engages in conduct that breaches the Criminal Code, they should expect the full force of the law. This government has full confidence in our national security and law enforcement agencies. They are the best in the world, and this government will always take advice from our agencies on how to strengthen our laws and how to implement our laws in the best ways possible. We will always work cooperatively to ensure that appropriate penalties are available for individuals or entities who would seek to sow division or do Australians harm. Economy 51 14:33 Mr TIM WILSON IMW Goldstein My question is to the Prime Minister. Under Labor, Australia is the only advanced economy where living standards have gone backwards. Australia's inflation rate is higher than South Africa. the United Kingdom, the United States, India, the Netherlands, France, Canada, South Korea, Germany, Italy, Japan, Singapore and Spain. After four years of Australians going backwards under Labor, will the Prime Minister finally accept the buck stops with him and that Labor's policies are fuelling inflation? 14:34 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin The living standards measure in today's national accounts went up. They also went up through the year. We know from the OECD that growth in annual per capita incomes in Australia is more than twice the average of the major advanced economies. When we came to office, living standards were falling sharply. We've been able to recover some of that lost ground, including by eight of the last nine quarters having seen real wages growth. Real wages fell five consecutive quarters in the lead-up to the 2022 election. If those opposite really cared about living standards, they wouldn't have appointed a guy as shadow Treasurer who wants to privatise Medicare or end work from home, or dismantle superannuation, or end the dual mandate so that there are higher interest rates and higher unemployment— The SPEAKER 53517 The Manager of Opposition Business, on a point of order? Mr Tehan 210911 Speaker, can I ask the Treasurer to use correct titles, please. It's not too hard. The SPEAKER 53517 The Treasurer referred to the shadow Treasurer as the shadow Treasurer. Ms Bell 282981 He said, 'This guy.' The SPEAKER 53517 We're going to draw a line in this. This is getting ridiculous. We had the argument where people were being called their electorate names. It works both ways, because that term was used by the shadow Treasurer. So we're going to ensure correct titles are being used, but have some commonsense about this, everyone, please. Dr CHALMERS 37998 Living standards measure up in today's national accounts, and one of the appropriate measures has Australia per capita income growth at more than twice the average of the major advanced economies, according to the OECD. That's the first point. The second point goes to international comparisons. What today's national accounts show is that our economy is growing stronger than every major advanced economy. Every major advanced economy has weaker economic growth than Australia does, and I know that makes the shadow Treasurer unhappy. I know that he would prefer if we had weak growth in this country. But Australia has strong, broad private sector led growth, and most objective observers would consider that a good thing, even if those opposite do not. If he wants to make the international comparisons, make all of them. Stronger growth than the major advanced economies, lower debt than the major advanced economies, stronger job growth than the major advanced economies, lower unemployment than most of them as well—these are the international comparisons which the shadow Treasurer refuses to talk about. There's got to be a reason why the shadow Treasurer is always talking the Australian economy down. There has to be a reason for that. For those who are trying to understand why he's always talking the economy down, I refer the shadow Treasurer and the House to a story in the Guardian—and, I think, also a story in the Australian Financial Review. What this story says is that the shadow Treasurer has shares which make more money for him when the Australian market underperforms. He has invested in shares which ensure the worse the Australian market and economy performs the more money he makes out of it. Those are the facts. Opposition members interjecting— Dr CHALMERS 37998 That's why you're talking the place down. Mr Tim Wilson IMW Get over it. Grow up. The SPEAKER 53517 Order! It is completely and utterly unacceptable to just rise in your place and start yelling at someone. The member for Goldstein can use the forms of the House if he claims to be misrepresented—in an orderly way. This continual sniping and yelling is completely undignified for this House of Representatives. It is getting out of hand. Everyone is going to follow the standing orders and show a little more respect. Dr CHALMERS 37998 The story says: The Liberal MP's updated register of interests shows he is invested in a leveraged product that makes money when Australia's benchmark ASX 200 falls. He should stop talking the Australian economy down. If he's going to make international comparisons, make all of them. Women's Economic Security 52 14:39 Ms COMER 316551 Petrie My question is to the Minister for Housing, Minister for Homelessness and Minister for Cities. How is the Albanese Labor government supporting women that are facing homelessness and providing access to safe and secure housing? What risks are there to accessing homes? 14:39 Ms O'NEIL 140590 Hotham I thank the member for Petrie for her question. We had an absolutely incredible visit to her community last week, where we sat down with three Australian women whose lives have been changed forever by our government's investments in giving them safe and affordable housing. It was an extraordinary conversation, Speaker, and I can promise you that there will be many more such women to come. We've got a housing challenge affecting our country that falls unfairly on Australian women. Australian women are less likely to own their own home. They are much more likely to be in need of crisis and social housing, and we are striving to meet that need. Our government is delivering a record $1.2 billion of investment in crisis housing. Most of this housing is going to be utilised by women and children who are fleeing family violence. That $1.2 billion is 20 times the amount that those opposite spent in their entire nine years when they were sitting on the treasury benches. We've invested in a 50 per cent increase in Commonwealth rent assistance. That's supporting 350,000 Australian households that are headed by older women. We're building 55,000 social and affordable homes and expanding pathways to homeownership. Last week I received an incredible email from a single mum from Brisbane who had just received the keys to her first home that was bought through our Help to Buy program. She said: 'It's hard to put into words what that moment meant to me and my little family. As a single mum who started out four years ago, this represents stability, security and the chance to build a future from a place that is truly ours.' Our Labor government is so proud to have supported this family into their own home. I'm asked about risk for women in housing, and the truth is that I am looking straight at them. If the chaotic coalition had won the last election, not only would they have scrapped most of our home-building programs but they would have scrapped our homeownership programs too. If they had their way, that single mum who we have helped into her own home would still be renting. The absolute truth of the matter is that those opposite have absolutely no idea of the experiences of what is going on for Australian women. They'd have no idea about what's going on for Australian women because just look at what sits on the frontbench over here—15 people who are leading this party in the lower house, and two of them are Australian women. This is like a blast from the past. It looks less like a shadow cabinet and more like a historical re-enactment. In modern-day Australia, this is a national embarrassment, and I invite you to look behind me, where a diverse, unified group of people is standing up, representing our country properly and delivering for Australian women. Migration 53 14:42 Ms BELL 282981 Moncrieff My question is to the Prime Minister. Under Labor, Australia is the only advanced economy where living standards have gone backwards. Today's national accounts show that Australia's population has increased by 1.9 million since Labor came to office, putting pressure on housing, on services and inflation. After four years of Australians going backwards under Labor, when will the Prime Minister finally accept the buck stops with him and that migration is out of control? 14:43 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for her question. Living standards today went up. There are figures today. The national accounts figures today have gone up. Today the figures show the fastest economic growth of any major advanced economy. And what we're really seeing here, is the projection that, clearly, yesterday—they briefed the Australian that they were going to talk about the economy today. Clearly, they wrote the questions yesterday, before they saw the facts of the accounts. Now, Australia has—I remind the House; I'm asked about international comparisons—faster economic growth than Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the UK and the US. That is the entire G7—faster economic growth. The UK and Germany recently experienced recessions, along with whole lots of the advanced economic world, including our neighbours in New Zealand. We have a lower unemployment rate than Canada, France, Italy, the UK and the United States. They think that that, somehow, doesn't matter. We on this side think it does matter when people have jobs. That's why we're proud that 1.2 million jobs have been created on our watch—stronger employment growth than Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan and the United States, and, at the same time, a higher participation rate than Canada, France— Mr Hastie 260805 Point of order on relevance and today's national accounts. The question goes to immigration, population growth— The SPEAKER 53517 Resume your seat. The Prime Minister is being directly relevant. He's talking about the national accounts. Yes, he was asked one specific thing about that, but he's obviously being directly relevant if he's talking about the figures that he was asked about by the member for Moncrieff. The political question at the end, as I indicated to the House before, completely opens this question up, which is different from the questions yesterday. But this one is broader in its context—I get it—so the Prime Minister is going to be broader in his answer. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The Prime Minister can continue and is going to be heard in silence. This is beyond a joke, the way that childish, snide remarks are being added in. It's not dignified. I don't know how else to explain it. I can only imagine what the gallery thinks. The Prime Minister has the call. Mr ALBANESE R36 He hadn't been on the TV for five or 10 minutes; they have to parade up! The SPEAKER 53517 The Prime Minister will return to the question. Mr ALBANESE R36 When there are 20 seconds to go, he'll get up; that's what happens. That's the game that is going on here. They're not interested in the economy. They're not interested in jobs. They're not interested in growth. They're not interested in living standards. All they're interested in is parading themselves over who is next to jump into various positions. Medicare 54 14:47 Ms BRISKEY 263427 Maribyrnong My question is to the Minister for Health and Ageing. How is the Albanese Labor government making it easier for Australians to see a bulk-billing GP after a decade of cuts and neglect, how do Australians find information about seeing a GP for free and what information has been provided about alternative policies? 14:47 Mr BUTLER HWK Hindmarsh I thank the member for Maribyrnong. As a qualified psychologist, she understands better than most the importance of stronger Medicare. Together we've been able to visit bulk-billing practices in her electorate at Gladstone Park and Moonee Ponds. She knows that in Victoria, I'm happy to report, the bulk-billing rate for pensioners and concession card holders is now 93½ per cent. For those Victorians who don't have a concession card, their bulk-billing rate has climbed by more than nine per cent in the last three months alone. Australians can now visit the website health.gov.au/bulk-billing to find a fully-bulk-billing practice near them. They just have to plug in their suburb or their postcode, and a local list will appear from among the 3,500 general practices that are now 100 per cent bulk-billing. That list is growing every single week. I regret to say to the member and to the House that finding out about alternative health policies is a little harder, especially from the new Leader of the Opposition. The Prime Minister helpfully tabled the Liberal Party election review yesterday, and I can confirm that there is not a single mention of the word 'health' or 'Medicare' in that entire review—so there's not a clue there. Instead, I googled 'Angus Taylor health plan' and was directed to the Leader of the Opposition's website. I then discovered that all the historic material has mysteriously been wiped from that website. The most common result you get from the Leader of the Opposition's website now is 'page not found'. But I didn't give up. I was directed to a machine called the Wayback Machine, which I thought was the Liberal Party policy unit but in fact is a tool that, very usefully, has preserved all of the Leader of the Opposition's greatest hits: his support for the GP tax from Peter Dutton, cheering Sussan Ley's Medicare freeze, arguing that a higher GST is 'good policy'—not sure whether that's still his view—and so much more. But I can also report to the House that that's not the only online tool that's preserved these greatest hits. The member for Mitchell's social media account—always willing to lend a hand—is also keeping the historical record alive. So, if you can't find your way to the Wayback Machine, just log onto 'Alex Hawke MP'. He's more than happy to make sure that everyone remembers what the Leader of the Opposition really thinks, even if he's trying to rewrite history. DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 54 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS Acknowledgement 54 14:50 The SPEAKER 53517 I have a couple of further acknowledgements—Councillor Sophie Tan, the mayor of the City of Greater Dandenong; Councillor Paige Kennett; Councillor Stefan Koomen; Councillor Brett Owen; and the Lord Mayor of the City of Melbourne, Councillor Nick Reece. Welcome to question time. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 54 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Grocery Prices 54 14:50 Ms SHARKIE 265980 Mayo My question is to the Prime Minister. In Coles, pink lady apples are $8.90 a kilo. It's no surprise that Woolworths advertise the same apples for the same price. Australian families are struggling to afford basic groceries. One in three kids regularly have no school lunch due in part to supermarket duopoly price fixing and price gouging. Will the government urgently consider bringing forward the timeline for supermarkets to comply with the ban on excessive pricing of groceries that's not due to come into effect until 1 July? 14:51 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin Thanks to the honourable member for her question. As we've acknowledged in other answers, we know that Australians are under financial pressure and a lot of that pressure does come at the checkout, and that's what's motivated a lot of our efforts when it comes to our competition policy suite. I acknowledge Assistant Minister Leigh and Minister Mulino for the work that we do together to try and make sure that our supermarket sector is as competitive as it can be, and also that we have the price transparency that we need and that we're cracking down on price gouging wherever it pops up. I acknowledge the honourable member's interest in all of that work. I know that her question is about bringing forward the start date of some of those really important measures. The reality is that we go as quickly as we can, but we're also consulting where we need to and making sure that we get it right. But, at every turn, what we're trying to do is to strengthen the arrangements as soon as we can because we know that supermarket transparency and supermarket competition are potentially a big part of this challenge, and that's why they're a big focus of the government. Tertiary Education and Training 55 14:52 Mr LIM 300130 Tangney My question is to the Minister for Education. What is the Albanese Labor government doing to make university more accessible and more affordable? What are the risks? 14:53 Mr CLARE HWL Blaxland I thank my friend the multi-talented member for Tangney for his question. More Aussies will start a university degree this year than ever before, and this year more Australians will also do a free university bridging course than ever before. These are these courses that get you ready to do a uni degree. I know my old mate the member for Herbert loves a story. Well, here's one for him. This is the story of Jennifer Baker. She became a mum at the age of 19. For much of the next 10 years she worked in hospitality, and then one day she saw an ad for one of these free bridging courses. Now she's got a science degree and an honours degree in chemistry and a PhD in medicinal chemistry and a Fulbright scholarship! Now she designs new drugs to stop cancers from growing. That's what these courses do, and that's what they can lead to. What this tells us is that talent is everywhere. It's opportunity that's not, and it's education that can change that. I'm asked about affordability for university. As you know, we've cut student debt by 20 per cent, and I'm very glad to see that it got more than a few mentions in that secret Liberal Party evaluation of the election. It also, I'm glad to see, got a few references in the Young Liberals submission to that review, including this on the cost of tertiary education from Berowra Young Liberals: 'I'm not surprised young people did not vote for us, as, frankly, there was nothing on offer.' Not much has changed! I'm very happy to table the submission from the Young Liberals. We've cut student debt by 20 per cent. Now we want to take the next step to help to make getting a university degree quicker and cheaper. I've spoken in this place before about what some universities are doing, where they'll take a year off your degree if you've got a TAFE qualification in the same area. Effectively, if you've done a fee-free TAFE course, it'll mean the first year of uni is free. I want to see more of that, and that's why I've asked the Australian Tertiary Education Commission to develop a national credit recognition framework this year. As part of that, they'll be able to allocate more funded places to universities that are prepared to do this—to cut the length of a degree if you already have a TAFE qualification in the same area—to make going to university quicker and cheaper. These are the sorts of commonsense things that we need to do to make it easier to get the skills that you need and that Australia needs. Albanese Government: Economy 55 14:56 Mr TAYLOR 231027 Hume My    question is to the Prime Minister. On Labor's watch Australians have endured the longest household recession on record. Prices are up sharply. Real wages are down. Australians are working harder for less. Government is getting bigger, but lives aren't getting better. The only things increasing are inflation, interest rates and population, by 1.9 million. After four years of Australians going backward under Labor, when will the Prime Minister finally accept the buck stops with him? 14:56 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler Another tight question from the opposition there! He invites me to be able to say—I'm asked what is growing—today's figures show the Australian economy is growing strongly. It's stronger than any other advanced economy; it's as simple as that. The other thing that's been growing is our jobs—1.2 million of them. The last figures showed that there were an additional 50,000 full-time jobs created on our watch. We think that is good. What else is growing? The number of people who have benefited from free TAFE—725,000 and counting. What else is growing? The number of people who are benefiting from the five per cent deposit to get their first home—225,000 and counting. What else is growing? The number of Australians who are benefiting from cheaper batteries—250,000 and counting. That is all growing. I'll tell you the other thing, which is decreasing, and that's the gender pay gap. Yesterday's figures show a record-low gender pay gap. It's the lowest it has ever been—something that we are very proud of. They come in here with Monday's pack that they forgot to ask, ignoring today's figures on the national accounts that are out today, completely ignoring the growth that is there. They come in here and continue to just talk Australia down. Opposition members interjecting— Mr ALBANESE R36 And they interject louder the more desperate they get, the more they lack an agenda. Yesterday I helped them out so their backbench and their frontbench, including the shadow Treasurer, could read their election review. I suggest they go back and read it because they've learned absolutely nothing. Employment 55 14:59 Ms AMBIHAIPAHAR 315618 Barton My question is to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. How is the Albanese Labor government delivering for Australian workers, and what are the risks? 15:00 Ms RISHWORTH HWA Kingston I'd like to thank the member for Barton for her question and her commitment to working Australians right across this country. Of course, the Albanese Labor government is focused on creating more jobs and getting wages moving for working people. Our government has achieved the lowest average unemployment rate of any government in 50 years, and more than 1.2 million jobs have been created since our government was elected. At the same time as we are creating jobs, we're making sure that these jobs are well paid and secure. To support our lowest paid workers, our Labor government has made a submission to the Fair Work Commission each and every year since we've been in government advocating for a wage increase. Of course, under this Labor government, minimum wage earners are on average $9,000 a year better off. We sought to reinvigorate enterprise bargaining, which is now delivering results. Workers covered by enterprise agreements are enjoying the strongest wages growth in the nation, rising by 9.6 per cent on average over just the last two years. I'm also asked about the biggest risk to Australian workers. Well, it's no surprise that the biggest risk to Australian workers is right over on the other side. The new Liberal leadership team features the shadow Treasurer, who made clear his deep disregard for jobs for Australians when he argued for the removal of the RBA's dual mandate. The new Leader of the Opposition has a long history of opposing every single one of our measures to create secure jobs and better pay for working Australians. He has regularly championed individual agreements that we know make the gender pay gap worse compared to enterprise agreements. Of course, he handpicked Senator Hume, the new shadow minister for employment, who should otherwise be known as the shadow minister for unemployment because the first thing she was going to do was sack 41,000 people in this country. Senator Hume has also railed against wage increases for workers, claiming to Sky News in 2024 that a wage increase for minimum award wage earners would be, 'the worst thing for Australians'. They may have changed their leadership team, but they haven't changed their spots. These Liberals are never good for working Australians. Artificial Intelligence 56 15:03 Ms SPENDER 286042 Wentworth My question is to the Treasurer. AI is already having a significant impact on the country and is rapidly evolving. My community is concerned that the government does have enough urgency in addressing AI, particularly because it took three years to develop an AI strategy. How are you thinking about the impact of AI on the economy, and how will the budget urgently address both capturing the upside opportunities and managing the downside risks? 15:03 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin Thank you to the member for Wentworth for her question and also for participating in the government's reform roundtable towards the end of last year where artificial intelligence was a big focus of the discussions because we know how important that is to the future of our economy. Of course, I would contest the inference in her question to how long it's taken the government to get our thinking together on this. We've been working on some of these really important questions and making, I think, some substantial progress. The honourable member knows, as every member on this side of the House knows, that AI is a transformational technology, and we want to make sure that Australians are the biggest beneficiaries of this change rather than victims of this change. We brought forward the release of Australia's National AI Plan in response to the urgency of some of the most contentious and most important policy issues. Here I want to acknowledge the really important work in our team by the member for Parramatta, who brings an extraordinary amount of intellectual horsepower to these questions, and also Minister Tim Ayres, the minister for industry in the other place. The member for Parramatta works very closely with Minister Ayres on these key questions. Together they released our AI plan on 2 December last year. It is a comprehensive road map to build an AI enabled economy that harnesses the full potential of artificial intelligence for the benefit of all Australians. The National AI Plan, which our colleagues released on behalf of the government, really has three goals. The first is to capture the opportunities of AI, including attracting more investment. The second is to spread the benefits of AI, whether it's in public services, building skills or public organisations. And the third is to keep Australians safe. The important work that we need to do together to make sure that the— The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Wentworth on a point of order? Ms Spender 286042 My question specifically went to the budget in relation to AI. The SPEAKER 53517 Yes, but your question talked about community concerns. You said it took years to develop a strategy, you asked what the government's approach is to AI and then you spoke about developing a response regarding the budget. The Treasurer is being directly relevant to the question he was asked in terms of what the government is doing. I appreciate there was an end part to the question, but, under the standing orders, the Treasurer is entitled to answer the question and he is being directly relevant. Dr CHALMERS 37998 This plan is about capturing these economic opportunities. When it comes to the budget, we've got three pieces of investment already rolling out: $29.9 million for the AI Safety Institute, $1 billion through the National Reconstruction Fund and $166 million for government AI. Here I acknowledge the work of Minister Gallagher, working with the other colleagues. When it comes to the upcoming budget, we've made it really clear that a big focus of the upcoming budget, in addition to inflation and in addition to global uncertainty, will be this productivity challenge that the honourable member knows has been hanging around in our economy for some decades. AI can be part of the solution to our productivity challenge if we manage it right and maximise the opportunities along the lines of the AI plan. AI and productivity more broadly are a really important part of the deliberations and discussions that we've been having on this side of the House as we lead up to the government's fifth budget in May. Domestic, Family and Sexual Violence 57 15:07 Ms COKER 263547 Corangamite My question is to the Minister for Social Services. How is the Albanese Labor government working to reduce family, domestic and sexual violence and supporting workers on the front line? 15:07 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney I thank the member for Corangamite for her very important question. I know that she is absolutely committed, as all of us are, to making sure we end family, domestic and sexual violence in this country. Frontline workers are literally saving lives every single day across this country. They're helping with safety planning. They're counselling children who've been impacted by family and domestic violence. They're helping women plan to leave safely. They're helping them access finances and some of the thousands of new homes that the Minister for Housing was talking about earlier. They're helping perpetrators of violence change their behaviour. They are doing literally life-saving work every single day. I'm so proud of our policy to deliver 500 extra frontline workers right across Australia. Today I was delighted to visit the YWCA here in Canberra and meet with YWCA staff and Canberra Rape Crisis Centre staff. Both of those organisations have benefited from these extra frontline workers that we are funding. I was delighted to announce today an extra $291.7 million to expand this program by 70 per cent. We'll continue funding to 2030 and make more of these workers available right around Australia every day. This means that, since coming to government, we have invested almost half a billion dollars in this one program alone. This is one program that's part of our over $4 billion investment in family, domestic and sexual violence since coming to government. It's about frontline services. It's about prevention. It's about perpetrator behaviour change. It's about programs for children. It's about making the leaving violence payment permanent, as just one example, so victims have the financial support to leave safely. We've passed legislation to make sure our social security system can't be weaponised against victims of violence. We've launched 'Our Ways—Strong Ways—Our Voices', the nation's first standalone First Nations plan to end family, domestic and sexual violence, with $218 million more funding. We've funded programs that intervene earlier with men who want to change their behaviour and stop using violence. We've invested more than $1.2 billion, as the housing minister said, in emergency and transitional housing. We've invested $3.9 billion in legal services, including $800 million specifically for family violence services. We've implemented 10 days paid domestic violence leave, we've reformed the family law system to make it safer, we've worked with states and territories to improve justice responses to sexual violence and we've provided a 40 per cent funding boost for 1800RESPECT. That's just a fraction of what we're doing, because no Australian should live in fear and no Australian should live with violence. We are committed to making sure that happens. Economy 57 15:10 Ms LANDRY 249764 Capricornia My question is to the Prime Minister. Under Labor, Australia is the only advanced economy where living standards have gone backwards. Today's national accounts show productivity, Australia's economic potential, has flatlined this quarter and collapsed by 4.7 per cent since Labor came to office. After four years of Australians going backwards under Labor, when will the Prime Minister finally accept the buck stops with him? 15:11 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler Thank you for the question. The truth is that the current account figures today show that the Australian economy is growing at the fastest rate it has in three years, and it's growing faster than any economy—any advanced economy—in the world. That's what the facts show. They also show that per capita living standards are positive and are growing. That's what the figures show today. They also show an improvement in productivity across the year. The figures today— Dr Chalmers 37998 It's up one per cent in a year. The SPEAKER 53517 Order! Members on my left. The Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting, and the Treasurer will cease interjecting. Dr Chalmers 37998 They've got no idea. The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The Treasurer is now warned. Honestly! I want to hear what the Prime Minister has to say. He's giving information to the House. He's been asked a question. The member for Capricornia deserves an answer as well. So the Prime Minister is going to be heard in silence. Mr ALBANESE R36 It's because we have put in place the measures that we took to the Australian people last May, and we've been ticking them off one by one as we implement them to make a difference to people's cost-of-living issues. We know that people have been under pressure. That is why we have put these measures in place. But all those measures were opposed by those opposite. Just two days before the election, of course, the two economic shadow ministers put forward their costings. Their costings would have cut the three-day guarantee, removing affordable child care for 100,000 families; cut 41,000 frontline workers; cut student debt relief; cut free TAFE; cut the Commonwealth prac payment; cut cheaper home batteries; cut five per cent deposits for first home buyers; cut Help to Buy; cut Build to Rent; cut the National Reconstruction Fund— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The Manager of Opposition Business. Mr ALBANESE R36 He hasn't been on TV for a minute. The SPEAKER 53517 Order! We're going to hear this point of order. The manager will state the point of order. Mr Tehan 210911 Direct relevance. The question was about today's national accounts and productivity. Mr Burke DYW Mr Speaker, in every point of order that the Manager of Opposition Business has taken today, he has referred to a tiny part of a much longer question in every single instance. The tag that has been used on almost every question opens the relevance rule right up. Now, the Manager of Opposition Business knows this. He's been around long enough to know that every one of the points of order is not valid, and it's simply being used as a way to disrupt the House. The SPEAKER 53517 The Leader of the House is correct. I'm almost at the end of my tolerance of accepting points of order. If you're going to have a broad political question—I made this point earlier today. Questions earlier in the week have been tighter and specific, and we've been dealing with those. But these broad questions about when the buck stops with someone—come on, there are going to be really broad answers with that, and you're just having a go if you try and disrupt this now. So, if you want tight answers and you want to take points of order, that's fine. But don't ask very broad questions, because you're going to get a really broad answer. I'll keep saying it, and hopefully it'll get through. Mr ALBANESE R36 What I'm comparing is the growth that we've seen in today's national accounts with what would have happened had we not been elected. So, yes, I accept responsibility, to go directly to the question of what we have put in place. But, two days beforehand, the then shadow Treasurer and shadow finance minister's plan—it was hidden, of course, a bit like they tried to hide their election review. If most Australians had known that all these cuts were there, including cutting production tax credits for the resources sector and cutting the Housing Australia Future Fund—we all know they wanted to cut the income tax cuts that we put in place. But what is absolutely extraordinary is that the then shadow economic ministers, the now Leader and Deputy Leader of the Opposition, managed to do all that—and here's the kicker—with bigger deficits over two years, and more debt. Murray-Darling Basin 58 15:16 Ms MILLER-FROST 296272 Boothby My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Water. How is the Albanese Labor government tracking on delivery of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, and how does this compare to other approaches? 15:16 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I thank the member for Boothby and acknowledge the strong commitment the member for Boothby has to the health of the River Murray. I acknowledge the commitment of everyone on this side of the House, and a little bit over as well, to the health of the full Murray-Darling Basin, a system that had been overallocated to death. This government, the Albanese Labor government, is committed to delivering the Murray-Darling Basin Plan and delivering it in full. The pathway to deliver the Murray-Darling Basin Plan is to make sure that there is water preserved for the environment. The overall plan as at the end of 2025—there are two areas at the moment where water had to be acquired. The first is with respect to what's called the bridging-the-gap target, and the government has now acquired 99 per cent of the water for the bridging-the-gap target. The additional environmental water, the additional 450 gigalitres—when we came to office, those opposite had acquired 24 gigalitres of the 450. Mr Littleproud 265585 It's a trash plan. Mr Pasin 240756 Why do they hate farmers? Mr BURKE DYW We have now recovered 225 gigalitres for that 450 target— Mr Pasin 240756 Buybacks kill communites. You wouldn't be able to find Murray Darling if you put it in a GPS. Mr BURKE DYW and have a plan to recover— The SPEAKER 53517 The minister's going to pause. The member for Barker and the Leader of the Nationals, I want to hear the answer. Can you help me with that, because you are being completely disruptive. The Leader of the House will continue. Mr BURKE DYW And a plan announced by the minister for the environment is to now recover more than 400 of the 450-gigalitre target by the end of this year. To do that, at the end of last year the minister for the environment announced an expression-of-interest process to make sure that, in acquiring water, we did so in a way that delivered value for money. This has not always been the way that water is acquired under the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. When those opposite were in office, there was water acquired from the northern basin. The government of the day spent $80 million for the entitlement. At the time, that entitlement—guess how much water it had allocated to it. Zero. They spent $80 million for it. And, if anyone's wondering whether it was value for money, it was value for money for someone, because the company that it was bought from booked a $52 million profit. The history of that company is interesting. It was formed with the original director being the now Leader of the Opposition. And the government of the day paid Versace prices for water from the Reject Shop. Only the Leader of the Opposition could explain how on earth that was in the public interest. Mr Albanese R36 I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. QUESTIONS TO THE SPEAKER 59 QUESTIONS TO THE SPEAKER Parliamentary Standards 59 15:20 Mr CHESTER IPZ Gippsland My question goes to the conduct of the House. I've noticed this week it has become the habit of the Prime Minister, the Treasurer and occasionally the Leader of the House to stand at the dispatch box and stare at members on this side if they seek to make a point of order. Just before the end of— Mr Burke DYW This is a point of order. Mr CHESTER IPZ The Leader of the House wants to make a joke of it now, but my concern is that this is an attempt to intimidate those opposite as they make a point of order. Just before the end of question time, the Prime Minister made a snide remark to the Leader of Opposition Business as he sought to make a point of order. Under the standing order 86(b) a member interrupted by a point of order must resume his or her seat. I'm seeking your guidance, Mr Speaker. Are the ministers opposite complying with standing order 86(b) and resuming his or her seat, as required, when members on this side seek to make a point of order? 15:21 The SPEAKER 53517 We dealt with this matter yesterday, just in terms of questions to the Speaker. I will state it again to the House. It's for the administration of the parliament. Just so we're clear: if people want to ask me a question—everyone thinks you can ask me a question about anything. It's narrow, under the standing orders. It's the operation of the House, something that has happened within the building and those sorts of questions, not, 'Could you please give me your opinion about standing orders and what's happened.' If that happened and you felt that at the time, it would be an appropriate time to raise it then. I appreciate the spirit with which it was raised. I don't understand—I'm sorry, I haven't observed the staring— Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! If someone is standing there, ergo it makes sense that you would be looking at each other. Government members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order, members on my right! I don't know why that's funny. In the spirit that it was asked, I would remind all members of the House that if someone is rising to their feet to take a point of order, the appropriate action would be to resume your seat. Equally so, I would wait until the Speaker does call you to make your point of order. We will do it in an orderly way and hopefully people won't feel the need to take points of order. STATEMENTS 59 STATEMENTS Personal Explanations 59 15:23 The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Goldstein has indicated to me, and I will now ask him does he claim to be misrepresented? 15:23 Mr TIM WILSON IMW Goldstein I do. The SPEAKER 53517 Then you may proceed. Mr TIM WILSON IMW During question time, the Treasurer implied that I hold shares in BBOZ. I can inform the House that on Monday I submitted a statement of declaration that I had removed those shares, but it has not been published. For the sake of clarity, I want to read out this statement headed 'Deletion shareholdings BBOZ'. It says: 'I purchased these shares before market turmoil associated with COVID, to hedge against such a black swan event. I could have sold them at a profit at the time, but as I was part of the decision-making program that meant they reached their peak, namely JobKeeper, I chose to hold onto them, not secure a profit and maintain my integrity. Mr Dreyfus HWG Tiny Tim's getting tinier! The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Isaacs is warned. Mr TIM WILSON IMW While I did make a modest profit from the sale, it is mostly being outstripped by the Treasurer's active inflation agenda. I have donated it to the International Railroad for Queer Refugees, which assists people who need to flee their country from regimes like the Islamic regime in Iran. Meanwhile, I note the Treasurer's dirt unit has been briefing slippery spin in the process'— The SPEAKER 53517 Resume your seat now. The SPEAKER 53517 Resume your seat. When people are claiming a misrepresentation, it's simple for the House to be informed of where the misrepresentation occurred. You did do that in part, but the remainder of the answer, regarding commentary about the Treasurer and whatnot, is not part of how we do personal explanations; otherwise we'd be here all day. The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order? Mr Tehan 210911 I just bring to your attention that this was a very serious matter, where the shadow minister's motives had been impugned. I think he had the right to be able to talk in silence and explain the absolute facts, and he wasn't granted that by the House. Mr Tim Wilson IMW I'm happy to repeat it. The SPEAKER 53517 No, you're not going to repeat it. There are also matters that I understand are before the privileges committee. I'm trying to deal with that to protect all members as well. The member was able to explain where he was misrepresented. I gave him that opportunity, and he did so. Member for Chifley? Mr Husic 91219 My apologies, Mr Speaker; I know you prefer advance notice on this. In the contribution just made there was a reflection given that, for a member who submitted a change to their personal interests, publication took a number of days. The experience of many of us is that that happens quite quickly—in relation to an event that was published or made evident to the public last week. I'm just wondering whether it's possible for you, at some later date, to report whether there is now some delay in the publication of changes to the register of public interest, please. The SPEAKER 53517 I shall report back to the member. DOCUMENTS 60 DOCUMENTS Presentation 60 15:27 Mr BURKE DYW Watson 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 Votes and Proceedings. MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 60 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Health Care 60 15:27 The SPEAKER 53517 I've received a letter from the honourable member for Fowler proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The postcode lottery of accessing quality healthcare in Australia. I call upon those honourable members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places— 15:27 Ms LE 295676 Fowler A constituent of mine recently wrote to me about her elderly father. In just one week, at Fairfield Hospital, she watched his wound deteriorate to a shocking degree. She was very clear that this wasn't the fault of the nurses. They're doing everything they can, but when you don't have proper staffing ratios or enough support on the floor, everyone suffers—patients and staff alike. When vulnerable people are left without basic care and dedicated health workers are burning out, that's not just a staffing hiccup; that is a policy failure. She knows the system is broken. She sees that the nurses are overworked and underpaid, but knowing the reason doesn't make it less unacceptable. Things need to change now. We love to talk about Australia's universal health, and we should be proud of Medicare. But, for families in south-west Sydney, especially in Fowler, that promise is slipping away. I hear the government making announcements as if they've solved health care. They point to new urgent care clinics like they are a magic wand for chronic disease and the doctor shortage. In Fowler people are being admitted to the hospital at higher rates for things like diabetes, asthma and heart failure—conditions that could be managed in the community if we actually had enough GPs and the right ongoing support. This isn't just about a spreadsheet or ribbon-cutting ceremonies. It's about people. We need more than just bricks-and-mortar announcements. We need the doctors and nurses who actually do the healing. The government says the number of GPs, nationally, is up. National figures don't mean much if you can't find a doctor in south-western Sydney. In Fowler we have roughly one GP for every 917 people. Meanwhile, in the Prime Minister's own seat or in wealthier suburbs, it's closer to one for every 700 residents. A surplus of doctors in wealthier postcodes does nothing for a community like mine that is carrying a much heavier burden of chronic disease. We have to move past one-size-fits-all policy. Equity doesn't mean treating every postcode exactly the same; it means recognising where the need is greatest and actually doing something about it. That is why today I'm calling for something very specific: that Fowler be given a special workforce category, just like rural and remote communities under the Modified Monash Model. If the government can recognise that rural Australia needs extra incentives to attract doctors and nurses, then it must also recognise that places like Fowler, with high disadvantages, high chronic disease and low GP numbers, need the same level of priority. The needs in Fairfield are not like the needs in Fairlight. Fowler should be formally classified as a priority area for workforce incentives. This would mean that doctors and nurses who choose to work in our community receive additional loadings, scholarships, training placements and long-term support, just as they would if they went to a rural town. We need Monash thinking applied to communities like mine. If the need is greater, the incentives must be greater too. So, instead of the government using this green card as a talking point, calling it a plan, I'm calling on them to actually redesign workforce incentives. Give Fowler a special category and take the health of this nation seriously. This card here is a promise. But, for families in Fowler, it's a promise that isn't being kept. A piece of plastic doesn't provide care—people do. Today I'm calling on the government to look past the symbols and start fixing the system. Redesign the workforce incentives and give Fowler the priority status it deserves. If the need is greater in our community, then the investment must be greater too. The government must end the health care lottery. Health investment is critical for the health of Australians, but especially for those from lower socioeconomic backgrounds. We are looking for the same access to a doctor that the Prime Minister's own neighbours enjoy. For this card to work, our health system must be reformed to make it equally accessible and targeted to those in need. 15:32 Ms WHITE 224102 Lyons I thank the member for Fowler for raising this issue. We love talking about health in this parliament, and I'm pleased to be able to speak to some of the points that you raised, recognising that we want all Australians, no matter where they live, to have access to the health care that they deserve. That's where our government has been so strong by investing in Strengthening Medicare. I also recognise you raised issues around access in hospitals. Our government did strike a deal of $25 billion with states and territories for the National Health Reform Agreement, which will see extra investment flow into hospitals, including those in your electorate. It is critical that we look at where we are providing services across the country. Where there are doctor shortages, we are keen to work with doctor groups to understand how we improve workforce opportunities and address those needs. I can assure you that the minister and the government are looking to do exactly that, particularly in some of those metro areas across the country. You've spoken about your own community, but the same can be said for other metro areas around the country where we are seeing some challenges. It is not just one policy that we set and forget. As much as I love talking about Strengthening Medicare and lifting bulk-billing rates, it's also about growing the workforce. It's why we're now seeing record numbers of GPs going through that training program in our universities. We saw a record number last year on top of a record number the year before, and we're hoping for a record number again this year—increasing the number of Commonwealth supported places. In your own electorate, you should be incredibly proud of the bulk-billing rates, at about 94 per cent now, being the best in the country. Constituents in your electorate have access to bulk-billing rates from great doctors who are providing that service at a rate better than anywhere else in Australia. You mentioned, of course, Medicare urgent care clinics. We are very proud of the investment we've made in Medicare urgent care clinics, including one in your own electorate, the Liverpool Medicare Urgent Care Clinic, which has been very busy and had over 15,000 presentations as at 23 February this year. It is taking pressure off emergency departments, providing that extra opportunity—an extra step in the process, I guess—for people who might need to see a GP for an urgent presentation and can go to an urgent care clinic instead for that appointment. It takes take pressure off the emergency department because their issue doesn't reach the threshold that you want to have patients presenting to the emergency department for. The investment that we've seen across the country, including in your own electorate, has meant that a lot more of your constituents are now able to access affordable health care close to where they live. That is the premise that underpins our investment in a lot of the programs that we're delivering throughout health. One of the other opportunities that our Strengthening Medicare measures provide through the lifting of bulk-billing rates—and this is particularly true in your electorate, where you've got such high bulk-billing rates—is that doctors are now earning more because of the bulk-billing incentive. Where every GP in a practice signs up and says, 'We are going to bulk bill every patient who walks through the door', they get paid an extra incentive in recognition of the fact that they are doing that. Where you had a fully bulk-billing doctor in 2023 earning about $280,000 a year, that fully bulk-billing doctor now, in 2026, earns over $400,000 a year, on average. That is a recognition of their contribution to delivering health care in our local communities. It is also better for patients, who are now able to access a fully bulk-billing GP. In your contribution you also mentioned concerns about the numbers of patients that most doctors might see. On average, a doctor sees 1,100 patients. That's the average across the country. You mentioned the rate in your own electorate being less than that. I recognise that you're doing your job, advocating for your community, who are telling you that they want even better access to health care than what they currently have, and that one of the challenges is the workforce. But, in that electorate, your electorate of Fowler, you already have really good representation of bulk-billing GPs and good opportunity for patients to get in and see a GP. That's not to downplay the fact that, across the country, including in urban areas, there is more work to do. That is what we are absolutely committed to. There are other efforts that our government has taken, and I'll take some time to speak to these. In addition to strengthening bulk billing and rolling out urgent care clinics across the country, we're also making medicines cheaper. From 1 January this year, medicines listed on the PBS went down to $25, or $7.70 if you're a concession card holder. That has enabled people—sometimes for the first time—to get access to the medicines they need to stay healthy and well and to live a good and dignified life. I've spoken to members in my own community who have shared stories with me about how they can now go and see a GP for free at a bulk-billing clinic. In my own electorate, we have also seen a significant uplift in bulk-billing rates, with 18 practices now fully bulk billing from just six before November last year. That's a significant increase in bulk-billing practices in my electorate. What that means—both patients and doctors have shared this with me—is that somebody can go to an appointment with their GP and get bulk billed for that, but, when they have a follow-up appointment because they need to get some results or they need to go back for a further consultation, they are showing up. They are actually receiving the care that they need and showing up for those follow-up appointments. They are no longer prevented from doing that because they can't afford to pay the out-of-pocket cost. This is going to significantly transform the lives of thousands, if not millions, of Australians, and we are already seeing the impact of this across the country. From making medicines cheaper, we are also hearing stories of people who've been able to get the treatment that they need without having to worry about whether they can afford to pay for groceries that week, put fuel in the car and get their medicines—things that they had to choose between previously. They can now look after their health and look after their family. I think this is one of the significant improvements that we've been able to make in delivering the reforms that we have across health: to provide cost-of-living relief to households everywhere around the country. Access to health care shouldn't be something you're forced to choose based on whether you can afford it or not. We fundamentally believe, here on this side of the House, that access to health care should be universal for everybody. That's why we've fought so strongly to protect and defend Medicare and to strengthen it. When it comes to access to cheaper medicines, one of the things I'm really proud of is the work that's being done in the women's health space, with the listing of new medicines—whether it's contraceptive medicines, endometriosis medicines or menopause medicines—that have seen hundreds of thousands of women in Australia benefit from being able to access products they may never have had the choice to access before in their lives, but, because of these changes, they now can. I've spoken to women who've been able to get menopause therapies and medicines listed on the PBS and to finally find relief for their symptoms. They've been able to work with their GP to take different hormone therapies until they find the right mix, and they've been able to afford to do that because these medicines are listed on the PBS and are capped at just $25. They've been able to work with their GP, and in some cases that's a bulk-billing GP, so their out-of-pocket expenses are significantly reduced. That has meant that in some cases it's enabled women to continue in their work. It's increased their productivity, it's improved their relationships, and it's given them their life back at a time when they thought they were losing the ability to engage in life as they knew it. So I'm incredibly proud of the work that has been done there and the work that we're rolling out with the endometriosis and persistent pelvic pain clinics. I'm very hopeful that we'll have all of the 33 clinics open very soon. That, again, is vitally important, because we know that when women have good information about where they can access the health care that they need it can be life-changing. In addition to those reforms, of course, we are working every day to listen to Australians about what they need to see happen to make sure that they can continue to have access to the health care that they deserve. I thank you, Member for Fowler, for raising the point you have in the parliament today, and I can assure you that, further to the improvements we've been able to make for constituents in your electorate of Fowler, we are determined to grow the health workforce. It's why, as part of our Strengthening Medicare commitments, there's been a significant contribution of about $800 million to train more GPs and nurses. It is why we are working with medical practitioners who are in colleges and peak bodies to understand these workforce constraints and how we can address them. We want all Australians to have access to the health care that they deserve, and we are keen to work with anybody who wants to achieve that too. 15:42 Dr HAINES 282335 Indi I rise to discuss a matter of immense public importance that every member of this House I know deeply cares about: the postcode lottery of accessing quality health care in Australia. I thank the member for Fowler for raising this issue and inviting this important conversation. I acknowledge what the assistant minister has just spoken to in the House, and I'm particularly appreciative of the many actions the government have taken, in particular, in regard to PBS and Medicare. But they know—and I'm about to point out to them—that there is more work to be done. Access to health care should not be a game of luck. Whether you live in Cabramatta or Chiltern, or in Liverpool or Londrigan, you should have access to the services you need to look after both your physical and your mental wellbeing. Unfortunately, we know this is not the case, because the data lays it out very clearly. In Australia, access and outcomes strongly correlate with where you're from, and nobody knows this better than people who live in remote, rural and regional Australia. I've spoken countless times in this place about health inequity in my electorate of Indi. We're more likely to have a long-term chronic health condition and less likely to be able to see a local doctor, dentist, pharmacist or psychologist. In fact, we are more likely to die younger than our metropolitan cousins. This is not a problem caused by regional and rural people. It's not a problem caused by our wonderful healthcare professionals. It's a problem that's been caused by years of policy settings that do not appropriately support regional and rural health care, with models tailored specifically for our context. One thing that's missing in non-metropolitan postcodes, in addition to many others, is the necessary health infrastructure. Many regional health services operate out of ageing facilities that struggle to accommodate growing patient volumes and simply aren't equipped to accommodate and deliver modern health care. While urban hospitals receive upgrades and expansions, regional and rural hospitals struggle against a funding gap that's only getting bigger. Before you say, 'State governments do hospitals,' I have to remind the House that we see a very different story come election time when the taxpayer funded chequebook comes out and we see investment from the Commonwealth in our hospitals, in particular seats. Now, this is dispiriting. But, to address this disparity, I've come to the House. Last year I called for the establishment of a $2 billion Building Regional and Rural Hospitals Fund. That's a lot of money, but it takes a lot of money. But what I want is fairness and equity. This Building Regional and Rural Hospitals Fund would be a needs based investment in facilities and equipment for hospitals in Modified Monash Model areas 2 to 7. People living in rural and remote areas have higher rates of hospitalisation, but they don't have the luxury of choosing between several nearby hospitals. The one that they can access then needs to be reasonably equipped to treat them. One way to tackle the postcode lottery is to give regional and rural hospitals a clear, transparent pathway to seek funding from the Commonwealth for the infrastructure for the communities that they are trying to serve. Next we need to concentrate, of course, on workforce. Health workforce shortages are another factor that contribute to the postcode lottery. This is well known. These shortages are particularly acute in regional Australia, and there are many pieces of the puzzle required to ensure that we have enough of the healthcare professionals that we truly need. We know that regional students who complete their training rurally are more likely to stay and work in rural communities. That's one of the best pieces of evidence we have. So increased funding for rural medical training is a logical solution, to support our regional students to complete their degrees, and I commend the progress that we've made on this. But we need more. We could triple the Murray-Darling medical program. When we do recruit doctors, we must have enough housing, childcare and education options for them to bring their families and actually build a life and stay. Another practical solution is to help all healthcare students complete their study, and I've been very loud in this place in calling on the government to expand the Commonwealth prac payment program. We know that teaching, social work, nursing and midwifery students are already eligible and benefiting from the Commonwealth prac payments, and I'm hearing very positive reports of this. In fact, Demi, a teaching student from Bathurst, in regional New South Wales, told me that the Commonwealth prac payment significantly reduced her financial stress. Last month, in collaboration with Allied Health Professions Australia and Senator David Pocock, I launched a national petition calling for the expansion to include all allied health and medical students, and already, Minister, 20,000-plus—and counting—people are on that list. In summary, I thank the member for Fowler. It is a postcode lottery in Australia, and we need to do more to breach it. 15:47 Ms RYAN 249224 Lalor I want to thank the member for Fowler for raising this important discussion today. I think it's a critical discussion. I also want to thank the minister who's sitting at the table, the Minister for Health and Ageing, for the work that he's done in this space since we took office, because I can say that, with the election of the Albanese Labor government, the postcodes of 3030, 3029 and 3024, much like the postcodes the member for Fowler represents, now have a government committed to strengthening Medicare. One of the first actions this government took in the health space was to reverse the cuts the Liberals and Nationals made to outer-suburb communities' priority access. The cuts the Liberals made meant local clinics in my community were reporting they couldn't take on any new patients, there was a loss of 30 per cent of effective full-time doctors and wait times were out to five days. This put enormous pressure on our local medical professionals, and in some cases local doctors, nurses and staff were in tears. This government got to work, and the DPA was restored to the City of Wyndham. We have since seen the number of doctors increase, along with our capacity to be part of the training of doctors—of overseas doctors in particular—and out-of-hours or longer-hour surgeries have seen people flocking back to GPs. We've also home to one of the first of Labor's 126 Medicare urgent care clinics. Before the last election, 20,000 people had already been through that urgent care clinic. Our urgent care clinics are taking pressure off our hospital emergency departments. The clinic was opened in July 2023, and it has provided urgent care for over 32,000 people now. I note that in the member for Fowler's electorate there is an urgent care clinic, and I'm sure the locals there welcome that as well. Of course, we have to talk about the bulk-billing increases—the new arrangements. New data shows that Australians can now access over 3,400 Medicare bulk-billing practices across the country. Almost 1,300 of these practices previously bulk-billed. In Lalor, we now have 40 bulk-billing clinics. Eleven of these were previously charging patients an out-of-pocket fee before our record investment in bulk-billing, which came into effect on 1 November last year. And I want to use this opportunity to thank those GP clinics who have opened their doors and welcomed me for a visit. I encourage all members: reach out and contact the GP clinics in your electorates that are bulk-billing. Go and visit. I have been absolutely thrilled to meet the GPs operating in my area. Something I've shared with the minister before is the number of people in my community who have put down roots as doctors, and now I'm meeting their adult children who are just finishing med school. It's an amazing, uplifting experience to know that the people who live in my electorate are getting such good care. As the assistant minister referenced, they're all saying the same things—that people are spending less time waiting to go to the doctor, they're presenting earlier and they're appearing for follow-up consultations. So we can be assured that our primary health care is in better nick and that the people we represent here and the people that the member for Fowler represents are getting better service from their doctors, because they're accessing their doctors more often and their doctors are appreciating their walking through the door. We've also made medicines cheaper. Millions of Australians rely on the PBS every year. In fact, seven in 10 Australians fill at least one PBS script annually. Since 22 July, the Albanese Labor government has expanded the PBS with 399—we need that number to go up by one, Minister—new and amended listings while also delivering the largest PBS price cuts in decades. I'm sure that, in the member for Fowler's electorate, people are feeling the value of that. They certainly are in the electorate that I represent, with the reduction of the maximum price of a PBS script down to $25 from over $40 under the former government, and, for pension and concession card holders, the price is just $7.70 per script—in law. That's $13.3 million on over 1.8 million scripts saved, and I'm sure the figures in the member for Fowler's electorate are similar because our electorates are so similar in terms of economic demographics. I welcome the opportunity every day to talk about the work that this government is doing in the health space, because, in my community, it is valued and it is appreciated. People understand the value of good health care. 15:52 Mr WILKIE C2T Clark I thank the member for Fowler for bringing this important matter before the House, because access to quality, affordable health care is a fundamental right, and it shouldn't be dependent on your postcode. But, sadly, it's the case that it is. The postcode lottery is the daily reality for too many people in this country, particularly in my home state of Tasmania. I do acknowledge that this situation is, in part, due to health policy and funding being a complicated responsibility shared between the federal and state governments. But that doesn't mean the difficulties being experienced by the community can't be solved nor that we should accept the situation when specific challenges seem to be intractable. And, boy oh boy, aren't there some challenges to confront right now! As I speak with families and healthcare workers in my community and, indeed, right across Tasmania, I hear the same concerns repeated again and again—that GP clinics are overbooked, that bulk-billing is still difficult to find, that facilities are outdated, that emergency departments are cramped or overflowing, that diagnostics are limited and that, way too often, essential care is delayed. At the start of this year, GP bulk-billing across Tasmania was up more than 5 per cent—to 80 per cent—compared with 12 months ago due to the government's boost to incentives. And that's great. But, to be honest with the community, that improvement is off a low base, and Tasmania remains the second-lowest bulk-billing state in the country, well behind New South Wales and Victoria. Moreover, the figure is distorted by improved rates in rural areas, leaving the actual bulk-billing rate in Hobart somewhere between 60 and 70 per cent, and all that is despite Tasmania having one of the oldest, poorest and sickest populations in the country. As the Grattan Institute notes, boosting the bulk-billing incentive has the perverse side effect of 'entrenching a dysfunctional funding model' which incentivises practices to see more patients for shorter visits, regardless of patients' needs. This leaves GPs feeling overstretched and unable to meet patient needs and leaves patients without the time and support to properly address increasingly complex and chronic conditions. It's not just primary health care that's shackbaggerly in my home state, because acute care lags the rest of the country too. For instance, in Tasmania hospital emergency department waiting times are markedly worse than the national average, with the latest data showing that the state recorded the worst results in the nation for emergency department performance. In fact, only 46 per cent of patients were seen on time in 2024-25 compared with the national average of 67 per cent—the goal, of course, should be 100 per cent—and that's if you actually manage to get to the ED, because Hobart has the longest ambulance response times of any state capital in the country. Across Tasmania last year more than 4½ thousand emergency incidents had to wait more than 35 minutes for an ambulance to arrive. That's just shameful. Meanwhile, the public mental and dental care system remains in dire straits in Tassie too. In fact, if you're on the waitlist for the public dentist, you're likely facing a wait of about four years. This is, of course, not because our healthcare workforce aren't doing their best. No, they are highly professional and do an excellent job under a huge amount of pressure. But they do need to be properly supported by a funding model and a healthcare system which works no matter where you live. That's something we should be able to provide in this country. I've said many times before that Australia is one of the wealthiest countries in the world, and if we decide something is a priority then we can afford it. Indeed, according to the latest UBS Global wealth report, Australia ranked second in median wealth behind only Luxembourg. In the last budget, the government had over three-quarters of a trillion dollars on hand to spend. In other words, it's all about priorities and teamwork. Instead of each jurisdiction wandering around like Brown's cows on healthcare policy and funding, they should be working together with the Commonwealth to ensure that, no matter what your postcode is or where you are in the country, you can be assured of access to quality and affordable healthcare when you need it. 15:57 Mr HUSIC 91219 Chifley I think in this debate too context is important. I want to read some stats out to the House, if I may. Americans spend on average more than $12,000 per person on health care, almost twice as much as Australians. That gap alone cancels out about half the difference in income per person between the US and Australia, according to the World Bank. Nearly half of US adults find it difficult to afford health care, with uninsured individuals and those with lower incomes facing the most significant challenges. Seventy per cent of adults in low-income households in America report difficulty affording healthcare costs. Three in four uninsured adults under the age of 65 say they went without needed care because of the cost. That's an important stat I want to come back to. Medical expenses are the leading cause of personal bankruptcy in the United States. Job loss, often linked to healthcare related bankruptcy, is a close second. Finally, and most devastatingly, two out of five Americans are emotionally affected by medical debt more than other serious incidents or illnesses. This isn't an accident. That system has been set up and run in that way for ages. Medicare was not an accident. It was a deliberate decision. It is, I dare say, an actual reflection of value in this country. Medicare reflects our value of fairness. Universality is about people in need who should get the support they require at that time of need, regardless of income, and we all chip in to make sure people get access to that health care. I'd also make the point that it was a Labor government that introduced Medicare. Nearly every MP—well, I would say every Labor MP—in this House is enormously proud of that. But I must say it will go down for all of our days as a huge point of pride that this government has invested more in Medicare than any Labor government other than the one that set up Medicare in the first place. This is hugely important. I come back to the point I talked about earlier where you've got uninsured adults, say, in America who'll go without health care because they can't afford it. I'll tell you, Member for Fowler, in my community, in my part of Western Sydney, I never want to have one single person say that they will not go to a doctor because they can't afford it or say that they just cannot face the fact of having gap fees, which was a genuine threat three years ago. There was a threat that gap fees would be introduced in areas where they had bulk-billing. I might just say to the House that Mount Druitt, 2770, has the highest MBS bulk-billing rate in the country, Blacktown has the fifth-highest and, I think you'd be proud, Member for Fowler, Fairfield is at No. 3. This is not a lottery; it is a reflection that, in areas where the socioeconomics demand it, we'll provide for that. It is very important. There were deliberate decisions taken by Liberal governments. When they couldn't pull Medicare apart, they choked it. They underspent. They underinvested in the MBS and hoped that it would wither away, that it would be replaced by gap fees and that there would be less requirement for government to spend. It was a deliberate decision. I take on board the point that the member for Fowler made about workforce shortages. But that happens in many parts of Western Sydney. Some of it is also reflected by the fact that some doctors who get trained in our area go to the eastern part of the city, where they'll make more money. I reflected in the Federation Chamber today on the recent passing of Dr Teng-Kiong Kek. He worked for 40 years in Mount Druitt. He could have gone anywhere else, but he deliberately stayed in our part of Western Sydney because he wanted to provide that level of care. There are a lot of doctors like him in our part of the world and in the member for Fowler's part of the world. The fact that $12 million has been saved on two million scripts in my part of the world because people can get their medicines cheaper and don't have to worry about costs is huge. The Medicare urgent care clinic that means people don't have to wait in EDs was a deliberate decision by our government. That's huge. The fact that we've invested huge amounts of hospital funding in the states was a deliberate decision as well. This is not a lottery. This is not chance. This is because you've got a Labor government that's dedicated to the proposition that our value of fairness must be reflected in our healthcare system, principally through Medicare, of which we are all enormously proud. 16:02 Mr GEE 261393 Calare I thank the member for Fowler for bringing this matter of public importance to this House today. The topic is 'the postcode lottery of accessing quality health care in Australia'. I can tell you that there is a fundamental unfairness and inequality in access to health services in this country. I'm from the Central West of New South Wales, and we are on the western side of the Great Dividing Range. We call that Great Dividing Range 'the sandstone curtain' because it divides city and country physically but it divides city and country in so many other ways as well. One of those ways it divides is in access to health services. The cold, hard truth of health care in this country is that the further away you live from a city, the shorter your life expectancy is. In fact, devastatingly, people who live in very remote areas die about 15 years earlier than their city cousins. It's a shocking statistic in this modern and prosperous Australia, but it is true. Part of that is the rural doctor shortage crisis. The Salvation Army Social Justice Stocktake 2025 found that 40 per cent of people in the Calare electorate felt they had waited longer than acceptable for a GP appointment. It's weeks and months to see a GP across the Central West of New South Wales, and many GP practices have closed their books to patients so you can't get in to see a GP. The situation is absolutely dire. It's not just a rural doctor crisis. There is a shortage of providers across all healthcare professions, and it manifests itself in an increasing scarcity of all rural health services. Analysis by the National Rural Health Alliance shows that rural communities miss out on $8.3 billion in health funding every year, with underspending across hospitals, disability services, aged care and community health. It is a crisis which is having devastating impacts across regional New South Wales and, indeed, country Australia. The rural doctor shortage crisis has been made much worse by changes this government has made to the distribution priority area system. Basically, the way the system worked was that, when overseas trained doctors wanted to come and work in Australia, they would have to work in a country area for up to 10 years. These country areas were known as distribution priority areas. But the current government has changed the boundaries. In July 2022 it all changed. For the first time, instead of country areas having priority for overseas trained doctors, basically the whole of the country—except for central business districts—was opened up to overseas trained doctors, so they didn't have to work in a rural or remote area. In city areas, you can get more money, you can see more patients and there's more support for you as a GP. So, of course, as soon as that was announced, there was a great movement of doctors from the country to the city. In terms of the way these boundaries changed, it means that areas such as Fairfield, Hornsby and Warringah and the outer suburbs of Sydney and Melbourne now have the same priority as country areas for overseas trained doctors. If you look at the map of New South Wales, it's now basically one big distribution priority area, except for the inner suburbs of Sydney. Sydney does not have a doctor shortage. That's why I introduced the Doctors for the Bush Bill in the last parliament—to remedy this unfairness and to restore the priority that country areas should have. Unfortunately, when we put it to a vote, none of the major parties supported it. I count the so-called 'guardians of the bush', the National Party, in that, as they would not support the Doctors for the Bush Bill, despite my bill restoring the boundaries. I would urge the government to look at distribution priority areas and get more Medicare urgent care clinics and Medicare mental health centres into the Central West and into the seat of Calare because, at the moment, we've only got one clinic, in Bathurst. (Time expired) 16:07 Ms AMBIHAIPAHAR 315618 Barton First off, I'd like to thank the member for Fowler for her contribution today. I'm a little bit offended by her referring to our wonderful healthcare system and Medicare as a 'postcode lottery', particularly because part of my old role at St Vincent de Paul Society was to look after your electorate. It was a large area I looked after—from Gosford down to Helensburgh and out to the Blue Mountains. I'm very aware of the challenges in your electorate from the perspective of not only health but also the cost-of-living pressures out there. I do want to acknowledge your contribution on the workforce shortage. As a solicitor at the NSW Nurses and Midwives' Association, I did a lot of representation for our members out in your area, but mainly up north. I understand some of the challenges in the New South Wales health sector, in particular around ratios, staffing and burnout. But I also have to highlight a couple of things that we haven't really discussed here today. I want to remind the member for Fowler that the former coalition froze Medicare rebates for six years. You can't underfund primary care for nearly a decade and then have the hide to bring an MPI here today and say we're not doing enough. No-one's saying we are done and have finished the job. There is absolutely more work to do. But I need to make that very clear to the member for Fowler, particularly when her electorate has been able to benefit from an urgent care clinic. I did have the opportunity to look at the member for Fowler's social media account and her contributions to parliament in the Hansard. I could not find any records of her talking about this. I think it's wonderful that the member for Fowler has an urgent care clinic in Liverpool. I think we spoke about 94 per cent of practices in the electorate of Fowler now bulk-billing every patient, which is one of the highest rates in the country. I think that needs to be highlighted, particularly for my electorate of Barton. I do want to talk about my contributions as a regional director at Vinnies and about how I perceive my role as being not only the member for Barton but someone who takes into consideration everyone's electorate in this country and how they are impacted. I think that is the underpinning principle of the Labor Party. We don't talk about individualism; we talk about collectivism. I think everyone here on this side of the chamber is very proud of that. We will advocate for the electorate of Fowler. I want to highlight that, in my electorate of Barton, we have 34 Medicare bulk-billing practices across the electorate, and 13 of these practices were previously charging patients an out-of-pocket fee before Labor's record investment into bulk-billing on 1 November last year. Unlike the member for Fowler—she's got 94 per cent—I have 64 per cent of practices in Barton now bulk-billing all their patients all the time. We also have an urgent care clinic in Carlton. It's been there for a while. There have been about 23,000-odd presentations to that particular urgent care clinic, and it has been a success. We have a large medical precinct in Kogarah as well, and we've seen the impact of this urgent care clinic's operations on reducing the workload in the emergency department. I need to highlight that no-one on this side of the chamber is saying that the work is done. I do want to recognise the contributions from the member for Fowler and understand the challenges in the workforce. We have been able to listen to some of the contributions from this side of the chamber about what the Labor Party has been doing in the past couple of years, particularly in this term of government. I want to highlight, particularly for the member of Fowler, that everyone on this side of the chamber absolutely supports the people in your electorate. As a new MP, I see my role as a community service, and I think it's a responsibility of everyone in this parliament to use their platform to promote and inform our community about those services, whether you agree with them or not. I think that's an important thing to highlight to the member of Fowler today. 16:11 Ms BOELE 26417 Bradfield I thank the member for Fowler for raising what is clearly a matter of public importance—that healthcare in this country should not be a postcode lottery. It is a proposition with which it is impossible to disagree. In Australia we quite rightly pride ourselves on our world-class healthcare system. We rank first among the OECD countries for equity and healthcare outcomes and third for overall healthcare performance, behind only Norway and the Netherlands. But, like all systems, ensuring its ongoing success requires maintenance and vigilance, and healthcare equity—in other words, ensuring that we do not succumb to a postcode lottery—requires not just funding but funding where and when it is needed. In addressing that issue today, I want to focus on one particular part of the healthcare system, and that is mental health and the inequity of service delivery around the country. According to government data, we spent almost $14.5 billion on mental health services in the year 2023-24. That's around seven per cent of total government expenditure. That's an extraordinary amount of money, so it very much matters where and how it is allocated. We also know that five million people, or 18 per cent of the population, were dispensed a mental health related prescription in the same period. So mental ill health is incredibly prevalent and widespread, but the delivery and accessibility of mental health services is inconsistent. Let's first have a look at the variations between states and territories. The 2025 Report on government services identifies major differences in per capita spending on mental health, access to state and territory specialised mental health services, and rates of delayed or avoided care due to cost. For example, my home state of New South Wales recorded the lowest per capita expenditure on specialised mental health services among the states, and, despite the vast public spend on mental health services, 22.4 per cent of people across Australia delayed or avoided obtaining care due to cost, with cost pressures differing between jurisdictions. These variations affect service quality, wait times and the ability of people to receive appropriate care at all. As we've been discussing already today, national reporting also consistently shows that communities in regional and remote areas have fewer mental health professionals per capita and that emergency departments in regional areas, like the member of Calare's, bear a disproportionate load, as community services are thinner. This leads to longer wait times for services, greater reliance on emergency departments and limited continuity of care after discharge. In short, the delivery of services in Australia's mental health system is not uniform. There are clear measurable differences in service availability, funding, waiting times, outcomes and access to community versus hospital based care. These disparities exist between states, between urban and regional and remote areas and between individual primary health networks. Pleasingly, the government is acting to address inequities in health outcomes, and I do commend the minister for his work in this regard. The Reducing Health Inequities Mission is investing $150 million over 10 years from 2027-28 to research and address inequities in health outcomes. This funding aims to improve access to quality health services by priority populations. But is it enough, and is work going to be done quickly enough? As is the case in all complex public policy areas, there is much, much more work to be done. Similarly, we could not lay claim to having a world class without already exceptional services being operated by incredible healthcare professionals, and that's certainly true in the mental health services space in my electorate of Bradfield. KYDS Youth Counselling offers free, confidential counselling for children aged 10 to 18 without the need for a Medicare card, GP referral or a mental health plan. If you're a young person at risk, KYDS makes the barrier to accessing these services very low. That's ever so critical for people who are very often too shy to ask for help. Lifeline Harbour to Hawkesbury has also provided vital services to my community for over 56 years. EPIC, Empowering Parents in Crisis, collaborates with schools, police, hospitals, family support organisations and the community to demystify pathways to support and create awareness regarding youth mental health. I want to thank these wonderful organisations for their high quality and sustained service to our community. I also want to urge the government to continue to work to ensure that funding for mental health services like these ones continues to be successful and thrive in my electorate of Bradfield and in other communities because we do not want Australia's mental health services to be a postcode lottery. 16:16 Ms STANLEY 265990 Werriwa Health is always a first order issue for Australians, particularly for the people of the electorate of Werriwa. Constituents consistently talk to me about how much they care about health and education of their children and families. Health care is one of the key services the Australian government delivers, and, for the Albanese government, it is a cornerstone and a key priority. Medicare is Labor's DNA. It was true when Gough Whitlam first introduced Medibank, it was true when Bob Hawke later restored it after it was abolished by Fraser and it is true to this day with the Albanese Labor government injecting historic amounts of money to improve the system. At the last election, the Prime Minister was often seen with his green Medicare card on display, and why wouldn't he be? The card is a guarantee of free access to the finest healthcare system in the world. There is no lottery, no luck or no chance in the provision of Medicare cards, as suggested by the member for Fowler. All Australians regardless of postcode, education, wealth or ethnicity are entitled to one. The Prime Minister has one. I have one. The member for Fowler has one, and the newest Australian citizens have one. Of course, we can always improve the Medicare system, but we need to be clear. Our universal healthcare system is the envy of the world, and talking it down unnecessarily belies that fact and devalues the wonderful healthcare workforce we have. Front and foremost in our healthcare system in Australia is recognising that GPs are the frontline as primary healthcare workers. They need to be respected, valued and, more importantly, remunerated. The improvements to GP payments from 1 November do this. Not only have those improvements ensured GPs are appropriately paid, but they have significantly improved bulk-billing rates. The success of the $8.5 billion injection into Medicare by the government is undeniable. There are now over 3,400 Medicare bulk-billing practices across the country. That's almost 1,300 more, who were previously mixed billing. The bulk-billing rate for all Australians has increased to 81.4 per cent nationwide. These statistics mean that of the Albanese government's policies 96 per cent of Australians are now within a 20-minute drive of a registered Medicare bulk-billing practice. In terms of the electorate of Werriwa, there are 32 Medicare bulk-billing practices. That is seven more than before 1 November. Ninety-one per cent of practices in Werriwa are now bulk-billing all their patients all the time. Interestingly, the constituents in the electorate of Fowler, with whom I share a border, have a choice of practices, 94 per cent of which bulk-bill. That is the highest in the country, and it's nine more since 1 November. The Albanese government has further supported south-west Sydney and the residents of Fowler and Werriwa by investing $80 million to upgrade the Fairfield emergency department. Werriwa also has a new urgent care clinic in Austral, which was promised during the election campaign. It opened on 27 January and has already seen 280 people in the last four weeks. The government has also made a massive $25 billion investment into the public hospital system, which was recently announced by the Minister for Health and Ageing and the Prime Minister, after negotiations with all the states and territories. There is also the $792 million investment into women's health, which is changing so much, and changing how women's health is looked at in this country. There are cheaper medicines which, from 1 January, meant that PBS scripts were only $25, or $7.70 with a concession. In my electorate of Werriwa, constituents have saved more than $8.2 million with over 1.3 million cheaper scripts. Then there is the historical investment that the government has made into mental health, which has seen a headspace in Edmondson Park open, which is doing such great work. The motion moved by the member for Fowler referred to a lottery, but the winners of this lottery are the people of Werriwa, Fowler and wider Australian communities who have a government that, in all aspects of health, is improving the lot for all Australians. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 The discussion is now concluded. BILLS 69 BILLS Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence) Bill 2025 69

Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence) Bill 2025

Returned from Senate 69 COMMITTEES 69 COMMITTEES Human Rights Joint Committee 69 Report 69 16:22 Ms MASCARENHAS 298800 Swan I am pleased to table Report 2 of 2026 of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights. Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e). Ms MASCARENHAS 298800 I ask leave of the House to make a short statement. Leave granted. Ms MASCARENHAS 298800 In this report, the committee considers 21 new bills, three deferred bills and 132 new legislative instruments. It has commented on 10 bills and eight legislative instruments and concluded its examination of two bills. The committee has sought further information from the relevant minister in relation to the human rights compatibility of these two bills. In particular, the committee has commented on the Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Criminal and Migration Laws) Bill 2026 and the Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Firearms and Customs Laws) Bill 2026. The committee notes that these laws were introduced and passed after the massacre at Bondi Beach where 15 people died and many more were injured at a Jewish festival on 14 December 2025. These bills do a number of things, including: allowing the Commonwealth to list organisations as prohibited hate groups; introducing new criminal offences relating to prohibited hate groups; allowing the minister to refuse or cancel certain visas on grounds of spreading hate and extremism; and also establishing a national gun buyback scheme. These measures could promote several human rights, including the right to life and security of person. However, the measures also engage and limit other human rights, including the rights of freedom of expression and association. The committee considers the measures pursue important objectives, including protecting national security and preventing the commission of terrorist attacks. The committee notes that, while there are some important safeguards accompanying these measures, it is not evident that these safeguards would be sufficient in all circumstances. The committee also notes that several aspects of new hate offences do not appear to adhere to the best practice principles, as outlined by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. However, having regard to the broader context in which the hate offences were introduced, the committee considers that the new offences are justified. I also note that these bills were introduced and passed by both Houses on 20 January 2026. This expedited process meant that the committee was unable to examine these bills prior to their passage. It is the committee's firm view that parliamentarians ought to have the benefit of this committee's advice to be informed of the human rights implications prior to the passage of legislation. In this report, the committee has also commented on legislative instruments that implement or amend legislative frameworks which the committee has repeatedly raised human rights concerns about. For example, measures in the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (State Sponsors of Terrorism) Regulations 2025 relate to post-sentence orders. The committee has consistently raised human rights concerns about such orders because they are based on an assessment of a person's future risk of engaging in criminal conduct. Separately, measures in the Migration Amendment (2025 Measures No. 1) Regulations 2025 relate to the imposition of community safety conditions on certain bridging visas. The committee has previously raised concerns that such conditions may not be compatible with the right to a fair hearing, the right to liberty and criminal process rights. I encourage all members to consider the committee's report closely. With these comments, I commend the committee's scrutiny report 2 of 2026to the House. BILLS 70 BILLS Treasury Laws Amendment (Building a Stronger and Fairer Super System) Bill 2026, Superannuation (Building a Stronger and Fairer Super System) Imposition Bill 2026 70

Treasury Laws Amendment (Building a Stronger and Fairer Super System) Bill 2026

Superannuation (Building a Stronger and Fairer Super System) Imposition Bill 2026

Second Reading 70 16:27 Mr VENNING 315434 Grey I rise today to speak on a matter that cuts to the very core of this government's character, its competence and its fundamental lack of respect for the hardworking people of Australia. What we are witnessing in this chamber, and what the Australian public is watching unfold with increasing alarm, is a government that has been completely found out. This is a government in full retreat, scrambling backwards under the sheer weight of its own flawed ideology. Thanks to the sustained, unrelenting scrutiny from the coalition, from the superannuation sector, from small-business owners and, most importantly, from everyday Australians, we have forced Labor to step back from the most outrageous, destructive elements of the proposed family savings tax. Let the records show that the Liberal and National parties and community pressure have forced Labor to abandon their disastrous taxation on unrealised gains and their insidious indexation freeze. They did not backtrack out of sudden benevolence or a renewed understanding of economics. They backtracked because they got caught. This was never a proposal just aimed at hurting retirees, though it certainly would have done that. This was a proposal aimed at hurting future generations. It was a calculated attempt to steal the future of younger Australians away from them, banking on the hope that they would not have the knowledge or understanding to see what is happening to their retirement nest eggs. Through our scrutiny, we also expressed a clear, undeniable breakdown in the relationship between the Prime Minister and his Treasurer. When a flagship economic policy crumbles so spectacularly under the first signs of public examination it speaks volumes about the dysfunction at the very top. Let's look at the original design of this policy. To tax unrealised gains represents a fundamental break with the longstanding bedrock principles of the Australian taxation system. Australians are fair minded people. They've always understood and accepted that tax is paid when income is realised, when a gain is crystallised and when cash is in your hand. To propose taxing paper gains, particularly in volatile asset classes where values can fluctuate wildly from one month to the next, was not some 'minor tweak' as the government tried to spin it. It was structural. It was a structural shift that would have set a deeply dangerous precedent across the entire tax base. Imagine a farmer or a small-business owner being handed a massive tax bill for an asset that they haven't sold, using money that they do not have, simply because the paper value of their property or their business went up. It is economic vandalism. It would have bankrupted so many businesses, including so many farmers and small businesses in my electorate of Grey, who have had the driest season in history, particularly 2025. Equally concerning was the government's stubborn refusal to index the $3 million threshold. We are living in a severe inflationary environment—an environment being made materially worse by this treasurer and his utter willingness to pour debt petrol on the inflation fire. In that context, failing to index thresholds is nothing less than a silent tax hike. Over time, more Australians would have been captured by this tax, not because they were wealthier in real terms or because their standard of living had improved, but simply because inflation, the silent thief in the night, had eroded the value of their threshold. That is bracket creep by design. It is a deeply flawed policy. If it wasn't flawed policy, then it was a sneaky, deliberate trick to take more of Australians' hard-earned savings. The government's humiliating backdown demonstrates one thing clearly—this was never settled policy grounded in principle; it was a blatant revenue grab that was exposed, and it collapsed under scrutiny. The fundamental issue here is trust, and the sad reality is that Labor and the Greens simply cannot be trusted. At the last election Australians were not presented with a policy to tax unrealised gains in their superannuation. They were not told that longstanding superannuation settings—settings that Australians have planned their entire lives around—would be fundamentally altered. They were not warned that indexation would be stripped away. Promises matter in a democracy. Major structural tax changes should be put clearly, honestly and transparently to the Australian people before an election. Instead, this proposal appeared out of nowhere with limited consultation, shrouded in secrecy and forced onto a rushed legislative timetable. That is why this debate has resonated so strongly in our suburbs and in our regions. Australians instinctively understand when something has been slipped in without their consent. When it comes to retirement savings and nest eggs built over decades of blood, sweat, tears and hard work, the bar for legitimacy must be higher. Labor failed to clear that bar. We have a government that cannot be trusted. We were promised by Labor, and specifically by this treasurer, that they had beaten inflation and high interest rates. We were told by this prime minister that they were going to make life easier for families. Yet what is the reality? Families have less flexibility, less choice and less to pay the bills with. Life has become immeasurably harder for hardworking Australians. They are struggling to pay the mortgage, to pay the grocery bills, to pay the exorbitant energy bills and just to make ends meet. The fact of the matter is that inflation and high interest rates have not been beaten by this Treasurer. Rather, inflation and high interest rates have beaten this Treasurer and this government. You don't have to just take the coalition's word for it. Just look at what Labor's own stalwarts are saying. Sally McManus, Bill Kelty and Paul Keating all came out to say the family savings tax is a bad idea. It is a bad idea. Labor told the public that this tax would target only the few, but even Labor's mates called out their fibs. The Secretary of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, Sally McManus, warned the government, stating: I do think it's got to be indexed because you've got to make sure eventually people don't end up there. Former ACTU secretary Bill Kelty was even more scathing. He said: I think taxing unrealised capital gains is bad policy. It distorts the effective tax, changes your income flows, and if it was on superannuation generally, there would be a revolution about it. It would destroy super. Even the so-called father of the superannuation system, former Labor prime minister Paul Keating, who I know our Treasurer is so fond of, has explicitly said workers will be caught up in this net. Industry analysis has demolished the government's claims, revealing that the idea that this would hit only a small number of Australians was a furphy. It was going to hit 1.8 million Australians. They are looking at small businesses particularly closely because so many Australians who put everything on the line to run a small business hold their assets in superannuation. This brings us to the root and branch of the issue. Labor does not have a revenue problem; Labor has a spending problem. The primary problem confronting our country right now is structural spending growth that is vastly outpacing sustainable economic growth. When governments spend beyond their means, when they refuse to make the tough decisions, they inevitably reach into the pockets of taxpayers and find new taxes to fill the gap. This is precisely what we are witnessing. Rather than confronting waste, rather than prioritising programs and rather than restoring a shred of discipline, Labor has chosen to hunt for new pools of capital to tax. Trust is fundamental in tax reform. Australians accept reform when it's principled, predictable and based on broad consultation. What they do not and will not accept is retrospective tinkering, ad hoc changes and ideological experiments dressed up in the deceptive language of 'modest adjustments'. This proposal reinforces a broader, more dangerous pattern with this government—higher spending first and then hidden taxes to pay for it later. That is not economic reform; that is fiscal mismanagement on a grand scale. Furthermore, beyond the headline rates and the threshold changes, this legislation introduces serious hidden structural risks that the government has tried to sweep under the rug. Take, for example, the removal of the effective death tax exemption. This creates immense uncertainty for families at precisely the moment that they are vulnerable. Surviving spouses who suddenly find themselves relying on superannuation balances to maintain some semblance of stability after the devastating loss of a partner could face immense additional tax complexity and reduced financial security. Total and permanent disability benefit recipients are another cohort that must be considered carefully. These are Australians who, through no fault of their own, have suffered catastrophic events and are no longer able to work. Their superannuation is not an abstract investment vehicle. It is a vital lifeline. Any changes that increase volatility, reduce predictability or complicate access to those funds carries real, devastating human consequences. Tax policy cannot be designed in an ivory tower isolated from lived reality. When retirement income settings are destabilised, confidence in the entire system is eroded. The government has desperately pointed to increases in the low-income superannuation tax offset, the LISTO, as evidence of 'balance'. Let me be clear: any measure that generally supports low-income earners building retirement savings is welcome, but we must be honest about the scale and the timing. LISTO adjustments, while positive at the margin, do not put a single dollar back into household budgets today. They do not lower the grocery bills that are giving parents anxiety at the checkout. They do not ease the crushing weight of mortgage repayments. They do not reduce the electricity costs that are forcing families to choose between heating and eating. Australians are facing immediate, severe cost-of-living pressures right now. A future offset adjustment in a superannuation account does absolutely nothing to relieve those stresses today. If this government is serious about helping households, it must tackle inflation at its source—excessive government spending and weak economic growth—rather than just reshuffling offsets within the retirement system to buy good headlines. This proposal cannot and should not be viewed in isolation. It is Labor trying to clear the decks so they can spend more and pour more debt petrol on the inflation fire. When spending accelerates without corresponding structural reform, governments eventually reach the limits of conventional revenue. That is when they start testing new boundaries. They leave thresholds unindexed. They invent new bases for taxation, they create new, dangerous interpretations of what constitutes income. Today it is a superannuation balance above $3 million; tomorrow it may be another threshold, another definition or another asset class entirely. Debate adjourned. BUSINESS 72 BUSINESS Federation Chamber 72 16:42 Mr GILES 243609 Scullin by leave—I move: That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent debate on order of the day No. 6, government business, in the Federation Chamber today, extending beyond one hour. Question agreed to. BILLS 73 BILLS Treasury Laws Amendment (Building a Stronger and Fairer Super System) Bill 2026, Superannuation (Building a Stronger and Fairer Super System) Imposition Bill 2026 73

Treasury Laws Amendment (Building a Stronger and Fairer Super System) Bill 2026

Superannuation (Building a Stronger and Fairer Super System) Imposition Bill 2026

Second Reading 73 16:43 Mrs ELLIOT DZW Richmond I too rise to speak in support of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Building a Stronger and Fairer Super System) Bill 2026. Superannuation is one of the most significant social and economic reforms in modern Australian history. It reflects a simple but powerful idea: that working people deserve dignity, security and independence in retirement. The reforms in this bill are about making our super system even stronger and more sustainable. They're about ensuring that lower income workers receive a fairer tax concession and addressing imbalances in the distribution of tax concessions that have emerged over time. Of course, the Labor Party has a very long and proud history of creating, strengthening and defending our superannuation system. For most of the past century, superannuation was limited to public servants, members of the military and some white-collar employees. Most workers—particularly women, blue-collar workers and casual employees—retired with no savings, and they had to rely purely on the age pension. It was a Labor government that began the transformation of the system in the 1980s. The Prices and Incomes Accord embedded superannuation into industrial awards and dramatically expanded its coverage. It was a Labor government that continued this work in the 1990s by legislating the superannuation guarantee that required employers to contribute a set percentage of an employee's ordinary earnings into superannuation funds. The reforms were good for not just workers but the entire economy. Former prime minister Paul Keating, the architect of our super system, said: Superannuation, like Medicare, is now an Australian community standard, binding the whole population as a national economic family, with each person having a place. Before the reforms, Australia had low national savings and relied very heavily on foreign capital. Compulsory super built a vast pool of domestic savings that would eventually underpin infrastructure investment, business growth and financial stability. Today, Australia's super pool is worth more than $4.5 trillion. It's one of the largest pension systems in the world relative to GDP. Labor governments continue to shape the system by legislating a gradual increase in the superannuation guarantee from nine per cent to 12 per cent, introducing MySuper to provide low-cost default products, strengthening governance rules and improving fairness for low-income earners. The Albanese Labor government continues to build on this proud Labor legacy. Our government supported and completed the staged increases to super contributions, which reached 12 per cent in July 2025, and we made one of the most significant reforms to the super system with the decision to pay superannuation on Commonwealth paid parental leave. This reform recognised caregiving as an economic participation and helped reduce the long-term retirement penalty faced disproportionately by women. That change was great for families and great for the economy as well. In 2023, for the first time, our government legislated a formal objective for superannuation: to preserve savings to deliver income for a dignified retirement, alongside the age pension, in an equitable and sustainable way. Embedding this objective in law provides policy clarity and stability. It ensures that any future changes align with the core purpose of the system. From July this year, the payday super reforms legislated by our government will come into effect. This means employers will be required to pay super at the same time as wages instead of quarterly contributions. For workers, this reduces unpaid super risks. It also means their money doesn't sit unpaid for up to three months before it starts earning investment returns. Even small delays reduce long-term growth, so receiving super contributions earlier can add thousands of dollars to a worker's retirement balance over their lifetime. This is particularly important for younger workers and those in casual or part-time jobs. Our government extended the annual performance test beyond MySuper products to also include trustee directed products, which increased coverage from about 80 products to 800. We've aligned the financial reporting requirements of funds with those of public companies to ensure that fund members have better access to more meaningful and detailed information. These reforms also mean less onerous reporting for funds, with greater clarity about requirements and the removal of duplication. We've also announced mandatory service standards for super trustees, and we're reforming the retirement phase of superannuation as well. Over the next decade, more than 2.5 million Australians are expected to retire, and the Albanese Labor government has committed to uplifting the retirement phase of superannuation to ensure that Australians retire with the right information and strategies to help them make the most of their superannuation. Now, with the reforms in this bill, our government is making the superannuation system more equitable and more sustainable. This bill delivers on two key priorities. Firstly, it boosts support for low-income earners. Secondly, it makes tax concessions fairer and better targeted. On this first priority, we're boosting support for low-income earners by increasing the low-income superannuation tax offset, LISTO. This will mean a fairer tax concession on super contributions for low-income workers. The reforms in this bill mean that, from July next year, we'll increase the maximum LISTO payment from $310 to $810. We'll also raise the income eligibility threshold from $37,000 to $45,000. These changes will increase the total number of Australians eligible for LISTO to 3.1 million people. What a difference it'll make to them, and 3.1 million Australians—the majority of them being women—will have a more financially secure retirement. For many disability and aged-care workers, retail and hospitality staff, early childhood educators and nurses, these reforms will ensure they get the secure retirement they need, they've earned and they deserve. All workers with incomes between $28,000 and $45,000 will benefit from these changes. With an average increase in LISTO payments of $410, these workers could receive a benefit retirement of about $15,000, depending upon their income over the course of their career. The purpose of LISTO is to ensure individuals that earn up to a defined income threshold do not pay more tax on their superannuation contributions than they would have paid on their wages. In other words, it protects low-income workers from paying a higher effective tax rate simply because their earnings are directed into compulsory superannuation. The reforms in this bill strengthen that mechanism. They ensure that the LISTO eligibility threshold maximum payment amount will automatically adjust in line with any future changes to income tax thresholds and superannuation guarantee rates. With the third round of tax cuts taking effect in 2027, this will ensure that low-income workers will receive a fairer tax concession on their super contributions to align with these changes. On that second priority, we're making tax concessions fairer so they're better targeted for larger super balances. For individuals with total superannuation balances above $3 million, existing super tax concessions will be reduced on amounts over that threshold. This reform will take effect from July this year and impacts less than half a per cent of all Australians. Right now, all super balances earn investment returns that are taxed at a concessional rate of 15 per cent before retirement and tax-free after retirement. Under these reforms, for super balances between $3 million and $10 million, the tax will increase from 15 per cent to 30 per cent for the portion of the balance above $3 million. For super balances above $10 million, the concessional rate will be 40 per cent. Both the $3 million and the $10 million thresholds will be indexed to ensure that these higher rates continue to apply only to those individuals who have very large balances. Regardless of the $3 million and $10 million thresholds, earnings will remain tax-free in the retirement phase. Superannuation tax concessions are provided to encourage saving for retirement. They're not intended to provide indefinite, heavily subsidised wealth-accumulation vehicles for individuals who have extremely large balances. Without periodic recalibration, the cost of concessions on very large balances will continue to grow disproportionately, and of course this cost is borne by all taxpayers. This bill introduces a measured recalibration. The reforms in this bill ensure that the concessional treatment of superannuation will remain the same, but it will be provided in a fairer and more sustainable way. Targeting concessions for the biggest balances helps fund more super for those with the smallest balances. A stronger and more sustainable superannuation system, more super for low-income earners, keeping more of what you earn and retiring with more as well—that's essentially what all of these reforms are about. This bill strikes a careful balance. It preserves strong incentives to save. It maintains concessional treatment across the system. It introduces indexation arrangements to protect real thresholds over time. Importantly, the additional tax applies prospectively to earnings after commencement. It does not re-tax past contributions. It does not unwind existing arrangements. It is forward looking. The Australian Labor Party built our superannuation system, and successive Labor governments introduced reforms to ensure that the system remains fit for purpose. The Albanese Labor government has introduced significant reforms to improve the system and has enshrined the principles of equity and sustainability of the superannuation system in legislation. The reforms in this bill will build on that very proud legacy. Public confidence in our superannuation depends on fairness. Workers must be confident that the system is designed to support retirement securely for all, not to disproportionately benefit those who are already at the very top. Our superannuation system represents a shared national investment in dignity and security in retirement, and that's why our government is committed to protecting the long-term integrity of Australia's retirement income framework. Superannuation has reduced future pension pressure. It has increased household wealth. It has deepened capital markets. And it has given millions of Australians a tangible stake in our nation's prosperity. Superannuation is one of Australia's most important public policy achievements. That's why it's so important for us to confront any imbalances in the system when they do arise, and that's exactly what this bill does. It strengthens support where it's most needed. It moderates concessions where they are least justified. It modernises the system whilst respecting its very foundations. It's measured, targeted and principled. This bill ensures that the system remains strong, fair and sustainable for generations to come. I commend the bill to the House. 16:53 Mr THOMPSON 281826 Herbert When this Labor government runs out of money, it comes after yours. This is the same group of people who wanted to go after our farmers. They wanted to tax unrealised gains. This government wanted to tax out of existence those who put grain, food, fibre and meat on your plate. That is an absolute shame. I've never in my seven years here seen a government who is so blatantly going after hard-working Australians, taxing them more to bump up their revenue stream because they've run out of money. They've gone after hard-working Australians and gone after our farmers. We then get the hubris from the Treasurer, time and time again, who says that Australians have never had it so good—they've never had it better, and he's doing everything that the Australian people want. That couldn't be further from the truth. People are working harder and keeping less of what they make. People are working double the time in the workplace and extra jobs to keep up with inflation and cost-of-living pressures. Australians deserve clarity from this government, but it's not what they are getting. They need clarity and honesty on the direction that the country is travelling. Is this just an isolated adjustment, or is this the opening chapter in a high-tax, high-spending manifesto? We know the answer. This is exactly what life under Labor governments looks like. You pay more, you get less, and your future is never safe. The Coalition and community pressure has forced Labor to abandon the taxation of those unrealised gains and the indexation freeze, but, make no mistake, given half a chance if the door was left open, then this Labor government would come after your hard earned money and come after your life savings, because that's what they do. This government have been found out and are retreating under pressure thanks to sustained scrutiny from the coalition, from the superannuation sector and, most importantly, from small businesses, the backbone of this nation, as well as from everyday Australians who saw a government trying to sneak through changes to try and prop up their budget. We forced Labor to step back from the most outrageous elements of this proposal. This was not a proposal that was aimed at hurting retirees; this was aimed at hurting future generations, stealing the future of young Australians, and stealing it away from them without their knowledge. We exposed a clear breakdown in the relationship between the Prime Minister and the Treasurer. The original design to tax unrealised gains represented a fundamental break within the longstanding principles of the Australian tax system. Australians have always understood that tax is paid when income is realised—when cash is actually in hand. You cannot tax people on what you think they might make. A one-paddock grazier who hasn't had a good season would go bankrupt and lose the farm. They would lose what they have always lived on and grown up on. The flow-on effect to our economy would mean fewer farmers, less Australian produce and less of the choice that you have to buy Australian at the supermarket. To propose taxing paper gains, particularly in volatile asset classes, was not just a minor tweak. This was a structural shift that would have set a dangerous precedent across the whole tax base. Equally concerning was the government's refusal to index the $3 million threshold. In an inflationary environment being made worse by this treasurer and his willingness to pour debt petrol on the inflation fire, failing to index thresholds was a silent tax hike. Over time, more Australians would have been captured, not because they were in some wealthy top one per cent, but because inflation eroded the value of the threshold. That is bracket creep by design and a flawed policy. If it wasn't a flawed policy, it was a sneaky trick to take more of your hard earned savings. The government's backdown demonstrates one thing clearly—this was never settled policy grounded in principle. It was a blatant revenue grab that was exposed and collapsed under scrutiny. Tax policy reform should not be done with haste; it should be done in consultation. It's my belief that this Labor government can't be trusted. They say one thing in the community and do another thing here. At the last election, Australians were not presented with a policy to tax unrealised gains in superannuation. They were not told that longstanding superannuation settings would be fundamentally altered. They were not warned that indexation would be stripped away. Promises matter in a democracy. Major structural tax changes should be put clearly and transparently to the Australian people. Instead, this proposal appeared out of nowhere, with limited to no consultation and a rushed legislative timetable. That is why this debate has resonated so strongly. Australians instinctively understand when something has been slipped in without their consent. When it comes to retirement savings—the nest eggs built over decades of hard work—the bar for legitimacy must be higher. We have a government that cannot be trusted. We were promised by Labor, by this treasurer, that they had beaten inflation and higher interest rates. We were told by this government that they were going to make life easier for families, yet families have had less flexibility and less choice. In life it's been harder for hardworking Australians to pay the mortgage, to pay the energy bill and to make ends meet. Right now around Australia people are making hard decisions, whether they're paying insurance, cancelling sporting events for their children, putting food on the table or making those tough sacrifices because of how hard it is to make ends meet in this country. The fact of the matter is that inflation and high interest rates have beaten this treasurer and this government. When Sally McManus, Bill Kelty and Paul Keating say the family-savings tax is a bad idea, it's a bad idea. If your Labor front line, union officials and Paul Keating come out and say this is a bad idea, that Labor has lost its way and is not doing the right thing, then the Labor government should listen. Labor said it would only target the few, but even Labor's mates are out there calling out the fibs. The Secretary of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, Sally McManus, warned: I do think it's got to be indexed because you've got to make sure eventually people don't end up there. Former ACTU secretary Bill Kelty has said: I think taxing unrealised capital gains is bad policy. It distorts the effective tax. Changes your income flows, and if it was on superannuation generally, there would be a revolution about it. It would destroy super. The father of the superannuation system, Paul Keating—the person that Treasurer Chalmers looks up to the most—has said that workers would be caught up. Industry analysis has found the claim by the government that it would only hit a small number of Australians is a furphy; it was going to hit 1.8 million Australians. Those are the Labor heavyweights saying that this is a bad policy, yet, if the Treasurer saw an opening, he would take it, because he knows that he, as the Treasurer, and the Prime Minister cannot manage a budget. They've run out of money. They've run out of ideas. Now they're coming after Australians' money. The problem confronting our country is structural spending growth that is outpacing sustainable economic growth. Labor has a spending problem, not a revenue problem. When governments spend beyond their means, they reach for new taxes to fill a gap—to fill the hole. This is precisely what we are witnessing here. Rather than confronting waste, rather than prioritising programs and rather than restoring fiscal discipline, Labor has chosen to hunt for new pools of capital to tax. Trust is fundamental in tax reform. Australians accept reform when it is principled, predictable and based on consultation. They do not accept retrospective tinkering, ad hoc changes and ideological experiments dressed up as 'just modest adjustments'. This proposal reinforces a broader pattern: high spending first, then new taxes to pay for it later. That is not reform. That is fiscal mismanagement. Tax policy cannot be designed in isolation when retirement income settings need confidence and the entire system is eroded. This Labor government is once again trying to leave the door ajar to come after hard-working Australian tax dollars. Make no mistake; they have run out of money. They have not prioritised the Australian people correctly. They are trying to cut programs, tax you, raise revenue wherever they can and blame everyone else. I'm sure something that's happening in the Middle East, or somewhere around the world, will be the cause of this treasurer trying to sneak in another sneaky tax. The Australian people, the community—those who came out so hard, in their masses, and said, 'We do not support taxing unrealised gains'—and small businesses have got better things to do than fight a government on a tax they're trying to creep in. They are the engine room of the economy. They're the ones that keep the lights on here—the private sector, our small businesses—not the government. The coalition stood side by side with our small businesses, with our farmers, and said, 'We will not support it.' We had to take the fight up to the government. I don't think that a lot of the policies the Treasurer has tried to rush through will help Australians. I think we'll see the pain. It's normally after politicians have left this place, when they're in retirement somewhere. That's when the pain will flow through the hardest. The Treasurer, the Labor Party and this Labor government need to listen, work and deliver for the Australian people rather than listen, work and deliver for their mates in the unions and the CFMEU—well, not the ACTU because they came out and they didn't support this policy. That's why there are a lot of coalition members coming in here today to speak against some of the most drastic and draconian tax policies that a government has tried to ram through this place—at least in my lifetime. 17:08 Mr GEORGANAS DZY Adelaide I rise to support this bill, unlike those on the opposite side who are not supporting this bill, based on what we've heard so far from different speeches yesterday and today. It doesn't surprise me that they're not supporting this bill. When you look at the history of superannuation and superannuation legislation in this House, and in the older house down the road where superannuation was first mooted, discussed and proposed in the Hawke-Keating years, it has been opposed every single way by the opposition. Every time there's been legislation in this House to better superannuation for workers, it's been opposed by the other side. So it's no surprise that they'll be opposing this. What are they opposing? They're opposing a better superannuation system for low-income workers. Why do those opposite not want low-income workers to have a better system and a super tax offset which means there'll be more money in their retirement so they can retire with dignity? If someone can tell me why that is wrong, maybe I can see the sense in it. But that's what this bill does. This bill is delivering more help to low-income workers. It reforms the superannuation system to make it stronger, to make it fairer for everyone and to make it more sustainable. It boosts those low-income workers superannuation tax offsets and better targets superannuation concessions for large balances. So, as I said, it does not surprise me that once again we're seeing an opposition who is opposing superannuation. They opposed the whole concept of it back in the eighties when it was proposed under the Hawke-Keating government. In fact, they even overturned legislation, which was proposed and brought to this place in 2013, to take the super requirement up to 12 per cent. Then—I mentioned this the other day when I was speaking on the other bill, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Supporting Choice in Superannuation and Other Measures) Bill 2025—Joe Hockey overturned it when he came into being Treasurer in 2013. He said, 'No, we're not going to give that increase to workers.' It was 1.5 per cent or 2.05 per cent, or whatever it was back then. It took another Labor government to give that increase to workers. That little increase that they receive makes a huge difference to their superannuation at the end of their retirement plan, which means there will be more in their pockets. So this bill is increasing the low-income super tax offset and also super concessions. It's targeting super concessions, paying super on paid parental leave and introducing payday super. Payday super is very important. We've seen millions and millions of dollars that have never been paid into super. Many, many constituents have come to see me. They've mainly been young people that have been working in apprenticeships or have started their very first job. They're basically unaware of their industrial rights and of what superannuation is. They usually speak to a third party who says to them, 'Have you been getting your super paid?' and they discover when they look in their account that no super has been paid. We've all seen situations like that, because, when you're paying it every three months, it's so easy to fall behind and not pay it. The legislation will mean that it's paid on every payday there and then, which makes it easier for both the employer and the employee. Some of the other things that we've done include increasing the superannuation guarantee to 12 per cent. As I said earlier, it should have been increased back in 2013, but it was overturned by the former coalition government. We've also legislated the objective for superannuation. This legislation implements the government's policy to better target concessions available to individuals with superannuation balances that exceed $3 million, which is a very small group. It's less than 0.5 per cent of all superannuants and people who are contributing to super funds. It maintains the concessional treatment of superannuation for all taxpayers and makes superannuation tax concessions more targeted at those people with large balances. The measures in this bill reflect the principle of a fairer tax system. It will also rebalance superannuation tax concessions so they're directed where they matter the most and ensure that support goes to those who need it the most, not to those with extraordinary balances. The vast majority of people that will be getting the tax offsets are workers, like nurses, teachers, apprentices, carers, hospitality staff, small-business employees and countless others, so nothing changes except the reassurance that the system will be fairer and stronger. By adjusting the concessional tax rates, as I said, of the very high balances, the bill helps protect retirement incomes for everyday Australians while preserving the long-term health of the superannuation system itself. Super's not just a financial instrument. It's a lifelong safety net, built year by year, shift by shift when you're working shifts, sacrifice by sacrifice—small increments that then should enable you to retire in dignity. That's what it's all about. Importantly, these reforms do more than protect. They lift up those who need it the most. Raising the low-income super tax offset threshold from $37,000 to $45,000 will ensure that workers earning modest wages, like childcare workers, retail assistants, disability support workers, cleaners and early career employees, will receive a fairer tax concession on their contributions. What is wrong with that? Why is the opposition opposing these low-income workers getting a fairer tax concession on their contribution? That's the difference. It isn't an abstract. That's the reality. For some families, super is more than just savings. It's what's going to give them dignity in retirement. These are not small changes. They're changes that honour the effort of people who work incredibly hard for every dollar they earn. These changes strengthen the superannuation system so that it remains a pillar of security, not a source of inequity, and they ensure that a system built for all Australians continues to serve all Australians fairly, responsibly and with an eye to the future. At the heart of this discussion is not just tax rates and legislation. It's people. As I said, it's about people retiring in dignity and people being able to continue putting food on the table, paying their bills and not worrying about where their next dollar is going to come from when they retire. It's their futures, and it's their right to retire with that dignity, security and peace. It's our shared responsibility to make sure the system protects that right, not just today but for generations to come. These are the decisions that we don't make in haste but with time and consultation of a broad range of unions, industries and other stakeholders supporting this expansion of eligibility for the low-income super tax offset. I'll repeat that. I love repeating that because I can't believe that the opposition would oppose it. Eligibility for the low-income super tax offset means more money in the super accounts for low-income workers. It means more money in the pockets of those low-income workers. In my electorate, I have all the restaurants in the CBD. There are many, many part-time workers struggling. Perhaps they're students working part time. This will make a huge difference to those people. The steps in this legislation today put in place actions that we have full confidence will work and benefit Australian families and households. This is an important bill. It makes it a fairer balance for superannuation, and it ensures that those low-income workers will have more money in their super. It'll ensure that those low-income workers will retire with more and retire with dignity, and that's what superannuation is all about. It's not about being used as an offset to save on taxes and do a whole range of other things. It's there as a savings account for workers to be able to retire in dignity. That was the focus and purpose of superannuation back in the eighties when it was firsts proposed that we wanted workers to be able to retire with dignity and to know that when they retire they weren't going to be just wanting the social security pension, as it was called at the time, but to be able to retire in dignity with their own money. The way to do this is through a savings scheme, the superannuation plan, that was put in place by a Labor government way back in the late eighties. What we see today is thousands of workers that have an account, a retirement fund and have some income coming to them when they retire. It's an important bill and a bill that should be supported by all of us in this place. Shame on the opposition for not supporting it and for not supporting low-income workers. 17:19 Mr REBELLO 316547 McPherson I rise to oppose the Treasury Laws Amendment (Building a Stronger and Fairer Super System) Bill 2026, because it strikes at something quite fundamental. It's about the trust Australians place in their retirement system. Superannuation is not spare change for the government to raid when budgets tighten. It is deferred income. It's the product of decades of hard work, of discipline and of sacrifice. Australians make decisions about their future based on the rules set by this parliament and the government of the day, and they are entitled to expect that those rules will not be rewritten whenever it becomes politically convenient. This bill undermines that trust, and once confidence in the system is shaken it is extraordinarily difficult to restore. I've said time and time again that those on this side of the House would rather tighten the federal budget than the family budget. This bill is the consequence of a government that doesn't agree with that statement. So let's turn to what the substance of this bill is, because, as a coalition, we have always said we will be constructive where we can be. There are parts of this bill that we do agree with, but there are also parts that we don't. The bill reintroduces Labor's division 296 super tax in a revised form. This has followed—and I'll give you the context—sustained pressure from the coalition and from industry. The government, as a result of that pressure, has corrected two serious design flaws: (1) it has abandoned the taxation of unrealised gains, protecting SMSFs, holding farms and small businesses from being taxed on gains that they have not made, and (2) it has agreed to index the $3 million threshold, which prevents bracket creep from slowly expanding the tax base over time. These changes confirm that the original position that was taken by this government and by this Treasurer was fundamentally flawed. It also shows a broader issue with this government, and that is that Labor cannot be trusted with tax reform and that this Treasurer cannot be trusted with tax reform. So this bill now reintroduces division 296 in a revised form following the government's earlier proposal in 2023. Under the revised design, an additional 15 per cent tax applies to superannuation earnings attributable to balances above $3 million, resulting in an effective 30 per cent rate on realised earnings above that threshold. There is a new threshold of $10 million which applies a 40 per cent rate. The thresholds are now indexed, and the tax applies only to realised capital gains. This bill exposes the fundamental difference between those on this side of the House and those in government. It is a difference that relates to our level of respect for Australians, our level of respect for those who work hard and save. We on this side of the House are not trying to create any sort of divide between those who are perceived to have and those who are perceived to not have. But at the last election Australians were not presented with any form of policy that longstanding superannuation settings would be fundamentally altered. They were not warned about these changes. These promises do matter in a democracy, and Australians do hold governments to account based on what they promise and what they don't speak about. Major structural tax changes should be put clearly and transparently to the Australian people. But this proposal appeared out of nowhere, with limited consultation and a rushed legislative timeline. That's why this debate has resonated so strongly with Australians and with Australians in my electorate on the southern Gold Coast, who speak to me time and time again about the issues they are facing under this Labor government. We were told by the government that they were going to make life easier for Australians, for Australian families and for Australian businesses. But we've seen the absolute alternative, which is less flexibility and less choice. And life has been harder for Australians. It has been harder to pay the mortgage, to pay the bills, like the energy bill, and to make ends meet. The fact of the matter is that inflation and high interest rates have beaten this Treasurer and this government, and this legislation is a consequence of that, because we all know that, when this Labor government runs out of money, it comes after yours. Many voices have spoken up against this proposal—many of which are not from our side of politics but from the other side of politics. I'd like to speak in particular about the impact on small businesses and small-business owners because, make no mistake, this legislation is an attack on small businesses. They're looking at small businesses particularly closely because the reality is that so many Australians who own small businesses hold their assets in super. As I've said, this legislation, this proposed bill, is the result of a government that has lost control of its spending. Labor's actually got a spending problem, not a revenue problem. The problem confronting Australia at the moment is that structural spending growth is outpacing sustainable economic growth, and, when governments spend beyond their means, they inevitably reach for new taxes to fill the gap—to fill the hole. That's exactly what we are witnessing here today. Rather than confronting that waste and confronting that lack of fiscal guardrails, this government is hunting for new pools of capital and wanting to tax those. This is an absolute breach of trust in Australia. It's also symptomatic of a broader pattern, which is that this government puts higher spending first and then new taxes to pay for it later. That's not reform; that's fiscal mismanagement. I've heard some of the contributions of those opposite, and they've spoken about the low-income superannuation tax offset and said that the inclusion of that is evidence of balance. Now, we have been honest about our position on this, and we haven't gone against the government on this part. We have said that any measure that supports low-income earners building retirement savings is welcome. It's welcome from this side of the House of Representatives. But we do also need to be honest about the scale and the timing. The reality is that the low-income superannuation tax offsets do not put money back into household budgets right now, today. They don't lower the grocery bills now. They're not assisting in paying electricity bills now. And that's the problem—because Australians across the Gold Coast, across my electorate and across the country are all facing cost-of-living pressures right now, and future offset adjustments in superannuation do very little to relieve those stresses and those pressures. Instead of coming after a new form of tax, if the government were actually serious about addressing the issues that matter to Australians, about addressing the cost pressures that Australians, their families and their small businesses are facing, they would tackle inflation at its source—instead of trying to impose taxes where they don't need to be imposed. They would focus on their excessive spending and on weak growth, rather than reshuffling offsets within the existing retirement income system. This legislation is symptomatic of where Australia is going under this Labor government. Labor is taking this country in a direction—in fact, we're already here—of high tax and of high spending. This proposal should not be viewed, in and of itself, in isolation. It is Labor wanting to spend more and pour debt petrol on the inflation fire. But, at its core, this debate is not about a balanced threshold or a revenue line in the budget. It's actually about whether Australians can rely on the long-term promises that are made by those who represent them. It is about whether we as a parliament choose to reward prudence or choose to punish it. It's about whether we strengthen self-funded retirement or slowly erode it. If we do believe in aspiration, if we believe in stability and if we believe that Australians who work hard and save diligently should not become an easy target for shifting fiscal pressures, then we cannot support this bill. For these reasons, I urge those around me in this place who are supposed to stand up for and represent their constituents to join us in rejecting it. 17:30 Ms TRISH COOK 312871 Bullwinkel I rise today to speak in strong support of the Superannuation (Building a Stronger and Fairer Super System) Imposition Bill 2026. In this place, we often talk in billions of dollars and percentages of GDP. But, for the people that I represent in Bullwinkel, those numbers are secondary to a much simpler question: can I afford to retire? My life before politics was shaped by two very demanding and very different worlds. As many in this House know, I spent decades as a registered nurse and midwife, and I've seen and experienced the physical toll that 40 years of labour takes on a person. But I also spent a decade concurrently during that time as a small-business owner. I know what it's like to sit at a kitchen table late at night looking at the books, making sure that the BAS is lodged and ensuring that my staff are fully and properly paid and that their super is covered. I understand the pressure of meeting a payroll and the pride of building something from the ground up. When I look at this bill, I look at it through both those lenses—worker and employer. I see it as a nurse who wants a dignified retirement for my patients, and I see it as a former business owner who knows that every dollar in a budget, whether it's a small-business budget or a Commonwealth budget, must be spent where it does the most good. This bill is about ensuring our superannuation system remains the envy of the world, making it stronger, fairer and, most importantly, sustainable for the long haul. The electorate of Bullwinkel is a microcosm of the Australian economy. We have the bustling suburban centres of Forrestfield and High Wycombe, where young families are working hard to get ahead. We have the hills communities of Kalamunda and Mundaring, filled with professionals and healthcare workers. And we have the historic heart of the wheat belt in Northam and York, where our farmers and regional business owners keep the state moving. In every one of these towns, people value fairness. They don't mind people being successful. In fact, they celebrate it. But they do expect the system to be balanced. Currently, our superannuation tax concessions cost the budget more than $60 billion per year. To put that in perspective, by the 2040s, these tax breaks will cost the Australian taxpayer more than the entire age pension. When I talk to small-business owners in York, they understand that you can't keep a system running if the concessions are being swallowed up by a tiny fraction of the population at the expense of everyone else. Around 38 per cent of super earnings concessions go to the top 10 per cent of income earners. That isn't a fair go. That's a structural imbalance that we have a responsibility to fix. Schedules 1 to 3 of this bill implement the government's policy to better target tax concessions for individuals with superannuation balances exceeding $3 million. So let's be very clear about who this affects. The policy is expected to affect less than half a per cent of Australians. In Bullwinkel, that's a handful of people. For the other 99.5 per cent of my constituents—the teachers, truckies, retail workers and farmers—their tax treatment will remain exactly the same. Their earnings correspond to balances below $3 million and will continue to be taxed at the concessional rate of 15 per cent. For those with balances between $3 million and $10 million, the tax rate will be up to 30 per cent. For the very small group—less than one per cent of Australians—with balances above $10 million, the rate will go further and be increased to 40 per cent. As a former business owner, I know the importance of certainty. That's why Labor has listened to feedback over the last two years, to get the design right, and we have made amendments. We have indexed the $3 million to $10 million thresholds to the transfer balance cap. We are using established income tax concepts to reflect realised gains, and we're ensuring that all members of the defined benefit schemes are treated in a commensurate fashion. This isn't about penalising success. It's about recognising that a $10 million superannuation balance is no longer about retirement; it's a tax advantaged wealth management vehicle. By trimming the concessions at the very top, we secure the system for everyone else. While the opposition wants to focus on the top half a percent, I'd rather focus on the 1.3 million Australians who will benefit from schedule 4 of this bill. We are boosting the low income superannuation tax offset, or LISTO. This is a game changer for low-income workers in Bullwinkel, and it's good to hear that the opposition support this component. We are increasing the maximum payment from $500 to $810 and lifting the eligibility threshold from $37,000 to $45,000. We have over 100,000 sales assistants, over 50,000 administration workers and over 50,000 aged carers and disability carers in the nation who will benefit. These are the people that I worked alongside in the health system. These are the people who keep our local shops running in Forrestfield. For a part-time worker in Mundaring earning $40,000 a year, this boost, combined with other reforms, could mean an extra $15,000 in their account by the time they retire. We all know the value of compounding income and savings. That's the difference between a retirement spent counting every cent and a retirement spent with dignity. As a former midwife, I've spent my life advocating for women. We know that the current super system has a glaring gender gap. Because women often work part time or take significant breaks to care for children or ageing parents, they retire with significantly less super than men. Around 60 per cent of the people who will benefit from the LISTO payment boost are women. We're talking about 750,000 women across Australia who will now have a fairer tax concession on their super contributions. This works hand in hand with our decision to pay super on paid parental leave and our move towards payday super. We're making sure that the super system finally works for the people who do the most important work in our society: the carers and the parents. Labor has built the superannuation system. We built it because we believe that the wealth of this nation should belong to the people who created it. Imagine if we didn't have super. What a burden that would be on our tax dollar. Every step of the way, the coalition has fought this. They fought the 12 per cent guarantee. They want people to raid their retirement savings, their super savings, for home deposits, which would drive up house prices and leave people destitute in their old age. They will stand up in this debate and cry 'class war' because we are asking people with $10 million in super to pay a bit more in tax. But they're silent about the cleaners and the retail workers, who haven't had a fair go from the super tax system for years. As a former business owner, I know that a good leader looks at the long term. You don't just look at the next quarter; you look at the next decade. These bills are long-term leadership. They ensure that the road to recovery for our budget is paved with fairness. The Superannuation (Building a Stronger and Fairer Super System) Imposition Bill 2026 is ultimately about values. It's about the nurse in Northam who deserves to know that her super is growing. It's about the small-business owner in Kalamunda who wants a sustainable economy for their children. It's about the 1.3 million low-income workers who are finally getting the help they need with their retirement savings. There are 14 times as many people who will benefit from the boost to LISTO as there are people affected by the $3 million threshold, and that is the only statistic you really need in order to understand whose side the government is on. We are on the side of workers, we are on the side of women and we are on the side of the future. I commend these bills to the House. 17:40 Mr CHAFFEY 316312 Parkes I rise to speak against the Treasury Laws Amendment (Building a Stronger and Fairer Super System) Bill 2026 and the Superannuation (Building a Stronger and Fairer Super System) Imposition Bill 2026. We know the government's finances are in a mess. We will soon hit $1 trillion in debt, with an interest bill of $50,000 a minute. It's hard for most Australians to even think in terms of a trillion dollars. Not so long ago, a billion dollars seemed to be an enormous amount of money. Since the Albanese government came to office four years ago, $100 billion in debt has been added, so this government is obviously scrambling to find a way to keep the boat afloat. Their initial super plan was to tax unrealised capital gains. We can all see why this is wrong. You are taxed on your earnings, you're taxed on your savings, you're taxed on your superannuation. The latest and greatest idea was to tax people on money that they had not even earnt yet. There is only so much that Australians can take, and this was a tax that went too far. That was super tax 1.0. As complicated as tax and superannuation can be, blind Freddy could see that this was not fair, and our hardworking, innovative farmers and small-business owners in the electorate of Parkes are a long way from being blind Freddy. Due to inflation, land values have gone up everywhere, and the family farm may now be worth significantly more than it was back when the grandparents first bought the block. That does not mean that farmers who live there have more money. It does not mean bigger income. These are their family homes and their livelihoods. It is essential that farmers get a fair go so that they can continue to grow the food and the fibre for this nation but also for other nations through our exports. Superannuation tax 1.0 was not a fair go. These days, $3 million is not a lot of money—nowhere near as much as it used to be. As I just stated, Australia is looking at a trillion-dollar debt. More often than not, the family home is up around a million dollars. For most places, that's just the starting point. Superannuation tax 1.0 was a plan to punish farmers and small-business owners by attacking their unrealised gains in superannuation. It was a move that was shockingly ignorant to the way that self-managed superannuation funds work. We're told over and over again how important it is to save for our own futures and to avoid placing the burden on future generations, yet people who have been saving all their lives to do so were looking down the barrel of a tax that would have forced them to sell portions of their property and raided their nest eggs. Again, it would have targeted those who are just trying to do the right thing. It was only after a sustained campaign from the Liberals and Nationals, when we highlighted over and over again just how significantly this would impact farmers and small-business owners, that the Labor government finally backed down. And now we have this, the new version, super tax 2.0. The coalition and the community forced Labor to abandon the indexation freeze and the taxation of unrealised gains. It was a very quiet admission that they had got it completely wrong and been completely unfair in attempting to go forward with those superannuation changes. Now we are, as I said, looking at super tax 2.0. This one diverts attention from the crippling guidelines of super tax 1.0, but it does so with a stunning lack of detail. What is this new improved super tax all about? How about a bit of transparency for those it is going to impact, who are still reeling from the threat of being taxed on money that they had not even earnt? How will super tax 2.0 work? Who will it impact, and how much will it impact them? Show us the detail. Show Australians how you really feel about their finances. Show us you have listened and learned from the super tax 1.0 debacle. Unlike this Albanese Labor government, regional Australians have gone without. They've worked hard, they've saved their pennies and they've made a plan for their own future and for the future of other generations. They have done this while being taxed every step of the way. They've done this while they've faced uncertain seasons, droughts, floods, pandemic, the rise and fall of commodity prices, inflation—it just keeps on going. Australians deserve to know what this latest tax grab to fuel the Labor government's spending spree really means. Spend now, tax later: Labor is looking for more ways to pay the bill, and, as so often happens, the buck stops in regional Australia. Is it fair? Show us how. Is it better? Show us how. Will it mean certainty for Australia's future? Well, then show us how. Labor has lost Australians' trust. They have lost trust over promises about inflation, about high interest rates, about the cost of living. The Labor government is pointing at increases in the low income super tax offset as great news. I welcome the support that helps people who are on low incomes to build their retirement savings. But this does nothing for Australians who are on a tight budget today. It doesn't put money back in their pockets for the escalating food costs, energy costs or mortgage repayments. A future offset does not help them now. They are also concerned about the removal of the death tax exemption. This will hit families when they're at their most vulnerable. When your loved one passes away, the last thing you need to be worried about is the complexities of a superannuation system. Of major concern is the additional taxation rate on earnings on superannuation balances above $3 million that will start in the next taxation year. This will be taxed at an extra rate of 15 per cent. That's a total of 30 per cent taxation, or double the current taxation rate. Earnings on the portion of superannuation above $10 million will attract a whopping 40 per cent. I'd like to give a real-life example of someone from my electorate, from Parkes—Scott, from a property near Forbes. He called with concerns when super tax 1.0 was on the horizon. Scott owns a farm through his self-managed superannuation fund that is now worth more than $3 million. Anyone who owns a farm knows that $3 million doesn't amount to much these days when it comes to farmland. Superannuation tax 1.0 would have meant big changes for Scott in a big hurry. Superannuation tax 2.0 also carries concerns. If a farmer is to retire to town and sell the family farm for more than $3 million, the earnings would be taxed at 30 per cent on the portion above $3 million. That's double the current tax. If it were to sell for more than $10 million, that farmer would pay 40 per cent on the tax of the portion above 10 million. How fair is that? This property might have been in the family for generations. Now Scott will lose a significant portion of the sale price to Labor's new superannuation tax 2.0 and his retirement nest egg. This is an enormous increase on taxation for people who are banking on that money for their retirement. Australians are struggling right now, and they need to know that they are saving for a reason. That reason should not and cannot be that the federal government is looking for other sources of money to shore up the country's debt or to pay for ill advised promises. If, even in this out-of-control economy, farmers and small-business owners have managed to show restraint, dedication and fiscal wisdom, they need to know that the government can do the same. Labor has a spending problem, not a revenue problem. The problem confronting our country is structural spending growth that is outpacing sustainable economic growth. When government spend beyond their means, they inevitably reach for new taxes to fill the gap and to fill the hole. That is precisely what we are witnessing here. Rather than confronting waste, rather than prioritising programs and rather than restoring fiscal principles, Labor has chosen to hunt for new pools of capital to tax. Trust is fundamental in tax reform. Australians accept reform when it is principled, predictable and based on broad consultation. What they do not accept is the retrospective tinkering and ad hoc changes to ideological experiments dressed up as modest adjustments. This proposal reinforces a broader pattern: higher spending first, then new taxes to pay for it later. That is not reform; that is fiscal mismanagement. 17:51 Mr ABDO 316915 Calwell There are moments in this parliament when legislation is technical, and there are moments when legislation speaks directly to the kind of country we want Australia to be. This is one of those moments, designed to build a stronger and fairer super system because superannuation is not just a policy instrument; it is one of the most powerful, democratising economic reforms in Australian history. It is the reason millions of Australians retire with dignity instead of dependence. It is the reason working people—nurses, teachers, tradies, warehouse workers, small-business employees—collectively own a stake in this nation's economic future. Superannuation is deferred wages. It is not a gift. It is not largesse. It is earned pay slip by pay slip and preserved for retirement. Because of that, this parliament has a responsibility to ensure that the system remains fair, sustainable and true to its purpose. That is exactly what these bills do. This parliament is legislating the objective of superannuation: to preserve savings to deliver income for a dignified retirement alongside government support in an equitable and sustainable way. This objective matters because superannuation was never designed to be an unlimited tax shelter; it was designed to fund retirement income. If we lose sight of that, we risk eroding public confidence in the entire system, and confidence is everything. Superannuation tax concessions are generous. They cost the budget more than $60 billion every year. Without reform, they are projected to exceed the cost of the age pension in the 2040s. Now, concessions are appropriate—they encourage savings and they reduce future pension liabilities—but they must be targeted. Currently, 38 per cent of super earnings concessions go to the top 10 per cent of income earners, while 54 per cent go to the top 20 per cent. That concentration cannot be ignored. It's important to understand exactly what the low-income super tax offset, or LISTO, is, because this goes to the heart of fairness in our super system. When a low-income worker receives a super contribution from their employer, that contribution is taxed at 15 per cent inside the super fund. But, if that worker's marginal tax rate is lower than 15 per cent or they pay little or no income tax, they can effectively pay more tax on their super than on their wages. That is unfair. LISTO exists to correct that. It refunds the tax paid on concessional super contributions up to a capped amount so that low-income earners are not penalised simply because they earn less. This legislation strengthens LISTO. From 1 July 2027, the LISTO threshold rises from $37,000 to $45,000, and the maximum payment increases from $500 to $810. Crucially, this legislation explicitly links LISTO settings to income tax thresholds and the superannuation guarantee rate, ensuring the offset keeps pace structurally into the future. This is not cosmetic; it is structural reform. In 2027-28, 770,000 additional Australians will become eligible; 490,000 Australians will receive a higher payment; 1.3 million Australians will benefit directly; around 750,000 are women; and around 550,000 are under 30. The total number eligible rises to 3.1 million Australians. There are 14 times as many people benefiting from this LISTO boost as there are people with more than $3 million in super. For a low-income worker, up to $810 a year into super is meaningful as it compounds into retirement. It helps narrow the gender retirement gap. If we are serious about closing retirement inequality, we cannot ignore this reality. That is dignity. That is security. That is fairness. The benefits of this reform are not abstract; they will be felt directly in communities like mine. Analysis by the Super Members Council shows that in Calwell alone around 8,180 low-income workers will receive a boost to their superannuation because of the changes to the low-income superannuation tax offset. On average that means about $399 more going into retirement savings of each of those workers per year—delivering around $3.3 million in additional super savings into our community. Importantly, the majority of those who benefit are woman—more than 5,100 women in Calwell—helping to narrow the super gender gap and strengthen the retirement security of family across Melbourne's north. The Treasurer captured this in a recent interview on ABC Radio National. He said: The legislation does 2 things. It does make the concessional tax treatment fairer for people with the biggest balances, but it also increases the low-income super tax offset for people with the lowest balances. He described it as making the super system fairer from top to bottom, and he is right. This is an important intergenerational issue. Younger Australians are entitled to ask whether a system costing more than $60 billion a year is sustainable. This legislation ensures that it will be. The Treasurer also said if those opposite: … vote against this legislation they will be voting for less super for people on low incomes, and they will be voting for even bigger tax breaks for people who have $10 million or $20 million or $30 million in their super already. That is the choice before this parliament. You either strengthen retirement savings for super-low-income Australians, or you push more tax benefits, more tax concessions to those with high retirement savings going into the millions and tens of millions. Let us also recognise what is actually structurally important about this legislation. For too long the low-income super tax offset was static while the broader tax system moved. Income tax thresholds changed. The superannuation guarantee increased, but the LISTO threshold sat still. That is how inequity creeps in, not through dramatic change but through drift. This legislation ends that drift. By explicitly linking LISTO thresholds and payment rates to personal income tax settings and the superannuation guarantee, we embed fairness into the architecture of the system. We futureproof it. We ensure that low-income workers are not quietly left behind every time structural reforms are made elsewhere, because superannuation is a long game. A 22-year-old apprentice entering the workforce today will contribute for 40 years. A retail worker earning $42,000 a year will rely on these structural settings compounding over decades. The decisions we make now echo across a working lifetime, and the decisions we avoid echo too. If we pretend the balances of $10 million, $20 million and $30 million should continue receiving unlimited concessional treatment, the fiscal pressure does not disappear; it accumulates and it compounds, just like super itself. Intergenerational fairness cuts both ways. It means strengthening balances for low-income workers today, and it means ensuring tomorrow's taxpayers are not asked to fund unsustainable concessions for the very few. That is responsible economic management. Superannuation did not drift into existence. Labor built it—deliberately, systematically and against resistance—and that is why we will defend it. Let us not pretend the politics here are new. The Liberal Party opposed superannuation at its inception. They froze the superannuation guarantee. They delayed increases. They undermined accountability reforms. Now they present themselves as defenders of aspiration, while defending unlimited concessions at the very top. The Leader of the Opposition and his failed economic team produce reactionary thought bubbles, few of them containing actual thought. What they cannot accept is the idea that working people might accumulate capital without their permission, that working people can build wealth and that working people can control their financial future. Superannuation democratises capital. It turns wage earners into investors. It gives working Australians ownership in infrastructure, industry and enterprise. For Labor, that is the point. Some opposite have always been uncomfortable with that. They frame the Australian dream as trade-offs: choose between owning your home or having a comfortable retirement; draw down your super to patch over housing failures; downgrade your expectations. We on this side of the House, the Albanese Labor government, reject that. The Australian dream has always been both: a home of your own and a dignified retirement after a lifetime of hard work. We will not force Australians to choose, and we will not defend unlimited taxpayer subsidies for those with $20 million in super, while telling ordinary Australians to tighten their belts. This side of the House stands with working people. We stand with the nurse, the apprentice, the retail worker, the single parent returning to work and young Australians starting their first job. Superannuation is not a loophole. It is not a shelter. It is not a privilege for the few. It is a pillar of economic security for the many. Labor built it, Labor strengthened it and Labor will defend it—stronger, fairer and more sustainable. I commend the bills to the House. 18:01 Mr LEESER 109556 Berowra The Treasury Laws Amendment (Building a Stronger and Fairer Super System) is a bill that deals with the trickiest tax that Labor have ever sought to bring into this place since Federation, and we as the coalition are deeply opposed to what they've been trying to do. This bill is also evidence of a policy backtrack. Coalition and community pressure forced Labor to abandon the taxation of unrealised capital gains and indexation freeze. This would have done untold damage. The government has been found out and has retreated under pressure. That's what we're seeing in what they've done with this bill. Thanks to sustained scrutiny from the coalition—scrutiny that has been applied by many of my colleagues over many days in many different fora—from the superannuation sector, who have expressed deep concern about the government's proposals, from small businesses, whose retirement is very important and whose savings are often tied up in their businesses, and from everyday Australians, who saw the injustice of the proposal, Labor was forced to step back from the most outrageous elements of the proposal—that is, the taxation of unrealised capital gains. This was not a proposal that was just aimed at hurting retirees; this actually was aimed at hurting future generations, stealing the future of younger Australians away from them without their knowledge or their understanding. We exposed a clear breakdown in the relationship between the Prime Minister and the Treasurer, the principal designer of this deeply flawed policy proposal. The original design to tax unrealised capital gains represented a fundamental break from longstanding principles of the Australian tax system. It demonstrated, in my view, that this government fundamentally doesn't understand the way people make decisions and the way in which investment is conducted in this country. Australians have always understood that tax is paid when income is realised, when a gain is crystallised and when cash is actually in their hand. What the government was doing here was effectively just proposing to tax paper gains, particularly in volatile asset classes. This wasn't a minor tweak. Imagine, for instance, if you had purchased Atlassian shares, which went up massively; you would have been taxed on the unrealised gain of those shares. But, when those shares fell, you weren't able to write that off. This was a structural shift that would have set a dangerous precedent across the entire tax base, because asset classes go up and asset classes go down, and if you're holding an asset class that's not crystallised—where you don't have cash in hand—you have to sell the asset class or you have to find money elsewhere in order to pay the tax. Equally concerning was the government's refusal to index the $3 million threshold. In an inflationary environment—and we know that, under this government, inflation has got out of control and has been made worse by the Treasurer and his willingness to pour debt petrol on the inflation fire—failing to index thresholds is indeed a silent tax hike. More and more Australians would have been captured, not because they were wealthier in real terms but because inflation would have eroded the value of the threshold. That's actually bracket creep by design, and it underscored the flawed nature of this policy. If it wasn't a flawed policy, it was certainly a sneaky trick to take away more of people's hard-earned savings. We, as Liberals, believe very firmly that people should be able to plan for their retirement, that they should be able to put away their savings and that they should be able to invest with confidence and certainty. The government's backdown demonstrates one thing clearly: this actually was never a settled policy that was grounded in principle. Instead, it was a blatant revenue grab that was exposed and that collapsed under scrutiny. But Labor was being sneaky. At the last election, they didn't present Australians with a policy to tax unrealised gains in superannuation. Australians were not told that longstanding superannuation settings would be fundamentally altered. Australians were not warned that indexation would be stripped away. Promises matter in a country like Australia, where people go to the ballot box to choose their government and try to make a decision based on the available information. Major structural tax changes should be put clearly. They should be put transparently to the Australian people. Instead, this proposal seemed to appear out of nowhere, with limited consultation and a rushed legislative timetable. That's why this debate has resonated so very strongly with Australians, who instinctively understand that, when something's been slipped in under the cover of darkness without their consent, it's a very bad idea. We're talking about retirement savings. We're talking about things that Australians are trying to use as they plan for the future—the nest egg that they've built over decades of hard work and self-sacrifice. If we're going to muck around with Australians' nest eggs, the bar must be set much higher. We've got a government here that's demonstrated that it can't be trusted. We were promised by the Labor Party, by Treasurer Chalmers, that they'd beaten inflation and high interest rates. Well, people paying higher mortgages as a result of the latest interest rate rise will see that they haven't beaten inflation and they certainly haven't beaten interest rates. We were told by this government that it was going to make life so much easier for families, yet families have less flexibility and less choice. Life is just that much harder for hardworking Australians when they're paying their mortgages, when they're paying their bills, when they're paying their energy bills and when they're having to make ends meet. I think about the families in my own electorate, families that are having to make harder and harder choices each year. Do they put food on the table, or do they pay their power bills? Can they afford to put their kids in weekend sport, or do they buy a new pair of shoes? Can they pay their insurance? All of these issues are issues that confront ordinary families in Berowra because of Labor's failure to get the cost of living under control. The fact of the matter is that inflation and high interest rates have beaten the Treasurer and they've beaten the government. You know this proposal is bad when three absolute Labor luminaries come out and attack the proposal. It's rare that you hear people on this side of the House quote from Labor luminaries, but when Labor luminaries are making good points it's worthwhile noting some of the important things that they say. One of those Labor luminaries, of course, is Sally McManus, the head of the Australian Council of Trade Unions. She warned, on Labor's proposal to have the $3 million limit without indexation: I do think it's got to be indexed because you've got to make sure eventually people don't end up there. That was one of the real worries about Labor's original proposal. The former ACTU secretary Bill Kelty said: I think taxing unrealised capital gains is bad policy. It distorts the effective tax. Changes your income flows, and if it was on superannuation generally, there would be a revolution about it. It would destroy super. This is from one of the architects of the super system, who was saying that what was happening under Labor's policy would actually have destroyed the system he sought to create. The father of the superannuation system, Paul Keating, has similarly said that workers would be caught up, and industry analysis has found that claims by the government that it would only hit a small number of Australians were furphies and that it was going to hit 1.8 million Australians. They're looking at small businesses particularly closely because so many Australians who own small businesses hold their assets in super. That's how they put aside money for their retirement. The problem confronting our country is structural spending growth that is outpacing sustainable economic growth. That is the major problem that is driving prices in this country today. When governments spend beyond their means, they inevitably reach for new taxes to fill the gap, to fill the hole. That's precisely what we're witnessing here. Rather than confronting waste, rather than prioritising programs and rather than restoring fiscal discipline, Labor has chosen to look for new pools of capital to tax. That's what this taxation regime is all about. Trust is fundamental in tax reform. Australians are happy to have tax reform when it's principled, when it's predictable and when it's based on broad consultation. What they don't really like is retrospective tinkering. They don't like ad hoc changes. They don't like when ideological experiments are dressed up as so-called modest adjustments. The proposal in these bills reinforces a broader pattern. First, the government engages in higher spending, then they have to find new taxes to pay for that spending. It's not reform; it's just straight-out fiscal mismanagement. There are new risks: the removal of the death tax exemption, impacts on surviving spouses and impacts on TPD recipients. Beyond the headline rate and the threshold changes, this legislation introduces serious structural risks into our economy. The removal of the effective death tax exemption creates uncertainty for families at precisely the moment that they are most vulnerable. Surviving spouses who rely on superannuation balances to maintain stability after the tragic loss of a partner could face additional tax complexity and reduced security. We want to support widows in our country, but this creates increased uncertainty. Total and permanent disability benefit recipients are another cohort that must be considered carefully. My grandfather, a war veteran who fought in the Second World War, was a prisoner of war in Changi and served on the Burma Railway, was a TPD benefit recipient. This cohort must be considered very carefully. These are Australians who, through no fault of their own, are no longer able to work. Their superannuation is not an abstract investment vehicle; it's their lifeline. Any changes that increase volatility and reduce predictability or complicate access to those funds carry real human consequences for some of our most vulnerable Australians. Tax policy can't be designed in isolation from lived reality. When retirement income settings are destabilised, confidence in the entire system is eroded. I want to talk a little bit about the low-income superannuation tax offset, or the LISTO. The increases in the LISTO are actually welcome, but they're modest, and, unfortunately, because of Labor's reckless spending, they don't address the cost-of-living pressures that Australians are facing today. The government has pointed to increases in the low-income superannuation tax offset as evidence of balance. Any measure that supports low-income earners building retirement savings is always welcome, but we must be honest about the scale and the timing. The low-income superannuation tax offset adjustment, while positive at the margins, does not put money back into household budgets today. It does not lower grocery bills. It does not ease mortgage repayments. It does not reduce electricity costs. It does not reduce insurance costs. It does not reduce all the other expenses that households face. Australians are facing immediate cost-of-living pressures. A future offset adjustment in superannuation does little to relieve those stresses now. If the Albanese government is serious about helping households, it must tackle inflation at its source. It must tackle its excessive spending and its weak growth, rather than reshuffling offsets within the retirement income system. Orthodox economic policy in a time of rising prices is to reduce government spending and to make a more productive economy by reducing regulation. This government, unfortunately, is doing the opposite. This proposal shouldn't be viewed in isolation. It's about Labor being able to spend more and pour more fuel on the inflation fire. When spending accelerates without corresponding structural reform, governments eventually reach the limits of conventional revenue sources. They've got to test the new boundaries. Thresholds are left unindexed. There are new bases for taxation and new interpretations of income. This is a government that is scrambling to find more revenue. Today, it's superannuation balances above $3 million. Tomorrow, it might be another threshold, another definition or another set of asset classes. Once the principle of taxing unrealised gains is entertained, it does not remain neatly contained. That's why, earlier this year, we asked questions in the House about whether they propose to tax unrealised gains on the family home. If this is a good idea in superannuation, as Labor has been prosecuting, why not on other asset classes as well? We know it's a bad idea. That's why we oppose it. Australians deserve clarity about the direction of travel. Is this just an isolated adjustment, or is it the opening chapter in a dark age of high-tax, high-spending approaches to governing? Is it a time where people who have made provision for their assets will not be able to have certainty around their assets? This is sadly what life has become like under a Labor government that has spending out of control and is now coming up with new, alternative ways to find extra revenue. 18:17 Dr MULINO 132880 Fraser I rise today to speak in support of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Building a Stronger and Fairer Super System) Bill 2026 and the associated Superannuation (Building a Stronger and Fairer Super System) Imposition Bill 2026. Firstly, I'd like to recognise the work of the Treasurer and the Department of the Treasury for getting this bill into parliament. This has been after an extensive round of consultations and work with a wide range of stakeholders over a long period of time. This is a complex set of reforms, and that is why we have taken the time to get this right. This is also a very important set of reforms, with much at stake, strengthening Australia's world-class superannuation system, making it fairer, more sustainable and better aligned with its core purpose of helping Australians achieve a dignified retirement. This bill delivers on that purpose. This bill will strengthen the superannuation system by increasing tax concessions for workers on low incomes, by boosting the low income superannuation tax offset—LISTO. The bill will also ensure that concessions for individuals with large balances above $3 million are better targeted and more equitable. Schedules 1 to 3 of the bill address a clear and growing problem in the system. Tax concessions for very large superannuation balances are increasing in cost and becoming less sustainable. At present, super tax concessions cost the budget more than $60 billion per year and will exceed the cost of the age pension in the 2040s. The distribution of those concessions is skewed. Around 38 per cent of the benefit from super tax concessions goes to the top 10 per cent of income earners, and 55 per cent goes to the top 20 per cent. These concessions were intended to support Australians in retirement, not provide tax concessions for wealth accumulation or estate planning. The legislation before the House better targets super concessions and reflects practical changes to the design and implementation of the original policy, which take into account more than two years of feedback. From 1 July 2026, the total concessional tax rate applied to earnings on balances between $3 million and $10 million will be up to 30 per cent, and earnings on balances above $10 million will be taxed at a concessional rate of 40 per cent. Balances below $3 million remain unchanged and will continue to be taxed at 15 per cent. Both thresholds—the $3 million and $10 million caps—will be indexed to maintain alignment with the transfer balance cap. Earnings will be calculated based on established income tax concepts and realised gains. Importantly, these changes also apply fairly to members of defined benefit schemes. At a super fund level, fund trustees will report the relevant earnings to the ATO, which will ensure the system remains transparent and efficient. These are sensible reforms to concessional settings. One would think that, after such a lengthy consultation period and the government's willingness to work with all parties, the opposition would support these changes. After all, these reforms will affect less than 0.5 per cent of Australians with superannuation accounts in 2026-27, and the higher rate on balances above $10 million will affect fewer than 0.1 per cent. Unsurprisingly, those opposite seem to be more focused on the impact on this tiny cohort instead of celebrating that we are delivering a more sustainable system and delivering support to those who need it most. That takes me to schedule 4 of the bill, which boosts the low-income superannuation tax offset, LISTO, and expands eligibility for this benefit. The Albanese government is delivering more help to low-income workers, including hundreds of thousands of women, young people and part-time workers who rely on fair superannuation contributions to build security for the future. From 1 July 2027, LISTO will increase by $310, rising to $810 as the maximum benefit that can be provided, and the income eligibility threshold will increase from $37,000 to $45,000. These changes ensure that low-income workers receive a fairer tax concession on their super contributions, consistent with the government's third round of tax cuts coming into effect in 2027. What does this mean in practice? Workers will receive up to $810 per year in additional contributions to their superannuation account, with the average LISTO payment increasing substantially. Over a working life, this could mean up to $15,000 more at retirement, depending on an individual's income over their career. That's real money that makes a real difference. In 2027-28, because of these changes, 770,000 additional Australians will be eligible for LISTO, 490,000 people will receive a higher payment and a total of 3.1 million Australians will be eligible. Around 60 per cent of those beneficiaries will be women. In fact, more than 1.3 million Australians will benefit directly from these changes, including around 750,000 women and 550,000 young people under 30. I'd like to acknowledge the tireless advocacy of the ACTU and its affiliated unions that represent their members, who work to keep Australia running every day. The change to LISTO will benefit over 100,000 sales assistants, more than 50,000 administrative workers and more than 50,000 aged-care and disability care workers. This will make a real difference to their savings and a real difference to their retirements. Let me put this into perspective: there are 14 times as many people who will benefit from the boost to LISTO as there are Australians with over $3 million in super. This is fairness in action. These reforms, of course, are part of a much broader agenda. Since coming to office, Labor has strengthened the superannuation system in multiple ways. We are paying superannuation on paid parental leave for the first time, we've introduced payday super to ensure contributions are paid on time and we have increased the superannuation guarantee to 12 per cent, alongside legislating the objective of superannuation itself. Labor built Australia's superannuation system, and we remain committed to ensuring it continues to deliver for future generations—stronger, fairer and more sustainable than before. This bill delivers more help to low-income workers, makes concessions fairer and protects the long-term sustainability of the system on which millions of Australians rely. I commend the bill to the House. 18:24 Mr VIOLI 300147 Casey It's a day ending in Y, and we've got another ALP special. We have a bill that has a very impressive-sounding name, but it's actually hiding what it really does. Building a stronger and fairer super system sounds good. It sounds reasonable. It sounds fair. It's very much Labor. The first point they have to do is name the bill well. That's about the only thing they generally get right: an impressive name. What this bill, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Building a Stronger and Fairer Super System) Bill 2026, really is is a broken promise and higher taxes for the Australian people. When you break it down, that is what this bill is about: a broken promise and higher taxes for the Australian people. The reason this government needs higher taxes is to pay for their tax-and-spend agenda and to pay for the significant increases in government spending that are driving higher inflation and driving higher interest rates for the Australian people. That is the reality that is being lived in so many communities across Casey and across the country. Although, if you had the opportunity to listen to the Prime Minister today, he said that living standards are up today and the Australian people have never had it better. I thought I'd heard some disconnected Canberra-bubble statements in my time in this House, but I think that takes the cake. With a straight face, the Prime Minister told everyone in the country that their standard of living today has improved and they're doing better. Could you be more out of touch? And that's why this government needs to continue to increase taxes on the Australian people. There are some really concerning elements to this bill that we should look at, which are the changes that they've made and what they've taken out. The Australian people should be really concerned about that broken promise, but they should also be concerned that this government, this prime minister and this treasurer thought that taxing unrealised capital gains would be an acceptable way to change the tax system. This government put forward a system that would tax unrealised capital gains. What does that mean in simple terms? It means, if you're a farmer in my electorate of Casey or anywhere across the country and you happen to have land that you own and grow crops on, if that land happens to be worth more than $3 million—let's call it $4 million in land—and you put that land into superannuation as part of an arrangement because your children are now working the land and they pay rent on that land to you—let us be clear. The rent was so you could feed yourself and pay your bills; you're not making a big profit on that. Many in my community undertake this. It's not looking to dodge tax; it's looking to pass it to the next generation and make sure that it's sustainable for those families that have worked that land for 50 to 60 years if not longer and are now looking to retire. So it can be transitioned generationally to their children. Those farmers do it tough. As my uncle, who is a farmer, likes to say, 'For three years you'll make money, for three years you'll lose money, for three years you'll break-even, and if you get really lucky you'll make a dollar in that 10th year, and it makes it all worth while.' But this government said to every Australian and every Australian farmer: 'We think it's reasonable that we take money off you for the value of that land. Even if you're not looking to sell it and even if you're not looking to do anything with it, we're going to make you pay money to us on land that you're not looking to realise, on land you are not looking to sell and on land in which you have no cash to use.' Every Australian should be concerned that every member opposite thought that was reasonable. Day after day, they defended the principle of taxing unrealised capital gains. They finally backflipped and saw a little bit of sense once they realised they weren't going to get it through, but that doesn't change the fact that they all thought it was reasonable. They all defended it. They continued to run the line that the farmers of Casey, the small-business owners of Casey, the farmers of the country and the small-business owners of the country, should have to pay tax on money that they do not have and on something that they have not earned. The other element to this that is deeply concerning is the broken promise. What's next? We know we can't trust the government when it comes to tax because they broke their word on tax when they said they weren't going to change the tax system. They backflipped and broke their word. They said they weren't going to change the superannuation system. They're now changing the superannuation system. So every Australian has the legitimate right to ask themselves: what's next? We've repeatedly asked the Prime Minister and the Treasurer if they would rule out taxing the family home, and they won't rule it out. They're not prepared to rule it out. So, when you join the dots, every Australian has to legitimately be fearful that housing is next. We know that the Prime Minister emphatically ruled out before the last election that they had any plans to change the capital gains system or negative gearing in this country. 'My word is my bond' was the statement from the Prime Minister before the 2022 election. We saw that that word is not worth anything because he broke that word and he broke his bond with the Australian people after the 2022 election. So, when this Prime Minister gives his word, his bond, that he is not going to change the capital gains tax system or negative gearing in this country, we take it with a grain of salt. We will watch with interest because, already, we've seen the backgrounding and we've seen Treasury are doing more modelling. We legitimately ask: what's next? That is the fear for the Australian people. We have a government that believes it is reasonable to tax unrealised capital gains. We have a government that believes it is reasonable to mislead the Australian people and promise one thing before an election and do another thing after. We like to say that the biggest mistake Bill Shorten made was that he was actually upfront and honest with the Australian people in 2019. They've clearly learned their lesson. But every Australian needs to know what's next. That's the scary part. We will see in the May budget whether the Prime Minister's word is his bond, whether he's not going to change capital gains tax and whether he's not going to change negative gearing, as he promised every Australian at the election in 2025 that he would not. If he breaks that promise, what's next? Is it your house? We just don't know. I guess we'll find out soon. 18:32 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin Firstly, I want to thank the members who've contributed to this debate about the future of our superannuation system. In particular, I want to thank the Assistant Treasurer, who's here with us today, and other members of the government's economic team. I want to thank colleagues from across the parliament, but particularly colleagues in the Albanese government, for making the case here. I also want to thank people from right across the superannuation industry and the wider community who have supported, contributed to and fed back on these important reforms over a number of years now. These bills—the Treasury Laws Amendment (Building a Stronger and Fairer Super System) Bill 2026 and the Superannuation (Building a Stronger and Fairer Super System) Imposition Bill 2026—reform our superannuation system to make it fairer from top to bottom. They are all about helping workers earn more, keep more of what they earn and retire with more as well, while also strengthening Australia's world-class superannuation system. They do this by boosting tax concessions for low-income workers. From July next year, the maximum LISTO payment will increase by $310 to $810 and the eligibility threshold will increase from 37,000 to $45,000. 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. More than a million low-income workers will benefit from these reforms, including around 750,000 women and around 550,000 young people under the age of 30. At the same time, these bills reduce the tax concessions available to individuals with total super balances above $3 million. This 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, and the concessional tax rate applying to future earnings on balances above $10 million will be 40 per cent. It means that there is still concessional tax treatment in superannuation but in a more sustainable way for people with the biggest balances. Both the $3 million and the $10 million thresholds will be indexed. Reducing the tax concessions for those with large balances will make the system more sustainable, raising a bit over $2 billion in the first full year. This measure will affect less than half a per cent of all Australians. Together, these two changes will maintain concessional tax treatment, as I said, for super across the board. They will make the system more sustainable by better targeting those concessions for the biggest balances to help fund more super for people with the smallest balances. The Australian Labor Party built our superannuation system, and we're really proud of that fact. As a government, we take seriously our responsibility as custodians of this system. We're focused on making the system stronger, fairer and more sustainable. That's why we legislated the objective of super. It's why we've raised the super guarantee to 12 per cent. It's why we've legislated payday super and why we're paying super on government paid parental leave. And it's why we've strengthened financial reporting requirements, expanded the performance test, announced mandatory service standards and set out best practice principles for retirement products. I want to acknowledge the work of Minister Mulino and, before him, Minister Jones. There are always those who look to stand against important reforms like these, and there are some who have tried to argue against this policy over the years. They've looked for any reason to protect the tax breaks for those with tens of millions of dollars in super. The government have listened to stakeholders and made practical changes to the model in response to feedback over a long period of time, and we've strengthened and broadened these reforms to support low-income workers as well. But we've always maintained the objective of this policy: making the super system stronger and fairer. Unfortunately, the coalition seems determined to vote against a stronger and fairer super system. They're determined to vote against more super for Australians on the lowest incomes, if you can believe it. They're determined to vote to keep bigger tax breaks for those who already have tens of millions of dollars in their super accounts. It's disappointing, but it's not especially surprising. We know that they have always opposed compulsory superannuation and they have always sought to undermine it. Their new shadow treasurer is on the record calling for compulsory superannuation to be dismantled. But it's not too late for the coalition to do the right thing for Australians and for the superannuation system that helps fund their retirements. We call on the whole parliament to pass these reforms to back that stronger and fairer super system. Our superannuation system is the envy of the world. It began with workers and unions organising to support a better standard of living in retirement. It became a universal system in 1992, under the Keating government, with work done under the Hawke government as well by Treasurer Keating. The passage of this bill through the parliament will be a really important next step in the evolution of our superannuation system—a step towards a stronger system, a step towards a fairer system and a step towards a more secure retirement for millions of working Australians today and into the future. That's why I commend this bill to the House. The DEPUTY SPEAKER F2S The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Goldstein has moved as an amendment that all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The question now is that the amendment be agreed to. Question negatived. The DEPUTY SPEAKER F2S The question now is that this bill be now read a second time. There being more than one voice calling for a division, in accordance with standing order 133 the division was deferred until the first opportunity of the next sitting day. Debate adjourned. Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2025-2026, Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2025-2026, Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 2025-2026 90

Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2025-2026

Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2025-2026

Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 2025-2026

Second Reading 90 18:41 Mr NEUMANN HVO Blair I rise to speak on the 2025-26 additional estimates appropriations bills known as AEs. These bills, Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2025-2026, Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2025-2026 and Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 2025-2026, are appropriations that are necessary for the operation of government. They underpin the Albanese Labor government's expenditure decisions made since the 2025-26 budget that relate to that financial year, including decisions made in the MYEFO. Firstly, Appropriation Bill (No. 3) provides funding to support a range of important measures. The Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water received $2.9 billion, predominantly to continue to support the Cheaper Home Batteries Program, which cuts the cost of solar home batteries by 30 per cent so that more people can access it. This is because the program has been a roaring success with huge take-up, especially in outer suburban and regional areas like mine. In fact, as of yesterday, 250,000 home batteries have been installed across the country since the program started in July last year. In my electorate alone, around 2,000 households, small businesses and community groups have installed solar batteries—the fourth highest take-up in Queensland—to lower their emissions and their power bills. This has doubled the battery capacity of our grid, which is good for household power bills and cost of living, and good for the stability of the entire energy system as well. In the Climate Change and Energy portfolio, we have also committed $1.1 billion for the Cleaner Fuels Program, amongst other measures supporting the government's Net Zero Plan. In the environment space, the legislation provides funding for the government's Local Environmental Projects Program, which is protecting and improving our environment and heritage. One of those projects is the $1.2 million Chuwar Koala and Native Fauna Conservation Park, which will establish a koala rehabilitation centre and outdoor education hub in Ipswich, in my electorate. This is one of the local commitments I made during the 2025 election campaign. It will allow local charity Goodness Enterprises to partner with koala carers, university researchers and experts to rehabilitate injured koalas and release them into the wild. It's a fantastic initiative that will support local koala health and education and protect this iconic species for years to come in our local area. In addition, Appropriation Bill (No. 3) allocates $1.5 billion to the Department of Health, Disability and Ageing for various programs to improve the wellbeing and social and economic participation of people with a disability; continue to ensure access to medicines; deliver evidence-based health policy; improve access to comprehensive and coordinated healthcare; and protect the health and safety of the Australian community. The department will also receive $101 million to support the government's strengthening Medicare reforms, where bulk-billing incentives are now paid to GPs for every patient they bulk-bill and fully bulk-billed practices will receive an additional payment. Building on our record $8.5 billion investment in Medicare last year, this has been a gamechanger in my community and around the country. In just three months, the bulk-billing rates for all Australians have jumped to 81.4 per cent nationwide, the largest quarterly jump in 20 years outside the pandemic. Australians can now access 3,400 Medicare bulk-billing practices across the country, and the numbers continue to grow every week. Almost 1,300 of these practices were previously mixed billing, and, thanks to the government's delivery, around 96 per cent of Australians are now living within 20 minutes drive of a registered Medicare bulk-billing practice. In my electorate of Blair, new figures show the number of bulk-billing and GP practices has almost doubled to 23, from 13, since November. This is not just about access to health care; it's a vital cost-of-living issue for many people in my community. The appropriations bills provide funding in 2025-26 for other key Medicare election commitments made during the 2025 federal election, including 1800MEDICARE. This is a $204.5 million investment to provide a free 24/7 health advice line and afterhours GP telehealth service, backed by Medicare, which was launched on 1 January this year. It builds on the former Healthdirect services, expands them to every state and territory and, like our local Medicare urgent care clinics in Ipswich and Goodna, will further take pressure off our hospitals. This is great for my home state of Queensland, where all Healthdirect services were not previously available. The AEs funding in these bills also supports the government's latest cheaper medicines reforms. As of 1 January general patients now pay no more than $25 for a PBS script. The last time a PBS medicine cost no more than $25 was in 2004, over 20 years ago. This is a more than 20 per cent cut in the maximum cost of PBS medicines, and, for patients in my electorate, it means more than 42,000 additional cheaper scripts are expected to be dispensed on average each year, saving locals in my community more than $1.5 million. Pensioners and concession cardholders will continue to benefit from the freeze to the cost of their PBS medicines, with the cost frozen at its current level of $7.70 until 2030. This builds on previous reforms, which have allowed residents in Blair to save around $9.5 million on cheaper medicines on more than 1.3 million scripts, with savings set to grow following the expansion of medicines eligible for a 60-day script, a fantastic outcome. Lastly in the health space, Appropriations Bill (No. 3) 2025-2026 commits $1.1 billion for more free mental health services and additional training places. For example, this supports the government's new Medicare Mental Health Check In, which launched in January, offering a free online tool for Australians experiencing mild mental health challenges. This is part of our commitment to ensure Australians can receive free mental health care when they need it and will complement great local services in my community like the Ipswich Medicare Mental Health Centre in the Ipswich CBD, which I visited recently with the Assistant Minister for Mental Health and Suicide Prevention. As part of our $1 billion mental health commitment, we'll deliver a new headspace centre in Redbank Plains, the biggest suburb in Ipswich, to assist the growing numbers of people aged 12 to 25 years in an area seeking assistance. It's a very multicultural area in Ipswich. This was an important shared local commitment of mine at the last election with the Speaker, the member for Oxley, and I'm very proud of it. In the wake of the horrific Bondi terrorist attack in December, the Albanese government is doing everything possible to keep Australians safe and strengthen social cohesion. As part of the additional estimates process, the Department of Home Affairs will receive $881 million to implement various programs to ensure Australia's security, prosperity and unity by safeguarding our domestic interests from crises and threats, supporting the government's response to the antisemitic Bondi attack and delivering on the government's 2025 election commitment to maintain Australia's cohesive, multicultural society. As part of this, we've committed $25 million for community language schools, to help students to stay connected to language and culture—including for the Vedanta Centre in Springfield Lakes in my electorate, to support free community Hindi classes. And a shout-out to the Ripley Nepalese community and the Nepalese Association of Queensland—I was there last Sunday for the launch of the Nepalese language class's first session in Ripley Central State School, and I look forward to the Ripley Nepalese community applying for funding under this particular program in the future. As part of the joint local commitment at the last election with the Speaker and member for Oxley, the Albanese government is investing $5.5 million for a House of India community and cultural centre in the booming Greater Springfield area. This will provide a home for the growing Indian community in Queensland and also serve as a common community asset for the Ipswich and West Moreton region. On top of this, we've committed $700,000 to upgrade the YMCA Springfield Central Community Centre, which will have shared community spaces for multicultural groups to utilise for everything from religious services to sporting activities. Appropriation Bill (No. 4) provides Treasury with over $325 million to provide loans to Housing Australia to support social and affordable housing projects as part of the Housing Australia Future Fund, or HAFF, including HAFF round 3, which was announced in the 2025-26 MYEFO. This is the largest HAFF round yet and will see more than 21,000 new social and affordable homes delivered across the country. It's a really important part of our $45 billion plan to build more homes, get Australians into homeownership and give renters a better deal. That's why I've encouraged community housing providers operating across the Ipswich and Somerset region in my electorate to apply for funding through this opportunity so we can meet the housing needs of one of the fastest-growing regions in the country. We're also supporting first home buyers in the MYEFO, with $10 billion to deliver up to 100,000 homes for sale only to first home buyers, and there is $98 million to fast-track the qualifications of 6,000 tradies and establish a new national training centre in new energy skills—a great initiative. These measures build on our other initiatives to support housing supply and affordability, including expanding the Home Guarantee Scheme, which has been hugely popular in my electorate and has already helped many people into homeownership. Since the Albanese government came to power, almost 5,000 locals in Blair have been helped into homeownership thanks to this scheme—one of the highest rates of take-up across the country. Now we're helping more young people and first home buyers to achieve their dream of homeownership sooner, through our five per cent deposit scheme, through Help to Buy and by reserving 100,000 homes for first home buyers. Looking ahead, the government is working hard to put together our fifth budget. There will be a major focus on inflation in the near term and on productivity over the medium term, and also on making our economy more resilient at a time of extreme global uncertainty—and we only have to see the media reports from the last few days. Developments in the Middle East are an important reminder of the volatility in the global economy right now, and we're closely monitoring the implications for oil prices and our produce. I've just come from a meeting with Dean Goode, the CEO of Kilcoy Global Foods, and he was telling me about the issues they're going to face not just with the potential increase in energy costs but with getting their produce into the Middle East. They're a big company—one of the biggest meat-processing companies in the country—and they've got two centres in my electorate: one in Kilcoy and one in Coominya. They employ over 2,000 people across the region, so this has a big, big implication for my electorate. Annual inflation was steady in January—much lower than we inherited, but already higher than we would like because of a combination of temporary and more persistent pressures on our economy. That's why we're helping with the cost of living in many ways that those opposite don't support. That's why we've improved the budget in ways that they're incapable of. We found $114 billion in savings, we've delivered two budget surpluses, we've got our debt down by $176 billion and we improved the budget position in the MYEFO in December. We know there's a lot more work to be done. We're strengthening the budget at the same time as we're cutting income taxes for 14 million Australians, including 80,000 taxpayers in my electorate of Blair. Because of our combined tax cuts, the average taxpayer will keep an extra $50 a week to help with the cost of living. Of course, if the new leader of the opposition had his way, Australians would not be getting this tax cut this year or next year, and the deficits would be bigger in both years as well. We saw that in the policies of the coalition at the last federal election. I think he was the worst minister in the Morrison government—the worst shadow treasurer in living memory. Fancy going to an election pledging to increase the size of the deficit and opposing tax cuts for average Australians! That is an extraordinary collection of policy failures, and we've seen that recently with their non-released review into the election outcome—quite an astonishing level of failure. But, of course, he's been promoted up, and it goes to show just how incompetent the Liberal and National parties are. In closing, I want to thank the Treasurer, the Minister for Finance, the Assistant Treasurer and the whole government economic team for the work they've done on these appropriations bills and for their ongoing work through the budget process. The appropriations bills back in my electorate of Blair and support many of my local election commitments and our record of delivery in our region, including my own personally. I'm going to continue to deliver vital cost-of-living relief in my electorate, and these budgets go a long way towards that. 18:56 Mr WOOD E0F La Trobe It was a great honour, under the Morrison government and also under the former leader of the opposition Peter Dutton, to be looking after the multicultural communities. It was great to meet so many multicultural communities and, in particular, have funding which we put forward regarding making places of worship much safer. I have my adviser Karthik Arasu here. I want to give Karthik a shout-out because it's his last week here in parliament. He's just had some great news too, with his wife Ankita just having a baby, Kyra. We wish you all the best on that new journey. Karthik, can I just say, first came to my office from the western suburbs and told me about issues in the multicultural community where temples were being damaged. Then he took me out there to meet the relevant people and arrange various meetings. I'd go to other multicultural events and, lo and behold, Karthik, you would be there. Eventually, after three or four months, I thought, 'Well, if he's going to every event, I may as well put him on the staff.' He did a fantastic job. Thank you for everything you did. We look forward to your future working for Jess Wilson, who is, hopefully, the next premier of Victoria. I wish you all the best. Thank you for giving us allowance, Madam Deputy Speaker Scrymgour. On that note, I'll now talk about infrastructure projects in the seat of La Trobe. Can I just say again that, when it comes to infrastructure funding, it is so important in electorates, especially those like La Trobe. At one stage it was actually the fastest growing growth corridor in Australia. We took former prime minister Morrison out to Racecourse Road, and he made a great announcement there. When it came to Racecourse and McGregor roads, those road project proposals were put forward by Cardinia council—their engineering team. They estimated those projects to be $82 million. That's what we committed and, lo and behold, under state Labor, came back and said, 'Take it or leave it—$398 million,' which is quite a hefty change. Then we also had Clyde Road. That was $70 million, and it blew out to $250 million—and that's only 900 metres of road from the train line over to the Monash Freeway. I spoke to Casey council. Casey council is a very big council; it's nearly like the size of Tasmania. When I spoke to their team of engineers, I said, 'How could this possibly cost in the vicinity of $250 million?' They just said clearly to me, 'It's the CFMEU.' Then you look around at these projects, and I noticed recently they've taken the CFMEU flags down, but when we have $15 billion of rorted funding from the CFMEU—and can I say, state Labor has allowed this to happen—that really puts pressure when it comes to inflation. People may say, 'Does it really matter because they're getting the money?' But it also puts huge pressure in private industry. When I've spoken to those in construction, they say they now must compete with the CFMEU worksites where they're getting these ridiculous amounts of money, so, for those other construction workers, their costs go up. When it comes to mums and dads buying houses or a commercial project, it just becomes so very expensive. Another example was the Berwicktrain station. I know the Labor Party doesn't like us talking about train stations and upgrades, but I do note that the state Labor members went and tried to claim the glory for the train station carpark. It was opposed at a federal level, but they tried to celebrate it at the state Labor level. Again, that blew out from $15 million to $64 million of taxpayers' money. I do note that that included a bus drop off and pick up, but that is still an incredible amount. When you went to Maroondah Council, I believe it would be, the Mitcham carpark was constructed for under $15 million. Why? Because the council built it and didn't have all the CFMEU et cetera involved. Some other great projects we did get involved in are upgrading 36 kilometres in each direction of the Monash Freeway, which is so important, and also other upgrades right across the La Trobe electorate. There's one, though, that was really disappointing, and that was Wellington Road. I first committed funding to the duplication of Wellington Road from Clematis going right back into Glen Fern Road—can I just say, it's a single lane in each direction. There have been so many serious car accidents over the years, and I actually lost my seat in 2010. My last letter was to the now Prime Minister Albanese, when he was transport minister, and it said, 'Do not allow this funding to go away.' It was for overtaking lanes there. Guess what? He diverted the funding. I must admit, it was at the request of Yarra Ranges Shire Council, but that funding should never have been diverted. Again, back under the Morrison government, we recommitted $110 million for the duplication of the entire freeway. I shouldn't say freeway. It's one lane in each direction. In say that, too, this time we had the cost estimates put together by Knox City Council, Casey City Council, Cardinia Shire Council and Yarra Ranges Shire Council. Knox City Council worked on costs if you're trying to duplicate the road in a high impact area where it's got traffic lights and telephone poles, but it had none of that. Most of it's just bush. That blew out amazingly from $110 million under state Labor to $900 million, and, to my great annoyance, the Albanese government removed that entire $110 million because they said the project couldn't go ahead. So we are going to have serious accidents and fatal accidents for years to come, but my biggest concern—and I've said this so many times—is that there's going to be a bushfire out that way. People may not be aware, but in 1983 we had the Ash Wednesday bushfires where the township of Cockatoo was decimated as were many parts of the Dandenong Ranges and also down at the Belgrave South area, which is no longer in La Trobe but in Casey. For residents living in areas in La Trobe like Cockatoo, Emerald and Gembrook, their major escape route away would be Wellington Road. If there's a car accident while people are trying to leave—and there's probably 15,000 residents—there are two directions they can go. They can either go south towards Pakenham or go east. It obviously depends on what way a fire's going, but if a fire comes from Bunyip Way, and there's a crash on that freeway—also, the Ash Wednesday fires devastated Belgrave South—residents would be trapped in that area. We saw that in the Black Saturday fires with those residents escaping Kinglake West where they had one car and ended up having a crash. The other cars went in behind and, tragically, a number of people died. So, again, eventually there will be a fire there and, sadly, if there's an accident and the road is blocked off there'll be a lot of casualties there. When it comes to residents in La Trobe, they've been doing it very tough. We announced back in 2019 work on the children's emergency department at Casey Hospital. It still isn't finished. I think it's started and the work is now supposed to be completed in another two years. I make this point. I spoke to Rob Evans today. Sadly, his daughter Liv took her life. She suffered from an eating disorder. That was the point he was making to me—to make sure hospitals in the south-east are treating children for eating disorders so that what occurred with his daughter, Liv, never occurs to any other children. So, again, we obviously support the bill when it comes to the appropriation. 19:06 Ms COLLINS HWM Franklin Whilst we have good news on the economy with our national accounts coming out today, our government has been diligently making sure that we're doing what we can to help Australians who have been doing it tough whilst also putting that downward pressure on inflation. It's a privilege to speak on these appropriation bills—the Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2025-2026, the Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2025-2026 and the Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 2025-2026. One of the things that we've been doing to help with the cost of living for Australians and Tasmanians, particularly in my electorate, has been cheaper medicines, which has been extremely well received. When we came to office in 2022 some people were paying $42 a script. That's now down to $25 on the PBS. It's an extraordinary cost-of-living measure for those people who require regular, or irregular, medications that are really expensive. I know that I get lots of thankyous from people in my electorate when I go out and have a chat to them about how much impact cheaper medicines is having. It's particularly terrific when you have a chat to a pharmacist about how many more people are able to fill those scripts and are not making some of those really tough decisions about whether or not they can afford to fill their script or do some other things that are essential and necessary. The cheaper medicines policy, I think, has gone down incredibly well in my local electorate and around Tasmania. Of course, many people are looking forward to their tax cuts on 1 July this year and next year. That builds on the tax cuts and the reshaping of the tax cuts that we've provided. I am also speaking to students about the HECS debt cut. Even today, I met with some cattle leaders in my office, who came to talk to me about the cattle industry. They were talking about how we get people involved in the agriculture industry in the future. We had a bit of a chat about education and the additional funds we're putting into school education with our additional funding being provided to the states for free TAFE, where agriculture is going incredibly well, and how many people are taking up agriculture. The discussion, though, was also about how grateful they were to receive their HECS cuts and how much of a difference that is making to them. Whether it be the cattle farmers from across the country, people in my electorate or students who have just recently left school and are in the jobs market, that HECS debt cut has really made a difference to so many people. Home batteries is another area where we're helping people out with the cost of living. There's been particularly strong uptake in my electorate in Tassie. Certainly I know that many Tasmanians are getting a combination of solar panels and batteries to reduce their energy bills in the future. There are also a lot of low-paid workers in my electorate in both aged care and child care who are very appreciative of the work that our government has done in relation to providing additional wages, including making sure that people on the minimum wage don't go backwards and that they are able to keep up with inflation. That has resulted in people who rely on the minimum wage now being $9,000 a year better off than they were when we came to office. We know that people on the minimum wage are still doing it tough, but this is certainly making a big difference for them. The $10,000 for apprentices was also really warmly received, particularly with the shortage of tradies that we have and on making sure that our apprentices complete and the difference that that can make. When you talk about free TAFE and when you talk about the 10K for apprentices—there are certainly a lot of skills that we need in that area to build the homes that we need for Australians. Given the fact that we haven't built enough homes over the last 20 to 30 years and we need to build more homes more quickly, these tradies are going to be critical. They're also critical in terms of the transition, when it comes, to cleaner energy and in our economy and making sure that we have that clean energy. I've also been chatting to some people who have been taking advantage of the five per cent home deposit scheme and the expansion of that—young people who are getting into the housing market for the first time. But even some people that I know quite well, family members, are saying that, for the first time, they'll be able to get into the housing market because of our decision to expand that program. So I know that that's also been well received. On paid parental leave—we heard from our Minister for Social Services today—we're also getting that expanded. It's currently 24 weeks. We're expanding it to 26, and we're going to pay superannuation on it. What a difference that makes to young families. It will encourage young people to have children, and they'll be able to pay their bills at the same time. We know how important that has been. I also want to talk a little bit about the paid prac and how important that is to, in particular, get people into the health services areas where we need those professionals. Paid prac is making a big difference, from talking to some of the students who are completing university and need to go into a placement. Some of them are telling me that, without the paid prac, they wouldn't have been able to transfer their qualification into working in the health system, so that is terrific news indeed. In terms of my own electorate, the great people of Franklin gave me the privilege of returning me to this place at the last election. Since that time I've talked in here about some the investments that we have made in my electorate. I'm pleased to say the Kingston urgent care clinic has now been open for a week—actually two weeks, I think, now. I'm already getting some lovely emails from local residents who have utilised the clinic and the clinic's services. Of course, we'd rather people didn't need an urgent care clinic, but it's been desperately needed in my electorate, and it's terrific to hear that people are able to utilise that. I also had the privilege of opening up a headspace in my electorate late last year, before Christmas, for the young people in my community. I had long been advocating for a headspace, and it's terrific to see the service up and running. It has taken quite a long time to find the right premises. It's been very difficult because the area is growing, and space on the ground has been really difficult to get. So I'm appreciative that that is up and running and now providing a terrific service to young people in my electorate. A Medicare mental health centre is also going to be up and running soon, and for the first time Tasmania is going to get an early psychosis centre for young people with severe mental ill-health. We haven't got one of those. We're the only state or territory in the country that doesn't. This will be really well received in my home state of Tasmania, to help some of our young people who are just surviving and living with the challenges of severe mental ill-health. It's terrific that we've been able to do that. We have also been investing in local infrastructure. The Mornington roundabout has to be one of the worst roundabouts in southern Tasmania. I have been talking to the state minister, a Liberal minister, who fully understands how difficult this is. Sadly, we have seen lives lost at this intersection of two very significant highways, with a roundabout in the middle and a whole range of other arterial roads. It's terrific that that funding is there, but I am concerned about the Tasmanian state government and the minister—how long this is taking to get progress. I have spoken to the minister repeatedly. I've also spoken to the local mayor and the council about how we can all work together to get this going and get the upgrades that are required. The roundabout will be removed and there will be signals put in place, but there is also a whole heap of other work—on and off ramps on the Tasman Highway to take pressure off that intersection as well, to give people more options. It is really important that this work gets done and gets done quickly. It will save lives, it will improve productivity and it will also remove a lot of headaches, particularly for young families—for parents picking up kids from schools in that area—and for tradies going to Bunnings on their way home. It's a very busy area in my electorate, so this work does need to be done with some haste. It was also terrific to open the Hobart airport upgrades. Our government invested $60 million, and that means that Hobart airport in Tassie can now take wide-body aircraft for the first time. This will mean that we can work with airlines and we can actually get direct flights out of Tasmania—hopefully, into Asia. We currently now have seasonal flights direct into New Zealand. To have some international options direct from my hometown is huge for Tasmanians, but it's also really important, particularly for our primary producers, to get out some of our great Tasmanian produce direct to some of those Asian markets. I know that, if and when that happens, it will be because of the investments that we have made strategically into the Hobart Airport upgrade. There have also been some very serious accidents on the Huon Highway in the south of my electorate, and our government is providing $40 million to the Tasmanian state government to do some work for some upgrades on that highway. This is also a really critical part of my electorate because it does take, again, a lot of produce. It takes a lot of aquaculture—so salmon—and a lot of forestry, and it is really important that this road receive these important upgrades. We've also been waiting for a really significant upgrade to the Tasman Bridge. The Tasman Bridge links Hobart's eastern and western shores. The eastern shore is the sunnier side, I say. It's where I live. Two degrees warmer—that's what I tell everybody. And it's true. If you're ever down in Hobart, the eastern shore is the place to go. And there is the Tasman Bridge upgrade. These are significant safety upgrades. These are safety upgrades to make sure that we can protect people. This bridge, unfortunately, has been a suicide hot spot. I have in my entire time in this parliament been calling for significant safety upgrades to be done to this bridge, and I'm really pleased that $65 million has been provided by the federal government and, indeed, that the Tasmanian state government now have done some further design work. Some of this preparatory work has been underway over the summer. I obviously would like to see this work completed, but I understand it's a busy bridge and it needs to be done in a way that deals with the issue of it also being the busiest piece of infrastructure in Tasmania each and every day with traffic movements. I know that this is a complicated project, but these safety upgrades are really critical, and I don't think there's anybody in Hobart that doesn't want to see them done and done as quickly as they can be achieved. Then, of course, there's $60 million for the upgrade to the Channel Highway in my electorate and also south of my electorate. This is the duplication of the Kingston bypass, which was actually the first piece of major infrastructure that I opened as the federal member quite some time ago. I think it must have been way back in around 2010, so quite a long time ago now. To see us now providing the money for the duplication shows just how much this area in my electorate has grown. It's still one of the fastest-growing municipalities in Tasmania, and I know that people along the Channel Highway from Algona Road in Kingston certainly want to see this highway upgraded as well. Again, the Tasmanian state government has to get on with that job. They've got a lot of work to do in my electorate—hundreds of millions of dollars worth of infrastructure that needs to be provided and hurried along in my electorate. At the last election, I was also really pleased with Red and Yellow Day. I note my colleague here who has been heavily involved in lifesaving. We have been able to secure upgrades to two surf lifesaving clubs in my electorate. These are very significant and growing clubs in my electorate, and I have been working with them for some time. I know that they're very excited to be able to get these surf club upgrades. The Clifton Beach Surf Life Saving Club will be getting $980,000, and the Kingston Beach Surf Life Saving Club is getting $910,000. It is really fantastic that they were able to get that. I know that this will have a great impact in those local communities. We're also, of course, investing in new childcare centres in Tasmania. Tasmania has some of the worst waiting lists in the country for childcare access, and certainly something that I get everywhere I go is the lack of childcare places. We have been working with the Tasmanian state government—again, a Liberal state government who also understand how important it is that we actually get these childcare centres up. There will be $5 million towards a new childcare centre in Huonville. There will also be some funding from the Tasmanian state government, and obviously they are also looking at whether or not they can provide some land. There is $3½ million towards a new childcare centre on Bruny Island in my electorate. This has been needed for some time. Working with the Tasmanian state government, who are also providing in-kind support, we're hoping to get this childcare centre close to the local district school on the island. That will encourage locals to stay, letting them live and work on the island. At the moment it's a bit difficult for them; there are no childcare places on the island at all. This will be very significant for them, and we continue to do that work with the Tasmanian state government. We also have been investing in Tasmania to get us ready for the possibility of the H5 bird flu, and I'm really pleased to be able to do this as the agriculture minister. It's been terrific to go around to some of the places that have some of our protected species—particularly Raptor Refuge, which has Australia's largest bird of prey, the wedgetail eagle—and to see it upgrade its facilities. It'll be able to do additional biosecurity to protect some of these really precious native species and make sure that, if we do get bird flu, we're able to have that protection. What my speech here today shows is that we're investing in Tasmania and its local infrastructure. We're investing in my electorate, where it's greatly needed, because it had been abandoned by those opposite when they were in government. It's terrific to be able to do that and to also provide that cost-of-living support that I know is so important to so many Tasmanians. 19:21 Mr RICK WILSON 198084 O'Connor Tonight I rise to speak on Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2025-2026, Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2025-2026 and Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 2025-2026. For those watching, these bills are about appropriating funds for the government. These funds are for many worthy projects, no question about that. The coalition will be supporting the bills. However, there are some projects that we don't support and there are savings that do have to be made. Before I start on government expenditure and fuelling inflation and fuelling higher interest rates—the other day I saw a timely newspaper article about the late, great Peter Walsh, the finance minister in the initial Hawke government years. Peter Walsh was a farmer from Doodlakine in the member for Durack's electorate. I was a young man in the 1990s—I would have been just out of school—when Peter Walsh released his book Confessions of a Failed Finance Minister. I remember reading that book and being amazed at the clarity he had about how important fiscal discipline is and how hard it is. And it is hard as a finance minister, particularly in a Labor government that's more inclined to spend money on social programs et cetera. It's an amazing read. I'd suggest that every member of parliament should read that book, because it really encapsulates what's happening to our economy at the moment and the government's mismanagement of the economy. Peter Walsh outlined what would happen without that fiscal discipline, and we're actually seeing that roll out here today. The government is showing no restraint, and we're seeing expenditure reaching record levels. In the projected years we've seen expenditure as a percentage of GDP: 26.9 per cent in 2025-26; 26.9 per cent again in 2026-27; and 26.6 per cent in 2027-28. These are record-high levels of government spending to GDP outside of the worst of the pandemic years. We're seeing that starting to manifest itself in the runaway inflation that the Treasurer had assured us was back in the genie's bottle. Sadly, for Australian families, the genie has popped out of the bottle. Looking at the commentary of the Reserve Bank governor, that genie is going to run away from us. As I said, this is all down to out-of-control government spending. I've got a list of quotes here—I'm going to run out of time, so I won't quote them all—where various economists are squarely pointing the finger at government expenditure fuelling inflation. I just want to run through some numbers that Australian families are all too aware of. After four years of Labor, we've got insurance up 39 per cent, energy prices up 38 per cent, rents are up 22 per cent, health costs are up 18 per cent, education costs are up 17 per cent and food prices are up 16 per cent. These are not luxuries; these are essentials of everyday life that Australian families are having to deal with. On top of that, we're about to see mortgage rates rise. They were quite high, and we did have a little bit of relief there for a few months. I think we've had 12 interest rate rises, and we had three cuts. Now we've had one rise, and we're back on the way up, which is very hard for Australian families to absorb into their budgets. I want to talk about Western Australia for a minute—the great state of WA, which is the engine room of our economy—and I'll come to that in a minute. I'm so glad I've got my friend the member of Durack here. In last Thursday's West Australian, under the headline 'Bill shock for WA families', it was reported that WA is experiencing some of the highest inflation rates in the nation. The West Australian reported that inflation in Western Australia was running at 4.9 per cent in January 2026, up from 4.4 per cent in December 2025. There are plenty of economists there who would point the finger at government spending as the cause of that. But what that means to families across Western Australia, particularly regional Western Australia, is that, in the past 12 months, child care is up 13 per cent and children's clothing is up nearly seven per cent. At the checkout, beef and lamb are up 12 and 14 per cent respectively. These are everyday costs that families are having to absorb, and they're very hard for those hardworking families to absorb. I want to get a bit more local and talk about the electorates of O'Connor and Durack. As I said, it's great to have my friend the member for Durack here in the House. Fifty per cent of Western Australia's mercantile exports leave from Western Australia. Between our two electorates, I'll have to give most of the credit to the member for Durack. Much of that 50 per cent comes from those two electorates in regional WA. I've outlined the costs that our families are having to bear, but the lack of government investment and expenditure in our regions is appalling. We just heard the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry talk about all the wonderful projects that have been announced and funded in her seat in Tasmania. If you live in the seats of O'Connor and Durack, there is no such thing as 24-hour GP clinics. When we checked a month ago—it may have changed—there were no bulk-billing GP services across my electorate in O'Connor. So, despite producing the bulk of the nation's wealth, we're missing out on all of the fruit of that labour. That might be politically expedient, but let me tell you, Deputy Speaker, that getting people to come and live in those small regional and remote towns, to work on the mines and to work on the farms which produce the wealth of this nation, is getting harder and harder. They're looking at the services that people in Labor held seats in the city are getting and thinking: 'Why am I living out here, where I can't get my children to see a doctor? Why wouldn't I go and live in the city and get access to all these services that are popping up all over the place?' This is an issue that's more than just political expediency. We all understand that, when you're in government, you look after your people, your side. I'm sure there are a few whiteboards around the place. This is an important issue in terms of our country's economic wellbeing. You would know well, Madam Deputy Speaker, that we need services out in the regional areas so that people will live there and develop our nation. There are a couple of programs that I'll mention in the last minute or so available to me. Last Friday night I joined Co-operative Bulk Handling and about 1,000 WA grain growers to celebrate a 27.2 million tonne grain crop. The problem now is getting that crop to port. There were two programs that the Morrison government were running to assist that enormous freight task. One was called the agricultural supply chain infrastructure fund, and the other one was called the Wheatbelt Secondary Freight Network. These were funds of well over $100 million that were investing in the infrastructure required to get that crop to port and to get billions of dollars of income in for the government. They have been cut under this government, and that is going to make the task for those amazing wheat growers even harder. Debate interrupted. ADJOURNMENT 97 ADJOURNMENT Diabetes 97 19:30 Ms LE 295676 Fowler In June 2024, the Standing Committee on Health, Aged Care and Sport released a significant report following the parliamentary diabetes inquiry. This report is a wake-up call for our national strategy on managing diabetes and obesity. It highlights how these chronic conditions are threatening to reduce life expectancy for the first time in generations. Crucially, the report makes clear that disadvantaged groups and regional communities face the heaviest health burdens. These are the very people struggling with inequitable access to specialised medical care and essential technology. The report calls for urgent government intervention. In my electorate of Fowler, an estimated 8,575 people are living with diabetes and likely thousands more remain undiagnosed. That is roughly eight per cent of our population, which is significantly higher than the New South Wales average of seven per cent. South-western Sydney is recognised as a national hotspot for this condition. Within my region, the Fairfield local government area has one of the highest proportions of people registered with diabetes, at 8.1 per cent. In suburbs like Fairfield and Cabramatta that figure climbs even higher, with some pockets seeing rates of nine per cent. Deputy Speaker Scrymgour, I'm sure you understand this issue. Significantly, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander adults represent rates of about 13 to 17 per cent. Every day more Australians are living with this condition. Some know about it and are doing the best to manage it while others have no idea it is quietly taking hold of their lives. That is the confronting reality. This is why I continue to speak up for my community in Fowler. Fowler sits in the heart of what experts call Australia's diabetes belt. These are not just numbers on a spreadsheet; they are my constituents. While the national trend for new type 2 diagnoses has seen a slight decline, Western Sydney and Fowler remain at the forefront of this disease. As noted by the chair of the standing committee, Australia is a wealthy country, yet we are facing a situation where these chronic illnesses are contributing to shorter life spans. There were 23 recommendations in that report, but I want to focus on recommendation 15. It says: The Committee recommends that subsidised access to Continuous Glucose Monitors (CGMs) be further expanded. They stated that all access limitations for patients with type 1 diabetes should be removed and that individuals with insulin-dependent type 3c diabetes, gestational diabetes or type 2 diabetes requiring regular insulin should all be made eligible for subsidies. We finally have real CGM funded under the National Diabetes Services Scheme for people living with type 1 diabetes, and that has changed lives. But we now know that people with insulin-dependent type 2 diabetes also benefit enormously from this technology. I recently met with Dexcom, who told me about their visit to the diabetes clinic at Fairfield Hospital. They met one of my constituents there, and he said something that really struck me. He told Dexcom that he was relieved to have type 1 diabetes instead of type 2 because it meant he could finally access a CGM. It should not be like that. A patient should never feel fortunate to have one chronic condition over another simply to access the technology required to stay healthy. Expanding access is not just a compassionate policy; it is also cost-effective, yet too many people in communities like mine still go without it. My constituent Mr Compart from Chipping Norton manages his type 2 diabetes by pricking his finger several times a day, every single day. He spends between $200 and $300 a month on medication and supplies. In a community like Fowler, where families are already struggling with the cost of living, this is a financial breaking point. Real-time CGM flips that on its head. It gives people live information, on their phone or on a small receiver with alarms, about what is happening in their bodies when their sugar is going too high or too low. It lets them act before they hit a crisis point. It helps them avoid the ambulance ride, the emergency department and the hospital stay. The health economic modelling is clear. When people with insulin-dependent type 2 diabetes use real-time continuous glucose monitoring, we see fewer amputations, fewer kidney failures, fewer heart attacks and fewer severe hypos. We save money in the health system. The 2024 inquiry recognised this reality, and its recommendations should not sit on the shelf gathering dust. I urge the government to support the Diabetes Australia prebudget submission and expand NDSS funding. It's time to ensure that a resident in Fairfield or Liverpool has the same chance at a healthy life as someone living in the most affluent parts of the country. Let's not leave these communities like mine behind. Lent, Holi 98 19:35 Mr ABDO 316915 Calwell This time of year, many Australians are observing seasons and festivals that hold deep spiritual significance. In my community in Calwell, this time of year is a significant one for faith communities. For those of the Christian faith, we are in the season of Lent. Observed across many Christian traditions—East and West and across traditions—Lent is a 40-day period of reflection, prayer and renewal that leads towards the celebration of Easter. It is a season that calls people to slow down and step back from the distractions of daily life. Through prayer, fasting and acts of service, Lent encourages believers to examine their lives honestly, to reflect on their relationships, their values and their responsibilities to others. It is a time that reminds people of the Christian faith that spiritual growth is not accidental. It requires discipline, it requires humility, and it requires a willingness to look inward and ask often-difficult questions about how we live and how we treat those around us. Lent is a deliberate pause in the rhythm of life, a time of spiritual nourishment that prepares the faithful for the hope and renewal symbolised by Easter. Lent also asks us to slow down and sit with silence. For the faithful, it asks them to face something many of us try to avoid: the fear of being alone. In doing so, it reminds us of a deeper truth: in community, we are never truly alone. Perhaps that's why Lent still speaks powerfully to our times. The past few years have shaken the world. We lived through a pandemic that tested our resilience and our sense of solidarity. Today we see devastating wars unfolding, reminding us how fragile peace can be. Alongside these crises sits another challenge we cannot ignore: the threat posed by climate change and our shared responsibility to confront it. This conflict and instability and these environmental pressures are all testing our humanity. The late Salvadoran archbishop Oscar Romero once said: … Lent should awaken a sense of social justice. That reminder is as relevant now as ever. Lent is not only about private reflection; it is about asking ourselves what kind of society we are building and whether we are prepared to stand up for dignity, safety and the wellbeing of others in a troubled world. May those observing across my community have a blessed Lent. At the same time, many Australians of Hindu and South-Asian heritage are celebrating the festival of Holi. Holi is one of the most joyful and vibrant festivals in the Hindu calendar. Often known as the festival of colours, it celebrates the triumph of good over evil, the renewal of friendships and the enduring power of forgiveness. Communities gather to celebrate with colour, music and shared meals, and the significance of Holi extends far beyond its joyful festivities. It marks the arrival of spring in many parts of the world and symbolises renewal, hope and new beginnings. It is a time when families and communities come together, when differences are set aside and when people reaffirm the bonds that connect them to one another. Across my wonderfully diverse community, Holi has become a celebration embraced not only by Hindu communities but by Australians from many different backgrounds. It reflects something special about modern, multicultural Australia—a country where the traditions and cultures of people from every corner of the world enrich our shared national story. While religious and cultural observances—whether it be Ramadan, Lent, Holi or many other sacred traditions—come from diverse backgrounds and expressions of faith, they share something deeply meaningful. They invite people to renew themselves. They call on people to reflect on their values. They remind us that our lives are not lived in isolation but in relationship with others. In different ways, traditions point us back to the same enduring ideals: compassion, forgiveness, renewal and the importance of community. In a world that can sometimes feel volatile, divided and uncertain, these messages matter. They remind us that faith lives in the values that shape how we live, how we support one another and how we grow together, and that is a message that resonates far beyond any one tradition. May this period of observance and celebration in our community be blessed. Ryan Bowman Legacy of Care Foundation 99 19:39 Mr PASIN 240756 Barker Today I rise to speak about palliative and end-of-life care in regional South Australia, about how we listen to carer voices and about ensuring that dignity is preserved during one of the most vulnerable moments in life. I recently met with two of my constituents, Chris and Deb Brooks. Their son Ryan Bowman died in February last year in a hospital in Mount Gambier, South Australia. Ryan lived for 33 years with a rare and complex congenital heart condition. His survival to adulthood can be attributed to not only advanced medical care but the decades of expert and loving care provided by his family. His mother and primary carer, Deb, had spent years advocating for Ryan, ensuring that compassionate, dignified care was provided to him and informed by Ryan's wishes. Ryan was a father, a car enthusiast and, I'm told, an avid Crows fan. In Ryan's final hospital admission, in February 2025, and during the delivery of end-of-life care, his parents—lifetime carers with detailed knowledge and expertise who had worked in partnership with specialists over many years—experienced a disconnect in the communication of care concerns with hospital staff. There was no clear, enforceable pathway for his parents to escalate their concerns when they believed Ryan's care was failing. Carers contribute billions in unpaid work every week in Australia, providing care and support to family members or friends with a disability, mental illness, chronic condition or terminal illness or who are frail or aged. They too often go unrecognised. Carers Australia reports that almost half of carers feel their experience and knowledge as a carer is not recognised by health professionals. While grieving the death of their cherished son, Chris and Deb Brooks have established the Ryan Bowman Legacy of Care Foundation. The foundation exists to ensure improvements are made in the provision of palliative and end-of-life care in regional South Australia, with a focus on strengthening genuine partnerships between clinicians and caregivers. The foundation is also focused on programs which upskill the broader healthcare workforce in palliative care, including nurses, general practitioners and allied health professionals, particularly in regional areas, where specialist access is limited. Australia currently has 1.3 palliative medicine physicians per 100,000 people, and this access ratio declines further in regional areas. The foundation seeks to bridge the divide in knowledge and best practice. The Ryan Bowman Legacy of Care Foundation also advocates for a clear pathway for carers to raise concerns around the care of their loved ones in an inpatient hospital setting. Serendipitously, Queensland has just such a pathway. It's called Ryan's Rule, a three-step patient and family escalation process operating across all public hospitals, developed following the death of a young boy, also named Ryan, in hospital in 2007. That child's parents did not feel their concerns were acted upon in time. In light of his death, Queensland Health made a commitment to introduce an escalation process for patients, families and carers—Ryan's Rule—to minimise the possibility of a similar event occurring. Ryan's Rule remains the gold-standard, core system for patient, family and carer escalation in Queensland. While Ryan's Rule is specific to Queensland, carer escalation pathways exist in other jurisdictions—for example, the REACH pathway, in New South Wales. Unfortunately, South Australia has no equivalent structured and staged statewide mechanism; this must change. The Ryan Bowman Legacy of Care Foundation is also aligning with the DAISY Foundation, an internationally recognised organisation operating in 38 countries and honouring extraordinary compassion in health care. Their vision is not just reform but cultural change—care that is compassionate, collaborative and publicly valued. The DAISY Foundation celebrates excellence in health care, and scholarship recipients and healthcare leaders are recognised and honoured in the same way we celebrate sporting achievements on the world stage. The establishment of the Ryan Bowman Legacy of Care Foundation by Chris and Deb Brooks, channelling profound personal loss into advocacy for systemic reform, demonstrates their deep commitment to patient dignity, safety and respect; to ensuring families are care partners, not obstacles; and to ensuring that, when care is failing, there is a clear, independent pathway to act in real time. Cost of Living 100 19:44 Mr NEUMANN HVO Blair The cost of living and the cost of housing are consistently the biggest issues for people in my electorate of Blair, and I know many people are doing it tough. On this side, we hear that, and that's why cost-of-living delivery for Australians remains our No. 1 priority in this year, with a big focus on strengthening Medicare and boosting housing affordability. Those opposite, the Liberal and National parties, have political amnesia, so I'm going to give them a few facts. With the way they talk about the economy, you'd think we were in complete despair. But we've made a lot of progress on the economy. Inflation was 6.1 per cent and rising when we came to office. It's now 3.8 per cent. Nominal wages have grown above three per cent for 14 quarters, the longest consecutive growth in a decade and a half. We've overseen more than 1.2 million jobs being created, and the average unemployment is the lowest of any government in 50 years. And we're giving every taxpayer a tax cut, with more tax cuts this year and next year. In recent times, we've seen the positive difference that this government has been making locally in easing cost-of-living pressures, and we're improving the lives of my constituents and investing in our community's future. New data shows that Australians are now accessing more bulk billing clinics than ever before. In my electorate, that's nearly doubled to 23, allowing more people to see a GP for free. This is not just about access to healthcare. It's a very important way to take the pressure off local families. Complementing this, the Ipswich Medicare Urgent Care Clinic is providing bulk-billing walk-in care close to home. It's providing a lot of care for a lot of people and proving more popular than ever before. It's seen 33,000 patients since it opened in 2023, an average of 45 to 60 patients a day. From 1 January, general patients are paying no more than $25 per PBS script as part of our cheaper medicines plan—or $7.70 for pensioners and concession card holders. That's saving local residents in my electorate more than $1.5 million. Eighty thousand taxpayers in Blair have received a tax cut, and there's another coming in July this year and the year after that. That will mean that average taxpayers get to keep an extra $50 a week. We're delivering pay rises for minimum- and award-wage workers. Having a government on your side and putting a submission in to support the raising of the minimum wage is really, really important. We're taking the total increase under Labor to over $9,000, as well as pay rises for early childcare educators and aged-care nurses. In Blair, we've seen thousands of workers in industries like retail, care and hospitality, which are very reliant on award wages, directly benefiting from these pay increases. I know that child care is a major expense for local families. In January, we introduced a new three-day guarantee so that every child who needs it is eligible for three days of subsidised early learning each week. This builds on Labor's Cheaper Child Care policy, which has already helped 9,000 families in Blair, helping them to save on average $7,000, over the 2½ year period, in out-of-pocket expenses. We're cutting student debt, and we've done it by 20 per cent, so 23,000 young people and graduates with a HECS debt in Blair will see an average reduction of $5,500 on their student loans. This is really resonating with local students I've spoken with. There is also our paid prac for nursing, teaching, social work and midwifery students. I've met TAFE students and building apprentices who are benefiting from free TAFE and from incentives of about $10,000 to complete their trades and build more homes. Fee-free TAFE has been very successful, with around 5,000 enrolments in the Ipswich region since the program started in January 2023, providing valuable cost-of-living relief and helping people to get ahead and improve their opportunities and aspiration. Importantly, we're helping more young people and first home buyers into homeownership sooner, through our five per cent deposit and our Help to Buy scheme and by reserving 100,000 homes for first home buyers. Since we came to power, nearly 5,000 locals in Blair have been helped into homeownership thanks to the expanded Home Guarantee Scheme, one of the highest take-up rates across the country. And, while temporary energy rebates have ceased, we've helped local families to permanently cut their electricity bills through our Cheaper Home Batteries Program. We're coming at the cost-of-living challenge from every angle and trying to help many people with targeted and responsible support. Meanwhile, those opposite complain and whinge about the cost of living, yet they opposed our tax cuts and pretty much every cost-of-living and housing measure we've introduced in the last parliament and this one. We're fighting to deliver for our local community. Construction, Forestry and Maritime Employees Union 101 19:49 Ms McKENZIE 124514 Flinders In recent days in Victoria, we have seen the full extent of the protection racket that the Allan Labor government is running for the Victorian branch of the CFMEU. For those who are not following this story in detail, with rolling revelations every day this week, the CFMEU has been a dominant force on Victoria's Big Build, a $100 billion program to build roads and rail right across the state—not in my electorate, of course, or, I doubt, in any coalition held electorates. Over the last decade, companies covered by CFMEU enterprise agreements have been given public money to deliver these projects, with—it has now been revealed through various inquiries—the CFMEU wielding enormous influence over who gets hired and on what terms. Over the past year, a series of deeply troubling allegations have emerged. A damning report by barrister Geoffrey Watson SC and commissioned by the federal administrator of the CFMEU found that worksites had become drug distribution hubs, that convicted killers were being handed high-paying jobs and that organised crime and bikie gang members had embedded themselves across Big Build projects statewide. What we have seen in recent days shows just how determined the Victorian Labor Premier, Jacinta Allan, and her team are to shield the CFMEU from full transparency and accountability. In a show of what we might call 'faux follow-through', the Premier made much of the fact that she had referred allegations regarding CFMEU misconduct to IBAC, the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission, in Victoria. But here is the rub: the Premier had already been told privately, well back in October 2024, that IBAC had determined that such a referral was outside its jurisdiction. The referral was therefore quietly dismissed, and Victorians weren't told until February 2026. The Premier knew that the referral had gone nowhere for over 16 months and stayed schtum. Two days ago, on 2 March, IBAC Commissioner Victoria Elliott appeared before the Victorian parliament and told the parliament's Integrity and Oversight Committee directly that IBAC cannot properly investigate the CFMEU and Big Build sites because the laws are too weak. Commissioner Elliott told the committee that IBAC needs to have 'follow the dollar' powers—that is, the ability to look behind deals to see where public money actually ends up once it leaves government hands and flows on to private contracting chains. Right now, under Victoria's legislative framework, IBAC can investigate public officials and public bodies, but it is extremely difficult for it to examine subcontractors. It cannot follow the money when it moves from a government agency to a first-tier contractor, then on to a second-tier subcontractor and then on to a labour hire firm, which may also have some of these organised crime links. On the Big Build, which, as I said, is a $100 billion program delivered in significant part through private firms, the money flows from government to head contractor, to subcontractor, to labour hire firms, beyond the eyes of all of our accountability mechanisms. The solution is obvious and indeed one that the Victorian opposition has been calling for for days: fix the problem; pass laws to give IBAC the powers it has been calling for. But that is exactly what has been blocked by the state Labor government. It's not just the opposition who's been calling for reform here. In December last year, the Victorian parliament's own Integrity and Oversight Committee recommended amending the IBAC Act to give the watchdog 'follow the dollar' investigatory powers—the ability to investigate private subcontractors where there is substantial connection to government funding, equivalent to the powers already held by the Victorian Auditor-General. Those amendments had the support of the Greens, the opposition and the crossbench, and on 19 February this year those parties were preparing to move precisely those necessary amendments in the upper house in Victoria. The Allan Labor government abruptly pulled the bill it was attached to, yanking it from the floor of the Legislative Council to prevent the amendments from passing, therefore shielding the CFMEU from proper investigation yet again. If there are serious allegations involving taxpayer funded projects—allegations of organised crime, bikie infiltration, cost blow-outs in the billions—the Victorian public deserves full transparency. The independent watchdog has asked for the tools to do its job, the parliament has recommended it, the coalition and the crossbench stand ready to vote for it, and only one party is standing in the way. This is not a coincidence; this is a protection racket. The CFMEU has long been a major donor and affiliated union to the Australian Labor Party. Under this Prime Minister's leadership, the Labor Party has accepted $11.5 million in donations and the support of the CFMEU. That was before being forced to suspend the construction division's affiliation in July 2024 in the face of a mounting scandal. Cost of Living, Red & Yellow Day, Domestic, Family and Sexual Violence 102 19:55 Mr MONCRIEFF 316540 Hughes Cost-of-living relief provided by the Albanese Labor government is being rolled out right across the country, and it's making a real difference to communities like mine in southern Sydney. Our cheaper medicines have made vital medications more affordable and more accessible for Australians. It has been great to visit pharmacists like Ahmad at Cincotta Discount Pharmacy at Macquarie Fields and the On family and pharmacist manager Connie at Terry White Chemmart Pharmacy Illawong and see the real impact that this program is making in my community. It has meant that locals are able to get the medicines they need without having to sacrifice other essentials. We're also seeing a huge take-up by families and local businesses of the savings associated with our cheaper home batteries. In Hughes, more than 2,110 families and local businesses have embraced the savings in their budgets that come with embracing energy upgrades that make their homes and businesses more energy efficient. This is being taken up in the Sutherland Shire. In the 2234 postcode, including suburbs Menai, Illawong, Bangor, Barden Ridge, Alfords Point and Lucas Heights, we have seen a take-up approaching 500. In the 2233 postcode, which includes suburbs Engadine, Heathcote, Yarrawarrah, Woronora Heights and Waterfall, we have seen a take-up of more than 300. This is being taken up in the Macarthur region. In the 2565 postcode, which includes suburbs Ingleburn, Bardia and Macquarie Links, we have seen a take-up of more than 250. These results show that our community is getting on with playing its role in modernising our energy grid and backing a cheaper and cleaner energy future built on Australia's abundant renewable resources—a clean energy future that reduces cost-of-living pressure on families. My community rejects the division that those opposite have brought to the energy debate. They just want a government that is getting on with the job of putting downward pressure on energy bills, and it's a sentiment that's shared right across Hughes, right across New South Wales and right across Australia. Australians want bills that are easier to pay and a plan that delivers. And that is exactly what this program is doing. Today is Red & Yellow Day, which celebrates the volunteers right across Australia who dedicate their time, energy and courage to keeping Australia's beaches safe. It's an opportunity for Australians to show their support for the surf lifesavers who show up season after season in selfless service. In February, I had the opportunity to attend the 2026 branch championships with Surf Life Saving Sydney and be part of the SLSS awards. It was great to see recognition of surf lifesavers for the efforts that they put in to keep our beaches safe each year—clubs like Garie Surf Life Saving Club in my electorate, which has been safeguarding Sydney summers since 1938. Garie Surf Life Saving Club has had a rough few years, with the closure of Garie Road limiting access to the beach and impacting their ability to help the community. It has been great to see the reopening of the road last year and the club able to get back to doing what it does best. With the beach back up and running, the club is always looking for new members and volunteers. If you are interested, please get in touch with the club or with my office. Thank you so much to all of our surf lifesavers for all the incredible work that you do to keep our lives safe. Sunday, 8 March, marks International Women's Day. I'm proud that this government not only represents the gender balance across our country but is delivering for women like no government before it. We know how serious and widespread the problem of domestic and family violence is in 2026, and we know that more needs to be done. That's why the Albanese Labor government is delivering a 72 per cent funding boost for our frontline family, domestic and sexual violence workforce. This new $291.7 million initiative is for the next phase of the 500 Workers Initiative. It supports the sustainability and security of this critical workforce and recognises the specialist skills and expertise they have to support women and children fleeing violence. Frontline workers are a crucial part of the government's response to family, domestic and sexual violence. They help women and children escaping violence with safety planning, counselling and access to housing and financial support. This announcement builds on the $169.4 million that the Albanese Labor government already invested in the 2022-23 budget. This is a government that is getting on with the job of delivering for women across Australia. The 500 Workers Initiative is just one part of our more than $4 billion investment in tackling family, domestic and sexual violence to be delivered through the states and territories, and it will roll out from 1 July through the family, domestic and sexual violence federation funding agreement. House adjourned at 20:00 The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Lawrence ) took the chair at 09:30.

Wednesday, 4 March 2026

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Lawrence ) took the chair at 09:30.

 

CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS 104 CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS Calare Electorate: Australia Day 104 09:30 Mr GEE 261393 Calare On Australia Day in Calare, we celebrated the wonderful community members who've made such an enormous contribution to the life of our region and country. I had the privilege of attending numerous events and I congratulate the Central West Australia Day honours recipients. Chris Colvin, the Orange RSL sub-branch president, received an OAM for service to veterans. Judith Brooke was awarded an OAM for service to the Bathurst community, while Paul Crennan was awarded an OAM for his significant contribution to the law and the Bathurst community, also. Paul Hennessy's 40 years of service to Scouts was recognised with an OAM for service to youth and the community, while John Hollis also received an OAM for service to Bathurst. Dr Ed Marel from Clear Creek received an OAM for 35 years service to orthopaedics. In Mudgee, Richard Blackman was recognised for service to Coonabarabran. Three Bathurst residents received meritorious awards. Bathurst council general manager David Sherley received the Public Service Medal for outstanding service to local government. Paramedic Kirsty England was awarded the Ambulance Service Medal for 25 years service as a paramedic and educator, and Bathurst Commander, Detective Superintendent Darren Beeche, received the Australian Police Medal. On Australia Day there were many highly deserving local award winners from right around our region, and it's a privilege to also recognise some of them in this house today. The Lithgow Open Citizen of the Year was awarded to Chris Wade, and Zoe Walsh was named young citizen. Congratulations to Cecilia Hunt, Bathurst Citizen of the Year. Kevin McGuire was named Orange Citizen of the Year, and young citizen was presented to Oliver Jarick. Sally Green was awarded Blayney Citizen of the Year and Zareah Coughlan was named young citizen. In Oberon, Helen Ivers was presented with local Citizen of the Year, and Serenity Saville was named young citizen. Kymberlee Chase was awarded Cudal Citizen of the Year, and congratulations to young citizen, Ava Fountain. Eugowra's Daniel Townsend was awarded Citizen of the Year, and congratulations to Young Citizen, Celeste Gavin. Sandra Barker was awarded Yeoval Citizen of the Year alongside Brooke Haycock, who was named young citizen. Congratulations to Jacquie Dredge, who was named Canowindra's community person of the year, and Jack Smyth, who was named Young Citizen of the Year. Christian Cheney was named Cargo's Citizen of the Year, and Darcie Cole was awarded Young Citizen. Cumnock Citizen of the Year was Bev Worrall, and Sophie Foster was named young citizen. At the Manildra celebrations, Craig Williamson was awarded Citizen of the Year and Lucy Gibson young citizen. In Molong, Rozzi Smith was presented with the Citizen of the Year award, while Katie Fulwood was awarded young citizen. Ashleigh Miller was Mullion Creek's Citizen of the Year, along with young citizen Fletcher Ryan; and, in Wellington, Mark Griggs was named Citizen of the Year. Well done, Griggsy! Congratulations also to Carol Morrissey, Mid-Western Regional Council's Citizen of the Year, and Young Citizen, Ellie Rowlands. And well done to Cabonne's Australia Day Youth Ambassador, Nick Gibson. On behalf of this House, I sincerely thank all of those honoured on Australia Day, including all of our volunteers and community groups, for their vitally important contributions in making Australia the greatest country on Earth. Medicare, Broadband, Renewable Energy, Consumer Protections: Subscriptions 104 09:33 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fenner Labor created Medicare and Labor has always set about making bulk-billing stronger. In the ACT, bulk-billing rates are among the lowest in the nation, and we've worked assiduously since coming to government to boost bulk-billing rates for Canberrans. We're now seeing fully bulk-billing clinics reopening across Canberra, revitalising that promise that, when you go to a Canberra doctor, you can show just your Medicare card and not need to pull out your credit card. We've increased bulk-billing incentives so they cover all patients, and provided additional incentives to fully bulk-billing practices. We're also funding a $24 million plan to roll out three fully bulk-billing clinics right across the ACT. Labor created Medicare, and only Labor will strengthen bulk-billing in Canberra. The National Broadband Network was an invention of the Rudd and Gillard governments that was left on hold when the coalition government decided that running fibre cables to the box in the street would be good enough. But we know now, with more people working from home and an average of 25 devices connected to the internet in a typical household, that you need fibre to the premises to make it work. That's why, here in the ACT, Labor is rolling out broadband to 97,000 more Canberra homes. That's 2,500 kilometres of additional fibre cable, ensuring people can work from home and do teleconferences, online education and telehealth. We're ensuring that the National Broadband Network is available to more Canberra businesses and more Canberra households. Here in the ACT, we're also ensuring that cheaper home batteries are available to more Canberrans; 4,500 Canberra households have taken up a battery in order to bottle that solar energy and put downward pressure on their energy prices. Cheaper home batteries have been rolled out right across the ACT, with many households taking advantage of the moment to upgrade their solar installations. With solar and batteries, households are able to bring down their energy bills and have less impact on the environment. I've appreciated the jobs that that's created and the chance to meet apprentices in workshops in Fyshwick and Mitchell, and I know more work is going on across the ACT. Cheaper home batteries are a Labor legacy which will be vital in reducing pressure on the grid and reducing the household bill pressure that Canberrans face. Subscription traps are one of the issues that Canberrans have spoken to me about repeatedly. We know that subscription traps are a scourge for many households who sign up to subscriptions only to find they can't cancel as easily as they got in. Whether it's an online service or a local gym, people want to be able to cancel their subscriptions with an ease that reflects modern society. Fowler Electorate: Infrastructure 105 09:36 Ms LE 295676 Fowler My community in Fowler is navigating the cost-of-living crisis and persistent inflation. People are struggling. They're facing rising energy costs, and many simply cannot afford to turn on the air conditioning, especially when the heat hits. Think about this: Sydney reached 42 degrees twice in January this year. That has not happened in 13 years. While people in other parts of the city were cooling off, families in my electorate were stuck indoors worrying about their power bills. This is the result of political neglect. Look at WestInvest. It was meant to transform Western Sydney, yet, despite Fowler being one of the hottest and fastest-growing regions in the state, we were overlooked. Our community called for new aquatic facilities. We fought for them, and those calls went unheard. While other suburbs received significant funding, we did not. That sends a message to my constituents that we are treated as second-class citizens. They do not deserve to be left behind while others receive the lion's share of investment. That's why I want to acknowledge Fairfield City Council and Mayor Frank Carbone for the beach bus initiative. It's a free service connecting Fowler to Bondi, Manly and Watsons Bay. For many in my community, a day at the beach is usually out of reach. It is not just the distance; it's the cost. Tolls, fuel and parking can easily add up to around $100. For families already stretched, that is simply unaffordable. But this responsibility should not fall on local government alone. For too long, south-western Sydney has missed out on the transport and infrastructure investment it needs. The people of Fowler work hard. We pay our taxes, and they keep this state running every day. We deserve to see that contribution returned in meaningful investment in infrastructure that makes life easier, whether to travel, work or live. Our region is the powerhouse of this state's workforce, and the mums and dads should be acknowledged for that. We should not be a divided city. We should be a united one, where everyone shares in the opportunity of this great city, from the beaches of the east to the culturally rich suburbs of the west. In Fowler, two-thirds of our residents speak a language other than English at home and more than half of the population was born overseas. Ours is a story of resilience and aspiration. It reflects modern Australia. So my message to the government is simple: do not just turn up before an election with headline announcements. Deliver the infrastructure and support that ensure communities like mine are not left behind. Tangney Electorate: Disability Services 105 09:39 Mr LIM 300130 Tangney For any student, the path after year 12 is not always clear. For students with significant cognitive disabilities, the path can be even more challenging. I met Tracey and her daughter Asha last year at Asha's graduation from Castlereagh School, in my electorate of Tangney. Asha and her classmates all have complex communication and learning needs. Asha has both physical and intellectual disability. Tracey approached me over the summer break as she looked for post-school options for Asha. Tracey would like Asha to continue her formal education with her peers and friends. While Asha's learning might look different, she should still have the opportunity to continue her education. Post-school options are not always easy to find, and what works best for Asha may not yet exist. Tracey is one of several constituents who have approached me to discuss their concern for their adult children with disabilities. One parent said to me that it sometimes felt like the only option available for adult children with disability was to go out and walk around a shopping centre with a support worker. The NDIS has been life changing for so many people in our Tangney community, and I believe that many people with disability in Tangney have truly benefited from the NDIS. But I also hear from constituents who feel that people with intellectual disability are invisible in our communities. They tell me that, in addition to the NDIS, we also need local community solutions. I want to raise awareness for people with intellectual disability. Together, as a community, we should find a way to better include people whose lives are deeply impacted by cognitive disability. This includes education but also sports and gatherings among friends. Let's work to ensure that, after the secondary school doors close, opportunity and dignity remain open for every person with intellectual disability. Boswell, Hon. Ronald Leslie Doyle, AO 106 09:42 Mr BOYCE 299498 Flynn 'Not pretty but pretty effective'—this statement will always be attributed to Ron Boswell. Today I dedicate my speech to the late former senator Ron Boswell AO. Ron passed away peacefully in his sleep on 6 January this year. On that day, the country lost an incredible Australian and I lost a mentor and dear friend. Ron was the sixth longest serving senator in Australia's history, serving the state of Queensland for 31 years, three months and 26 days. He was elected to the Senate for Queensland in 1983 and then re-elected in 1984, 1987, 1990, 1996, 2001 and 2007. Ron then retired, with the expiration of his term in 2014. Ron always backed the little guy. Whether it was backing the local fishermen, farmers or families, his loyalty to these people never wavered. I would often joke that Ron was a political addict. He would ring me many times during parliamentary sittings. If he couldn't get a hold of me, he'd ring my Canberra office or my Gladstone office, asking my staff to ring him back immediately. Ron played a significant role in shaping national debates on agriculture, forestry, resources and energy, always grounded in practical experience and common sense. For instance, Ron was one of the most ardent critics of net zero by 2050. In November last year, Ron wrote an article for the Australian Financial Review which included the following quote: The decision to drop net zero by 2050 is an easy one. It's easy because persisting with net zero by 2050 involves deliberate deception of the Australian people. Global net zero by 2050 is not going to happen. It's as dead as the blue Norwegian parrot in the Monty Python sketch. This is a fine example of Ron's no-fluff, commonsense approach. My thoughts are with Ron's daughter, Cathy, and his grandchildren. Ron is now reunited with his loving wife, Leita, and his son, Stephen. Vale, Ron Boswell. Thank you for your friendship and your mentorship over the years. Swan Electorate: Men's Health 106 09:44 Ms MASCARENHAS 298800 Swan Across Australia, statistics tell a confronting story. Three out of every four suicides are men, with around 2½ thousand lives lost every year. Men die five years earlier in cities and, startlingly, 13 years earlier in our regions. Often the majority of these blokes have not seen a GP for more than a year. We also see that the rate of prostate cancer is higher than what it should be because men aren't going to see the GP to get a blood test. This cancer is one of the most preventable cancers for men. These statistics and trends are the reason I held a really fantastic event in Belmont with the member for Hunter, the Special Envoy for Men's Health, and we had an opportunity to sit down with local dads and listen. This wasn't a formal announcement or a policy briefing. It was an opportunity to exchange ideas and share stories about real lives and real pressures, and about what helps men show up for their families and their friends. It was fabulous to have the opportunity to showcase some of the amazing social infrastructure that's happening within the heart of Swan. We were joined by Belmont Dads Group and by Dads United for the Children of Kensington, also known as DUCKs. We had local legends Shaun Chandran and Ben Dunlop and the fabulous Conrad Slee. So many dads joined us—Anthony, Jeff, Glen, Lloyd, Rosario, Kasem, Sam, Francis, Simon, Shane, Roger, Anthony and Andrea. We also had the Fathering Project join us—Paul, Wayne and Adrian. It was such a great opportunity to take a step back and think about what's important. What's really interesting about the Belmont Dads Group is that Shaun, who's a local legend, stood back and saw that there was a need for men and dads to come together, to carve time for each other and to spend quality time with their kids. Because of this amazing initiative, Shaun became father of the year in 2024, which was amazing. We've also seen that this has inspired others in the community to say, 'Hey, I want a dads group too.' We see this as an opportunity for spaces for men to form lifelong friendships and also look after themselves. We also had the opportunity to have a look at mental health providers in the electorate, which was very exciting. La Trobe Electorate: Chin National Day 107 09:47 Mr WOOD E0F La Trobe I recently had the wonderful opportunity to join the south-east Melbourne Chin community to celebrate the 78th Chin National Day in Pakenham, in the electorate of La Trobe. I thank the president, Robert Khua Tin Tang, who gave a fantastic speech about Australia and the community's strong connections with Australia; the secretary and event manager Tin Mualcin; and Reverend Mang Sangkim. It's great to see that the new Chin Baptist Church—the reverend was telling me about this—should be opened up in September of this year. The work the south-east Melbourne Chin community do, especially to support new arrivals, is incredible. Chin National Day is a powerful celebration of freedom, unity and identity. It honours the courage of generations who have fought to preserve their culture and their democratic values. I must say that every time I do a citizenship ceremony the Chin community come out, and they are always in their traditional dress. They're so proud of their history but also proud of becoming Australian citizens. Many Chin families living in Australia today have endured experiences that are hard for others to imagine. The Chin community in Myanmar are mostly Christian and for decades have been targeted because of both their ethnic and religious identity, and simply because of their strong support for democracy. The military carried out violent crackdowns, including the destruction of homes, churches, schools and entire towns. Just prior to the event, aircraft had bombed schools—something which is unbelievable. These are not distant events. They are lived experiences for many people in the Chin community in La Trobe and right across Victoria. They are stories the Chin community carry with courage and dignity. Australia has become a safe place of hope for many Chin refugees, and today there are more than 10,000 who call Australia home, including many in the electorate of La Trobe. I will just make this point. We hear parties like One Nation, and even my own party and the government, talk about reducing visa numbers. When it comes to humanitarian visas and the Chin community, they must be one of the groups at the top of the list. They come to Australia— Mr WOOD E0F I can't believe I'm getting interjections from a Labor member on this, when I'm supporting the Chin community for the great work they do. They've been absolutely fabulous Australians, and I thank them for everything they do in Australia. It's a shame the Labor Party doesn't support the Chin community. Middle East, Cybersafety 107 09:50 Mr KHALIL 101351 Wills On Saturday night I attended the Radio Neshat Persian Awards. It was a celebration and commemoration of Iranian Australian excellence across the Australian community, in community service, science, technology, cinema, entrepreneurship and many other areas. Of course, it coincided with the first strikes in Iran, so it was an exceedingly strange evening. While it was a celebration of the contribution that Iranian Australians have made—and rightly so—there was much anxiety. Many of the people in the room, from the diaspora community here, had friends and family in Iran. They were concerned for them, but, at the same time, they were also hopeful that this might be a significant shift and the beginning of the end of the violent Islamic Republic regime, which has been so oppressive to them and their families. Many of them had lost family members over the 47 years of resistance. I think it's important for all of us to show solidarity to the Iranian diaspora, who have suffered for so long and been so brave in many respects. The regime has put the jackboot on the neck of Iranians for decades. It's reported that in January some 36,000 Iranian protesters, who were standing up for freedom and democracy, were massacred—slaughtered by their own government. The people here in Australia deserve and require our solidarity and our support, and that's what we gave them on Saturday night. Also locally, I had the pleasure of hosting the Minister for Communications, Anika Wells, in my electorate. We went to Pascoe Vale Girls College to speak with a classroom of year 7, 8 and 9 students, who were obviously impacted by the social media ban. I wanted to hear these students' experience and how the government's ban has affected them. We had a Q&A with the girls, and it was quite remarkable. They had such pertinent and important questions to ask, and a discussion around the digital duty of care ensued. One of the points that was made—quite rightly, I think—was the importance of that duty of care, particularly for girls, and we talked about how they can report to the eSafety Commissioner if they've experienced any abuse or harmful content online. The eSafety Commissioner has reported that over seven in 10 young Australians have seen content online that they shouldn't have been exposed to. That is why the digital duty of care was recommended as part of the independent statutory review of the Online Safety Act 2021. It places the onus on digital platforms to proactively keep Australians safe by preventing online harms and taking reasonable steps to prevent foreseeable harms on their platforms and services. With this ban, our government has ensured that 4.7 million social media accounts have been deactivated for those who are under 16, and that is a good thing for those young people—to go out into the world and have other experiences. Fisher Electorate: Anzac Day 108 09:54 Mr WALLACE 265967 Fisher Each Anzac Day, we pause to remember those who served, those who sacrificed and those who never came home, but there's one place—half a world away, in northern France—where Australia's story is written into the soil: Villers-Bretonneux. In April 1918, as part of the German spring offensive, the town was captured by German forces. At dawn on 24 April the enemy advanced. The situation was desperate. It was Australian troops, the 13th and 15th brigades, who led the counterattack. In fierce hand-to-hand fighting. Australian imperial forces encircled the town, and by 25 April—the third anniversary of Gallipoli—they'd reclaimed it. Around 46,000 Australians were killed on the Western Front. More than 18,000 have no known grave. Many of their names are etched into the Australian National Memorial at Villers-Bretonneux. Above the entrance to the local school are words that read 'N'oublions jamais l'Australie'—or 'never forget Australia'. To this day, French schoolchildren sing our national anthem in gratitude for the Australians who saved their town. That is the legacy of their service. That is the bond forged in battle. This year, I'm incredibly proud that one of our own from Fisher, my good friend Peter Kennedy, has been selected as one of seven—out of 800 applicants through a Department of Veterans Affairs process—to represent Australia at the 2026 Anzac Day service at Villers-Bretonneux. Peter—or PK, as he's known—is a retired warrant officer with more than 32 years service in the Royal Australian Air Force. PK was a C-130 loadmaster. He served on multiple deployments to Iraq, Afghanistan and East Timor, as well as humanitarian missions across the globe. Today he continues to serve as president of Young Veterans Sunshine Coast, as wellbeing officer at the Beerwah RSL, as a contributor to the veterans royal commission process and as founder of the Veterans Wellbeing Foundation on the Sunshine Coast, creating practical spaces where veterans can connect, support one another and rebuild. As a father of four and a tireless advocate for those who have worn our nation's uniform, there is no better person to represent this country or the Sunshine Coast than Peter Kennedy. At 5.30 in the morning, in the cold dawn air at Villers-Bretonneux, PK will lay a wreath on behalf of our nation. From the beaches of the Sunshine Coast to the fields of the Somme, Fisher will be represented with dignity and pride by a great Australian who I admire so much. Congratulations, PK. Lest we forget. Central Coast: Medicare, Wyong Neighbourhood Centre, Dobell Electorate: Volunteering 108 09:57 Ms McBRIDE 248353 Dobell Well done, PK! The Albanese Labor government is strengthening Medicare and delivering more services in the heart of communities, including on the Central Coast of New South Wales. At the 2022 election we committed to opening two Medicare urgent care clinics on the coast, delivering care for urgent but non-life-threatening conditions—open seven days a week over extended hours. In 2023 the Lake Haven and Umina Medicare urgent care clinics opened. Since then they have seen significant demand, supporting more than 58,000 local people. Importantly, one in four of these visits are by children aged under 15, demonstrating that, for local families, our clinics are a trusted alternative to the emergency department. Understanding this need, at the last election we committed to opening a third Medicare urgent care clinic on the coast. Just before the busy Christmas-New Year period, Dr Gordon Reid and I had the opportunity to open the new Medicare urgent care clinic at The Hive in Erina Fair. In just a few short months, the clinic has already seen 2,800 visits. I'm proud that Gordon and I have delivered these three clinics across the coast, providing people access to free health care closer to home. The Wyong Neighbourhood Centre continues to play a vital role in the heart of my hometown of Wyong, offering a range of support from youth activities to financial counselling. That's why I'm proud to announce that the Financial Counselling Industry Fund will provide $479,000 over three years to the Wyong Neighbourhood Centre. This funding will better support the centre to continue to deliver targeted support through dedicated financial counselling to those who need it in our community. The CEO of the Wyong Neighbourhood Centre, Kylie Hopkins, said: We are thrilled to have been awarded the Financial Counselling Industry Fund Expansion Grant. This vital funding will provide access to financial counselling support for an extra 3 days a week across our two CBD locations in Wyong and Gosford. Additional support will be available with access to a financial capability worker two days a week at our Wyong CBD Community Hub. The financial capability worker will assist people to manage debts, bills and general spending through budgeting, education and support. On the Central Coast we have hundreds of community groups. At the heart of these groups are the selfless volunteers who day in, day out, show up to make a difference in the lives of others and help to build a better community. Since being elected, I'm proud to have delivered more than $542,000 in volunteer grants. The volunteer grants offer between $1,000 and $5,000 in funding to eligible not-for-profit community organisations to support the work of their volunteers. I'm pleased to announce expressions of interest are now open, and I encourage any and all not-for-profit community organisations in Dobell to register their interest with my office. Inside Pompeii: Origins of a European Way of Life 109 10:00 Ms BELL 282981 Moncrieff I recently had the pleasure of attending my first event as the shadow minister for the arts, a topic I'm deeply passionate about. As part of a strategic cultural partnership between the European Union, Arts Queensland and the Gold Coast's Home of the Arts, locally known as HOTA, I explored the new and acclaimed exhibition Inside Pompeii: Origins of a European Way of Life. It was a delight to meet with the European Union ambassador, Gabriele Visentin, at that event. We engaged in rich discussion about the displays, along with opportunities that could be available to Gold Coasters and Australians more broadly as part of the Australia-European Union free trade agreement. This free trade agreement was something that began under the former coalition government back in 2018, and I note that it still has not been finalised under the Albanese government after a number of years of negotiations. The free trade agreement would allow for a significant amount of two-way trade between both Australia and the EU and foster stronger relationships and more opportunities for Australians. The Pompeii display is a unique European arts touring exhibition, photographed during the quiet of COVID, showcasing many areas generally not accessible to most tourists if they were to visit in person. The pandemic allowed an unprecedented type of photographic access to the site by artist Luigi Spina—gracias, senor. It was a rare and intimate look at one of Europe's most iconic historical sites, available to Gold Coast residents for the first time. Photographs were taken during a period of unprecedented quiet during COVID, and Spina has curated 38 large-scale works offering a rare glimpse into the homes of the perished residents of the ancient city. I was quite surprised by the power and strength of the colours and angles and the details within the photographs, which weren't the usual ashy remains someone may think of when you talk about Pompeii. I was pleased to be joined by several of my Gold Coast City Council and state MP colleagues, as well as supporters of the local arts and members of our community. We had an incredible time exploring the gallery and taking in the timeless exhibit. I'd like to acknowledge the support for this stunning exhibition from my Gold Coast colleague and friend the Queensland Minister for Education and the Arts, John-Paul Langbroek. JP proudly supported this remarkable exhibition as the Crisafulli government contributes to the success of the arts sector in Queensland. The free exhibition will be on show until 31 May 2026. I would encourage Gold Coasters and Brisbanites—and, indeed, and anyone passing through—to take the time to explore the fascinating mix of history and art while it's on display at the Gold Coast Home of the Arts, right there in the centre of the Moncrieff electorate, Surfers Paradise, of which I'm very, very proud. Boothby Electorate: Lunar New Year 109 10:03 Ms MILLER-FROST 296272 Boothby Da jia hao! Chinese New Year officially concluded yesterday, and what a whirlwind of celebration it's been. Across the length and breadth of Australia, Chinese Australians exchanged red envelopes, set off firecrackers, watched lion dances and sang that well-known refrain, 'Gong xi, gong xi, gong xi ni.' I was privileged to attend a Chinese New Year celebration at the Adelaide Zoo, as we marked only the second Chinese New Year in Australia of our new pandas, Yi Lan and Xing Qiu. The Year of the Horse is particularly apt here. Not only is the Year of the Horse associated with energy, momentum and progress; I also have it on good authority that it's a great year to have babies. I can only hope that somebody will mention that to the pandas! I also hosted a Chinese New Year lunch at the House of Tien in my electorate of Boothby. A famous 18th century Chinese novel, Dream of the Red Chamber, describes a Chinese New Year banquet at which glutinous rice balls with sweet red bean filling are eaten, drinking games are played, lively discussions are had and extravagant entertainments are enjoyed, and I'm glad to report that not much has changed since the 18th century. I thank my friend Say Kapsis in particular, without whose hard work and know-how the event would not have been so successful. The historic relationship between Australia and China is a long and valued one. In the 1700s, First Nations people and Chinese fishermen developed trade relationships. The first Chinese migrant to Australia, Mak Sai Ying, arrived in 1818. Thousands of Chinese made their way to Australia in the 1850s at the height of the gold rush, and, today, 1.4 million Australians claim Chinese heritage and ancestry. Indeed, Chinese Australians continue to enrich and enhance Australia's way of life. Chinese New Year is a fixture in the holiday calendar. Chinatowns are the beating hearts of our cities, and Chinese language, in addition to being spoken in over one million Australian homes, is taught by many schools as a matter of priority. Our trade with China is a vital part of our economy and culture. Our goods and services to China totalled $189 billion last year, 29 per cent of our global exports. Here, in Australia, we enjoy Chinese technology, cars and much more, and, in China, they enjoy our top-quality seafood, beef and wine while being a vital market for our resources and tertiary education. The Chinese Australian community is not incidental to who we are; it is who we are. May I wish all Australians happiness, prosperity, wealth and good health in the Year of the Fire Horse. Gong xi fa cai, and xinnian kuaile! Xie xie. Monash Electorate: Hospitals 110 10:06 Ms ALDRED 11788 Monash West Gippsland Hospital has been sewn into the fabric of our community since its first building was completed prior to the First World War. It's a critical asset to thousands of people, not just in Baw Baw Shire but beyond those borders as well. I've got to say the nursing, medical and administrative staff do an incredible job with stretched resources and a building that is no longer fit for purpose. Demographer Bernard Salt has highlighted that Drouin and Warragul are the fastest growing towns in Australia. That's why I put a new hospital for West Gippsland as the No. 1 priority in the Committee for Gippsland's first strategic plan back in 2011, and I've been fighting for a new West Gippsland hospital ever since. I passionately believe that health care should never be a postcode lottery. But, under state and federal Labor governments, it is. The Allan Labor government is failing Victorians on health care, and, in my patch, that's the new West Gippsland hospital. They promised it would commence in 2023, and not even a draft plan has been put before my community. There is no detail on funding to deliver it. And yet we've seen $15 billion wasted as part of union corruption that has happened under the Victorian Labor government's watch. They can't turn a sod on a new hospital for West Gippsland, but they can shovel billions of taxpayers' money into a bottomless pit of waste and mismanagement. What makes this situation even more frustrating for regional Victorians is the attitude coming from Canberra. In September last year, the Prime Minister wrote to state and territory leaders demanding they rein in hospital spending growth if they wanted the Commonwealth to honour a new five-year funding agreement. Let's think about that for a moment. At a time when hospitals are under immense pressure, when emergency departments are overflowing, when waiting lists are growing, when doctors and nurses are stretched to their limits, the Prime Minister's message to the states was essentially, 'Don't get sick.' To Gippslanders, 'Don't get sick.' To Victorians, 'Don't get sick.' Under this Labor government, 'Don't fund essential new infrastructure—the likes of the West Gippsland hospital,' was the message coming from the Prime Minister to the state premiers. State health ministers were pretty incredulous about this demand. One even asked whether they were expected to close the front door to emergency departments to meet Canberra's demands. I think that's a fair point by that health minister. That is the reality of Labor governments at both levels—finger-pointing, buck-passing and bureaucratic arguments while hospitals like the West Gippsland Hospital struggle to keep up with demand from a growing regional community. Gippslanders deserve better, Victorians deserve better, and regional Australians deserve better than state and federal Labor governments. Red & Yellow Day 110 10:09 Ms ROBERTS 157125 Pearce () (): The incorporated speech read as follows— Thank you, Deputy Speaker. As we gather in the chamber on 4 March—Red & Yellow Day—it feels especially fitting to pay tribute to those who proudly wear those colours along our coastlines every summer. I would like to take this opportunity to recognise and thank the incredible members of the three Surf Life Saving clubs in my Pearce electorate—Quinns-Mindarie, Alkimos and Yanchep—for their outstanding service, commitment and dedication throughout this season. These clubs embody the very essence of community spirit and public service, and it is only fitting that their contributions are acknowledged in this place. As the Vice-Patron of Surf Life Saving WA, and of the Quinns-Mindarie and Alkimos Surf Life Saving clubs, it is an absolute honour and a privilege to stand alongside the men and women who continue a proud Australian tradition of courage, teamwork and community service. Each season, without hesitation, our surf lifesavers don the red and yellow and step forward—rain, shine or swell—to protect our coastline and keep our community safe. This summer has been no exception. From those busy Christmas patrols to the scorching weekends in January, your professionalism, vigilance and skill have been on full display. Whether performing rescues, providing first aid or offering reassurance to beachgoers, your actions reflect a remarkable commitment to public safety. To the nippers—the youngest members of our lifesaving family—you are the future of Surf Life Saving. Your enthusiasm to learn about the ocean, safety and teamwork is inspiring. You already demonstrate the values that make Surf Life Saving such an enduring part of Australian life. To the parents and families who support these young lifesavers, thank you. The early mornings, the encouragement and the quiet, behind-the-scenes efforts ensure that every club runs smoothly. That support—often unseen—underpins everything your children, coaches and volunteers achieve throughout the season. To our members and volunteers, your service saves lives. Every patrol, rescue and preventative action matters. This summer, your quick thinking and readiness have undoubtedly saved lives and prevented serious incidents. Behind every red and yellow uniform stands a person who chooses to serve—who chooses to give their time, energy and care to others. Beyond the beach, your clubs foster education, inclusion and community engagement. From running beach safety programs to training new lifesavers and hosting local events, your work unites people and builds resilience within our coastal communities. As your federal representative, and as Vice-Patron of Surf Life Saving WA, I want to express my deepest gratitude. You represent the very best of the Pearce community—courage, compassion and a steadfast commitment to keeping others safe. Please know that your service is noticed, valued and profoundly appreciated. On Red & Yellow Day, and every day, I thank you all for what you do for your bravery, your kindness and your unwavering dedication to keeping our community safe. Thank you. National Disability Insurance Scheme 111 10:09 Mr CHAFFEY 316312 Parkes A parent with a child born with a degenerative neurological condition faces a future with challenges. My constituent Katherine McDowell of Dubbo has been fighting for her son, Harley, since he was diagnosed with incurable juvenile Huntington's disease at age 11. That was 15 years ago. As her son's condition has deteriorated, Katherine and her family's lives have been further impacted by the stress of trying to navigate Australia's even more complicated disability schemes and systems. This dedicated mother has run into difficulty after difficulty, facing long delays, inconsistent decisions and limited clinical oversight as her family tries their best to find solutions for Harley. Now, they are faced with the fallout of the Albanese government's National Disability Insurance Scheme amendment bill that was introduced last year. Whilst I 'll acknowledge there are cases where the system is being abused by criminals, Labor must be labour focused to identify those abusing the system without placing barriers in front of Australians who desperately need quality care, like Katherine and her family. One of those changes to the NDIS to be rolled out this year that keeps this dedicated mother awake at night is the introduction of the automated tool to make life-changing decisions. It has been widely reported that the internal briefing to the National Disability Insurance Agency last year stated funding and support plans would be generated by automation. This means a computer will be making critical decisions about very vulnerable people's lives, and staff will not have the discretion to make changes. These lives are not a game and they are not a problem to be solved by AI. Katherine registered a petition—Harley's Law: National Safeguards for Terminal, Degenerative and High-Complexity Disabilities—to fight this ridiculous automated approach to human lives. As Katherine's petition notes: There are no enforceable timelines, no protections against unsafe automation and no independent body to intervene when delays or errors put lives at risk. This caring, determined woman has asked for the federal government to establish Harley's law, to legislate mandatory deadlines for essential equipment and urgent funding; clinical oversight and mandatory human review for all decisions affecting terminal, degenerative or high-complexity disabilities; a ban on automated tools reducing supports without human sign-off; transparency for all automated tools used in disability assessments; enforceable rights for people and families to choose home, community or residential care; and the creation of an independent dignity in care commission. I support Katherine, Harley and this petition, and I will fight for a better system for Australians either living with a disability or caring for somebody with a disability. Only humans are capable of offering quality care, not computers. Milano Cortina Winter Olympic Games, Bega Show 111 10:13 Ms McBAIN 281988 Eden-Monaro I rise today to congratulate and commend Australia's Winter Olympic team, who delivered an incredible performance at the Milano Cortina games. It is no surprise that Eden-Monaro led the medal tally, and, at one stage, Eden-Monaro was out-medalling the nations of Canada, China and New Zealand. It was so great to see local talent shining on the world stage. Eden-Monaro locals included Jindabyne's Josie Baff, who won gold in the women's snowboard cross and Cooper Woods from Pambula Beach, who took home gold for an absolutely amazing final run in the moguls—and it was great to catch up with Cooper in Pambula on the weekend. Jakara Anthony became our greatest winter athlete, the only Australian to win two Winter Olympic gold medals after claiming gold in the dual moguls, and Dalmeny local Valentino Guseli delivered a fantastic effort, finishing fifth in the men's snowboard halfpipe and 10th in the men's big air. Many of Australia's winter athletes train at the National Snowsports Training Centre in Jindabyne and on the slopes of Perisher and Thredbo in the mighty Eden-Monaro. I know I speak for all of Eden-Monaro when I say we could not be prouder of the whole Winter Olympic team, especially our homegrown heroes. Whether competing on snow, on ice or in the air, they've done us incredibly proud on the world stage, and they've inspired so many people across our region. I rise to congratulate the Bega Show on their 150th show. The first show was held in 1871, and there have been some disruptions due to war, bushfires, COVID and the pavilion being rebuilt. I know all of my colleagues from regional electorates know the importance of ag and pastoral shows in their communities. It brings people together. It gives people the opportunity to show off their products and livestock. And 150 years is no small feat. A big shout-out to the Bega Show committee and all the volunteers who help organise, participate in and celebrate this milestone. Your dedication made the show possible. Committee members make a really important contribution, and they make it memorable for our community, so it was so great to see life membership awarded to committee members Brett Rogers, Barb Rogers, Peter Hull, Len Crowe, Rhonda Crowe and Brad Ford. It was even more fantastic to see the New South Wales governor, Her Excellency the Hon. Margaret Beazley AC, KC, open the show on Friday 27 February and present those life memberships. It ran all weekend. It was such an honour to attend and support all the producers, the stallholders and local businesses who made it possible. The Bega community centre at the Bega Showground was also put to good use thanks to more than $15 million invested by both the Australian and New South Wales governments through the Bushfire Local Economic Recovery Fund. A big congratulations to Jada Ison for being named this year's Bega Young Woman and Miley Curtis, who was named this year's Bega Young Woman. Congratulations to both Jada and Miley, and thank you for everything you do in our community. Murray-Darling Medical Schools Network 112 10:16 Mr BIRRELL 288713 Nicholls Last year, 18 November was a real milestone for the Murray-Darling medical school. The Murray-Darling Medical Schools Network was established by the coalition government and consists of five rurally based university medical school programs in the Murray-Darling region of New South Wales and Victoria. The goals of the Murray-Darling Medical Schools Network over the short to long term are to increase the number of medical students studying in rural areas, increase the number of medical graduates working in rural areas, build new or expanded teaching facilities with extra student accommodation across several sites in the Murray-Darling region and benefit rural hospitals through the increased staffing and workforce availability. The first cohort came from across regional Victoria and New South Wales. They began their Bachelor of Biomedical Science degrees at La Trobe's Albury-Wodonga and Bendigo campuses in 2019. What happens then is that they progress to the University of Melbourne's Doctor of Medicine rural pathway postgraduate degree in my home town of Shepparton, and students are further embedded in regional settings for all their clinical training, with rotations throughout north, central and north-east Victoria. Does it work well? It's been an incredible success. Abigail Rowe, who's the 2025 valedictorian and graduate of the Doctor of Medicine rural pathway program, was born and raised in Mildura. She's finished her degree, and she's returning home to begin her internship as a doctor at the Mildura Base Public Hospital. This is what Abigail had to say: Returning to Mildura as a doctor is the culmination of everything I've worked towards over the past seven-plus years. Every tough exam, clinical placement and moment of homesickness were made easier by reminding myself of this goal. She will make a great regional doctor. We need more young people, more young doctors, studying and training and then working in regional health. We know that when they study regionally they work regionally. We need more nurses, midwives and allied health professionals in regional Australia. It gives these regional kids opportunity. It allows them to study closer to home. Keeping them living and working regionally when they graduate is an incredibly successful model. We need to continue it, and we need to expand it across regional Australia, not just in the Murray-Darling region but across regional Australia, because these kids are going to make incredible, compassionate, kind and caring doctors in the communities that they grew up in, and we've got to support more of that to happen. Kek, Dr Teng-Kiong, Breast Cancer 113 10:19 Mr HUSIC 91219 Chifley I want to honour an extraordinary member of our community, Dr Teng-Kiong Kek, who passed away peacefully on 10 January this year. His loss is felt deeply across Mount Druitt and well beyond. Born in Malaysia in 1954, Dr Kek came to Australia in the mid seventies as a young man with a single aim to study medicine and serve others. While completing his medical degree, he was diagnosed with kidney failure. Yet, in the face of that, his resolve never faltered. Remarkably, he sat his final medical exams and then went straight into a kidney transplant. That determination would define the rest of his life. In the eighties, he moved to Western Sydney and worked as a resident at Blacktown Hospital. Not long after that he joined Mount Druitt Medical Centre as a medical practitioner, where he dedicated nearly five decades of his life, right up to September last year. Like many devoted GPs in our community, Dr Kek could have easily earned far more in other parts of Sydney, but he was determined to remain in Mount Druitt because he believed deeply in serving the people who needed him most and the community that he loved. Dr Kek embodied the very best of traditional general practice. He was often the first to arrive at the centre and the last to leave, and he cared for generations of families. Many of his patients grew up with him as their doctor from birth through to parenthood. His compassion left an indelible mark on our community and will be a lasting inspiration for future generations of doctors. To his family and loved ones, I offer heartfelt condolences. He will be greatly missed but never ever forgotten. It is stunning to consider that each week we lose a woman under 40 to breast cancer. In the face of this confronting condition, women deserve care that lifts burdens, not adds to them. Last week I met Karen at my mobile office in Marayong. She spoke with such honesty about living with breast cancer, the emotional and physical strength it takes each day and the constant worry of how to manage the cost of care. Many women undergoing essential endocrine therapy for breast cancer face significant out-of-pocket costs for bone density scans, or DXA scans, that help detect dangerous treatment-related bone loss. Medicare rebates for DXA scans apply only from the age of 70, despite the average age of breast cancer diagnosis being 61. Expanding bulk-billing for DXA scans would not only protect women's health but also prevent future hospitalisation, surgery and suffering. As Karen said to me, preventive care offers a clear return on investment, both for the healthcare system financially and for the quality of life of patients. I've written to the Minister for Health and Ageing to share Karen's story, and I look forward to working with him and continuing to advance Australia's world-class healthcare system. I say to Karen and others that I can't guarantee the outcome, but I guarantee the effort on this fight. Deregulation 113 10:22 Mr REBELLO 316547 McPherson I rise today to speak about the recent visit of our shadow minister for housing and homelessness and former shadow minister for productivity and deregulation, Senator Andrew Bragg, to my electorate, on the southern Gold Coast. As the government continues to ram through policy without meaningful community consultation or engagement to ensure its decisions are fit for purpose, Senator Bragg's recent visit to our community is a great lesson for this government and this prime minister on the value of listening to communities when shaping national policy. During his visit, Senator Bragg and I met with a cross-section of local businesses, educators and industry leaders who are contributing to Australia's economic future but who are also being held back by regulation, skill shortages and policy failures. We began with a visit to Suburban Security Screens, in Currumbin, a local manufacturer that has supported builders and housing delivery, including social and affordable housing, for more than 25 years. I congratulate Dale and the team on their contributions to housing and security across our community. Their experience is a familiar one: strong demand, the need for skilled workers and a desire to grow, all constrained by unnecessary red tape and regulatory complexity. Cutting red tape is not ideological. It is practical and it directly impacts productivity and housing cost and supply. It was fitting that, when we visited the Gold Coast Trades College next, their messaging was similarly unambiguous. To address Australia's housing crisis, we need tens of thousands more tradies—and we needed them yesterday. This outstanding training provider puts more than 400 young people through trade pathways each year, yet it told us the system is making it harder, not easier, to train the workforce Australia desperately needs. We also visited RE/MAX Regency, in Robina, and heard firsthand about conditions in the southern Gold Coast housing market. Homeownership, the opportunity to build a life and put down roots, is slipping further out of reach for too many Australians. This government is falling behind on its housing targets, and the consequences are being felt across the entire housing ecosystem. To round off the senator's visit, we held a meeting with tech startup founders from across the Gold Coast who embody the sheer strength of the Gold Coast's growing tech sector. These local entrepreneurs spoke about innovation, productivity and the rapid emergence of AI. What is clear is that this sector does not need government overreach stifling its advancement; it needs government to understand it, keep pace with it and remove barriers so that innovation can thrive. The shadow minister's visit reinforced the value of having access to a national coalition team that's ready to listen—one that ensures local communities like mine contribute directly to the development of national policy. This is what effective government does: it enables rather than stifles, it listens rather than lectures and it backs aspiration, enterprise and hard work. International Women's Day, Ley, Hon. Sussan Penelope 114 10:25 Ms COFFEY 312323 Griffith As International Women's Day approaches, I recognise the women in this parliament, the women in our communities and the women who keep our country moving every single day. International Women's Day is about celebrating progress, but it's also about telling the truth—and one truth this parliament should be able to say plainly is that the women in the Liberal and National parties are the best asset they have on that side of the chamber. I'll say it again: the women in the Liberal and National parties are the best asset they have on that side of the chamber, by a country mile. That's not just an observation from this side; their own election review makes this painfully clear. Their review says that their former, former leader was seen as lacking connection with women. It states in strikingly blunt terms that the female vote is clearly a problem for the Liberal Party. It goes further, acknowledging that capable female candidates were left trying to overcome leadership and policy settings that had already alienated women. That says a lot. It says the women in the Liberal and National parties were asked to carry the credibility of a political project that too often did not listen to women, did not speak to women and did not understand what women across Australia were asking for. On this side, the Albanese Labor government is delivering for Australian women—cheaper child care; making paid parental leave bigger, fairer and more flexible; superannuation on paid parental leave; and 10 days of paid family and domestic violence leave. We've banned pay secrecy clauses. We've backed changes that put gender equality more firmly at the centre of our workplace laws. We've supported wage increases in female-dominated sectors, and we're investing in women's health with cheaper contraceptives, better support for menopause and endometriosis. I'm proud to be part of the continuation of the first majority-women government. This Labor government has achieved this not only because we listen to women; we are women. I take this opportunity to acknowledge and thank Sussan Ley for her service. We will have our political differences, as we should in a healthy democracy, but service in this place demands resilience, discipline and sacrifice. It demands time away from family. It demands fortitude under constant scrutiny. That contribution deserves respect, especially as Sussan was the first female leader of the Liberal Party. This International Women's Day, let us do more than offer warm words. Let us build politics where women are not expected to fix broken cultures on their own, where women's leadership is not conditional and where respect for women is measured not by slogans but by who is heard, who is backed and who gets to shape the decisions. That is the standard women in Australia deserve. This International Women's Day, I acknowledge all the women in this place on our side and, of course, on the other side as well. Multiculturalism, Faces of Wyndham 114 10:28 Mr WATTS 193430 Gellibrand This year saw an extraordinary confluence of cultural and religious celebration around the world. Within a two-week period, half the world's population celebrated Lunar New Year, Lent, Ramadan and Holi. The last time this happened was in 1863. I can tell you that my community in Melbourne's west, including Point Cook—Australia's most multicultural suburb—didn't miss the opportunity to mark this occasion. At the Wyndham Multicultural Lunar Festival, thousands of members of my community came together to celebrate this confluence of events. I told the community there 'xinnian kuaile', 'chuc mung nam moi', 'kung hei fat choy', 'holi hai', 'Ramadan kareem' and 'best wishes for this extraordinary holiday and cultural celebration season'. I thank all the very hardworking committee members that made that festival possible and gave our community a chance to come together in our diversity. One of the most significant contributions I've seen from volunteers in my community is from David Mullins. David Mullins prepared the Faces of Wyndham photographic series. This is an extraordinary portrait series that began in 2019 to capture the diversity of the more than 160 cultures that make up our community in Melbourne's west—hundreds of individual stories coming together in our community in Melbourne's west to become part of one story, the story of modern Australia. The portraits are extraordinary, I think, and they are striking tribute to David's skill as an artist, allowing these magnificent individuals in modern Australia to show their most important, essential parts of identity to our community. His project has been a gift to our community in Melbourne's west, and it's been generously supported by the Asian Business Association of Wyndham, which made an exhibition of this portrait series possible in the CBD and allowed the book of the series to be published. I'm proud to have a copy in my parliamentary office here in Canberra and in my electorate office in Melbourne. We need projects like this in Australia today—projects that show that, while we are proud of our diversity in Australia, the things that make us special in Australia are the things that bring us together. What unites us is more important, more significant, than our differences. We celebrate that in modern Australia. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265980 There being no further constituency statements by honourable members, the next item of business will be called on. CONDOLENCES 115 CONDOLENCES Jonceski, Mr Ljupco (Luch) 115 10:31 Mr BURKE DYW Watson Luch was loved by the entire parliament. I'll never forget, as a relatively new member sitting with Simon Crean in the front row, Luch came along and was instantly greeted by Simon. The banter between them—they were clearly very old friends. His smile, his warmth, his sense of humour meant there was always kindness in a room that tends to gravitate to conflict rather than kindness. Often Luch would be the only thing that every member of the House could agree on. Knowing him has been one of the great privileges of this job. As others have said, if Luch brought you a glass of water, he'd always tell you it was on the house, and he'd always describe them as a couple of schooners. There was a joy and a relaxed banter. He was always the person who would want to know more than anyone else when we were going to have late nights so that he could organise the other attendants and be able to work out how overtime and things would run for people. I would say there would be many times when we had a late night sitting of the House of Representatives where Luch was actually the first person that I spoke to about it, to make sure that he could do his organisation. The conversation would be quick because then he would want to talk about the difference between his beloved Canberra Raiders and my Canterbury Bulldogs, and we'd go straight to an NRL conversation. There is no memory of Luch that is anything other than kindness and joy, and it takes a pretty special person for that to be the case. My deepest condolences to his wife, Mary, and to his children, Jessica, Joshua and Rebecca. All members of parliament will be forever grateful to Luch's family that part of his life and so much of his professional life was shared with us. May he rest in peace. 10:33 Ms RYAN 249224 Lalor It's an absolute pleasure to follow the Leader of the House to pay my respects to our friend Luch. As we all know, Luch passed unexpectedly on New Year's Eve 2025, the New Year's Eve just gone. He'll be dearly missed by his wife, Mary; his son, Joshua; and his daughters, Jessica and Rebecca, alongside their partners, Anthony and Robert. He was a proud member of the Macedonian community, a proud constituent of Eden-Monaro and a proud worker in our Parliament House. His career spanned 40 years, starting as a young man at Old Parliament House. He also worked on the construction of the new Parliament House and stayed on to help keep it running. He was the longest-serving staff member of the Department of the House of Representatives. He was our friend. He was my friend. Coming to join this place in 2013 as someone who had never spent time in Parliament House and had never worked here as a staffer, the attendants in Parliament House quickly became people that I knew I could rely on for a warm smile, and Luch led that with that smile as you arrived, when he passed you in a corridor, when you walked into the chamber. As many have expressed, the kindness in the way that he worked with us was extraordinary. He embodied the spirit of the House of Representatives, the spirit of the people's house. That's who Luch became; a person who, when my eyes locked onto him in the chamber, reminded me about what my job is and that I am supported in that job by this great building and the people who work here. Luch became the embodiment of the constituents I represent—the everyman, the person who would give you a smile. The other important thing for me about the relationship with Luch was that he became an ambassador for Parliament House and an ambassador for Canberra. Coming in to the airport and having Luch there as the welcoming party and assigning the COMCAR drivers to us was a tradition that we became accustomed to. I have to say, I've already sadly missed Luch in that role for some time as things changed around COMCAR and it wasn't Luch who greeted us at the airport anymore. Every day in that chamber he will be remembered by those of us who shared that space with him. I'm happy that the new class of 2025 got to meet Luch and share that memory with us. I want to acknowledge and thank former prime minister Julia Gillard for her kind words in the statement that she put out on social media. As in the Leader of the House's reference to Simon Crean's relationship with Luch, everyone who served in this place considered him a friend. Everyone who served in this place mourns his loss. BILLS 116 BILLS Treasury Laws Amendment (Financial Reporting System Reform) Bill 2026 116

Treasury Laws Amendment (Financial Reporting System Reform) Bill 2026

Second Reading 116 10:37 Ms FRANCE 270198 Dickson I rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Financial Reporting System Reform) Bill 2026. The government committed to streamlining Australia's financial reporting bodies. The bill delivers on this commitment by creating External Reporting Australia, ERA. ERA will combine the existing standard-setting functions of the Australian Accounting Standards Board, the Auditing and Assurance Standards Board and the Financial Reporting Council, and be responsible for accounting, auditing and assurance, and sustainability standards. At commencement, ERA's responsibilities will include making and formulating accounting, auditing and assurance, and sustainability standards, and providing strategic policy advice and reports to the minister on its functions. Additional functions, including the making of new kinds of standards, can be conferred by ministerial instruments should they be required in the future. ERA will not have the current function of the ERC of providing advice and reports to the minister and professional accounting bodies in relation to the quality of audits conducted by Australian auditors. This overlaps with those already performed by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, which has access to compulsory powers and an investigative remit to carry out and report on this work as well as the ability to take enforcement action. As reflected in some feedback received during consultation, without this function, ERA will be better positioned to direct its specialist resources and focus on its primary role of setting standards in its establishment phase. Transitional provisions provide certainty and continuity between the existing arrangements and the new arrangements. The provisions are designed to ensure that External Reporting Australia can begin operations from the day of the amendments, establishing that the new arrangements take effect and maintaining the validity of any existing standards issued by the existing bodies. If the bill receives assent before 30 June 2026, a four-month transition period will commence on 30 June 2026, with External Reporting Australia commencing operations on 1 November 2026. The transitional period will provide for sufficient time to transition from the existing to the new arrangements in an orderly way so as to limit disruption. Integrity in our markets matters because when people trust the system to be fair and honest, they're more willing to invest, innovate and plan for their future. That confidence underpins a strong economy for everyone. The new legislation establishes more adaptable and accountable standard setting through the creation of a new one-stop shop, External Reporting Australia. Our standard setters play a crucial role in supporting the integrity of markets, enhancing investor confidence and ensuring accountability in public sector institutions. The legislation strengthens the existing system by better positioning it to respond to emerging developments both locally and internationally. It provides for the establishment of technical standard-setting boards within ERA, including a dedicated board for developing and maintaining standards for sustainability reporting. Existing standards will continue as standards of ERA until updated or replaced. The introduction of the bill follows extensive consultation and consideration of feedback. The establishment of ERA has been guided by three key principles: flexibility and removing barriers so that future standard setting so that needs arising in the future can be more easily accommodated; preserving what works and seeking to maintain key benefits of the existing structure; and strengthening accountability by ensuring workable and appropriate governance arrangements are in place, including alignment between responsibility for the body's performance and the capacity to address issues when they arise, while at the same time managing conflicts of interest. The transitional provisions in the bill will facilitate an orderly process, minimising disruption to the current standard-setting board's ongoing work and providing greater certainty around statutory roles ahead of commencement. This reform helps ensure the governance and structural arrangements of Australia's economic institutions, and that they are best positioned to help build a more competitive, dynamic and productive economy. I commend the bill to the House. 10:42 Ms CAMPBELL 312823 Moreton Strong economies have a foundation of trust—trust in our government and trust in financial institutions. Trust is how decisions are made—trust that the leadership is accountable and trust that the numbers are correct. After all, the integrity of our markets is crucially important. When people believe the system is fair, when people believe that the system is transparent and operating as it should be, they're far more willing to take part in it. Confidence in the financial system encourages individuals and businesses to invest. Confidence gives people the opportunity to try new ideas and to make long-term plans with certainty. Because if you're thinking about taking the plunge to start a new business—to write out the plan, to put in the loan and to make it happen—it's confidence that will give you the gusto to do it. If you are thinking about investing in new technology, advanced manufacturing—things that will give you a lift to make your business more productive—it's confidence that will allow you to do that too. If you're thinking about hiring more people to expand your business, it's confidence that will get you there. When trust is strong, participation grows. We know that. That collective confidence is what helps drive a resilient and thriving economy that benefits everyone. The Treasury Laws Amendment (Financial Reporting System Reform) Bill 2026 builds on this foundation to deliver the biggest reform to Australia's financial reporting standards-setting institutions in over two decades. Put simply, this legislation introduces a more flexible and a more accountable way of setting standards by bringing existing standard-setting entities together under a single streamlined body, External Reporting Australia, or ERA. For some, financial reporting system reform might seem a bit bland. It might not be the thing that they read about at night before they go to bed—not me! I can tell you that making sure something that can seem complex has clarity, is holistic and is simple for people to understand is what will drive confidence in the business community and what will drive confidence in the market. Instead of navigating multiple agencies and processes, ERA creates a clear one-stop shop for guidance, oversight and decision-making. This new structure is designed to respond more quickly to emerging issues, support better consistency and make the system more seamless. ERA will combine the standard-setting responsibilities that currently sit across three separate bodies: the Australian Accounting Standards Board, the Auditing and Assurance Standards Board and the Financial Reporting Council. By consolidating these functions into a single organisation, ERA will oversee the full suite of reporting standards, accounting, auditing and assurance as well as sustainability. This unified approach means that, instead of navigating multiple different frameworks or interpreting requirements across a number of different agencies, stakeholders will have that one coordinated source of guidance and decision-making. It makes it more simple and it gives people the clarity that they need to have the confidence to make decisions and to have the confidence to plan going forward. This is important because standard-setting organisations have a vital role in supporting the integrity of our markets. Their work helps ensure that the information organisations publish is reliable, consistent and meaningful—the kind of information investors, regulators and the public can genuinely rely on. When standards are strong and when they're clearly applied, they lift confidence across that whole system and they encourage investment. They encourage people to back our economy and to back Australia. They also reinforce accountability in public institutions, making sure that government reporting is transparent and held to the same expectations of quality and clarity that we know are so critical. The legislation will strengthen the overall reporting framework so it can more effectively keep pace with new developments in Australia and also overseas. This includes ensuring the system is better equipped to respond to evolving market practices, changes in technology and shifts in international standards. By creating a structure that can adapt more easily, the framework is designed to remain relevant, reliable and aligned with global expectations. The future is here when it comes to being future focused. We know that technology is moving at an incredibly rapid pace. We see it in the absolute transformation of our markets. We see it in the absolute transformation of business. We see it in the emerging digital assets sector. We see it being used at the checkout, at the pump. Everywhere that is important to everyday Australians we are seeing technology take off, and making sure that our regulation and our laws cover that new technology is incredibly important. We saw that in some of the financial bills that were moved last year, and we saw it more recently with the Corporations Amendment (Digital Assets Framework) Bill. Not only is this a government that is focused on ensuring that the technology that is here now is up to date and that our legislation accounts for it; it's also a government that is focused on setting up systems and setting up regulatory frameworks that allow us to grow and move with that rise and with that change in technology. It's worth looking at the core principles behind the establishment of ERA. The first is flexibility. A modern reporting system needs to keep pace with a world that is changing faster than ever, whether that's new technologies or emerging business models. ERA has been structured to remove unnecessary barriers and give standard setters the room to respond quickly when new challenges or opportunities arise. A single entity is better placed to operate efficiently in the face of these kinds of changes. The second guiding principle is preservation and retaining the strengths that have consistently delivered high-quality standards. That means protecting the deep technical expertise and specialist knowledge essential for credible and trusted reporting. ERA builds on the knowledge base that has served business regulators and the community very well, ensuring that the reforms enhance rather than disrupt the qualities that underpin accurate and reliable standard setting. To this end, existing standards will continue as standards of ERA until they are updated or until they're replaced. Finally, ERA was established with a principle of strengthening accountability. A clear and transparent government framework is critical for any entity that's responsible for setting standards that affect the broader community, that affect Australians, that affect businesses, that affect the market, that affect who we are as a country. ERA has been designed to align responsibility with authority so the people tasked with overseeing performance also have the ability to address issues when they arise. This includes stronger mechanisms for oversight, clearer lines of decision-making and an approach that actively manages potential conflicts of interests. When an organisation like ERA depends on up-to-date, highly specialised knowledge to produce strong and reliable standards, it's inevitable that many of those experts will also be active professionals in their fields. That reality makes it especially important to handle any potential or perceived conflicts of interest in a balanced but also practical way. This bill supports that by putting safeguards in place so the community can trust both the integrity of the standard-setting process and the quality of the standards themselves. It's about ensuring openness, it's about ensuring clarity, and it's about ensuring confidence at every single step of the way. The bill also introduces stronger transparency measures for ERA's operations. Any part of a meeting, whether of the governing council or of one of ERA's standard-setting boards, that relates to the substance of particular standards must take place in public. This is an important transparency measure, and it's intended to give stakeholders and the community a clearer view of how standards are discussed, developed and finalised. The legislation will set out the procedural rules that guide how the governing council conducts its work, providing a consistent framework for decision-making. For the technical boards, the detailed rules and processes will be established through legislative instruments. These instruments will be subject to consultation requirements and parliamentary oversight, ensuring that the boards' operational settings are transparent, carefully considered and open to scrutiny. The goal is a system where roles are well defined, accountability is practical and workable and the public can have confidence in how these decisions are made. A governing council will oversee ERA and serve as the organisation's accountable authority. It will hold responsibility for supervising all aspects of their work. The council's collective decision-making structure is intended to support balanced oversight, helping to ensure that standard-setting activities are not shaped too strongly by the views of any single member or, indeed, by the interests of any particular cohort or sector. It has to be a collective decision. The framework also allows the minister to appoint non-voting associate members, who can contribute additional experience and perspectives to the council's discussions without being part of its formal decision-making authority. The governing council will also be responsible for creating and appointing ERA's internal technical boards. These boards will focus on the detailed development and refinement of specific types of standards. Under the framework, at least one technical board must be established for each of the main categories currently covered by the Australian Accounting Standards Board and the Auditing and Assurance Standards Board. These are accounting standards, auditing and assurance standards, and sustainability related standards. Each board will work within its specialised area, contributing the expertise required to maintain high-quality, well-informed standards. The legislation also provides flexibility for ERA to evolve over time. Through legislative instrument, the minister may assign additional responsibilities to ERA, such as developing standards in new areas, should the need arise. This approach is designed to allow the system to adapt efficiently, making use of ERA's established government framework and technical capabilities. It's about making sure that it has the flexibility to do what it needs to do, at the same time as having the safeguards in place to make it safe and to give Australians the confidence that they need. A new requirement is also included regarding appointments to the governing council. When making appointments, the minister must consider whether the council as a whole has an adequate level of representation from individuals who are and are seen to be independent of Australian audit firms. This requirement reflects the fact that auditors are subject to the auditing standards produced by ERA and aims to help manage the risk of actual or perceived conflicts of interest among appointees who work within the auditing profession. What is clear from this legislation, from the discussions we have in this place and from talking to businesses out in our community, whether they be big or small, is that, when it comes to financial reporting, people want clarity, people want stability, people want to understand what is happening and people want to know how it's happening, and that's what this bill is about. It's about making sure that, when it comes to these standards, there is a single body that allows people to understand what is being reported and how it's being reported, and to have confidence and faith in that system. The establishment of ERA based on principles of flexibility, preservation and accountability will strengthen Australia's standard-setting framework and set these systems up for growth and, importantly, for adaptation. 10:57 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina To quote Oscar Wilde, the bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy. Yes, I am being facetious; it's not normally in my nature to do that. I could also quote the late Bert Lance, a Georgian banker and confidant of the 39th President of the United States of America, Jimmy Carter, who said, 'If it ain't broke, don't fix it.' I think we should take a little bit from both of those quotes from those learned gentlemen when discussing the Treasury Laws Amendment (Financial Reporting System Reform) Bill 2026. Like you, Deputy Speaker Sharkie, when I go home after a parliamentary sitting week, a lot of people ask me: 'What did you discuss in the parliament? What were the big issues at stake?' I look forward, when I attend various events this weekend, to saying, 'Well, I discussed the Treasury Laws Amendment (Financial Reporting System Reform) Bill 2026!' They'll say, 'What was that all about?' and I'll tell them it's about bloating the bureaucracy, but what I won't be able to say is that we talked about the issues that are really important to people. This morning in Cowra, in central-western New South Wales, the price of E10 went up to 207.9 cents a litre. The price of diesel is 219.9c. That's more than $2 a litre for diesel. In regional areas not only is energy the economy but so is fuel, because it powers cars and trucks and anything else to enable people to get places. More importantly than that, it also powers trucks to get food to capital cities. We do it very well in regional Australia—that is grow food and fibre, of course, as well. Those prices are extraordinary. And the mayor of Cowra, Paul Smith, was beside himself when we spoke this morning about it. In Wagga Wagga, the price is significantly cheaper. Indeed E10 is 167.9c, and diesel is 175.9c. That's the cheapest. It does go up from there, but it's nowhere near the over $2 a litre that they're paying in Cowra—so unnecessary. I know what's going on in Iran; we all do. But the Strait of Hormuz is still operating. I appreciate that it's one of the most strategic choke points in the world, as far as a shipping lane is concerned, between the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman. But, seriously, we should be talking about what we're doing about the price of petrol, the cost of living and the price of energy, rather than discussing what we are here. Let's focus on some of the elements of this bill. I do really question why it is even necessary. The coalition will rightly ask the questions in relation to that. The bill ends the Financial Reporting Council, the Australian Accounting Standards Board and the Auditing and Assurance Standards Board and is updating them. 'Updating' is not the greatest word I could have used in that sentence. Let's just say it replaces them with a single statutory body: External Reporting Australia. Now, accounting and audit standards may sound mundane, may sound technical, but they underpin the credibility of Australia's financial markets and our international reputation. Those two things are very important. They certainly are. The coalition opposed the government's 2024 climate related financial disclosure regime on the basis that it went way beyond its remit—way too far. As the environmental social governance reporting requirements are expanding reporting standards, they do become sensitive politically. Absolutely they do. Stakeholder submissions looked at this. It was a rarity, I suppose, for this government to actually do a lot of stakeholder submissions. Normally they don't. They normally just rush things through the parliament and rubberstamp them because of their 51-seat majority in the House of Representatives then hope for the best in the Senate. There were concerns over too much power being concentrated in one entity, which is understandable; the removal of clear separation of oversight between the Financial Reporting Council and the technical decision-making of the Australian Accounting Standards Board and the Auditing and Assurance Standards Board; the risk to technical experts of independence and having that independence they have enjoyed in the past; and the scope of ministerial and board powers, particularly given accounting standards apply to both public- and private-sector accounting. I said in this chamber yesterday that I'm not against ministers having discretion. I'm not against ministers actually doing what ministers always did in the past under this very good Westminster system we operate under. I've bemoaned, many times since Labor took office, the fact that they are, I do believe, watering down the ministerial responsibility. When you do that, you water down the standards of ministers. Ministers have to make decisions. The buck stops with the minister. I know, having been a minister in various portfolios, that it's important that you read the correspondence you get from bureaucrats. I have nothing against bureaucrats. I do not. I think we've got some outstanding bureaucrats in the public service. I have quoted many times the efforts and work that Steven Kennedy, head of Treasury, and Simon Atkinson, head of Infrastructure, went to during COVID-19. They saved many jobs. In fact, they saved many lives with the work that they did. Right across the board, our bureaucrats do an outstanding job per se, but they don't run the show, and no bureaucrat is ever going to have their name on a ballot paper. I don't mean this in a derogatory way, but they are faceless people. It's the minister who has been appointed by the Prime Minister and by the cabinet and had that ministerial commission adopted and accepted and acknowledged by the Governor-General of the day who gets to make the final decision. We can't give the final decisions to the bureaucrats. We have to have a minister who is willing to make a decision and willing to buck the trend. I do find that sometimes our ministers are not standing up to the bureaucracy and are just being railroaded into doing what the bureaucracy wants. Importantly, no compelling case has been established that the current model is failing. I revert to Mr Lance's comment, 'If it ain't broke, don't fix it,' because it is an issue. He popularised that term in 1977, and it's true today as it was then. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Why look at it? Why try and adjust it? Why try and amend it? Why try and fix it? If the system is working, leave it well enough alone. The coalition believes that these changes are unjustified. We believe that there should be Senate scrutiny of governance safeguards, of appointment processes and of independent protections and limits on intervention powers. That's why we've got the Senate there. That's how and why the Westminster system operates so well. Whilst we do have the people's house, the House of Representatives, the house we all belong to, that we were voted to, we've also got the upper house. We've got the house of review, the states' house. They do a mighty fine job in running a ruler over legislation—sometimes before it's even appeared in the House of Representatives, if it's in a draft exposure form. They do a fine job in scrutinising that. They play an important role in overseeing and refining and fine-tuning legislation that has passed the House of Representatives and made its way to the upper house. Then, often it goes to committee to be looked at before it passes the Senate and goes back to the House of Representatives for the final tick-off before it gets to the Governor-General at Yarralumla. That's how the system works. But, unfortunately, what we've got now is a government which is all too fond, all too keen, to just rubberstamp legislation and push it through the House of Representatives. We saw that yesterday when the member for Lalor, the Chief Government Whip, once again just silenced the debate on an issue, and we saw that with the extraordinary sittings of parliament during January when we were given one day, one morning, to discuss nation-changing legislation—hate speech laws and gun reform. We got very limited time, and very few speakers were able to address those bills. Even those speakers, those members of the House of Representatives, people sent here to do a job by and for and on behalf of their electorates were only given five short minutes to debate what needed a lot longer and probably needed every member of the House of Representatives, all 150 of them, save maybe the Speaker, to talk and discuss and put forward their views on those important nation-changing reforms. But oh no—government doesn't do that. The coalition does not support reform for reform's sake. We never have and never will. That's what this legislation is. This is just reform for reform's sake at a time when we should be discussing important things such as the cost of living and the outrageous increase in the price of fuel in regional areas. The bowsers from which people are sucking petrol this morning for their cars will not have been affected by anything in Iran yet; that fuel would have been there last week, before Iran was even under attack and when the Ayatollah was, unfortunately, still alive and kicking. We're discussing this bill about changing the bureaucracy—for what reason, I do not know. This bill abolishes longstanding accounting and auditing standard setting bodies that, I have to say, have served Australia well for decades. The question I have to ask is: why? Why is Labor doing this when we've got so many more important things we could be doing? Is this just a vanity project from some bureaucrat down the hill who's thought: 'Let's just change the organisation. Let's change the letterhead. Let's change the sign on the front door and increase the bureaucracy'? There's been no international credibility crisis—although, I must say, people sometimes must look at Australia and wonder about some of the decisions we take and make. But, anyway, there has been no demonstrated governance failure or international credibility crisis in, I stress, the bureaucratic sense. Our accounting standards and institutions are respected and internationally aligned—so why change them? To quote Mr Bert Lance, 'If it ain't broke, don't fix it.' Why fix it? If the government wants to dismantle three institutions, it should first show what has in fact failed. What has let the government down so badly that it needs to push these three institutions into one? I do not understand it; I simply don't. I think that what needs to happen now is that we need to have a good, long, hard think about this. Those who are putting together the legislative framework for and on behalf of the government should think about the things that are important to average, ordinary, everyday Australians—and, at the moment, that's the price of fuel, the cost of living, the price of power and the ability to get things done. But, no, we're talking about bureaucracy. We're taking up the parliament's time talking about putting three organisations into one entity, to satisfy the bureaucratic desires and vanity projects of somebody who will never have their name on a ballot paper. I simply don't understand it. We need to seek a referral to the Senate Economics Legislation Committee for some common sense in regard to this legislation. 11:12 Ms BRISKEY 263427 Maribyrnong This legislation, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Financial Reporting System Reform) Bill 2026, represents an important and timely modernisation of Australia's financial system. It ensures that the institutions safeguarding market integrity are as strong, credible and forward-looking as the economy they oversee. If Australia is to remain a competitive and trusted destination for investment, our financial reporting framework must be clear, coherent and internationally respected. In a global economy, capital does not wait. Investors compare jurisdictions, markets price risk quickly and businesses operate across borders and time zones. In that environment, transparency and consistency are not optional extras but prerequisites for confidence. Where reporting systems are fragmented or duplicative, clarity suffers. Where responsibilities overlap or strategic direction is diffused, efficiency is diminished. But where institutions are streamlined, accountable and aligned with international best practice, confidence grows. This bill is about strengthening that confidence, because confidence underpins investment productivity, retirement savings and long-term economic stability. However, we can't discuss this reform and not acknowledge the economic inheritance this government faced. When we came to office we inherited a trillion dollars of Liberal debt, entrenched structural deficits, inflation running at elevated levels and real wages declining. Institutional drift had been allowed to persist in too many areas of economic governance. For a decade, those opposite were comfortable postponing structural reform. They focused on short-term political management rather than long-term institutional strengthening. Overlaps were tolerated. Fragmentation was accepted. Modernisation was delayed. The Liberal and National parties are reckless with the economy, and they are reckless with community safety. They are divided and dangerous, and it is always the Australian people who pay for it—they pay for their dysfunction. They, on the opposite side, are demonstrating they are far more focused on themselves and far-right ideological culture wars than they are on the cost-of-living pressures that are facing working families. They have consistently voted against policies that would take the pressure off ordinary Australians, because they are more interested in their own politics than in your household budget. They stand for higher taxes, lower wages, bigger deficits and more debt. We have taken a different approach. We have worked hard to turn this around, and we have made real progress together. Inflation has moderated significantly from its peak, though we recognise it remains higher than we would like. Real wages are growing again. Employment remains strong. Participation is at near-record highs. Fiscal repair has progressed. And we are clear-eyed about the pressures Australians continue to face. In my electorate of Maribyrnong, families speak to me about the price of groceries, electricity bills and mortgage repayments. Small-business owners in Flemington and Kensington talk about cost pressures and access to finance. Retirees in Gladstone Park and Avondale Heights want stability and certainty in their superannuation. Young families in Moonee Ponds are thinking about their children's future and how to make ends meet today. We know Australians are still under pressure, and that is why we are delivering real, practical and ongoing help with the cost of living, including two more tax cuts for every single Australian taxpayer—one this year and another the next. Immediate relief is what Australians need, and that is why we are strengthening Medicare, investing in skills and productivity, backing wage growth and supporting households. But long-term economic confidence is just as vital. A resilient economy depends not only on fiscal measures but on institutional strength. It depends on credible governance. It depends on clear rules that are consistently applied. It depends on markets that operate with integrity. A strong economy needs integrity, and this bill delivers on that. Integrity in our markets is crucial because, when people trust the system to be fair and honest, they are more willing to invest, innovate, expand and plan for the future. That confidence underpins a strong economy for everyone, from global investors to local businesses to working families. At the heart of this reform is the establishment of a new body, External Reporting Australia, ERA. ERA will bring together Australia's accounting, auditing and sustainability standard-setting functions within a single coherent institutional framework. It will serve as a one-stop shop that consolidates the functions of the Australian Accounting Standards Board, the Auditing and Assurance Standards Board and the Financial Reporting Council. These bodies have contributed greatly to the integrity of Australia's financial reporting system. They have helped to build a framework that is respected domestically and internationally. But financial markets have evolved significantly. Global supply chains are more complex. Investment flows are faster and more interconnected. Reporting expectations are increasingly international in scope. Sustainability and climate disclosures are now central to financial decision-making. In that environment, a fragmented structure is no longer the most effective way to deliver strategic coherence. ERA consolidates these standard-setting functions whilst preserving the deep technical expertise that underpins high-quality standards in this country. It reduces duplication, it strengthens coordination, it provides clearer strategic oversight, and it ensures that Australia can engage more effectively in international standard-setting processes rather than simply respond to them. This is structural reform grounded in economic reality. A central feature of the ERA will be the establishment of dedicated technical boards, including one specifically focused on sustainability standards. This reflects a simple and widely recognised truth: climate risk is a financial risk. Investors increasingly demand consistent, reliable and comparable disclosures about how organisations manage environmental and transition risks. Superannuation funds require that information to assess long-term exposure. Banks and insurers incorporate it into risk modelling. Consumers and shareholders expect transparency about how companies are positioned in a changing global economy. By embedding sustainability reporting within Australia's core financial reporting architecture, we ensure that these disclosures are treated as integral to financial accountability, not as optional or peripheral considerations. This positions Australia alongside other leading jurisdictions that are modernising their reporting frameworks to reflect global expectations. It provides certainty to business, it enhances investor confidence and it supports capital flowing to productive, sustainable opportunities. The design of the ERA has been guided by three clear principles: flexibility, preserving what works and strengthening accountability. First, in regard to flexibility, we are removing structural barriers so that future standard-setting needs can be more readily accommodated. Financial markets change rapidly. The rise of digital assets, evolving global disclosure standards and technological disruption require an institutional framework that can adapt without delay. Second, in regard to preserving what works, Australia benefits from world-class accounting and auditing expertise. This reform retains dedicated technical boards and safeguards the rigour that underpins our standards. It integrates expertise within a stronger and more cohesive framework. Third, in regard to strengthening accountability, ERA will operate under workable and appropriate governance arrangements. There will be alignment between responsibility for performance and capacity to address issues when they arise. Conflicts of interest will be managed. Authority and responsibility will be clearly aligned. This bill also addresses unnecessary overlap. ERA will not assume the Financial Reporting Council's existing role in monitoring audit quality, a function already performed by ASIC. ASIC possesses the investigative powers, compulsory mechanisms and enforcement remit necessary for that role. Clarifying responsibilities reduces duplication and enhances regulatory coherence. Without this function, ERA will be better positioned to direct its specialist resources toward its primary role of setting standards in its establishment phase. The transition arrangements are orderly and responsible. If the bill receives royal assent before 30 June 2026, a four-month transition period will commence on that date, with External Reporting Australia beginning operations on 1 November 2026. If royal assent is received after that date, commencement will occur on the first day of the first calendar month four months after royal assent. This timeline ensures continuity of expertise and certainty for the profession and the market. Transitional provisions maintain the validity of existing standards issued by the current bodies. This is careful reform, not reckless change. Financial Reporting standards may not dominate everyday conversations, but they underpin the confidence that allows markets to function effectively. When a worker in Essendon reviews their superannuation statement, they rely on accurate corporate disclosures. When a local business in Moonee Ponds seeks capital, lenders and investors rely on clear and consistent reporting standards. When public sector bodies publish financial statements, communities rely on integrity and transparency. Institutional quality affects economic security. Trust is foundational to economic stability. People plan for the future when the system is predictable. Businesses invest when the regulatory environment is clear. Markets allocate capital efficiently when participants have confidence that the rules are fair and consistently applied. Strong reporting standards reinforce that trust. Transparent governance enhances credibility. Clear accountability strengthens confidence. This bill does not seek to reinvent Australia's financial system but works to strengthen it. It doesn't disregard institutional knowledge; it integrates it within a more modern and coherent structure. For the people of Maribyrnong, this reform helps ensure that the governance and structural arrangements of our economic institutions are best positioned to build a more competitive, dynamic and productive economy. This is important for retirement savings. It's important for business confidence. It's important for long-term economic security. A competitive economy requires credible institutions. A productive economy requires coherent governance. A fair economy requires transparency and accountability. This bill advances all three objectives. It modernises Australia's financial reporting architecture. It strengthens coordination and clarity. It embeds sustainability within our core framework. It also positions Australia to remain a trusted, competitive and forward-looking participant in global markets. It is thoughtful reform, it's responsible reform, it is better targeted, it is better balanced, and it's better for Australians. I commend the bill to the House. 11:24 Mr TIM WILSON IMW Goldstein The Treasury Laws Amendment (Financial Reporting System Reform) Bill 2026 may, on one level, seem to many Australians to be a mundane piece of legislation, administrative in its nature. But, of course, sitting behind it is a much more significant purpose. Australian small businesses are struggling right now with increasing costs—regulations and industrial relations costs et cetera—across the entire economy. The problem with this Labor government is they design all law on the basis that every small business, every corner store and every wonderful, hardworking Australian who wants to set up a home business has, sitting behind them, an HR department, a tax and legal department and a regulatory compliance department when, in fact, they don't. They just want to get on with their lives. They just want to grow their business, be successful and support themselves and their families. Because of this mad approach to regulation and taxation, we've had record small-business insolvencies—41,000 since the Labor government was elected and just over 14,000 last year—and we are on track, in this financial year, to see record small-business insolvencies, in excess of last year. I would be embarrassed if I were part of a government that had overseen record small-business insolvencies. But we know the response from the federal minister; her accusation was that they were dodgy. We've seen all of those livelihoods taken away and a small-business minister who draws a tin ear to any concerns from small business. One of the problems with the Labor government is that they are not satisfied with putting increased big-business IR law on small business, they're not satisfied with imposing big-business tax laws on small business, and they're not satisfied with imposing big-business regulation on small business. They now want to impose the climate accountability and climate disclosure standards that apply to big business onto small business. There are two fundamental problems with this. The first problem is that, for a lot of these businesses, this type of regulation or disclosure is far beyond their capacity. It's not within their remit, both in terms of their core purpose and their function. They struggle enough as it is; they're drowning in regulation. The second problem is that there aren't the skills in the economy to provide it. So, of course, the cost structures of it would go dramatically up for small businesses, who are already struggling to keep a profit; there's already a small-business cost crisis in this nation. What's the response of the Labor government? It's, 'Well, we've got a small-business cost crisis in Australia right now, so let's just hit it with speed.' That's where we're currently going under this legislation I congratulate the Shadow Assistant Treasurer for his efforts in the carriage of this bill, to get it to this point. He's highlighted dramatically the consequences of what will happen if it continues to go forward, how Australians and, particularly, Australian small businesses will be crushed by the consequences of it. Of course, it may seem simple. It may seem that abolishing the Financial Reporting Council, the Australian Accounting Standards Board and the Auditing and Assurance Standards Board and replacing them with a new body called External Reporting Australia may actually have some efficiency dividend. What we know—we've seen this consistently with this government—is that it leads to regulatory capture. They get a small number of people in these organisations and they just drive up the cost on small business, which continues to get hit hard. It doesn't deliver any environmental, social or climate benefit, but it does make sure that all those small businesses just teetering on the brink—with heart, sweat and tears and finances keeping them going—are sent to the wall. And that is what is so damaging and dangerous about this bill. This is a bill designed to capture regulatory standards around ESG compliance and climate disclosure compliance and ram them down the throats of small businesses so they cannot stay alive. They will not be able to breathe, and they will not be in a situation where they'll have confidence in the future. For this government to do that, in an environment of record small-business insolvencies, is, to be frank, a kind of sickness. It also goes to the heart of this government's understanding of small business. They don't understand it. They don't understand what it means to back yourself, to take risks, to employ people and, more importantly, to be able to do it in an environment where there's already a cost-of-small-business crisis. This morning, the Leader of the Opposition and I were out at a small business in Canberra, and we heard directly about how electricity bills have gone up 50 per cent and how industrial relations regulation has meant not that people are getting paid more, which was the Labor government's intention, but actually that fewer shifts are being offered, because there is no other way they can make ends meet. More importantly, the costs then get passed on to consumers. So what are consumers doing? They're consuming less. In fact, I hear more and more stories about mums that go to the self-checkout line at a supermarket because they look at what's in their basket and they're afraid it's going to get to a total that they can't afford. If they go to the self-checkout line, they'll be able to return the products without the feeling of humiliation or judgement from the person at the cashier. This is not a dignified country when we behave in this way. This is not a dignified protection of our way of life, or restoring our way of life, under this government; it's quite the reverse. It's a complete trashing of the Australian way of life. The only answer that this government has is to impose more costs, more burdens and more regulations on small businesses and drive them further to the wall. This bill might seem anodyne to a lot of the members, who wax lyrical about harmonisation of standards and doing something good for the planet, but I can tell you what it comes at the consequence of: it comes at the consequence of thousands of Australians whose small businesses will be taken from the marginal line of profitability to insolvency. That's why we had record small-business insolvencies last year and that's why, tragically, we're going to have record insolvencies in the year to come. With that is going to be a decline in the standard of living for many Australians, but, secretly, I think that's what this Labor government wants. 11:31 Ms JARRETT 298574 Brisbane I rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Financial Reporting System Reform) Bill 2026 today. For most people, this sort of legislation may be a bit abstract and foreign, but the truth is that every person and every business that puts their money into shares, a business or a super fund is affected by the players who are governed by these laws. These laws are fundamental to our financial system. They provide a common method for recording transactions for corporate reporting and a process for review to verify the accuracy of the report. Corporate reporting covers two areas. I'm going to try and break it down a little bit here. First is finances. For businesses, it's their budgets—the income and expenditure, the profit and loss. Second, they report on matters that might impact the long-term value of the company, such as their approach to climate and sustainability or the diversity of their workforce, just to name two. These laws also reform how the guardians of the financial truth conduct themselves, and this is when the auditors come into play. They review the accounts, or 'audit' them, to make sure they're fairly represented. This process helps identify errors, misstatements or even fraud, and auditors provide an independent opinion on the financial report. Then there's assurance, which looks at the accuracy of the system and processes, or non-financial information, of the businesses. These processes, too, are guided by standards. In actual fact, all the processes I've just talked about are guided by standards that are set by three core bodies. These bodies have evolved over long periods of time—as have the standards—as investor expectations, financial assets and instruments have changed, alongside the volume of money that's flowing around the world. Basically, audit and assurance mean that an investor doesn't need to take the company's word for it before they put their hard-earned savings into that business. They can look at the audited report and get reliable information. Why is this important? It's because a common language and reporting method, as well as a common review process, means every person or every business that might be investing in another is able to compare apples with apples, not apples with oranges. This builds the integrity of our financial markets, and integrity matters. When people trust the system to be fair and honest, they're more willing to invest, businesses are more willing to innovate and it's easier to plan for the future. That confidence also underpins strong financial markets and therefore contributes to the strength of our economy. So what is the bill? This legislation delivers the biggest reform to our financial reporting institutions in over two decades. It proposes the merging of the Australian Accounting Standards Board, the Auditing and Assurance Standards Board and the Financial Reporting Council into a single entity, External Reporting Australia, or the ERA. The ERA will centralise standard setting for accounting, auditing and sustainability reporting to enhance efficiency and align with international standards. But what are these standards? We have accounting, auditing, assurance and sustainability standards. These standards are frameworks that guide how financial and non-financial data is recorded, verified and reported by a company. They ensure consistency, transparency and trust in corporate reporting. They enable investors and others to, as I said, compare apples with apples. Now, without being too technical, I'll try and run through these. The Australian accounting standards define how to measure, recognise and disclose financial transactions. For instance, if you're a business and you have property plant and equipment, the standards might outline how this equipment is recognised in the financial report. It would include consideration of its current value, depreciation and impairment loss. The auditing standards are a framework that guides the auditors on how to examine these reports or the financial information so that they can obtain a reasonable assurance that the report is free from material misstatement. Here's an example. Auditors have to exercise professional judgement and maintain scepticism—we hear that a lot in that world—and they draw informed conclusions and make decisions surrounding factors in the financial statements. So what they might do is question information. They may look at the value of plant and equipment and look at the depreciation value and make a judgement as to whether or not that makes sense given the age of the equipment. Assurance standards guide practitioners in providing conclusions on the financial or non-financial information provided by the company. For example, for the standard covering assurance reports on controls, they may look at the controls associated with how a particular business manages its IT provider or its payroll assessors. Lastly, we have sustainability standards. These standards grew out of calls from investors and market players for companies to report on their environmental, social and governance risks—ESG risks. Put simply, these are really about how a company might manage its carbon footprint and how it manages its reputation factors such as how it treats its workforce and its community impact and ethical conduct. For governance, the company's board and oversight practices are good examples. This type of reporting has been voluntary in Australia, largely guided by the ASX corporate principles and other laws like the Modern Slavery Act. However, as others have said, climate disclosure became mandatory in this country last year for large businesses and is now being phased in for medium and small enterprises. We are seeing these standards being increasingly integrated with assurance standards, which now verify sustainability reports, so all of a sudden we have more interconnectivity. Our financial and capital markets rely on our standards and reporting systems being robust, relevant and reliable. If financial reports are not correct and there are audit failures, then it's everyday mums and dads, retirees, workers, businesses and others that lose out. Companies can fracture and collapse, and those who put their money into that business may not end up getting their expected returns, or, worse of all, they can lose their money altogether, and workers can lose their jobs. Just last year we saw the collapse of the First Guardian and Shield investment funds. Between the two schemes, 12,000 Australians are facing the loss of more than $1 billion of retirement savings. According to ASIC, these two funds were riddled with conflicts, misconduct and false statements that were made to investors. ASIC is pursuing these funds through the legal process. Australia has seen even bigger corporate collapses, including HIH in 2001. It's the largest corporate collapse in Australia's history, with an estimated up to $5.3 billion in losses, and involved major failings in auditing and supervision by its auditor, Arthur Andersen. This failure contributed to Arthur Andersen's collapse, not just in Australia but globally. At that time, for those who can remember, Arthur Andersen was convicted in the United States of obstructing justice for shredding thousands of documents and deleting emails related to its audit of the failed energy giant Enron. It lost its licence, investors lost their trust, the markets lost trust, and the firm fell apart. We also saw the collapse of Ansett here in Australia quite a few years ago, which was contributed to by poor financial reporting. Not only were there financial losses; 16,000 workers lost their jobs. These are all sad tales of why we need strong, reliable and trustworthy financial reporting systems. They explain the importance of our standards and our standard-setting bodies as well as the importance of our auditors and why investors need this strength. I want to quickly circle back to sustainability standards because they're included in this whole big world. These guiding standards require an entity to disclose information about climate related risks and opportunities that could be reasonably expected to affect the entity's financial position in the short to long term. There's also an expectation that they disclose their actions and processes around these. This reporting can include relevant processes, procedures and controls as well as the metrics used to measure them—for instance, greenhouse gas emissions. As I mentioned, ESG reporting started out as voluntary, which contributed to it becoming fragmented and incomparable. As a result, there were also allegations of greenwashing by companies who were competing for sustainability focused investment: market saw companies exaggerate claims that their services, products and operations were more environmentally friendly or sustainable than they actually were. So the introduction of the standards was there to set the benchmark for comparability—apples with apples. This is extremely important, especially in countries committed to climate action like Australia. Individuals are voting with their feet, acting in a more environmentally conscious way and making specific investment choices that promote sustainability outcomes. Without these standards, consumers can be mislead, legitimate environmental efforts are undermined and companies with legitimate sustainability goals don't get the capital they should. For the past 12 minutes or so, I've tried to paint a picture of the corporate disclosure regime in this country. It's complex and in need of an upgrade. These changes didn't just happen; they grew out of several reviews. Bringing the standard-setting bodies together was a recommendation of the climate related financial disclosure consultation paper released in 2022. We also saw the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services recommending consolidation of the standard-setting bodies. This committee led an inquiry into allegations of, and responses into, misconduct in the Australian operations of the major accounting, audit and consultancy firms. Long story short, the chairman's report states that 'the resulting scandal shook corporate Australia to its core' and that the professional services firm involved 'became synonymous with a profoundly disturbing breach of public trust'. I talk about this because it's led us to why we are here today. This bill represents a significant overhaul of Australia's financial reporting governance with the merging of the Australian Accounting Standards Board, the Auditing and Assurance Standards Board and the Financial Reporting Council into the single entity External Reporting Australia. It's long overdue. There hasn't been a substantial change to the standard-setting framework for more than 20 years. ERA will be governed by a council responsible for oversight of all functions. It's going to be supported by technical boards for the accounting, auditing, assurance and sustainability standards. But the council may also include associate members who might bring additional expertise that is needed. The pace of change across our financial markets is rapid, to say the least. If we add the technological advancements driving AI, new financial instruments, new digital assets et cetera to the interconnectivity of markets around the world and the need to meet investor expectations and societal expectations to protect our businesses and to protect consumers, we have a very complex environment indeed. That's why ERA is designed around three principles. The first is flexibility. Being one organisation—and we've heard criticism about this by earlier speakers—ERA can more efficiently respond to emerging issues, evolving priorities and future standards-setting needs. The second is the preservation of expertise. The development and review of standards is very technical. I know; I've been in that world, and it does require deep expertise. That's going to be retained with the specialised boards within ERA and the ability to bring in others as needed. Then, of course, there's accountability. New transparency provisions require that discussions on standards be held in public forums, and the rules around managing conflicts of interest have been strengthened. These include that the governing council be made up of individuals who are independent of the auditing profession, perceived and real. As Minister Mulino said, this bill aims to create a modern, durable and transparent institutional structure that positions Australia to maintain high-quality reporting standards and adopt to global developments. We've heard a number of those opposite say, if it ain't broke, don't fix it; don't change it. But I ask this question: would they say that about a racing car that's 20 years old and competing against a modern, new, lighter car that they know, even before the key is turned, will do better on the track? I'll leave it at that. So Australia needs a financial market that's robust, relevant and reliable. This requires a standards-setting system and reporting frameworks that are built for purpose, and this bill contributes to that. Strong, trusted reporting standards are essential to market integrity and trust. When investors trust in our market, they invest in it. It's this trust and confidence that's crucial to Australia's ongoing broader economic strength and Australia's economic growth. I commend this bill to the House. 11:46 Ms CLUTTERHAM 316101 Sturt I rise today to speak in support of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Financial Reporting System Reform) Bill 2026, which represents the biggest reform to Australian financial reporting standard settings in 20 years, and, critically, it marks an important step in embedding sustainability reporting within Australia's core financial reporting framework. The reforms proposed in the bill will have positive implications for the integrity in our markets, which matters. If we want to encourage people to invest and innovate, to look to the future, to take calculated risks and to grasp opportunities, only the highest standards of integrity in the market will be acceptable. When people trust the system to be fair, transparent, stable and honest, they will invest and innovate. They will look to the market to provide opportunities to invest long into the future. They will look to the market for opportunities in general, and they will take them. A strong and productive economy requires this level of integrity to inspire confidence, and we know that only markets that investors have confidence in will grow. Good governance, accurate and timely reporting, fairness and transparency mean a stronger economy for everyone. The bill proposes reforms to the financial reporting architecture that will have meaningful implications for sustainability reporting in Australia. Most significantly, the bill proposes the establishment of External Reporting Australia, bringing sustainability standards setting into the same national infrastructure that governs accounting and assurance. The effect of this is that sustainability reporting will be embedded in core reporting systems, rather than treated as an adjunct. This is important because it promotes consistency and comparability, which are essential and useful ingredients for investors in their decision-making. With respect to the establishment of External Reporting Australia, the bill makes amendments to part 12 of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act to combine the core functions and powers of the Australian Accounting Standards Board, the Auditing and Assurance Standards Board and their respective offices and the Financial Reporting Council relating to standard setting. These will be combined into a single entity known as External Reporting Australia. To achieve this, the bill continues the existence of the Office of the Auditing and Assurance Standards Board, a non-corporate Commonwealth entity, for the purposes of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act and renames it External Reporting Australia. The amendments therefore abolish the Australian Accounting Standards Board, the Auditing and Assurance Standards Board, the offices and the Financial Reporting Council. External Reporting Australia's responsibilities will include making and formulating accounting, auditing and assurance, and sustainability standards. The difference between the previous system and what is being proposed in this bill is the facilitation of External Reporting Australia as the single source of standard setting. Under the previous framework, various responsibilities in relation to accounting, auditing and assurance, and sustainability standard setting were split across the separate statutory entities, their respective offices and the Financial Reporting Council. Now a single entity, External Reporting Australia, will be responsible for all of these relevant standard-setting functions. External Reporting Australia will be led by a governing council, the Governing Council of External Reporting Australia, and it will establish internal standard-setting boards that are authorised to exercise the powers and perform the functions in relation to standard setting within the accountability framework of a single entity. The minister may also give External Reporting Australia responsibility for formulating new kinds of standards in response to future needs. External Reporting Australia will be a listed entity, with the governing council as the accountable authority for the purposes of finance law within the meaning of the PGPA Act. Turning to the governing council, this is a key feature because it is one of the elements in the bill that is designed to instil confidence—in market participants, industry and other stakeholders—that integrity, a commitment to procedural fairness and due process, and adherence to relevant technical expertise in setting standards will underpin the operation of the governing council. The governing council will be a multimember accountable authority to promote collective and strategic decision-making and to ensure that no one particular industry, interest group or cause can unduly influence outcomes. The governing council will be the accountable authority and therefore responsible for approving External Reporting Australia's corporate plan, setting its priorities and ensuring appropriate management of its budget and resources. With respect to appointments to the governing council, the minister must have regard to the principle that the governing council should contain an appropriate level of representation of persons who are and are seen to be independent from Australian auditors and that it should, as far as practicable, have an appropriate balance of expertise or experience in fields relevant to External Reporting Australia's functions. The governing council is to consist of between five and nine members, including the chair, and the minister may also appoint up to four non-voting associate members to the governing council. As for appointments to the standard-setting boards, the governing council must ensure, to the extent practicable, that the composition of a standard-setting board reflects an appropriate mix of persons, with experience reflecting both the standards and the board issues, and that reports are prepared in accordance with those standards. In short, the obligation of the governing council is to set up standard-setting boards with the authority to make and formulate standards on behalf of External Reporting Australia to ensure that the day-to-day determination of the technical content of accounting, auditing and assurance, and sustainability standards are tasked to boards with expertise directly relevant to the standards being set. The proposed governing council is required to include skills in sustainability or climate change, including scientific expertise, to strengthen the technical capability of the standard-setting boards. This is an important signal to the market about the capability of the governing council and the standard-setting boards themselves. The bill also includes a requirement that certain actions taken by the minister, the governing council and the standard-setting boards be done by legislative instrument, which has the effect that the actions will be subject to appropriate consultation requirements and scrutiny by the parliament. These actions include the establishment and setting of certain procedural requirements for the standard-setting boards, like providing for the broad strategic direction of the board and the manner in which it is to perform its functions, the conferral of responsibility for new kinds of standards or other functions on External Reporting Australia and the giving of any ministerial direction about the role of international standards. Again, this element is another signal to the market about capability. The bill also signals an important focus on transparency, because there is a requirement for meetings in which standards are discussed to be held in public. This is to improve visibility and to help reduce the risk of late-stage requirements. Early and public consultation will remain critical to ensure standards are practical to implement and to support higher quality reporting, particularly for data systems and controls and assurance readiness. The bill also supports continuity and certainty as reforms take effect and seeks to maintain robust due process in every respect. Further nods to transparency include the setting of rules governing the disclosure and handling of material personal interests by any members of the governing council or the standard-setting boards that adopt and supplement the PGPA Rule, which simply means disclosures of personal interests must be made as soon as practicable rather than waiting for the next meeting. This is entirely appropriate, and it's hard to argue against this reform. Finally, a code of conduct will be developed, which will apply to people who are statutory appointees within External Reporting Australia, as well as any other staff or other persons assisting who are not otherwise subject to the APS Code of Conduct. Nothing less than a targeted and appropriately tailored code of conduct that meets community expectations will satisfy the level of integrity that must be applied to the External Reporting Australia framework. As to sustainability reporting, embedding this within Australia's financial reporting system recognises that environmental, social and governance information is now central to business decision-making. It is critical for investors, and it is now business as usual. However, the production of reasonably practicable sustainability reporting standards is critical. We do not want reporting for reporting's sake or something that is no more than a box-checking exercise. This is why it's important that the bill provides that, prior to making or formulating a sustainability standard or in fact before making or formulating any standard on accounting or auditing and assurance, whether or not in reliance on an international standard, External Reporting Australia must, to the extent practicable in the circumstances, carry out a cost-benefit analysis of the impact of the proposed standard. It is intended that the cost-benefit analysis carried out may consider financial factors as well as other factors, such as anticipated environmental, social or governance costs and benefits. This cost-benefit requirement retains but updates and simplifies to reflect current practices, and it's retaining the pre-existing requirements regarding cost-benefit analysis of proposed setting standards issued by the Australian Accounting Standards Board and expands the requirement to also apply to auditing and assurance standards. This requirement supplements whole-of-government regulation impact assessment processes, which may require impacts of proposed regulation to be quantified and published, and ensures that a cost-benefit analysis continues to be required for all standards issued by External Reporting Australia. In this respect, one of the objectives of the bill is to create a more flexible institutional arrangement for standard setting to ensure the efficiency and adaptability of Australia's financial reporting system. This objective is entirely appropriate to accommodate the development and ongoing maintenance of new sustainability standards, as well as to futureproof Australia's financial reporting system so that it can respond to future standard-setting needs. Sustainability standards produced only after the development of a cost-benefit analysis and reporting against those standards prepared in accordance with the law help maintain and promote confidence and integrity in Australia's capital markets and help users and investors make informed investment decisions. Sustainability standards and reporting are not, as some might argue, virtue-signalling. It's important to report against meaningful standards so that governments can use the data to determine whether policy objectives are being met, whether they require amendment or improvement, or whether they should be simply cut out. If the data being produced is not capable of meaningful use, then it is not useful data. With useful data, good policy is made when it is relied on in conjunction with facts and evidence. This produces meaningful, sustainable and practical policy. The creation of External Reporting Australia, through the amendments set out in this bill, will strengthen the framework for setting external reporting standards and ensure those standards are meaningful, produced after a cost-benefit analysis, future focused and dedicated to providing further trust and confidence in Australia's capital markets to encourage further investment. I commend the bill to the House. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 298800 The question is that the bill be now read a second time. Question unresolved. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 298800 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 be returned to the House for further consideration. MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS 128 MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS Apology to Australia's Indigenous Peoples: 18th Anniversary 128 12:02 Ms KARA COOK 316537 Bonner ():  I start today by acknowledging the traditional custodians of the land on which we gather, and I pay my respects to elders past, present and emerging. My husband, Josh, is a proud Waanyi and Kalkadoon man, and I am the proud mother of three First Nations children. It's a great privilege to speak today on this statement. Eighteen years ago, then prime minister Kevin Rudd delivered the National Apology to the Stolen Generations. It was a moment of truth-telling that shifted the nation. It acknowledged the profound wrong of removing Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children from their families, communities and culture. The damage done is not confined to the past. Intergenerational trauma is real. It lives on in families, in communities, in overrepresentation in out-of-home care and the justice system, in poorer health outcomes and in the grief that is carried forward. The apology mattered, and its anniversary is a reminder to all Australians of our true shared history. I want to use my time today to tell the truth in this place and to share the words of a member of the stolen generations—Robert Young, known as Uncle Bob, a proud Gamilaroi man who I met here at parliament during the stolen generations morning tea last month. Uncle Bob told me he had come to parliament to share his story, and he handed me this piece of paper, written in his own words, about his removal and growing up in the Kinchela Aboriginal Boys Training Home, known as KBH, which operated for almost 50 years from 1924 to 1970. This document is titled, 'I am number 24': I am number 24 ex-KBH. I went to Kinchela Boys Home in 1954 when I was five years of age. I came out in 1965 when I was 16. My mum found me in a TAB in Redfern in 1969. My dad was living in Moree. I'd been told that my mum and dad were dead. My nickname at the boy's home was Bullfrog. The first thing when we walked through the gate, we were told to take our shoes and clothes off. Our clothes and shoes were burnt in the fire. We were left standing in the nude and they threw white powder over you. You walked across the grass bare foot on bindis. If you played up they would tie you to the fig tree overnight. There were many other punishments. You would be sent down the line and if your brother or cousin didn't hit you, they would get sent down the line too. There was a dog at the home called Prince. He was a German Shepard and belonged to the manager. If we didn't call the dog by his name we'd be sent down the line. He had a name; we were only called by our numbers. If you ran away from the home, they would send you back to the home, strip your shirt and trousers and leave you in your singlet and underpants. They shaved your hair off, they put you in a butter shed with a sugar bag over you with cut out sleeves. It was itchy sackcloth. You were on bread and water for two weeks. At breakfast time, they would shake the sugarbag over your porridge so that little like weevils would fall in your porridge and they made sure you ate the porridge with the weevils. If you didn't eat it, you had it for breakfast, dinner and tea. I used to love beetroot. I'd peel off the leaves and wash it under the tap. If you got caught with whatever fruit or vegetable you had, you had that for breakfast, lunch and dinner. I haven't touched beetroot since. We planted our own vegetables and kept chooks. The manager lived off our hard work, taking the produce to sell for his own profit. We worked barefoot on the farm. To treat our cracked feet, we would step in the cow manure to heal the wounds. In the winter frosts, if we complained about our cracked toes, they would turn the water hose on us. It was freezing cold in the winter time. The way they taught you how to swim was they threw you in clothes and all. I was thrown into the pool clothes and all. I went head first, breaking my top front tooth at the bottom of the pool. One of the older boys, Alan Murray, dived in and brought me up. The manager said, don't worry about that, 24, we'll send you in to Kempsey to the dentist. The dentist said what do you want silver or gold. I said, "Put the gold in!" It'll be with me all my days. If you came last in your class in school (my cousin and I came last), they would cane both your hands about three or four times and then take you across to the dormitory where there was a boxing ring. They would stand you in the middle of the ring. They would throw a medicine ball at you, then throw gymnastic mats over you and jump on top of you. When we left the boys' home in 1965, my cousin walked out barefoot. We got on the train at Kempsey. We had to go to Central Station in Sydney to meet our foster parents. We were separated again. My cousin went to live in Riverwood with a Spanish family. While he was with them he learned to speak Spanish although he never had the opportunity to learn his own language, Kamilaroi. When he grew up, my cousin walked the streets of Redfern and Central barefoot. Everyone knew him. He asked for two songs to be sung at his funeral: Seven Spanish Angels and Spanish Eyes. People say his presence is still felt at the Redfern AMS, the Aboriginal Medical Service. My cousin was Harold Young. He was number 23. Robert Young 29 October 2019 It is an honour to share Uncle Bob's story in this place. I told him at the morning tea that if I had the opportunity to share his words I would, and I'm proud to have delivered that promise to him today. Truth-telling is essential in our country, and in that spirit, I also want to acknowledge the work of Travis Lovett, Executive Director of the Centre for Truth Telling and Dialogue at the University of Melbourne, who next month will lead the Walk for Truth, a 500-kilometre walk from Victoria's parliament to this place, Parliament House in Canberra, arriving on Wednesday 27 May. Travis has said: Walk For Truth is a shared journey that says, with our feet and our voices, that our country needs healing. He has also said that truth-telling is not about blame; it is about 'finally listening to those who have too often been treated as a problem to be handled, rather than as sovereign peoples who deserve respect'. Truth-telling is 'an act of national repair' so we can walk a true path forward together. The walk is an open invitation to all Australians to walk the path of truth-telling so we can share more stories like Uncle Bob's not just in this place but right across our nation. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 298800 Thank you. Uncle Bob sounds like an extraordinary man. 12:10 Ms CHANEY 300006 Curtin I rise to acknowledge the 18th anniversary of the national apology to Australia's Indigenous peoples and to respond to the Closing the gap annual report and implementation plan. Eighteen years ago, this parliament stood together to say sorry. It was a moment of truth-telling and national self-reflection, an acknowledgement that the harm inflicted through government policies was not abstract or distant, but deeply personal, ongoing and intergenerational. The National Apology to the Stolen Generations was never an end in itself. It was an invitation to do the ongoing, sometimes uncomfortable work of justice and repair. In Western Australia in this past year, we saw a powerful local act of truth-telling that spoke directly to the truth of the apology. On 28 October 2025, the Governor of Western Australia, His Excellency Chris Dawson, travelled to Bindjareb Noongar country to deliver a formal apology for the Pinjarra massacre of 1834—a planned and deadly raid led by then Governor James Stirling that killed scores of Aboriginal men, women and children. He said that the time had come for a governor to acknowledge the truth of a predecessor's actions, emphasising the need to confront the truth in all the complexities of the past in order to heal in the present and committing himself to do all he could to rebuild trust and reconciliation. That ceremony was deeply significant for the Bindjareb community and for all Western Australians willing to reckon with our history. It also modelled leadership: an officeholder using the authority of the state to name harm and to express remorse, walking softly on country, invited by traditional owners, and committing to reconciliation in deeds as well as words. We should recognise the courage of community leaders who carried this truth for so long and the Governor's willingness to meet them there publicly and unequivocally. Truth-telling alone cannot undo the deep and lasting harm caused by the policy and laws of successive governments. It must be met with practical steps towards justice. That's why I welcome the commencement in November 2025 of the Western Australian government Stolen Generations Redress Scheme. Under this scheme, survivors who were removed from their families in WA before 1 July 1972 are eligible for a one-off $85,000 payment, along with the option of a personal acknowledgement from the state. It marks an important recognition of the harm caused by the insidious policies of forced removal in WA, where, shamefully, some of our country's highest rates of Indigenous child removal occurred. While the WA scheme is a concrete step on the path to healing, it's too soon to assess its impact. WA was the second-last state to have a redress scheme like this. Only Queensland is left. I'm aware of concerns that the scheme in its current form excludes First Nations people who were removed after 1972, fails to account for intergenerational trauma and is not sufficient to meet the needs of survivors dealing with the complex effects of trauma. I sincerely hope that this is just a start and that the scheme will continue to be improved to ensure it tangibly addresses the lasting harm suffered by Aboriginal families and communities. As we reflect on these steps towards truth and redress, we must also confront the data. Each year, the Closing the Gap data challenges us to measure our progress, not against rhetoric but against outcomes in the lives of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. This year's results are sobering: four targets are on track; seven show improvements but remain off track; and four are going backwards, including suicide, adult incarceration, out-of-home care and early childhood development. Against this backdrop, I welcome the government's announcement of $144 million to upgrade health infrastructure for First Nations communities and the government's national plan to end violence against Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women and children, backed by a commitment of $218 million. This is a vital step towards addressing a crisis that has persisted for far too long. The expansion of the Remote Jobs and Economic Development program, doubling its capacity to 6,000 jobs, is also a welcome investment in economic empowerment, which is the foundation for dignity, security and community wellbeing. I also welcome the government's $13.9 million investment to expand 13YARN, enabling extended hours and a new text based service so that more First Nations people can access immediate, culturally safe crisis support. But too many indicators still paint a bleak picture. First Nations people remain 2.5 times more likely to die by suicide than non-Indigenous Australians. Imprisonment rates continue to rise. The number of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children in out-of-home care is worsening, and the developmental readiness of children entering school remains off track with concerning signs of further deterioration. I also want to highlight the widening gap in aged-care services for First Nations elders. Many stolen generations survivors, now reaching aged-care eligibility, face a system that's often culturally unsafe, inflexible and ill-equipped to meet their needs. Elders are often disconnected from country due to limited services in their regions. Nearly 40 per cent of Aboriginal community controlled aged-care providers are at risk of financial instability. Ensuring elders, particularly those who survived the brutality of removal, can age with dignity, cultural safety and connection to country must be core to our efforts to close the gap. I must also speak about the recent attempted bombing of the Invasion Day rally targeting First Nations people and their supporters in my hometown of Perth. This incident exposed the distressing systemic racism Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people continue to face through not only the declared terrorist act itself but also the slow and muted responses from some quarters. If Closing the Gap is about transforming systems, then that transformation must include how institutions respond when Aboriginal people are the target of violence. As we mark the apology's 18th anniversary, we must hold ourselves to account for progress that communities can feel. The Closing the Gap data will keep telling us the truth, whether we like it or not. Our job is to respond with action that changes the numbers and the lived realities behind them. 12:17 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fenner The latest Closing the Gap dashboard is troubling. Nineteen national targets—four on track, and several improving, yet still off the pace required to meet the 2031 goals. In areas such as incarceration, youth detention and suicide, the trajectory is headed the wrong way. In others, including family violence, baseline data is still incomplete. The gap narrows in some places and widens in others, and, in too many domains, progress lacks momentum. If outcomes are uneven, our response must be sharper. Closing the Gap rests on partnership, and partnership must be matched with precision. Governments need to know which policies shift outcomes and which leave them unchanged. That requires disciplined evaluation. The Australian Centre for Evaluation is strengthening that discipline across government. It supports rigorous methods, including randomised trials where appropriate, so policy is tested rather than assumed. Evidence from past trials shows why this matters. In the Northern Territory, the School Enrolment and Attendance Measure linked welfare payments to school outcomes and school attendance. In a study run by Rebecca Goldstein and Michael Hiscox, around 400 children were randomly assigned to treatment, and a similar number to control. Attendance did not improve. The trial provided clarity in a contested policy area and informed a shift towards community led approaches to school attendance. In Dubbo, a study by Isabella Dobrescu and colleagues tested whether culturally relevant exam passages improved literacy outcomes. Replacing unfamiliar contexts with local references produced a substantial gain, roughly halving the gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous students. A carefully designed trial revealed how assessment design itself can shape performance. In a report last year, Patrick Rehill, Ethan Slaven, Harry Greenwell, Peter Bowers, Scott Copley and Eleanor Williams of the Australian Centre for Evaluation identified 369 published randomised policy trials conducted in Australia since 1976. More than two dozen of these trials were undertaken in First Nations communities. Some of those trials show strong positive effects. Early childhood intervention that began during pregnancy reduced dental decay among Aboriginal children by more than 80 per cent in early follow-up. A Victorian trial found that sending personalised letters to parents increased influenza vaccination rates among Aboriginal children, while pamphlets alone made little difference. A school based program in remote communities targeting executive function and self-regulation showed gains reported by parents and carers, shaping how such interventions are delivered across home and school settings. Other trials delivered harder lessons. A cluster randomised trial across Aboriginal community controlled health services had mixed results on whether training and support lifted rates of alcohol screening and brief intervention. A pilot randomised evaluation of a smoking cessation app for Aboriginal Australians revealed low engagement and significant implementation barriers, prompting redesign rather than full-scale rollout. A long-term randomised study of health assessments found increased service use but no overall mortality reduction. Each of those trials improved our policy understanding. Some identified interventions worth scaling, whilst others prevented expansion of programs that didn't deliver despite the best of intentions. Together, they demonstrate that rigorous evaluation in First Nations contexts is feasible and informative. Evaluation in this space demands respect for First Nations data sovereignty and cultural authority. Reviews of programs such as Connected Beginnings have highlighted how inconsistent data collection and barriers to sharing can limit understanding of population level impacts. Strong evaluation requires good data, ethical design and meaningful involvement of Indigenous evaluators. Methods must be fit for purpose. Last year, the Paul Ramsay Foundation's Experimental Evaluation Open Grant Round committed $2.1 million to seven organisations to undertake rigorous evaluations over three years. The Australian Centre for Evaluation is supporting the grant round at various stages. Two of these funded projects are Indigenous led initiatives. Yiliyapinya Indigenous Corporation is evaluating its Yili program, a brain health and healing program for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and young people. The evaluation uses a culturally informed, randomised design to examine impacts on educational engagement, wellbeing and social reintegration. An Aboriginal organisation is leading both delivery and the framing of evidence about its impact. Justice Our Way, an Aboriginal led program supporting women transitioning from correctional centres back into community, is being evaluated using a stepped wedge experimental design. The evaluation will measure reoffending alongside health, wellbeing and community connection. In a domain where incarceration rates remain deeply troubling, credible evidence on what reduces reoffending carries direct relevance to Closing the Gap targets. These projects operate within realistic budgets and timeframes. They confront practical challenges—ethics approvals, recruitment, retention, access to administrative data—while maintaining methodological rigour. They demonstrate that experimental approaches can be embedded in community led work, with cultural authority and partnership at the centre of these randomised trials. Closing the Gap requires programs that deliver measurable change in school readiness, justice outcomes, health and wellbeing. It requires governments willing to test, learn and adapt. The Australian Centre for Evaluation is helping to build that culture of learning across the Commonwealth. By supporting rigorous trials, especially those led by First Nations organisations, it strengthens the link between commitment and outcome. The dashboard tells us where progress is falling short; rigorous evaluation shows how to move the line. 12:25 Ms STEGGALL 175696 Warringah I acknowledge the Ngunnawal and Ngambri peoples as the traditional custodians of the Canberra region where the Australian parliament meets. I pay my respects to their elders, past and present, and I extend that respect to all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people here today. Closing the Gap is not a slogan or a line item. It is a whole-of-government obligation, an obligation on all Australians, to change outcomes by changing how government works—shared decision-making, community control and accountability. The Commonwealth annual report 2025 shows practical progress in communities in jobs, essentials, housing, health, rangers and education, but the national data says we are not moving fast enough where it matters most, especially on justice, safety and children. My remarks today land in a significant national moment. 2026 marks the 18th anniversary of the national apology, delivered in parliament on 13 February 2008. It was a formal acknowledgement of the profound harm done to stolen generations by government policies. Anniversaries matter because they remind us that the apology was never meant to be the end of the story but the start. It was meant to be the beginning of that commitment to undo that harm, and of a different relationship built on truth, healing and action. Closing the gap: Commonwealth annual report 2025 andCommonwealth implementation plan2026 shows us whether the 2008 apology is being matched by system change, genuine partnership and measurable progress, especially for children and families. In Warringah, our community has shown it wants to walk forward as an ally. In the 2023 Voice referendum, Warringah voted overwhelmingly yes, at nearly 60 per cent, for recognition of a voice, because if we can't learn from the past, including the lessons of exclusion and harm, we can't make the changes we need for the future. That's why recent events are so alarming and must be raised in this context. The alleged attempted bombing at the Perth Invasion Day rally on 26 January 2026, now treated as a terrorism matter, was a stark reminder that racism escalates into violence. It sits alongside a broader, deeply concerning rise in white supremacist and Neo-Nazi activity, including incidents targeting First Nations people and places of cultural significance. Our response to all forms of racism, including white supremacy, must be strong, consistent and unequivocal, because there is no place for hate in a country serious about closing the gap. If we are a country where Australian values include equality, then closing the gap is a priority. My electorate office in Manly has taken the initiative and proactively developed a reconciliation action plan—I encourage all other members of parliament to consider that for their own office operations—to embed First Nations consultations, stories and lived experience into the everyday work of our office. This applies across legislation; we regularly engage with Indigenous representative bodies in Warringah and nationally so that the views of Indigenous Australians are captured in the way my office considers legislation. It also applies to constituent liaison officers in my dedicated correspondence team, which has direct connections with First Nations organisations and proactively engages with them when undertaking individual case work. It also applies to events, and of course we have a welcome to country and acknowledgement at all events, including guest speakers and youth ambassadors, ensuring we have that truth-telling and acknowledgement. It also applies across our grants process, with individual case-by-case grant identification and writing support, including letters of support. It also applies through employment pathways, and we are looking at a First Nations intern and work experience program being implemented as part of our rolling Warringah and Canberra intern program. These are just a few ways in which a RAP can be a meaningful engagement with First Nations. Closing the Gap today sits under the National Agreement on Closing the Gap, developed in partnership between governments and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peak bodies. The agreement includes four priority reforms that focus on transforming systems—formal partnerships, building community controlled sectors, transforming mainstream agencies, and shared access to data, with 19 national socioeconomic targets tracked through the Productivity Commission's information repository and dashboard. This matters because the evidence is blunt. As of the July 2025 data release, only four targets were assessed as being on track, and several key targets are worsening. The national apology on 13 February 2008 acknowledged the deep harms inflicted on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, especially the Stolen Generation, and there was a commitment to action across those key areas, yet we are falling behind. The Productivity Commission's annual data shows the worsening outcomes in particular areas, including adult imprisonment, which is target 10; children in out-of-home care; suicide; and children developmentally on track. That means some targets are being achieved, but so many system-level indicators are telling us the pace and scale of change is falling far short. The first step to tackling these problems is being honest about where the failures are and why, and a credible plan begins with the truth. We can make 2026 the year of structural change, not just more well-intentioned announcements and initiatives. I would argue the stakes are highest for children. We must put children's rights at the centre of the response, not just add-ons. Under the Convention on the Rights of the Child, governments must treat the best interests of the child as a primary consideration in decisions affecting children. This connects to Closing the Gap's child protection target, target 12—by 2031, reduce the overrepresentation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children in out-of-home care by 45 per cent. But national reporting shows this target is actually worsening. Warning lights in the national data are not abstract. When out-of-home care is worsening, that means more children separated from family, kin, culture and country. When early childhood development is worsening, that tells us that kids are starting school already behind, and catching up later is harder and more expensive. When adult imprisonment worsens, it affects families, children's stability, economic participation and community safety. A high-stakes game plan for children should look like prevention. We must invest early in maternal and child health, family supports, education, housing, food and security. We need to strengthen Aboriginal community controlled child and family services so families can get culturally safe supports early before statutory systems come in, and we should measure progress by whether children are safer and remain connected to kin, culture and country. Where Commonwealth funded services interact with children—health, early childhood, disability supports and family violence responses—the plan should specify who is responsible for outcomes and how progress is being tracked in relation to children. If we want proof that a different approach can work, we should look to, for example, Scotland's whole-system approach, which deliberately diverts children from prosecution, from incarceration and from criminality. What we've seen across the country is shameful. The policies around adult crime, adult time are shameful approaches. When you look at Scotland's whole-system approach, it shows how you can do this well. They focus on early intervention. They coordinate responses across police, education, health and social services. The outcomes have been dramatic. Between 2008 and 2022, Scotland has recorded a 92 per cent reduction in the number of children and young people prosecuted in courts and a 97 per cent reduction in 16- to 17-year-olds sentenced to custody. And Scotland has gone further by embedding children's rights in law. The rights in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child are legally protected and enforceable in Scotland. This should happen in Australia, and it should happen here at Commonwealth level because that will override absolutely inhumane laws that are happening at state and territory level. It has also ended the practice of holding children in young offender institutions. Reforms commencing 28 August 2024 meant children could no longer be remanded or sentenced to prisons, instead being placed in smaller, trauma informed, secure care settings. If we compare that to what we're seeing in Australia, the difference is stark. In Australia the approach has been to just throw more people in jail—adult time, adult crime—no matter the cost to our economy and to our society. We are making the problem worse. I urge us to be real, when we talk about closing the gap, about the policies that actually make a difference. Don't just put on a bandaid. It's convenient and populist to prey on people's fears, but that does not do anything about actually making the problem better. There are so many areas we can talk about when it comes to closing the gaps, but, for me, my focus overwhelmingly has to be a focus on the rights of the child and, in particular, on young Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children, who are at the moment being absolutely let down by Australia. 12:35 Mr GILES 243609 Scullin I want to begin my remarks by recognising the Ngunnawal peoples as traditional custodians of the land on which we gather today. I'd also like to recognise the Wurundjeri people, traditional custodians of the land that I'm so proud to represent in the electorate of Scullin. I want to recognise more than 65,000 years of continuous culture and connection to country right around this beautiful country. Last week I had the enormous privilege of attending the National Indigenous Training Academy graduation ceremony. The ceremony, at the Uluru meeting place, celebrated 23 new graduates. It's at Uluru that practical skills being used in the tourism sector are being aligned with generations-old skills of storytelling and connection. These graduates are walking in two worlds, connecting culture and country with skills that open doors everywhere. The graduates in the hospitality and service industries have benefitted from on-the-job training across a range of services. In many cases they stepped from their graduation straight into full-time employment. The National Indigenous Training Academy is also a great example of the quality and diversity of Australia's VET sector. NITA has developed, from the ground up, a cert III course in tourism focused on tour guiding. This course, developed from Indigenous experience and understanding, caters to the needs of the tourism sector in Uluru, as I saw, and also in Mossman Gorge. This is work that takes time, but that time has been invested to deliver a course that's of high quality and in high demand. NITA caters to First Nations people from all across Australia, aged between 18 and 30, who are seeking a career in hospitality and tourism. As of last Friday, 797 graduates had achieved a cert III under one of the programs. Many are now directly employed at the Ayers Rock Resort and the Mossman Gorge Cultural Centre. Many of them have learned their skills from trainers who are NITA graduates themselves—they gained their qualification, went out into the world to gain industry experience and came back with their training and assessment qualification to play their part in skilling the next generation. I echo the Prime Minister's words by saying that the 2026 Closing the Gap implementation plan demonstrates that our government is determined to focus on areas where we can have the greatest impact, providing jobs and economic opportunities, access to essential services, community safety and, of course, long-term wellbeing. As Minister for Skills and Training, I'm very proud to be part of this work. A major part of our reform in this regard is the National Skills Agreement. The NSA, which we signed with every state and territory government, embeds Closing the Gap as a national priority—the first national agreement to do so. VET plays a key role in advancing outcomes 5, 6 and 7 of the Closing the Gap agreement. Outcome 5 is concerned with increasing the proportion of First Nations people aged 20 to 24 years who have attained a year 12 certificate or equivalent, a cert III or above. Outcome 6 seeks to increase the proportion of First Nations people who have completed a tertiary qualification. Outcome 7 is about increasing the proportion of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander youth who are in employment, education and training to 67 per cent. In partnership with states and territories and, of course, the Coalition of Peaks, the Commonwealth is establishing and managing a nationally networked VET policy partnership to ensure active engagement with First Nations people, organisations and communities. It will support organisations and affiliates to lead research projects, pilots and initiatives on national policy and programs in VET. With this in mind, we're also establishing the Indigenous Centre of Vocational Excellence. The ICOVE, as it will be known, will be a national best practice First Nations hub promoting high-quality, culturally responsive training opportunities for First Nations students. A First Nations RTO will host the ICOVE and support its operations, to be built around four pillars: innovation, capacity building, policy and advocacy, and research and data. Because, at the moment, we simply don't know enough about the First Nations RTO sector to make decisions with First Nations people to ensure we make it stronger together, two sector-strengthening scoping projects—one led by the Coalition of Peaks and one by my department—will work to build the appropriate evidence base. These projects will tell us how to go about supporting the sustainability, capability and cultural integrity of the First Nations RTO sector. Later this year, skills ministers from across the country will consider both projects and how they might inform longer term policy reforms under the VET Policy Partnership. This is not all we're doing in the training space to meet those three elements of the Closing the Gap targets. Last year, the Prime Minister announced a $299 million investment to create 6,000 new jobs in remote communities. With this increase in the number of jobs will come increased demand for skills to help fill those positions. We understand that it's not always possible for people to travel from communities to regional centres to attend training. That's why, in the 2024 budget, the Albanese government announced a $30 million investment in remote training hubs to be established across seven remote Central Australian communities to provide access to high-quality on-country training, operating as a hub-and-spoke model. Desert Peoples Centre Inc. has been contracted to build and deliver these mobile training units to go alongside it to ensure that industries like carpentry, conservation and ecosystem management, cookery, and resource and infrastructure can be built up in these areas. In addition to this, last year at Garma, the Prime Minister announced a $31 million investment in mobile TAFE to deliver up to 12 projects in outer regional and remote locations around Australia, bringing training opportunities to people rather than asking them to leave country to access training. Of course, free TAFE has had a huge impact in enabling First Nations Australians to access the important skills they want to do jobs that are really necessary, including in communities. In the first three years of the program, there have been more than 44,000 enrolments by First Nations people. These are initiatives—free TAFE, remote training hubs—to provide pathways to ensure that First Nations Australians can attain secure and well-paid jobs on their terms. They build on other programs, like the First Nations stream of the Skills for Education and Employment Program, projects co-designed with local government groups to ensure that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people can build foundational skills on their terms. When we think about the government's agenda more broadly, tertiary harmonisation is a really critical element, and I'm really pleased that the new Australian Tertiary Education Commission will appoint a statutory First Nations Commissioner. I want to recognise the great work done in that role, as part of the interim ATEC, by Larissa Behrendt AO, now carried on by Professor Tom Calma AO. The Australian Universities Accord:final report emphasised that First Nations participation in tertiary education across learning, teaching and research is absolutely critical to self-determination, which is fundamental to what we are trying to do. So too is the Murtu Yayngiliyn study, which is being undertaken by Jobs and Skills Australia. The study is a national initiative designed to determine the most culturally safe and effective ways to measure the literacy, numeracy and digital literacy levels of First Nations people, developed because for too long this has not been something that we paid attention to. This is being supported by a dedicated cultural advisory panel who provide governance, genuine co-design and shared decision-making authority to hold Jobs and Skills Australia accountable and to ensure this really important study is grounded in cultural knowledge and guidance. And we know there's more to be done when it comes to VET workforce, ensuring, as is the case at NITA, that First Nations students have the opportunity to be guided by First Nations teachers and trainers. We've been doing some fantastic work with NACCHO to expand the delivery of its successful First Nations Trainer and Assessor Demonstration Project, one example—of many—of government working closely with the Aboriginal community controlled sector and taking on board the understandings that it and only it holds. With that in mind, as the local member for Scullin, I want to refer to Bubup Wilam, an Aboriginal child and family centre not only delivering early childhood education and care but also, more broadly, culturally appropriate support services. Bubup is also an RTO, delivering quality training at cert III and diploma level, too. That's why our government is backing Bubup and two other First Nations RTOs in Victoria with $9 million to run a three-year pilot looking at strengthening First Nations led VET training, guiding the way to building greater capability in the sector and the long-term growth of Aboriginal community controlled RTOs. I see Budup Wilam as a model for the work we talk of in Closing the Gap. Community led and responsive to the needs and understandings of community, Budup Wilam is one of 50 backbone organisations working with communities to co-design solutions that get more kids the support they need prior to starting school, as well as doing fantastic work in addressing family and domestic violence. Organisations like this and partnerships based on respectful listening are absolutely fundamental to doing better in closing the gap, which must be an absolute national imperative. 12:45 Ms WITTY 316660 Melbourne I first want to acknowledge the traditional owners of the land and pay my respects to elders past, present and emerging. I rise today to speak on the Closing the gap annual report and the implementation plan tabled before this House. This report is not simply a collection of statistics; it is a measure of our national character. It asks whether we are prepared to confront hard truths, listen deeply and act with consistency and courage in partnership with First Nations people. Closing the gap was never meant to be a slogan. It is a commitment born from generations of advocacy by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander leaders, communities and organisations who have long demanded that governments move beyond symbolism to structural reform. In 2008, when the National Apology to the Stolen Generations was delivered by then prime minister Kevin Rudd, it marked a watershed moment in our history. Words of apology to the stolen generations were spoken on behalf of this parliament and this nation. But, as powerful as those words were, they were never meant to stand alone. Acknowledgement must always be matched with action. The annual report makes clear that, while there has been progress in some areas, too many targets remain off track. Too many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children are still overrepresented in out-of-home care. Too many families continue to experience preventable health inequities. Too many communities lack access to safe housing, quality education, culturally appropriate services and economic opportunity. These are not failures of community; they are failures of systems—systems designed without First Nations voices at the centre. The most important reform underpinning the National Agreement on Closing the Gap is the commitment to shared decision-making. Governments alone cannot and should not determine the path forward. The four priority reforms—formal partnerships and shared decision making, building the community controlled sector, transforming government organisations, and improving data and information sharing—exist because First Nations leaders demanded a different way of working. And they were right. We know that, when programs are designed and delivered by Aboriginal and community controlled organisations, outcomes improve. We know that culturally safe health services lead to better health outcomes. We know that community led education initiatives improve engagement and attendance. We know that justice reinvestment programs reduce the number of people in jail and help communities thrive. So the question before us is not whether the evidence exists; it is whether we have the discipline and political will to follow it. In the electorate of Melbourne, I see the strength of Aboriginal led organisations every day. I see the power of community, of connection, of culture. I also see the impact of underinvestment and funding models that make long-term planning harder than it needs to be. If we are serious about closing the gap, then short-term pilot programs are not enough. Competitive funding rounds that pit organisations against one another will not suffice. Policy development in isolation from community will not work. What will work is sustained long-term investment in community controlled organisations. What will work is genuine power-sharing, not consultation after the fact but co-designed from the outset. What will work is embedding cultural capability across government so that every department understands its role in advancing equality. The implementation plan outlines actions across portfolios—that is welcome—but implementation must be more than a document; it must be a living partnership. We must also confront the uncomfortable truth that progress does not occur in a straight line. Some targets have gone backwards. The reality is deeply concerning, but it is not reason for retreat. It is a reason for urgency. Behind every statistic is a child, a parent, a grandparent. Behind every target is a human story. When we talk about life expectancy, we are talking about years of life lost—years not spent with family, not spent sharing culture, not spent contributing to community. When we talk about early childhood development, we are talking about whether children start school confident in who they are, supported in their language and culture. When we talk about incarceration rates, we are talking about lives disrupted and communities carrying the weight of systematic injustice. The path forward must be guided by truth-telling. We cannot close the gap without understanding how it was created: through laws that discriminate, forced removals and policies that sought to erase culture. Structural inequity does not dissolve through goodwill alone. It requires structural reform. That includes reforming how we collect and share data. Too often, data has been extracted from communities without being returned in a useful way. Data sovereignty matters. Communities must have access to, and control over, information about their own people. It also includes reforming how governments measure success. Success cannot simply be defined by service outputs. It must be defined by whether communities feel heard, respected and empowered. I want to acknowledge the role of organisations, such as the Healing Foundation, which support Stolen Generations survivors and walk alongside them on their healing journeys. Their work reminds us that closing the gap is not only about stats; it's about healing, justice, restoring what was taken and rebuilding trust. In February, I had the privilege of spending time with Stolen Generations survivors visiting Canberra for the anniversary of the national apology. Listening to their stories reinforced something simple but profound: healing requires more than remembrance; it requires material change. It means ensuring that children grow up strong in culture and community and that families have safe homes. It means making sure that elders are supported to pass on language and knowledge. It means governments honouring their commitment not just in speeches but in budgets and in legislation. The Closing the Gap framework gives us a road map, but a road map is only useful if we follow it. As legislators, we must hold ourselves accountable. We must scrutinise whether funding aligns with rhetoric, we must ensure that policy settings do not undermine the very outcomes we seek to achieve, and we must be willing to adjust course when communities tell us something is not working. Importantly, we must approach this work with humility. For too long, former governments assumed that they knew best. The national agreement recognises that expertise resides in community. Our role is not to dictate solutions but to support them. There is also a broader national conversation to be had about reconciliation and justice. Closing the gap does not exist in isolation from debates about truth and treaty. These are interconnected threads in a larger story about how we all share this country. A nation cannot reach its full potential while leaving part of its population behind. Closing the gap is not about charity; it's about equity. It's about ensuring that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children have the same opportunities as any other child in Australia and that those opportunities are grounded in pride of culture and identity. As we consider this annual report, we must resist the temptation to reduce it to a scoreboard. The numbers matter deeply, but they do not tell the whole story. The story is also one of resilience, innovation and strength. Across the country, First Nations leaders are designing solutions in health, education, housing and economic development. Young people are reclaiming language. Elders are guiding cultural renewal. Communities are leading climate adaptation on country. This is extraordinary expertise and leadership to partner with, if we are willing. The implementation plan sets out actions. Our task now is to ensure those actions translate into measurable change. It means embedding accountability mechanisms. It means transparent reporting. It means ongoing dialogue with the Coalition of Peaks and other First Nation representatives. It means recognising that closing the gap is a long-term endeavour that goes beyond electoral cycles. Each year, on the anniversary of the national apology, we reflect on the words spoken in the main chamber in 2008. But reflection is not enough. Closing the gap is the work of turning apology into policy and policy into progress. We owe it to the stolen generations, we owe it to children growing up today and we owe it to the integrity of this parliament. Acknowledgement must always be matched with action, and closing the gap is how we make that action real. Debate adjourned. COMMITTEES 137 COMMITTEES Health, Aged Care and Disability Committee 137 Report 137 12:56 Ms BELYEA 309484 Dunkley I rise to speak on the committee's report No child left behind: report into the Thriving Kids initiative. As the member for Dunkley and as a member of the House Standing Committee on Health, Aged Care and Disability, which delivered the Thriving Kids report, I was fortunate to have the opportunity to be part of the Thriving Kids interviews and submissions. We had months of careful listening and rigorous examination of evidence, and we had a shared determination to do a better job for Australian children earlier. I acknowledge the dedication and leadership shown by the chair, the member for Macarthur, and the deputy chair, the member for Kooyong, of the inquiry, and thank them. Before speaking on the recommendations, it's important to understand why we held the inquiry in the first place. The reasoning behind the Thriving Kids inquiry is about protecting the long-term sustainability and integrity of the National Disability Insurance Scheme while improving how children with developmental delays and disabilities receive support earlier. The inquiry argues that the NDIS must remain strong for people with severe and permanent disabilities and that earlier intervention for mild to moderate developmental needs in children should be addressed through accessible, evidence based community and education systems, and services in communities. Ultimately, Thriving Kids seeks to rebalance the system by strengthening earlier supports, by improving data collection and accountability, and by ensuring equitable access—especially for vulnerable and rural communities—so that both children and those that support them and the NDIS itself can thrive well into the future. Over the course of this inquiry, the committee travelled across the country. We heard directly from families, educators, health professionals, carers, community organisations and advocates. We received evidence from national peak bodies and small grassroots services. We spoke with school principals and education professionals juggling increasingly complex needs within children. We listened to paediatricians describing preventable developmental delays. One theme emerged again and again: families do not experience challenges in neat silos. A child struggling at school may also be living within housing instability. A young person experiencing anxiety may be waiting months for clinical support. A parent seeking help may have to tell their story five times to five different services that do not talk to one another before they receive help. The fragmentation of our support system is inefficient and exhausting for families who are already under pressure. The Thriving Kids report is the culmination of that evidence. It contains 16 practical and achievable recommendations designed to ensure that children, no matter their background, postcode or circumstances, thrive. I am particularly proud that the report strongly supports the hub-and-spoke model of service delivery. This model is practical, evidence based and, most importantly, centred around children and families. It creates accessible local hubs where families can access integrated services from specialist supports located within schools and community organisations. It improves coordination and ensures that help is available in accessible locations. In our hearings, we heard powerful testimonies about how integrated service models reduce barriers and build trust. When families can walk into one location and access health support, parenting programs, early learning, advice and referrals to specialist services, they are far more likely to engage. When services share information appropriately and work collaboratively, children are far less likely to fall through the gaps. For my electorate of Dunkley, this model has particular significance. Dunkley is a vibrant, diverse and growing community. Across Frankston and the Mornington Peninsula, we are home to hardworking families with children, dedicated educators, committed health professionals and an extraordinary network of community organisations. But, like many communities, we also face real challenges, including the cost of living, increasing demand for mental health services and the ongoing impacts of social and economic disadvantage in parts of our region. I think of families who have told me about how difficult it can be to navigate the National Disability Insurance Scheme. I think of parents who have shared their frustration at long waiting lists for paediatric assessments. I think of school leaders who have spoken to me about the growing complexity of student wellbeing. These are not isolated stories; they reflect a system that requires services and programs to be delivered earlier to children, for parents and carers. The 16 recommendations span early childhood development, health, education, family support and data sharing. They recognise that thriving is multidimensional. A child's wellbeing and capacity to thrive is shaped by their physical, mental, educational and family stability in a community environment. The report calls for an inclusive co-design process to ensure that policy is grounded in evidence and lived experience. It recommends establishing a thriving kids advisory council to guide implementation across all levels of government. It proposes phased implementation with appropriate safeguards and amendments to strengthen foundational services. It calls for the establishment of an inspector-general to ensure greater oversight and accountability. Importantly, it recommends a streamlined provider registration system to reduce duplication, a commission service model that builds on high quality existing services and improved access to telehealth and online supports, particularly for regional communities. It emphasises robust data integrity so that decisions are informed by accurate and transparent information. One of the most significant recommendations is the introduction of a single-entry portal for children with developmental concerns, a universal starting point so that families know where to turn—no more navigating a maze of disconnected services, no more telling their story repeatedly, just a clear, streamlined pathway to support. The hub-and-spoke model was a suggested model reinforced by many organisations, where centres coordinate as satellite outposts in different settings, which will benefit each region. It means that in communities like Dunkley, families can access wraparound supports through an integrated model close to home. It means earlier identification of developmental delays, timely mental health intervention and stronger connection between schools and community services. The report also recommends a rapid parliamentary review after 24 months, the inclusion of professional and parent consultative groups, increased support during educational transition, strengthened regional and rural services, workforce development, new Medicare items for annual paediatric reviews and greater transparency in school disability funding. Research consistently shows that investing in early childhood supports delivers significant long-term benefits, improved educational attainment, better health outcomes and reduced demand on crisis services. Every dollar invested early yields substantial returns. Beyond the economic argument lies a moral one. Every child deserves the chance to reach their full potential. These are not abstract recommendations; they respond to the real and growing need for Thriving Kids. Currently one out of six boys in primary school have a diagnosis with the NDIS. That statistic alone underscores the scale of developmental and support needs facing families today. Early intervention is not optional; it is essential. That is why this is an important initiative. Place based solutions are central to this report. Communities understand their own strengths and challenges. By empowering local services to collaborate within a strong national framework, we can build systems that are both consistent and responsive. Following the agreement in January between the Commonwealth and states and territories, the start date for the Thriving Kids initiative has been extended to allow development of the model. This is a responsible step. Reform of this scale must be done carefully, transparently and in partnership with those that it affects. The Thriving Kids report provides a roadmap to strengthen and connect these efforts. It is there for our children, their families and our community so that they too can thrive. 13:06 Mrs McINTOSH 281513 Lindsay Australian families are right to be concerned about the Albanese government's Thriving Kids program. As shadow minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme and shadow minister families and social services I'm hearing these concerns directly, and they cannot be ignored. Labor's program, designed to direct children with autism away from the $50 billion a year National Disability Insurance Scheme, is already raising serious concerns for many families across Australia. To date, only two jurisdictions—South Australia and the Northern Territory—have agreed to the program. This is despite the Prime Minister stating it had been committed to at National Cabinet. This new $4 billion Thriving Kids program was due to commence by 1 July this year, but the start date has already been pushed back to October. When Labor first announced Thriving Kids, it made clear that the NDIS eligibility would change, with only children experiencing the most acute developmental delay remaining on the scheme. Instead, children aged eight and under with delay and/or autism with low to moderate support needs will be supported outside the NDIS. What does this mean for families? Following Labor's announcement of the program, Children and Young People with Disability Australia surveyed 1,535 parents, carers and young people. Of those, nearly four in five—or 79 per cent—said the rollout was too rushed and risked children with disability falling through the cracks. Families are right to be concerned. From 1 January 2028, these changes will apply to children aged eight and under, with even those already on the NDIS subject to reassessment. That means mums, dads and grandparents already exhausted from caring for a child with disability may now be forced to fight through even more bureaucracy just to retain the support their child relies on. We must also acknowledge that the concept of moderate autism is itself contested by people with lived experience and advocacy groups. At the same time, we are seeing increased reliance on automated systems to allocate funding. The government says the program will bring consistency, but for many families it is creating uncertainty and fear. As the member for Lindsay in Western Sydney, I hear these concerns every single week. Families speak about delays and cuts to NDIS plans, providers taking advantage of vulnerable participants and plans being reduced by decision-makers with little understanding of disability. Data provided to the Senate showed that 30 per cent of reassessed plans between May and October last year had their funding reduced by an average of 22½ per cent. Appeals are rising sharply at the Administrative Review Tribunal, where the agency running the NDIS spent $60 million on external lawyers last financial year to fight participants. Some people fighting the bureaucracy have reportedly died waiting for an outcome on their case. This is not just a policy issue; it is a human one, and it does not stop with the NDIS. From 2027, children under eight with mild to moderate autism or developmental delays will no longer enter the scheme. Instead, they will rely on schools, early childhood centres, Medicare and community services. As experts have pointed out, this responsibility will fall heavily on teachers and early childhood educators, many of whom want to help but simply do not have the resources, the training nor the time. We already know how fragile inclusion is in our schools. Data from Children and Young People with Disability Australia shows that 60 per cent of parents report their child with disability has been bullied, a 10 per cent increase since 2022. More than half say their child has been excluded from excursions or camps, and almost one in three report restrictive practices such as restraint or seclusion. This is the reality families are navigating. It is critical that the Albanese government gets this right. As the shadow minister, I support reforms that strengthen the sustainability of the NDIS, but not at the expense of vulnerable children and their families. Families deserve to know exactly how this program will work and how support will be delivered in real, practical terms. They deserve to know what this means for their child. Of particular concern, under these changes, funding and support plans for NDIS participants will be generated by a computer program with little to no discretion for staff to intervene. That means a significant reduction in human judgement in decisions that profoundly impact people's lives. For families already under pressure, that uncertainty is not just frustrating, it is frightening. Families need clarity, they need confidence, and they need a system that works with them, not against them. If we get this right, we give every child a chance to thrive. If we get it wrong, the consequences are lifelong. Debate adjourned. MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS 139 MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS Annual Climate Change Statement 139 13:12 Ms CLUTTERHAM 316101 Sturt Climate change is a complex and multifaceted problem. It requires an ambitious and effective national strategy for emissions reduction and the development of clean industries underpinned by renewable energy. Substantial investment is needed. Although it will create new social and economic opportunities in all sectors and regions, it will need to be sustained over the long term. Mitigating the effects of climate change and the transition to renewable energy will not just happen overnight. We need to prosecute this and we need to be patient. We can't just say, 'Prices are too high, so the transition has failed.' We need to take risks and we need to recognise that risk is not only about what could go wrong but what could go right. We need to continue investing, researching, exploring and walking together when risks don't always crystallise immediately. We cannot let perfect get in the way of good, and we cannot continue to have unproductive and time-wasting debates about whether climate change is real. At the same time, we cannot engage in debate that overstates the effects, paralyses the population and predicts the immediate demise of the planet. We need to have a balanced discourse which recognises that climate change is real, recognises the role that humans and industry have played in contributing to that, and listens to and respects the contributions of individual communities, businesses, health practitioners, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and government. If we overstate the risk and infect the debate with drama rather than science, people will stop listening. Conversely, if we understate it or dismiss it, communities and Australians will suffer. The balance based on science is where we need to be, and there is community support for prompt yet patient action that is designed to repair and protect our planet, noting that Mother Nature is a relative, not a resource; prompt yet patient action that protects economic livelihoods; and prompt yet patient action that invests in new technologies and new industries which underpin tomorrow's economic prosperity. Addressing climate change will take time and patience. There will be setbacks. The transition to renewable energy has not failed. To the contrary, the failure is arguing that we should scrap aspirational targets, scrap net zero and just rely on coal and gas because the transition is taking too long, or hasn't already brought retail prices to where some would like them, or requires substantial investment over a significant period of time. To say that would be to fail the Australian people who have asked governments, industry and communities to act on climate change. In my electorate of Sturt, climate change and the environment are second only to cost of living in terms of issues people talk to me about. We know that climate change is in fact inextricably linked to cost-of-living issues. This government is listening, and we are seeing results. In my state of South Australia, we are leading the way. We've been at the forefront of the global energy transition. Since 2009, we have lifted net electricity generation from renewable energy from one per cent to 74 per cent. In this financial year, the Australian Energy Market Operator has forecast this to rise to circa 85 per cent. In SA, our aspiration is to achieve 100 per cent net renewables by 2027, and we are on our way. In 2021, for example, we met 100 per cent of our operational demand from renewable resources on 180 days; or 49 per cent of the time. This has provided a certain investment climate which is critical to the private sector, with over $6 billion of investment in large-scale renewable energy and storage projects to date, and a further $20 billion in the investment pipeline. In South Australia, we are just getting on with it by focusing on large-scale renewable energy generation and storage, such as wind, solar batteries, pumped hydro, compressed air and thermal storage. We're focusing on distributed energy resources such as rooftop solar, bioenergy and batteries. We're focusing on energy efficiency and demand management; the uptake of zero-emission vehicles and investment in charging and refuelling infrastructure; supply chain development of low-carbon technologies; and research and industry partnerships in low-carbon technologies. Recently HAMR Energy announced an intention to construct an $800 million sustainable aviation fuel facility in South Australia, creating jobs but also drawing on our vast agricultural resources and helping the aviation industry decarbonise. Having spoken two weeks ago at the GreenSkies Summit at Qantas headquarters in Mascot, Sydney, I can say confidently that the aviation industry is on board with the need to decarbonise. Thousands of South Australians are also on board, including the thousands in my electorate of Sturt who took advantage of the Albanese Labor government's Cheaper Home Batteries scheme. This scheme works. In November last year, Don, a resident of Sturt, wrote to me and said: All good here in Beulah Park. We have reached net zero at our house thanks to the battery your government organised. This is a house built in the 1800s which now has the latest technology attached. No power bill here. Thank you very much. Don is part of the 250,000-plus households across Australia who have partaken in this scheme. We are seeing Cheaper Home Batteries bring down the cost of batteries. Battery availability is helping to regulate evening demand, reducing our reliance on expensive gas and helping bring down bills for everyone. Don and the 250,000-plus other households are leading the charge, and Sturt is leading the charge as well, being third in the country for the uptake of the government's solar battery scheme. Solar sharer is also enabling more Australians to benefit from the transition to renewable energy, whether they are in a position to have solar power or not, including those in South Australia, from July this year. But we know that energy prices are still too high. In the last quarter of 2025, wholesale electricity prices fell by a third, but this needs to flow through to retail bills. That remains the challenge that we need to meet. It is right that the wind and the sun don't send a bill and that unreliable coal-fired power plants do, but it's also right that, even though the wind and the sun don't send bills, the other pieces of the energy puzzle do, including energy companies and the capital works involved in the construction of the infrastructure required to generate renewable energy, as well as transmission and distribution networks. This is where investment is required and where the work is required to bring down bills. Bid pricing on the national electricity market is also relevant, which is why in November 2024 the government announced a review of the national electricity market wholesale market settings by an independent expert panel in order to investigate ways to promote investment in firmed renewable energy, with a key priority being addressing price volatility and making bills more stable. The review noted that action to benefit the consumers who pay for energy was critical, including by considering updating the methodology for regulating retail price benchmarks such as the default market offer, considering supporting the development of simple, multi-year, fixed-price retail contracts and considering reforming network tariff structures to ensure that they are more equitable and better aligned with wholesale market dynamics. Again, patience is required in this respect. So there is work to do, but it doesn't just start today. The Albanese Labor government has been working on a just and fair transition since it came to government in 2022, and it will continue this work to ensure that this country continues to embark on a prompt yet patient transition that reflects our highest possible ambition, grounded in science and underpinned by credible contribution to global efforts to keep warming down and supporting a safer and sustainable environment for future generations. Aiming for net zero is the bare minimum to avoid the worst impacts of global warming. Australia reducing its emissions is something that matters to our future, our economy and our standing in the world. With patience, we can make the transition while still protecting livelihoods. With the best wind and solar resources in the world, we can become a top global destination for clean energy investment. 13:22 Mr HAMILTON 291387 Groom The Minister for Climate Change and Energy has failed at every metric that matters under his portfolio. He promised the Australian people cheaper power and delivered a 40 per cent increase in power costs in just a single year. He promised emissions reductions, but emissions are flatlining. He promised 82 per cent renewables and is on track to miss that by a mile. He has legislated for a 43 per cent reduction in emissions, which he'll miss by a thousand miles. He promised reliable supply and instead is delivering blackouts, grid instability and human suffering. He promised secure gas supply and delivered shortages. He promised a $122 billion transition, but we are staring down the barrel of at least a more than $500 billion bill that we cannot pay for. Energy is the economy. Every successful modern economy is built on abundant, reliable and cheap power. When energy is cheap, businesses expand, wages rise, and industries cluster. When energy is expensive, everything else becomes harder as manufacturing leaves, household budgets tighten and governments scramble to paper over the damage with subsidies. Australia lost sight of this when we signed up for net zero. In doing so, we didn't just set an emissions target; we committed to rebuilding the entire economy around emissions reduction as the primary organising principle. That decision came with enormous costs, profound trade-offs and long-term consequences that were never honestly or fully explained to the public at the time. The most obvious casualty of this has been industrial capacity. Manufacturing is energy intensive by definition. Aluminium, steel, cement, fertiliser, chemicals and food processing all demand large volumes of cheap and firm power. As energy prices rise and reliability falls, those industries don't adapt; they leave. They go to greener pastures, places where energy is cheaper, and once they're gone they do not come back easily. This matters far more than just jobs or GDP. In the current geostrategic environment, industrial capacity is a first-order national security consideration. The ability to produce, repair and scale physical goods is a deterrent in itself, as there is no military industrial complex without an industrial complex. Nations that hollow out their industrial base in pursuit of ideological goals, a path the minister has chosen to lead Australia down, those nations become strategically brittle. Cheap energy is also the best wages policy there is. Energy is a core input to almost every product and service. When power prices rise, businesses face higher costs long before workers see higher pay packets. Those costs are passed on through prices, squeezing real wages and living standards. No amount of industrial relations reform can offset an energy system that structurally drives up production costs, yet, instead of confronting this reality, we have layered ideology on top of dysfunction. Nowhere is this clearer than the federal government's approach to firming generation. Take the Kurri Kurri gas power plant as an example. This was conceived as a reliability backstop for New South Wales—a sensible objective—but it has been burdened with a mandate that defies engineering, economics and common sense: a requirement to operate on 30 per cent hydrogen by 2030. Hydrogen at that scale is not commercially viable, nor is it even foreseeably available by that date. Every engineer knows this. This is not a revelation I'm laying out before you; this is the common, accepted view of engineers around Australia. Hydrogen at that scale is not commercially viable nor will it be available by that date. Hydrogen is expensive to produce and transport, difficult to store and inefficient to burn. Retrofitting the Kurri Kurri station to meet this target will require at least $700 million in capital works alone. The minister has acknowledged that, but that figure doesn't include the far larger cost: the taxpayer subsidies needed to produce the hydrogen in the first place and to underwrite its supply indefinitely. The private sector has already walked away from large-scale green hydrogen en masse because it cannot be made at a competitive cost. I'm an engineer. I love technology. I have no doubt that there are wonderful, brilliant minds—Australian minds—working towards new technologies, and so they should. They should be encouraged by government to do so. This is one of the things that has dragged us forward. I remember my first car—an XD Falcon. It used to run at about 17 litres to the 100 kilometres. I thought that was OK. I was a student. I didn't have any other options. My Prado now weighs twice as much and runs at about seven litres. Technology will take us forward. It will reduce emissions by reducing the amount of fuel required to do the same amount of work. This is happening, and it's a wonderful thing. Engineers around Australia play their part in that, and they should be very proud of doing so. When we rush through this and when make decisions on timetables that are not in alignment with where industry is, we leave taxpayers holding the bag—not just once but permanently. This is not transition policy; it's a subsidy treadmill designed to satisfy a target rather than deliver affordable and reliable power to Australians. This is what happens when energy policy is driven by symbolism, as it has been under this minister. Instead of outcomes, we end up paying more for less reliability. We get weaker industry and lower real wages. But we do get one thing, and it's something that this minister prides himself on: ambition. We saw that in the minister's ambition to be the president of the next COP meeting. It's a fine thing, no doubt—a great thing to have on one's resume. While that is happening, we are seeing energy prices go through the roof. As I stated earlier, we saw a 40 per cent increase in energy costs in just one year. We need a course correction. We must rebuild our economy around industry and not around emissions accounting, and that means restoring cheap and reliable energy as the foundation of national prosperity and strategic strength. Energy policy should not be an excuse to weaken ourselves economically or burden future generations with unnecessary costs. There's a lot of work to be done in taking care of our environment and in making sure that Australia has the cheap and reliable energy that it needs. We are out of balance at the moment. The approach we are taking right now, today, is out of balance, and we must correct it. Sitting suspended from 13:30 to 16:01 16:02 Ms MILLER-FROST 296272 Boothby Last year, 2025, was Australia's fourth-warmest year since national records began more than 100 years ago. The national average maximum temperature was 1.48 degrees Celsius above average, the fourth warmest on record. Rainfall was below average across much of Australia. Ocean temperatures were the warmest they have been for the second year in a row. Indeed, a rise in ocean temperatures of 2½ degrees has been a significant factor in the devastating algal bloom that has been tearing through much of the South Australian coast, decimating marine wildlife and ecosystems and the local South Australian economy. Extreme weather events are expected to cost our economy over $40 billion by 2050. It's unbelievable that it needs to be said in 2026, but for the benefit of those in doubt—if unwilling to respond to what former vice-president Al Gore famously called the inconvenient truth—climate change is real. We're in the middle of it. Our children are, and the generations after them will be, in the middle of it, and they will pay the price. To suggest that there is an easy exit ramp, having abandoned net zero, is like committing to cross the length of South Australia on half a tank of gas; it will never happen—although I'm tempted to say you'd probably fare better in an EV with South Australia's expanding network of charging stations. So, while the opposition continue the decades-long ideological dance around the realities of climate change, the Albanese Labor government continues to act urgently and practically. Our plan targets every level of the energy sector while ensuring that households reap both environmental and financial benefits. The Albanese Labor government's Annual climate change statement 2025shows the enormous strides that have already been made in reaching the Climate Change Authority's recommended emissions reduction target of 62 to 70 per cent below 2005 levels. For the year to June 2025, we saw a decrease of 2.2 per cent, or 9.9 million tonnes of carbon dioxide, compared to the previous year. Outside of COVID lockdowns, this is the largest financial year reduction in non-land emissions on record. These reductions are not accidental. They are due to a suite of policies and programs deliberately put in place by the Albanese Labor government to ensure that, while we are tracking towards our emissions target, we are not derailed or distracted and we are able to forge ahead while the opposition dither and delay. Our government has established the new $5 billion Net Zero Fund, in the National Reconstruction Fund, that will help industrial facilities decarbonise and scale up more renewables and low-emissions manufacturing. The government has provided another $2 billion for the Clean Energy Finance Corporation to help drive down electricity prices. The government has invested $1.1 billion to encourage the production of more clean fuels in Australia, and the government has introduced a safeguard mechanism to curb the high emissions of Australia's largest emitting facilities. Indeed, the renewable energy transition is well underway. It is charging ahead with a fury that no naysayer with a blinkered view of our present and immediate environmental dangers will be able to stop. Forty per cent of Australia's two largest electricity grids now consist of renewable energy. In September and October 2025, renewables surpassed coal as the largest source of electricity in Australia's largest grid, the national electricity market. The increase of the Capacity Investment Scheme target by 25 per cent will further accelerate investment and expansion of renewable energy generation and capacity. But even beyond the environmental benefits of a more modern, sustainable and cleaner energy system, we all know that renewable energy is the cheapest form of energy. The proof is in the pudding as Australian households themselves opt in droves to make the renewable transition. Over one in three households now have solar panels on their roof—the highest uptake of solar anywhere in the world. In fact, each day 500 Australian households are installing solar panels for the first time. This has been supported by the government's Cheaper Home Batteries Program, which has made the installation of small-scale battery systems affordable for all Australians. The numbers again speak for themselves: over 250,000 batteries have been installed under this scheme since mid-2025, and 1,000 households more are installing a battery in their home each day. I'm proud to report that my electorate of Boothby has seen the third-highest uptake in all of South Australia and the fifth-highest uptake in the entire country. From 1 July this year, the government's Solar Sharer Offer will see Australian households with smart meters enjoy free electricity for three hours a day. Additionally, the government has invested $40 million to accelerate the installation of kerbside and fast EV charging, which will include 10,000 public charge points, as EVs increasingly become the vehicle of choice for more Australian consumers. This is backed by the new vehicle efficiency standard, giving consumers more choice when it comes to low- or zero-emissions vehicles. More cheaper EVs are now available on the market, the second-hand market is starting up and more Australians are enjoying fuel security that is not dependent on overseas supply chains. The Albanese Labor government is also committed to retiring our coal-fired power stations, most of which are more than 24 years old, and replacing them with renewable alternatives. The consensus is clear: these coal power plants are outdated, unreliable and difficult to operate. The owners themselves have announced their closures because they are financially uneconomic. In fact, they are driving up Australia's energy costs, not lowering them, with the average level of coal power capacity unavailable due to outages increasing by 28 per cent in the second quarter of 2025. But we can't go at this alone. The Paris Agreement, whose 10-year anniversary we celebrated last year, entrenches this global effort. The agreement seeks to limit global warming to well below two degrees of pre-industrial levels, and has as its objective the decarbonisation of the global economy and the reinforcement of a reliable energy system—all of which the opposition have effectively given up on by abandoning net zero by 2050. In fact, the opposition are trying to catch up to a narrative that has long run away from them. The International Energy Agency reports that around US$2.2 trillion is going collectively to renewables, grid storage, low-emission fuels, efficiency and electrification—twice as much as the US$1.1 trillion going to oil, natural gas and coal. Arguably, Australia is only one piece in a much larger puzzle. Our rates of pollution pale in comparison to the bigger economies, but there is something to be said for leading by moral authority. The Pacific countries, our neighbours, who are daily menaced by the possibility of rising sea levels, would expect as much, if not more. Many of our own island communities are facing a similar fate. That is why Australia will assume the role of president of negotiations at COP31. With our Pacific partners, Australia will set the agenda on global climate discussions and lead the way in developing solutions to a climate crisis that is, as we speak, having a profound and acute impact on island communities and nations. As the Foreign minister last week declared: Pacific countries have long been leaders on climate action, and their voices are central to shaping the global response. While much has been achieved, the Albanese Labor government recognises there is much more to do. Complacency is the killer of progress, or, more regrettably, in the case of the opposition, ignorance is the killer of action. Net zero is—or, rather, should be—a non-negotiable benchmark, and, under this government's plan, Australia is on track to meet its emissions reduction commitments. Under the opposition's plan, Australia would still be idling at the starting line, having heard the whistle blow more than once. Australia is already in the throes of a renewable energy transition, and it's a transition that is guaranteed to improve the financial standing of all Australians—cleaner energy as well as cheaper energy. While the government's Annual climate change statement 2025doesn't brush over the significant obstacles that are still to be confronted, importantly, it affirms the government's commitment to ensuring that the trajectory we are on now is firm and unyielding. Not only is climate change an issue of the generation and for the generations; it will define a generation. It will define a generation that either chooses to act or refuses to act. I'm ending by quoting the Prime Minister of Canada, Mark Carney, whose visit later this week will no doubt include a discussion about our two countries' ongoing collaboration in the climate change space. He said: 'Climate change is the tragedy of the horizon. We don't need an army of actuaries to tell us that the catastrophic impacts of climate change will be felt beyond the traditional horizons of most actors, imposing a cost on future generations.' 16:12 Ms CHANEY 300006 Curtin I rise to respond to the government's Annual climate change statement 2025. The government's statement calls 2025 a 'landmark year', and there has been progress. But, if we are to meet the new 2035 target of a 62 to 70 per cent cut on 2005 emissions, the pace of delivery must accelerate markedly over the next 10 years. My speaking on this annual statement coincides with the launch last week of Curtain's pathway to net zero: progress report 2024-2026. Two years ago, 50 volunteers in Curtin collaborated on a significant piece of work, led by Claire Gardner from my team, setting out what it would take for our community to get to net zero and what was needed from federal, state and local governments and individuals. Last week, we released a report card showing how federal, state and local governments have performed in relation to our policy asks across electricity, buildings, transport, greening and waste. Looking at the annual climate change statement and our progress report on Curtin's pathway to net zero, there are some policies to celebrate from this year. First is household storage and rooftop solar. The Cheaper Home Batteries Program has sparked a record surge in installations, with over 250,000 household batteries now installed. The government has now tripled the program, with the ambitious aim to take us to around two million batteries by 2030, about 40 gigawatt hours of distributed storage. This will make a real difference, slashing household electricity bills by an average of 90 per cent and reducing emissions. In Curtin, we're seeing the benefits. More than 1,500 batteries have been installed under the Cheaper Home Batteries Program. City Beach has now surpassed 50 per cent rooftop solar uptake. Second is that we have now implemented policies for cleaner cars. After decades as a global laggard, Australia now has a new vehicle efficiency standard. This is already expanding the range of efficient and zero emissions vehicles on offer, with more than 150 models available as of mid-2025. Curtin is pulling its weight. We have more than 3,500 EVs on the road, placing my electorate in Western Australia's top position and among the top 10 nationally. Third is nature protection. The Commonwealth finally legislated its EPBC reforms, which is an important start to improved environmental protection and accelerated construction for renewable energy projects. I was proud to contribute to these reforms with an amendment in the House and multiple amendments that were accepted in the Senate. These reforms also provide a stronger tool for cumulative urban biodiversity planning. But there are areas where the federal and WA governments' actions are falling short. First is the electricity transition. Nationally, the statement points to more than 40 per cent renewables across the two largest grids and a Capacity Investment Scheme pipeline of 40 gigawatts this decade. This is a material step, but we're not moving fast enough. To unlock Australia's and WA's potential as a green industry superpower, not only do we need to decarbonise our current grid, but we also need to massively expand our generation capacity. This requires a huge uplift in the rollout and connection of renewable energy and storage in WA and on the east coast, and this uplift needs action at both the state and federal level. Western Australia's main grid, the SWIS, still lacks a legislated 2035 emissions target and a binding renewables target, and WA has comparatively less generation in the pipeline. The state did record a 55.8 per cent renewables month in November 2025, proving that high penetration is feasible even on an isolated grid, but isolated peaks aren't a substitute for year-round progress. The WA state government needs to step up. We need a clear transition plan for the SWIS. Across Australia, there's no clear policy to support renewable rollout beyond 2030. Both the WEM and the NEM need policy signals to drive renewable energy and storage through a renewable energy target and expanded Capacity Investment Scheme and streamlined approvals. But there's an elephant in the room—new and expanded fossil fuels. Our community's Curtin net zero update gave fail grades to both state and federal governments on phasing out fossil fuels, noting that continued approvals and extensions, especially for export, undermine the credibility of all other action. In relation to decarbonising our buildings, the decision by governments to pause residential NCC updates until mid-2029, except for safety and quality, may simplify short-term approvals but lock in higher bills and higher emissions for the next wave of homes. The statement cannot be considered complete without acknowledging this trade-off. Every underperforming home built in this pause period is a future retrofit job for a household already under cost pressure. On transport, the transport and infrastructure net zero road map sketches the right pillars—electrify, shift to active and public transport, tackle embodied emissions and reserve low-carbon fuels for the hard-to-electrify niches. But without firmer funding and binding milestones, especially for mode shift, it risks becoming a plan on a shelf. In WA, the situation is worse. The state's sectoral plan offered only a token summary for transport and ended the EV rebate without a replacement. On waste and packaging, we are still waiting. Curtin households are doing their part. FOGO is rolling out across most councils, yet the single biggest system lever, federal packaging reform, remains stuck between consultation and decision. Ministers agreed in 2022 that reform was needed. In 2024, the Commonwealth consulted on options, including mandatory design requirements and a national extended producer responsibility scheme. The consultation is done. The evidence is clear. It's now time for action. I'll explain my community's specific ask shortly. Finally, while our community report did not look at industrial emissions in great detail, these form a significant chunk of our national emissions. In Curtin, industrial gas use is up, which reflects WA's broader challenge—growth in the gas sector wiping out gains elsewhere. On a national level, the safeguard mechanism has started to drive down emissions, but more will need to be done. The safeguard mechanism review commencing in the second half of this year represents a real opportunity here. Looking at Australia as a whole, the department reports that emissions are down 29 per cent on 2005 and 2.2 per cent lower during 2025, with record renewable uptake. This is welcome, but the Bureau of Meteorology's Annual climate statement tells the other side of the ledger. It was Australia's fourth-warmest year on record, with record-hot seas and hydrology under stress. This is the test of the annual statement—whether the documents and policy announcements actually translate into reduced emissions at the pace the authority says we need. In light of the annual statement and my community's recent report card on what our governments are doing, here is my wish list for the federal government for this year. Firstly, legislate packaging reform. We need a mandatory extended producer responsibility scheme, with certainty and consistency across the country, which places obligations on producers and importers to fund the recycling, reuse and disposal of packaging. We need mandatory targets for industry to accelerate reuse, recycling and composting of packaging. There have been voluntary targets in place, but these have not worked. There is clear appetite across industry and community for these targets to become mandatory. My community is also calling for a new target to reduce plastic and packaging. We can't recycle or reuse our way out of this pollution problem; we need less plastic coming into Australia. Secondly, accelerate the rollout of renewable energy and storage. The government should seek to expand the Capacity Investment Scheme past 2027 in line with Climate Change Authority advice. It should also ensure that funding promised to WA for renewable generation, storage and transmission is delivered, and it should allocate funding to support the SWIS transition. Other policies to drive the rollout beyond 2030 should be considered, like an expanded renewable energy target across WA and the east coast. Thirdly, improve the safeguard mechanism through the upcoming review. The safeguard mechanism is one of the central policies for driving our net zero transition. The 2026-27 review presents an opportunity to lower the threshold, expand coverage, improve the mitigation hierarchy, encourage best practice, disincentivise new polluting projects and safeguard our industries from international competition. Fourthly, go beyond the new vehicle efficiency standard. The government must ensure that NVES is aligned with our national net zero by 2050 target. Importantly, this may require targets to decarbonise our light vehicle fleet even faster, giving time for heavy vehicles to decarbonise. The government should also introduce policy to start decarbonising our heavy vehicles. This is one of the largest emitting sectors that has no policy around it to drive emissions reduction. The government must also accelerate the rollout of EV chargers and continue to fund and support active transport. Fifthly, drive decarbonisation of buildings through the National Construction Code. The annual statement is a useful stocktake, but it shows how much more work is to be done. Our community is doing its part, and the Commonwealth must match that. 16:22 Ms WITTY 316660 Melbourne The Annual climate change statement 2025 is more than a legal requirement; it is an accountability document. It sets out in clear terms how Australia is tracking against our legislated climate targets, explains how our emissions are expected to change over time, outlines sector-by-sector progress and confirms that the Albanese Labor government is delivering the most serious climate action this country has ever undertaken. The statement shows that national emissions are lower than when we came to office. It shows that renewable electricity generation has reached record highs, the highest share ever recorded in Australia. It shows that coal fired generation continues to decline, large-scale solar and wind are expanding and storage is scaling to support a more reliable grid. That progress is not accidental; it is the result of deliberate policy choices made by the Albanese Labor government. This government legislated a 43 per cent emissions reduction target by 2030. This government enshrined net zero by 2050 in law. This government strengthened the safeguard mechanism so that Australia's largest industrial emitters must reduce pollution year after year. This government created the Net Zero Economy Authority to ensure workers and communities are supported through the transition. This government is not stopping there. For too long, climate policy in this country was marked by delay and division. Under the Albanese Labor government, it is marked by delivery. The statement confirms that renewable energy is now supplying a record share of Australia's electricity. That matters not just for emissions but for households because when renewable generation increases, wholesale electricity prices are pushed down. When we invest in storage and transmission, reliability strengthens. When we reduce exposure to volatile fossil fuel markets, we stabilise energy costs. This is climate action aligned with cost-of-living relief, and in Melbourne that matters deeply. In Melbourne, most people live in apartments. Many rent. Many are deeply aware of both the climate challenge and the cost-of-living pressures they face. When wholesale prices fall because of record renewable generation, that benefits renters and apartment dwellers as much as anyone. When we strengthen energy efficiency standards and electrification policies, that reduces bills and improves comfort in older buildings. When we expand renewable supply through Renewable Energy Zones, we are building the generation and infrastructure that cities like Melbourne depend on. Renewable Energy Zones are transforming how Australia produces power, concentrating large-scale wind and solar in areas with strong resources, then delivering that clean electricity into urban demand centres. For Melbourne, that means ensuring that transmission upgrades, grid modernisations and storage investments keep pace so the clean energy being generated across the country flows efficiently into our homes and businesses. The Albanese Labor government is delivering those structural reforms, and the statement makes clear that the trajectory is rising. Electric vehicle uptake is accelerating strongly. EVs now account for a growing share of new car sales in Australia. That shift has been supported by the introduction of national fuel efficiency standards, which send a clear signal to manufacturers and consumers alike that Australia is serious about transport decarbonisation. In Melbourne, that shift is visible. Apartment buildings are installing charging infrastructure, rideshare fleets are electrifying and small businesses are transitioning delivery vehicles. Transport emissions are a significant part of our national profile. The Albanese Labor government's reforms are beginning to shift that trajectory, but the statement is also honest about the scale of the task ahead. It outlines the sectors where deeper reductions are required. It highlights the need to continue accelerating renewable development to expand storage, modernise distribution networks and electrify buildings and transport at scale. In inner-city electorates like mine, those challenges have unique characteristics. How do we unlock rooftop solar for renters? How do we electrify high-rise apartment buildings built decades ago? How do we integrate community batteries into dense neighbourhoods? How do we scale EV charging in shared car parks and CBD precincts? These are the conversations my office has every week with residents, sustainability advocates and local businesses. The people of Melbourne care deeply about climate action. They expect ambition. They expect integrity. And they expect their federal government to continue to lead on this transformative agenda. That is why the government continues to push for solutions that reflect dense-city realities—policy settings that work for renters, apartment dwellers and small businesses operating in high-density environments. Climate action must be inclusive. If it only works for detached homes, it is incomplete. The statement also documents the climate impacts Australia is already experiencing: rising temperatures, more frequent extreme heat and changing weather patterns. In Melbourne, extreme heat is not imaginary. When I visit the Carlton Urgent Care Clinic, health professionals speak about the impact of heatwaves: breathing difficulties, dehydration, vulnerable older residents struggling in poorly insulated rented apartments. Climate policy intersects directly with health policy. When the Albanese Labor government strengthens building standards, invests in energy efficiency and speeds up electrification, we are not only cutting emissions but protecting public health. A well-insulated, electrified apartment is safer in a heatwave. A city powered by renewables has cleaner air. A grid strengthened by storage is more resilient. The statement reinforces that climate action is economic reform. Clean energy investment is flowing into advanced manufacturing, battery technology, critical mineral processing and research. Melbourne is well positioned to benefit from that. Our universities are leading climate science and clean tech research. Our engineers and designers are building new systems. Our workforce is ready to participate in that clean energy economy. Under the Albanese Labor government, Australia is no longer seen internationally as a straggler. We are credible. We are constructive in global climate forums. We are engaging with Indo-Pacific partners. We are contributing to international emissions reduction efforts. That credibility strengthens trade, investment and diplomatic relationships. The Annual Climate Change Statement 2025 confirms that the Albanese Labor government's approach is working—emissions are trending down; renewables are at record highs; electric vehicles are accelerating; targets are legislated; policy architecture is in place. The statement confirms that Australia's emissions are now significantly below 2025 levels and continuing to trend down. Electricity emissions, once the largest and fastest growing source, have fallen sharply as renewable generation has surged. At the end of 2025, renewable accounted for over 50 per cent of electricity in the national electricity market, the highest share ever recorded. This is proof that policies of this government are working. Large-scale wind and solar capacity continues to expand, with gigawatts of new projects committed or under construction. Rooftop solar alone now sits on more than three million Australian homes, one of the highest per capita rates in the world. Battery storage is scaling rapidly. Grid-scale batteries are coming online to firm renewable supply, while household battery uptake is increasing as costs fall. But the work is not finished. We must continue expanding renewable generation, continue strengthening the grid, continue electrifying transport and buildings, continue supporting workers and communities through transition. Climate leadership is not abstract for my community. It's about whether a renter in Richmond can lower their power bill, whether a high-rise in Docklands can electrify affordably, whether a small business in South Yarra can rely on stable, clean energy and whether vulnerable residents are protected during extreme heat. The Albanese Labor government is building a clean energy transition that lowers emissions, strengthens the economy and delivers cost-of-living relief. The Annual Climate Change Statement 2025 shows that momentum. It shows a government getting on with the work, a government legislating, a government delivering and a government committed to seeing this transmission through. The climate challenge is generational. It requires consistency, persistence and integrity. This government has fronted up to the challenge, and we will continue to do so. 16:32 Ms STEGGALL 175696 Warringah Every Australian has felt the effects of our warming climate, whether they realise it or not and whether they accept it or not. We've all experienced sweltering summer nights that won't cool down. We see grocery and power bills climbing and insurance premiums soaring. Beaches are disappearing to coastal erosion. Communities are flooding. We see the Great Barrier Reef, repeatedly, bleaching and dying. We see droughts getting worse, and we see storms and flooding getting worse. But the question is: are we responding fast enough as a nation? The Annual Climate Change Statement reveals the answer, and it is clearly no, despite all the things said by the government members. Australia is at risk of missing its emissions target. We rely too much on offsets instead of cutting pollution at its source. We also continue with a flawed system when it comes to monitoring and measuring methane emissions, and spending on adaptation is woefully inadequate. Even Australia's military and intelligence experts warn that climate change is an existential threat to human civilisation and say the government refuses to face up to that challenge. So the reality is clear. This government must urgently strengthen both mitigation and resilience to protect Australians from the climate risks ahead. In January, my electorate of Warringah and nearby areas were hit by violent summer storms, heavy rain, pounding winds and flash flooding that upended people's lives and disrupted business. The economic impact of disruption is the piece that doesn't get talked about, but it is a very vital piece. Torrential downpours swamped streets and homes. Stormwater systems overflowed, turning roads into rivers. Passengers were rescued from stranded cars. Residents were forced to evacuate, returning days later to soaked homes and damaged belongings. Insurance premiums were absolutely tested and stressed. This is experienced in many coastal communities. It's a sobering reminder of what happens in Warringah and many places in Australia and what we are going to face as it worsens. We know impacts are going to cascade, compound and escalate. We know these storms will get more severe. A warming climate with warmer temperatures means greater amounts of humidity in the atmosphere, leading to a year's worth of rain falling in short periods. Too often our infrastructure is not equipped to cope. But the risks go far beyond just worsening disasters. Climate change is a cost-of-living issue that drives up your power bills and insurance costs as disasters become more and more frequent and severe and disrupt food production, transport and many other aspects. It's also a problem of intergenerational equity. It steals opportunities from the next generation, leaving them with a heavy carbon debt, this existential threat, and a very heavy burden to bear. Governments are not moving fast enough to protect all Australians from the climate risks ahead. The climate change statement shows that Australia needs to accelerate its action to meet even just its 2030 emission target. Our emissions are falling but not fast enough. Australia has committed to cutting emissions by between 62 and 70 per cent by 2035, based on 2005 levels, and I know that many members of government want a pat on the back for that because it certainly is better than the woeful ignorance of the opposition and their complete lack of policy or commitment to our biggest threat. But the reality is that only the upper end of that 2035 target is even remotely within the range of science and what is needed to actually keep the temperature increase under two degrees. We urgently need to accelerate emissions reduction, especially around transport, agriculture and industry. Right now, only the energy sector is doing the heavy lifting. Last year, the Climate Change Authority released decarbonisation plans for six sectors of the economy, but, disappointingly, the authority did not set specific, binding targets for each sector. We need clear sectoral plans for all of these areas. Without those targets, there is no accountability and companies or governments can ignore the guidance without consequences. Voluntary targets rarely drive the urgent change needed to meet Australia's climate goals and don't give businesses a clear signal to plan for cleaner operations over the long term and meaningful investment. The other issue of great concern I referred to is that Australia's net zero strategy relies too heavily on carbon offsets. These allow polluting industries to continue business as usual, and, in fact, the government continues to approve coal and gas projects that then rely on offsets, so we are continually putting fuel on the fire. Offsets have a role for hard to abate sectors, but they cannot be used to justify continuing to increase emissions and continuing with polluting industries like coal and gas. We have to ensure that we don't replace genuine low-emissions transformation with the use of offsets. We can't overlook, of course, the problem of methane, a greenhouse gas that is 80 times more potent than carbon dioxide over its first 20 years. It is absolutely responsible for the increases in warming that we are currently seeing, and yet you don't hear a peep about methane from anyone in government. Reducing methane is a huge necessity and opportunity, yet the government action to ensure that it is properly measured has not been progressed. If we can't measure methane emissions, how are we going to reduce them or at least acknowledge that they are there? In 2023, the Climate Change Authority made recommendations to improve how Australia measures and reports methane emissions, as part of the NGER Act review. The government has agreed to those recommendations, fully or in principle, and set up an expert panel to examine the issue. But, two years on from that review, we haven't heard a peep. Progress has been painfully slow. Meanwhile, those emissions are continuing and we are continuing to cook! I urge the expert panel to ensure its interim report, due in June this year, meaningfully progresses the issue of methane reporting, monitoring and measuring, especially in the oil and gas sector. Meanwhile, we can't forget native forests—powerful natural carbon sinks that protect biodiversity. They still lack the adequate protection from logging and other threats. It is mind-blowing that we are heading into a budget period where I believe further millions or billions of taxpayer dollars are going to be wasted on carbon capture and storage when the best carbon sink capacity, our native forests, is just being ignored. Millions are poured into unproven carbon-capturing projects that continue to fail to meet benchmarks, but—and they continue to excuse high emissions—it's a 'unicorn technology'. I compare it to nuclear SMRs—it's this great big hope on the horizon that never delivers but costs a bomb. Why are we continuing to talk about that most expensive, uncertain technology? Why is the government still not protecting native forests and putting an end to native forest logging? Last November, the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Chris Bowen, admitted that based on current global emissions the world is on track to 2.8 degrees of warming. That is diabolical. For Australia, it means bushfires like Black Summer could happen nearly every year, days over 50 degrees in Sydney and Melbourne will be common, storms and floods will reshape our coasts and the Great Barrier Reef will be lost forever. I can assure the members in this place from regional communities that they will be bearing the brunt of it, and then we will see the endless need for emergency disaster relief packages which we simply will not be able to afford. We know you won't be able to have insurance; insurance will be unaffordable for many. We will see spikes in heat-related illness and biodiversity loss. Billions in spending on disaster recovery will become the norm. Sustainable economic management is not possible without addressing climate risks. In 2022 alone, climate fuelled disasters cost Australia $30 billion, and the cost will only rise. What's missing from the picture is serious investment in adaptation and resilience. The National Climate Risk Assessment last year outlined the threats, but since then nothing: no funding, no serious plan. As we approach the next budget, I am calling for at least one-quarter of one per cent of GDP to be invested annually into climate risk reduction. We don't blink an eye when we talk about the percentage of GDP to be invested in defence. Well, our domestic defence, our risk to climate, needs that same focus. Natural disasters already cost nearly $40 billion a year—about two per cent of GDP—and it's projected to nearly double by 2060. Investing in adaptation saves money. For every $1 spent, we save about $11 in future losses. So if we want to talk about sensible economic management, it must include investment in adaptation and resilience. I've proposed a detailed plan of how we can strengthen building codes, invest in local government capacity, protect wetlands and dunes, and make climate risk disclosures standard in financial decisions. This is not ideology; this is sensible economic management. My time is up, but there is so much more we can talk about. From a national security perspective, we know it is existential and urgent that we address this and do more. I urge the government to get real and actually do more. 16:42 Ms SPENDER 286042 Wentworth I rise to speak on the Annual Climate Change Statement 2025 tabled by the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. I welcome this fourth annual report. I commend the department for comprehensive work and the government for its commitment to targets and reporting. The statement is an important stocktake of progress. This year it shows emissions 29 per cent lower than 2005, following the largest annual drop outside the pandemic. It shows renewables are working, with electricity emissions falling 3.3 per cent. It shows the safeguard mechanism beginning to deliver reductions after a first year of reform, and it reminds us there is still much work that needs to be done, if we are to meet our 2035 targets. There are a number of issues I would like to speak about. Firstly, on the least-cost pathway, Treasury estimates that a least-cost pathway to net zero would make Australia $1 trillion richer by 2050, compared with a disorderly transition. Real wages could be four per cent higher if we were to get the transition right, so how we decarbonise matters. But, when I look across the state of the policies, I'm not convinced we are on the least-cost path. There are 430 climate related policies in government, as identified by the Climate Change Authority. The Productivity Commission, however, identified that we should have greater transparency and reporting on the cost effectiveness of emissions reductions against this. This transparency is much overdue. Neither the Parliamentary Library or the Parliamentary Budget Office can advise me or my office on the cost per tonne of abatement of the government's policy suite. This is important. We need this information, particularly if we're not going to have an economy-wide climate target. The one estimate the Parliamentary Library could locate was for the electric vehicles novated fringe benefit lease tax exemption, the so-called EV discount. It is estimated to cost over $900 per tonne of abatement, yet Treasury's least-cost pathway assumes that the highest marginal abatement cost to 2030 will be $67 per tonne. It suggests government policy has wandered away from the least-cost pathway. I understand that there are reasons why you would adopt a non-least-cost pathway initially: to encourage a technology into a degree of maturity. But we also must be willing to pull back when that is no longer needed and redirect funds to the least-cost pathway. If we are going to make this transition at its lowest cost, we must be disciplined about where and when we procure emissions reductions, and the pathway—not the politics—matters. An economy-wide carbon price or an expanded safeguard mechanism would provide the market structure to deliver this least-cost transition. It would replace the government's captain's calls with a predictable, pro-business framework. At the very least, the government should transparently cost its actual climate policies, not just model a theoretical trajectory. I strongly support the transition to net zero and the urgency of getting there, but it must be done with the least cost and in a way that shares the benefit. At present we do not know the cost of emissions reductions the government is purchasing through subsidies, and it does concern me that many Australians cannot access these incentives. The second piece I'd like to talk about is shared benefits. The two cornerstone programs—the Small-scale Renewable Energy Scheme and the Cheaper Home Battery Program—are largely available only to homeowners, especially those with green title. This is the same cohort already benefiting from additional tax settings. Similarly, the EV discount provides the greatest benefit to high-income earners purchasing expensive vehicles through employer-provided novated leases. Renters, apartment dwellers and many Australians under cost-of-living pressure struggle to see how the transition is working for them. The Solar Sharer scheme was pitched as a mechanism to share the benefits, but it relies on smart metres not due to be rolled out until 2030. Many have also questioned whether households, particularly those who can't readily shift their usage, could end up paying more overall. There is another issue that the statement largely avoids: Australia's exports. It mentioned coal exports just once, in the context of South Korea's COP commitments affecting Australia's export opportunities. My community sees this inconsistency. They see ministers pulling in different directions, spending money on decarbonisation while expanding fossil fuel supply. Someone said this week that the investors regard the Future Gas Strategy as the government's most significant climate policy. Domestic emissions are now 29 per cent below 2005 levels. That progress matters, but domestic emissions pale in comparison to those we export in the form of fossil fuels. Australia's contribution to global emissions—more than triple our domestic emissions—continues to rise. We will not be shielded from the consequences of those emissions. They will be felt here, in more frequent and catastrophic floods, fires and droughts, in increasing insurance premiums, in more days spent indoors escaping the heat and in the decimation of the Great Barrier Reef and Ningaloo Reef. At COP30, Australia joined the Belem Declaration on the Transition Away from Fossil Fuels. That was important, but, despite the minister leading preparations for the next COP in Turkiye, we are far away from leading the transition. If there is a plan to phase out coal, I have not seen it. Recent decisions to expand or extend projects suggest one does not exist. Just this week, the NSW government approved an extension for a thermal coalmine, allowing another 36 million tonnes of coal to be extracted, roughly equivalent to one-fifth of Australia's annual domestic emissions when burnt. This is an affront to Australians making concerted efforts to reduce their own carbon footprint. The government has also introduced mandatory climate disclosures, requiring businesses to report emissions across their entire value chain, yet when it comes to the minister's own scope 3 emissions, which the government is asking businesses to report on—the emissions from the fossil fuels we export—apparently they cannot be reliably reported. Australians understand that the transition to net zero is necessary. What they want to know is that it is being done sensibly, fairly and at the least cost, and at the moment this story is incomplete. We celebrate progress on domestic emissions while expanding the export of fuels that drive global emissions. We promise a least-cost transition while failing to measure the cost of the policies delivering it. If we are serious about climate action, as I know the minister is, then our policies must match our ambition. That includes being transparent about the cost of our policies, disciplined about pursuing the least-cost pathway and honest about the full climate impact of our decisions, including the emissions embedded in what we export. Australians are already doing their bit, installing solar, electrifying homes, buying more efficient vehicles and adjusting their lives in meaningful ways. They deserve a climate policy framework that is coherent, economically disciplined and consistent with our international obligations, because the pathway matters. As we look to bridge the gap between the projections and the 2035 target, these new policies do need to be cost effective. The safeguard mechanism review will need to consider how to best cover a greater portion of emissions without strangling businesses with red tape, and barriers to investment need to be addressed to accelerate the renewables rollout and lower power bills. The transition to net zero is one of the largest economic transformations Australia will undertake this century. If we do it well, it will make us more prosperous, more competitive and more resilient. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 282335 The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. STATEMENTS ON SIGNIFICANT MATTERS 150 STATEMENTS ON SIGNIFICANT MATTERS Domestic, Family and Sexual Violence 150 16:50 Ms MILLER-FROST 296272 Boothby I went to one of those schools that does school reunions every 10 years. It's quite a competitive school. Our first couple of reunions were before the advent of Facebook, so, when we met up for our 10-year reunion, many of us had not seen each other since year 12. The 10-year reunion was about careers and marriages—who had married whom, how fantastic their lives were and who was living the dream. The 20-year reunion was about children—photos of adorable cherubs in colour coordinated family photos. The 30-year reunion was about divorce, and that's when the truth came out—the school friend whose marriage had lasted three months because their new spouse had beaten them so badly they'd had a broken leg; the school friend who, despite having a PhD and a very high-powered job, had spent close to two decades hiding bruises, dealing with blow-ups from their spouse that alienated friends and family and being isolated; and the school friend who had brought mementoes of herself to her children while she made plans to suicide to escape violence and coercive control. Domestic and family violence, sadly, is in every strata of community irrespective of culture, education level, financial resources or age. It exists in first relationships in teenage years, in same-sex couples, in couples without children and in couples with children. In my work in women's homelessness, I saw women who had grown up as children in violent homes who were still showing the effects decades later. They had difficulty forming or keeping a trusting relationship, be it an intimate relationship, a friendship or a collegial relationship at work. Under pressure, they often made decisions that were based on a sense of vulnerability or downright panic. Sixty per cent or more of the women that we saw experiencing homelessness came from a domestic or family violence background. They were either escaping imminent violence or had a background that included violence. We know that one in four women and one in 14 men have experienced violence by an intimate partner since the age of 15. The societal impacts of domestic and family violence are profound. It costs the Australian economy an estimated $26 billion annually. It places significant pressure on healthcare services, police, the justice system and support services. Domestic and family violence is also the leading cause of preventable death, disability and illness for women aged 15 to 44, and it's the primary driver of homelessness. It impacts workplaces—affecting retention, productivity and staff morale—and it's a human rights issue. No-one should have to live with the threat of violence hanging over them. No-one should be subject to coercive control or financial or psychological abuse. The Albanese Labor government renews its commitment to building a safer Australia, where every woman and child can live free from gender-based violence. Ending gender based violence is a national priority for the Albanese Labor government. It's why we've invested more money into addressing this scourge than any previous government, but it is something every single one of us in this place—and, indeed, every single Australian—has a role to play in. A few months ago I attended a Rotary event in Adelaide called Purple Waves of Change, where 10 Rotary clubs across southern Adelaide came together to run an event to raise funds and raise awareness about the impact of family and domestic violence on our communities. I give a shout-out to Holdfast Bay Rotary Club, Glenelg Rotary Club and Somerton Park Rotary Club, all in my electorate of Boothby, who participated in this event. We heard from Sally, who spoke about her experience of domestic violence and her experience of trying to leave that relationship. It took her six years to successfully leave. On average a woman will try seven times before she successfully leaves, and we know that the time of leaving, when the perpetrator is losing control over her, is often the most dangerous period. Sally's ex stalked her for many years, extending the fear and threat of violence as she tried to establish a new, secure and safe life for herself. The great thing about having organisations like Rotary, which reach out into the community with the message that violence is not okay, is that we need the message to be echoed at the grassroots level. It can't just be the women's organisations or the anti-violence or DV-specific services. This requires a cultural change, and that means everyone. It needs to be something that everyone knows is a basic standard of decency in the community. People need to know: if you're using violence, your friends, your family, your neighbours and your colleagues will be horrified. While we need the community to come along on this journey and establish a culture of safety and nonviolence, we recognise that there is a really important role for government in this as well. The Albanese government has invested more than any previous government in directly tackling this appalling scourge on our society. Since coming to government, Labor has invested more than $4 billion in frontline services, preventive programs, behaviour change and programs for children. We've made the leaving violence payment permanent—$5,000 in financial help and safety planning for women leaving violence. We know that women often stay in dangerous relationships because they can't see any way out other than homelessness, which is itself a significant safety risk, so we have invested $1.2 billion in emergency and transitional accommodation. We've legislated 10 days of paid domestic violence leave so women can make the arrangements to leave and talk to lawyers and other services without having to lose money or organise such appointments after hours, when it might alert the perpetrators that they're leaving. We've expanded the discretion for Centrelink so perpetrators can't use the social security system to leave survivors with tens of thousands of dollars of debt. This is called the special circumstances debt waiver. We've reformed the family law system so that it is safer, simpler and more accessible. With the states and territories, we've improved criminal justice responses to sexual violence. We've invested record legal services funding—an extra $800 million in family violence legal services—and we've established the new National Higher Education Code to Prevent and Respond to Gender-based Violence, with legislation passed in the last sitting. We're also focused on the prevention of sexual violence through a better understanding of consent. Our government has invested $40 million in the Consent Can't Wait campaign, launched on 26 May 2024, and we've invested $3.5 million to support Teach Us Consent to develop and distribute social media resources for young people aged 16 and above about sexual violence and consent. We've invested $8.3 million in the Partners in Prevention of Sexual Violence project with La Trobe University to build the evidence base on what works to prevent sexual violence. In May 2024 the government commissioned an expert panel to conduct a rapid review of prevention approaches to gender based violence. The review complemented the work underway under the National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children and provided advice to government about opportunities to further accelerate efforts. The rapid review was received in August, and, on 6 September 2024, National Cabinet agreed to progressively respond to the rapid review and use its recommendations to inform strengthened prevention services across all governments, state and federal. Since then, our government has invested $3.9 billion in the new National Access to Justice Partnership, including a critical $800 million increase in funding to the legal assistance sector. We've invested $82.4 million to strengthen responses to high-risk and serial perpetrators of family and domestic violence, including developing national risk assessment principles and trialling innovative approaches to high-risk perpetrators. We've invested $81.3 million to enhance and expand child-centric, trauma-informed supports for children and young people with experience of violence, and today Minister Plibersek announced a further 72 per cent increase in funding for frontline family, domestic and sexual violence workers. Minister Plibersek has also made a referral to the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs, which I chair, to conduct an inquiry into the linkages between family, domestic and sexual violence and suicide. Suicides in the context of family, domestic and sexual violence, including coercive control, are not currently counted in the statistics of domestic violence fatalities. This was one of the recommendations of the rapid review and is something advocates have been calling for, for a long time. We are currently calling for submissions that respond to the terms of reference, which are on the committee website and the Parliament House website. So far we've received around 130 high-quality submissions from peak bodies, organisations and individuals from the family domestic violence sector, the sexual assault and sexual abuse survivors sector and suicide mental health sectors, as well as submissions from multicultural groups, men's groups, LGBTQI groups and groups representing children, young people and much more. This is an important piece of work, and we're keen to ensure we've looked at it in the context of the broad community. If you're interested, please have a look at the website and respond to the terms of reference. 17:00 Ms KARA COOK 316537 Bonner I first prepared this speech following the release of the Domestic, Family and Sexual Violence Commission's yearly report to parliament on 30 October 2025. The very next day, on Friday 31 October 2025, Rhukaya Lake was murdered. It's understood that a child raised the alarm by running around 400 metres down the road to alert passing motorists. She was the 58th Australian woman murdered this year. Since her murder, 32 more women have been murdered, including 12 women murdered this year. The Australian Institute of Criminology tells us that, on average, one woman is killed every nine days by a current or former partner in this country. But last year it was almost two a week. Seventy-eight women killed last year, 12 killed this year—this is absolutely a national emergency. The Domestic, Family and Sexual Violence Commission's 2025 annual report is the second look at the progress of the National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children. It is both a tribute to the work already done and a sober reminder of how far we still must go as a government to end family, domestic and sexual violence in our country. I acknowledge the victims and survivors of domestic, family and sexual violence—the women, children and men who have lived through trauma and who, tragically, did not survive it. Everything we do must be in memory of them and in service of ensuring no more lives are lost. I extend my deep thanks to Commissioner Micaela Cronin and her dedicated team—and the Lived Experience Advisory Council, whose powerful call to action in this report ensures that lived experience is front and centre and continues to guide our national response. As a former domestic violence lawyer, I have seen firsthand the deep and enduring impact of violence—not just physical violence but emotional, financial and psychological control that isolates and dehumanises. Most Australians would be shocked to learn that our courts deal with thousands of domestic violence matters each and every day. This is the pointy end of the cycle; thousands more are impacted behind closed doors and on police callouts each and every day. Domestic, family and sexual violence is not confined to one postcode, one income bracket or one culture; it is an abuse of power and it thrives in silence. We cannot stand by or be silent. Ending domestic, family and sexual violence is not optional; it is a moral and national imperative, and the Albanese Labor government takes it very seriously. I recognise and thank the extraordinary people and organisations who confront this reality every day—the frontline domestic, family and sexual violence workers. Since my election, I've made it a priority to meet with those doing the life-saving work of prevention, response, recovery and reform—many of whom I've had the privilege of also working alongside over the years. This includes organisations like Beyond DV, with their Hope Hub located in Westfield Carindale and now expanding across the state; 54 Reasons and Save the Children, who are ensuring children impacted by violence are seen, heard and believed; the Red Rose Foundation, which is raising awareness of non-lethal strangulation and the red flags of escalating violence—the only organisation of its kind nationally; and Wynnum Manly Rotary and Rotary clubs right across the country, where community compassion drives local prevention and supports those efforts. Locally, Pete's Pantry and Rosie's in Wynnum provide food support and friendship. Work Haven offers refuge and pathways to empowerment for women fleeing violence. Women's Health and Equality Queensland advances gender equality and trauma-informed health services over the phone statewide in Queensland and in person. Lucy's Project champions the protection of animals and domestic violence situations, recognising that pets are often victims too or used to prevent women and children from leaving. The StandbyU Foundation creates innovative technology solutions to help women and children leave safely through their Shield Watch and in-person support services. DV Safe Phone collect and repurpose mobile phones to give survivors a safe line to help, and many MPs in this place have collection boxes for DV safe phones. Safe Steps lead crisis response and 24/7 support for women and children across Australia. Micah Projects and Brisbane Domestic Violence Service assist those experiencing homelessness, poverty and violence with compassion and respect right across Queensland. Of course Community Legal Centres Queensland continue to stand beside some of the most vulnerable, ensuring access to justice with 34 centres across the state. Last, but certainly not least, our police force do the heart-wrenching work each and every day on thousands of police callouts in Queensland. Our vulnerable persons unit has done incredible work over the years—a really big shout out to all of those officers who are on the front line. To all who dedicate their lives to this work, thank you. You are the quiet heroes of this national effort, and your resilience, compassion and commitment absolutely save lives. The commission's report reveals overwhelming truths. It is estimated that 2.8 million Australians have experienced sexual violence since the age of 15. That is one in every four women in this country. Violence disproportionately impacts First Nations Australians, and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women are 33 times more likely than other Australian women to be hospitalised due to family violence and seven times more likely to be homicide victims. Rhukaya Lake, who was murdered on 31 October last year, was a First Nations woman. I'm proud to stand in a government that is not just acknowledging this crisis but actually doing something about it. Through the National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children, we have invested more than $4 billion since 2022. That is the largest investment by any government in Australia's history. We made permanent the leaving violence payment, which offers $5,000 in financial support to those fleeing intimate partner violence, along with referrals, risk assessments and safety planning. We've also delivered $1.2 billion for new crisis and transitional accommodation, ensuring older women, younger Australians and those fleeing violence have access to safe and stable housing. In my own electorate of Bonner, 24 new homes are currently being built through these programs. We've legislated 10 days of paid domestic and family violence leave, ensuring that no-one in the workplace loses out when they reach out for help. We've also taken bold steps to audit Commonwealth systems so they cannot be weaponised by perpetrators of abuse, including reforms under the Social Security Act to make sure perpetrators cannot use the social security system to leave survivors with tens of thousands of dollars of debt. We've also reformed the family law system. We've partnered with states and territories to deliver stronger justice responses to sexual violence. We've committed an extra $800 million for family violence legal services across the country. These are real, tangible steps, but this report makes clear they are only the beginning. We must recognise that violence evolves, and so must our response. I've been inundated by stories of women whose phones are being tapped and controlled by their former partners. Men are also embracing hateful views towards women, word for word from the manosphere handbook. I know every female MP in this place faces daily hate on social media platforms, and many women escaping violence are also confronted with online harms. Gender based violence is now extending into online spaces through predatory technologies, deepfakes, nudify apps and undetectable stalking tools. That is why we must take more action to address online harms, like banning predatory technologies, restricting access to tools that are used to harass, control and degrade women and children, because women and children deserve to be safe everywhere in their homes, in their communities and, of course, online. The commission's report also calls for us to deepen our engagement with lived experience to ensure we genuinely listen, learn and embed voices at every level of decision-making. It highlights five critical insights. Firstly, prevention must begin in childhood through education. We now have 80,000 educators being trained in trauma informed models. It also talks about how effective solutions come from those most affected. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women, people with disabilities, LGBTQIA+ communities and multicultural communities must be consulted and included in making the decisions that impact them. Thirdly, our systems must stop working in silos. We need all of our systems—child protection, family law, health services—to interact in a way that makes women and children safe. And, finally, our institutions must move from control to care. When someone in crisis calls for help, they should be met with compassion, not judgement. Safety is a right, not a privilege. 17:10 Ms BRISKEY 263427 Maribyrnong 'I'm struck not by despair but by a profound sense of possibility and urgency.' Those are the words of Australia's Domestic, Family and Sexual Violence Commissioner in her most recent annual report to this parliament. That report tracks our progress under the National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children 2022-2032. It is both a stocktake and a call to action. The scale of the task is clear. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics' personal safety survey, one in four women has experienced violence by an intimate partner since the age of 15 and one in five has experienced sexual violence. One in eight Australians have witnessed violence between a parent and a partner as a child. Behind every statistic is a story of someone trying to stay safe while navigating systems that were not always designed with their safety at the centre. Behind those numbers are lived experiences in communities across the country, where individuals seek safety, stability and dignity. Ending domestic, family and sexual violence requires early intervention, crisis response, recovery support and prevention. It requires sustained national leadership and a commitment that extends beyond any single policy decision. That is why the Albanese Labor government has committed more than $4 billion since 2022, across prevention, early intervention, response and recovery measures under the national plan. This investment recognises that violence against women and children is not an isolated issue. It intersects with housing, health, education, justice, employment and community wellbeing. Addressing it requires coordinated action across all levels of government and across multiple systems. It begins with making sure help is there when someone reaches out. 1800RESPECT, the National Domestic, Family and Sexual Violence Counselling Service, responded to more than 340,000 contacts last financial year across phone, online chat, SMS and video. Each of those contacts represents a person seeking support, advice and safety. To ensure every contact is answered, the government delivered a 40 per cent funding boost, an additional $41.8 million, bringing the total investment to $146.8 million through to 30 June 2027. That funding expands capacity and supports new communication channels, recognising that not everyone can safely pick up the phone. But crisis support is only one part of the response. Victims-survivors also need practical support to rebuild their lives. We made the Leaving Violence Program permanent, providing financial assistance of up to $5,000 to help eligible victims-survivors leave violent relationships safely. For many people experiencing violence, financial dependence is one of the most significant barriers to leaving. Access to immediate financial assistance can help people secure temporary accommodation, transport, legal advice or essential items during a time of crisis. Ten days of family and domestic violence leave is now a permanent entitlement for all employees. We have strengthened protections so that victims-survivors cannot be discriminated against or dismissed because of their experience of violence. No-one should have to choose between safety and a pay cheque. Workplaces play an important role in supporting safety and stability, and these protections recognise that employment security can be a vital part of recovery. We've also acted to prevent the misuse of government payments, recognising that financial control is a core element of coercive control. Ensuring that payments reach the person they are intended to support helps strengthen financial independence and prevents further harm. Housing is fundamental to safety. Around 40 per cent of people accessing specialist homelessness services have experienced domestic and family violence. Escaping violence must not mean entering homelessness. For too many victims-survivors, the absence of a safe and affordable house can make leaving a violent relationship so much more difficult. Through the Housing Australia Future Fund and related programs, we are delivering thousands of new social and affordable homes nationwide alongside targeted investments in crisis and transitional accommodation. These investments recognise that safe housing is essential for long-term stability and recovery. We are also holding perpetrators to account with more than $80 million invested in initiatives targeting high-risk and serial offenders, improving risk assessment and intervention. Strong responses to perpetrators are necessary to reduce repeat offending and protect victims-survivors. Technology-facilitated abuse is one of the fastest-growing forms of harm. The government has strengthened online safety laws, taken action against image based abuse and stalking technologies and continues to support enforcement through the eSafety framework. These reforms recognise that abuse increasingly occurs through digital forms and connected technologies. We've also introduced the National Higher Education Code to Prevent and Respond to Gender-based Violence, strengthening accountability across universities. Students deserve to pursue education in environments that are safe, respectful and free from violence and harassment. We are investing in children with funding committed for child focused counselling and recovery services, recognising that early support changes life trajectories. Children who experience violence require specialised support to help them recover and thrive. Legal assistance also remains a cornerstone. We have committed a record $3.9 billion to the legal assistance sector over five years, including an additional $800 million for family violence and women's legal services. This investment strengthens the ability of community legal centres, legal aid commissions and specialist services to support victims-survivors through complex legal processes. But reform is only as strong as the workforce that delivers it. Today, the Albanese Labor government announced a 72 per cent funding boost for frontline family, domestic and sexual violence workers. This is a new $291.7 million investment in the next phase of the 500 Workers Initiative. It builds on the $169.4 million invested in the 2022-23 budget to deliver 500 additional frontline workers in every state and territory. This expanded investment recognises the skill, expertise and emotional labour of specialist workers supporting women and children fleeing violence. Frontline workers are the people who answer calls for help, support families in crisis and guide victims-survivors through recovery. Their work is complex and deeply important. Supporting this workforce means ensuring they have the resources and stability needed to continue providing critical services. This funding supports the sustainability and security of this critical workforce, with funding flowing to states and territories from 1 July under the family, domestic and sexual violence federation funding agreement. The commissioner's report is clear—demand continues to outpace capacity. Nationally, there are approximately 9,000 specialist domestic and family violence workers, yet the majority of cases are still managed across the broader health, justice, housing and policing systems. If we are serious about implementation, about turning plans into protection, we must strengthen and stabilise the front line. That is what this investment does. Ending gender based violence is not the responsibility of one portfolio or one tier of government. It requires coordination across housing, justice, education, health, employment and social services. It requires prevention, teaching respect and equality early, and it requires accountability. The commissioner reminds us that the challenge is not identifying solutions. We know what works: early intervention, stable housing, economic security, accessible counselling, strong legal protections and perpetrator accountability. The challenge is sustained implementation. There is urgency because the harm is real and ongoing, but there is also possibility because we are building the systems, funding the workforce and embedding accountability. We will continue this work methodically, collaboratively and with resolve until safety is a guarantee for every woman and every child in this country. 17:19 Ms CLUTTERHAM 316101 Sturt The Australian government established the Domestic, Family and Sexual Violence Commission to provide national leadership and promote national coordination in seeking to address the scourge of violence against women and children. Working across government and across our communities is the only way we can work together towards ending violence against women and children in a generation. This is not easy. In fact, most of the time it feels impossible. Every day there is a story of a woman dying at the hands of family members, stories of death, stories of shattered lives and families who will never recover. Let's be clear: you don't recover from a woman or child in your family being killed by a husband, by a father, by another family member—you don't. This violence destroys lives and communities forever, yet incidents of violence against women and children are increasing. More lives will be lost and many more will be destroyed. And what for? What could be more senseless? The Albanese Labor government understands this and is working towards strengthening prevention approaches by addressing factors that exacerbate violence, such as access to alcohol and access to pornography and misogynistic online content. It also is seeking to improve information sharing for those who respond to high-risk and serial perpetrators of domestic and family violence, not forgetting that sometimes their lives are shattered too because of what they witness and what they investigate. We also need to continue to amplify the voices of people with lived experience, and living with experience, to have meaningful engagement with them in shaping policy design and service delivery. People with lived experience need to be supported to be able to participate in policy development and implementation decisions, because we know that the best people to help us make change and improve the system are those who have needed it most in the past. Because there is an epidemic of violence against women and children, there are people available to contribute to this, but they need to be supported, cared for and guided through this process because they're willing to be a part of it. A constituent of my electorate of Sturt recently came to see me to tell me her story, which was an absolutely appalling outline of betrayal, failure and devastation. She was here in Australia by virtue of her marriage, without any family of her own and without any support networks. She outlined to me the fear and helplessness she felt after her husband took away her access to her own bank account, into which money she earned from her own job was distributed. She outlined the despair she felt when she was tracked, monitored, spied on by the person who was supposed to love her forever. She outlined the utter desperation and terror she felt when he held a knife to her neck and sexually assaulted her. Then she outlined the confusion and frustration she felt as she tried, at her absolute lowest ebb, to navigate police processes, domestic violence support services and the courts. Despite all of this, she then told me that she had come to see me because she wanted to do what she could to ensure that other women would never share her story. This is what all women want. This is, in fact, what all reasonable Australians—men and women—want. If my constituent, after what she went through, has the courage, resilience and fortitude to want to make change for others, then the rest of society simply has no excuse. My constituent was also at pains to tell me that she received empathetic and caring support from the Legal Services Commission of South Australia, who helped her to understand what was happening in the legal system and what her options were. I'm not going to name the woman who came to see me, and so I can't name those wonderful lawyers at the Legal Services Commission of South Australia who helped her. Instead, I offer my heartfelt gratitude to those women for doing what they could to make an uncertain, confusing and frankly terrifying process just that little bit easier for my constituent. In South Australia, Ms Natasha Stott Despoja AO was appointed as the Commissioner of the Royal Commission into Domestic, Family and Sexual Violence. In her capacity as the commissioner, she was recently charged with holding a royal commission into that violence, which aimed to address several factors. These included prevention—how we can facilitate widespread change in the underlying social drivers of domestic, family and sexual violence; early intervention—how we can improve effective early intervention through the identification and support of individuals who are at high risk of experiencing or perpetrating domestic, family and sexual violence; responding—how we can ensure best-practice responses to these types of violence through the provision of services and supports; recovery and healing—how we can embed an approach that supports recovery and healing through reducing the risk of retraumatisation and supporting victims-survivors to be safe and healthy; and coordination—how government agencies, non-government organisations and communities can better integrate and coordinate efforts across the spectrum of prevention, intervention, response and recovery. But this is not just a South Australian issue. This is a national issue, which is why this government has invested $4 billion into the prevention of family, domestic and sexual violence since 2022. Natasha and her colleagues needed to hear from all relevant stakeholders, so particular regard was given to the views and experiences of victims-survivors and those with lived experience; First Nations people, their communities and organisations; culturally and linguistically diverse communities; LGBTQIA communities; people living with a disability; children and young people; older South Australians; people living in regional and remote communities; experts, service providers and leaders in domestic, family and sexual violence; medical professionals, including mental health providers; and police and the legal sector, including those involved in court administration and victim support. What that tells us is that relevant stakeholders were in fact the entire community. The entire community has skin in the game when it comes to ending violence against women and children. The breadth of the stakeholders shows just how wide this scourge is. No part of the community is untouched. It's community wide. It's an embedded problem. Everyone needs to understand that they have a responsibility to contribute to eliminating it. The report that was issued after this royal commission concluded contained 120 recommendations ranging from e-safety to alcohol, education and peer support, more funding, and more support in courtrooms. This is 120 recommendations just in one state. There is work to do. Empowering women, as this government seeks to do, is part of the solution. If a woman has a job and is paid a fair wage for doing it, she has agency and the ability to make hard choices if she needs to. Domestic and family violence is not limited to a certain section of the community. It affects women of every income level. However, empowering those on the lowest incomes, such as women working in the care economy, is critical. Pay rises in that industry together with superannuation on paid parental leave are just two initiatives that give women more options should they ever need to consider them because of family and domestic violence. Finally, there is another section of the community that can contribute to ending domestic and family violence against women. That section is those that are perpetrating this violence. To those perpetrators, please hear this: you are the problem. The problem is not your wife. The problem is not your girlfriend, your spouse or your child. The problem is you and your inability and unwillingness to control your own behaviour. Your problem is that you look for someone to blame and fail to be accountable for your own decisions. You are the problem, and you need to accept that and stop it. Stop committing acts of violence within your own family. Stop the killing. Stop the violence. Stop the death. Stop destroying the lives of those you are meant to love. Stop it now. 17:29 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina Well said, Member for Sturt. It's 2026, and there should be no more silence about domestic and family violence. There should be no more domestic and family violence. It is sad that we are devoting time, yet again, to this scourge—and it is a scourge. It's a national scourge. It's a scourge throughout our states, and I'll come to that in a minute. It's a scourge throughout our local communities. In Riverina, I am in one sense ashamed to admit, between October 2024 and September last year there were more than a thousand cases of domestic violence: Wagga Wagga, 480; Lockhart, just seven—I say 'just'; it's seven too many, but that was the lowest number of all the local government areas that I represent; Cootamundra-Gundagai, 59; Cowra, 101; Junee, 38; Temora, 15; Snowy Valley, 77; Yass Valley, 58; Upper Lachlan, 16; Coolamon, 24; Hilltops, 122; and Weddin, 18. They're not just numbers; they're people—women—who have been set upon, mostly by their intimate partners. It's simply not good enough. It's simply not right, and, as the member for Sturt quite correctly pointed out, it has to stop. It must stop now. Anything the government can do funding-wise, in alerts or whatever the case might be, I certainly would very much welcome, as I'm sure every member of the parliament would. We heard the member for Bonner earlier talking about how female MPs are subjected to vile filth via their social media accounts. That is so regrettable. Men are too, but not to the sorts of derogatory comments that women receive not just on a daily basis but every time they post. Every time they put something up, they've got people out there, generally men—almost always men—saying rude and crude things. When it comes to rude and crude, I know it's been a big topic in the local media—the Kyle Sandilands and Jackie 'O' Henderson show has ended. I say, 'Thank goodness!' because I think society is better than that. Some of the things that they've done have been just outrageous. I know we live in a society where they call them 'shock jocks' and the more shocking they are the more listeners they get. Unfortunately, with social media, the more people push the envelope, the more followers they attract and the more 'likes' they receive. And it just goes too far. Some of the stunts that those two radio announcers have done over the years have been nothing more than rude and crude, and it's no wonder that Nerida O'Loughlin, ACMA's chair, said at one stage that enough was enough. People don't need that when they're driving their cars to work, particularly if they've got the children in the car and they're driving them to school. At that hour of the morning—or any hour of the day, quite frankly—people don't need to hear those derogatory remarks, which are often sexualised. They make light of it, and it's not right. The other thing, too, is that men have an obligation to lead and not to tell jokes amongst themselves—that's where leadership comes in—that are derogatory of women. That's where it starts. It starts in the workplace, at home, at the local sports club—wherever men gather, if they are telling jokes that are derogatory of women, it's not right. And it just pervades society. Violence against women remains the leading preventable cause of death, disability and illness for women aged between 15 and 44, and that simply is unacceptable. It is 2026, but it wouldn't matter what year it was. In the past 12 months alone, 35 women have been killed and 55 children have lost their mums. I went to the funeral for Molly Ticehurst, who was tragically and brutally murdered in Forbes in April 2024. Joining me on that occasion was the Premier of New South Wales, Chris Minns, who I've got a lot of respect for; I really do. His father had died just before, and yet he went to Forbes to attend Molly's funeral. The police minister, Yasmin Catley, went with him, and I also have the utmost respect for her. The New South Wales police are under instruction that, if it is a call about domestic violence, they are to get there in double-quick time to attempt to address the issue, and they do. They've come in for a bit of unfair and undue criticism lately, but they do a fine job to protect and save lives, and to protect and save women, particularly in domestic violence situations. Domestic and family violence is the main cause of homelessness for women and children, particularly in some of those rural and remote areas and particularly in Aboriginal communities. Where do the women go to? Sometimes there is just no shelter for those for those ladies and their kids. Anything the government could do would, I'm sure, be agreed to in a bipartisan way. This absolutely must be above politics. It is a national crisis. The figures are confronting and they are unacceptable. One in three Australian women have experienced physical violence since the age of 15—one in three. That's an extraordinary figure. One in six have suffered sexual or physical abuse from a partner—as the member for Sturt said, from somebody who was supposed to love them, from somebody who lives with them and, in many cases, has done so for many, many years. One in two has been sexually harassed. It's simply not good enough. Look at the state statistics. In Western Australia, there were 40,000 offences with a restraining order breached every 44 minutes. The picture gets just as dire elsewhere. In New South Wales, police are called to a domestic violence incident not every four hours but every four minutes. In Queensland, more than 200,000 call-outs occurred last year. That figure was a marked increase on the previous 12 months. Police officers report that as much as 90 per cent of their workload is now family violence related—all but 10 per cent. That's incredible. It's getting worse, not better. In South Australia, offences are up 13 per cent, murder rates increased 69 per cent year on year. In the Northern Territory, assaults have risen 20 per cent since June 2024, and eight women have been killed. Tasmania has seen a 45 per cent jump in reports. Here in the ACT, where probably people have got a higher income per capita than anywhere else in the country, family violence assaults have increased by 12 per cent. I know we've got a cost-of-living crisis, but these figures are unacceptable. It is a national tragedy, a national scourge. I was talking to a woman who I know well, a friend of mine in Victoria, and she woke up one morning with a fellow at the end of her bed. I say a fellow, but that's too nice a term. A thug, a mongrel—call him what you will. He was out on bail, and he'd been out dozens and dozens and dozens of times. He'd got bail, he'd got out and he'd offended again. He crawled through the doggy door that the family had for their dog, their pooch. This woman—a single mum with three young kids, all school aged—managed to get out of that very touchy, delicate and dangerous situation, but what would have happened if she hadn't? She would have become the next victim. Our courts absolutely have to be tougher. I see the nods from those opposite. There is a real responsibility on the judiciary to get this right because our women deserve better than this. They do. I applaud the government for any funding initiative that's going to help women by providing more shelters or more care, whether it's in Wagga Wagga—it doesn't matter where it is—or whether it's through state governments or federal; that matters not. It needs to happen, and it needs to happen now. There should be no more silence against domestic violence. There is help available for those women who find themselves in those situations. Domestic violence simply must stop, and we, as a nation, must do better. 17:39 Mr MATT SMITH 312393 Leichhardt I thank the member for Riverina. This is an area where there aren't enough masculine voices. This is a male issue, and men need to be heard. Men need to step up and take responsibility and accountability. I'm very proud to rise today on the statement made by the Minister for Social Services as she tabled the Domestic, Family and Sexual Violence Commission yearly report to parliament. Without this data, without these opportunities to speak, silence becomes deafening, and in some cases silence is lethal. It is hard for someone to admit that they are the victim of domestic and family violence. With it can come shame and embarrassment. It breaks people down psychologically. They don't know where to turn to for help. They don't know what services might be available. They might know the statistic that the first 24 hours after a woman chooses to leave are the most dangerous in her life. Friends of mine have not made it through that 24 hours. It is a scourge. It is a national embarrassment, and it is something that every single Australian has a responsibility to address, not just women. When I go to marches and when I go to meetings, I'm outnumbered 10 to one, which is why I was so pleased to see the member for Riverina stand. It's why I'm pleased to see the member for Hunter further on the list, as well as the member for Menzies. It will be through the voices of men that we will impact the changing behaviour of men. We all—all men—have to take responsibility. The 'not all men' catchcry that rallied around for a while there—nuh-uh, all of us. There is no excuse. One in 11 men have copped to coercive control of a partner. If you have a cricket team, one of your teammates is that man. That is a frightening statistic. Those men inflict family and domestic violence on roughly 2.3 million women, a quarter of our population. There is, of course, female-to-male domestic violence as well. Some 693,000 men are a victim of this. There is no excuse. It does not matter. You're meant to love. Love is not violence. Love is not coercion. Love is not control. In the far north, we have some horrific statistics. We are overrepresented. People look. They point to different things. Is it socioeconomic? Maybe that's part of the case, but then we know that domestic violence spikes during the NRL grand final, State of Origin and Christmas, so something else is going on there as well. We have to listen to the women, but it's time we start working with the men. I attended a domestic violence seminar featuring Indigenous women from right across the cape who ran shelters and had been survivors themselves. They told some harrowing stories. One was of a woman who was so afraid she left her home in community and went and hid in the creek in the reeds with her children. That might seem like a reasonable thing to do in some parts of the country, but I know what lives in my creeks. She chose a crocodile over the man she was living with—a cold-blooded killer versus the man whose job it was to love and protect. That is the essence of what we're dealing with. Despite this, she sat, told her story and said: 'Help our men. Help our men be better. Our men are broken.' Men need to deserve that. You have to work to earn that kind of love. They want you to be better, so find a way. It's not just about shelters now. It's about finding ways to make sure that these men who are perpetrating can get the help that they need to stop it, finish it, be the men that the women in our lives want us to be. That's how domestic violence ends—when we as men become worthy of the women who love us. This is not a political issue. It's a human issue. It has been great to have cross-party support for the initiatives to make sure that the $3.9 billion for the National Access to Justice Partnership—including $800 million for family violence, the largest amount invested in Australia's history—will be delivered, and that we can deal with high-risk perpetrators by investing over $82 million to detect, monitor and intervene earlier. We must stop it before these pathways get to a place where we can't return from. I've seen where those pathways end. I've spoken to the children. I've had to donate to GoFundMes. It is not something we should ever do. Our community has a part to play in this. It can't just be speeches in this House. It can't just be the people who make running these shelters their vocation and their lives that find the funding, do the builds, offer the support, be that shoulder and give that confidence; it has to be every single one of us. If you see someone covering up harm, make sure they're okay. Have those gentle conversations to help break down those barriers and those stigmas. If you've got a mate who's displaying telltale abusive behaviours, help them change. Call them out. A dangerous thing to do is put them in a corner, because, when isolated and alone, they will lash out. Bring them back to the society that they should be a part of. Help them be better so that we can help our society be better, so that we can protect women and children. I pay particular credit to those working on the front line, supporting those impacted by domestic and family violence—often survivors themselves who have dedicated their lives to the protection of others—whether it's working in emergency housing or refuges, counselling or supporting victims and helping them rebuild their lives. I say to them: your work is invaluable, your work is life-saving and you are all heroes who deserve more recognition. To take care of someone at their lowest point is a true honour, and you guys often do it in very-low-paying jobs away from the public eye. You make Australia better. I say again that the vast majority of men are decent, but statistics tell us that those other men walk among us. It is up to us to identify them. It is up to us to help them change their behaviours. Nobody wants to be a perpetrator. Nobody wants to be a victim. But the perpetrators are the cause, and the way that we stop this is by stopping them; that may be through criminal intervention, but I'd much prefer we take care of it before it gets to that. I'm going to sound like a broken record: talk to your mates, understand the behaviours you're looking for, get them off these paths before they walk too far, make sure they are able to have those conversations and bring them back to where they need to be, and we will save lives. Ultimately, that is what we should be doing and that is what we should hope for. Domestic violence will continue to have a devastating impact on communities right through my electorate and right through Australia until we all as a nation stand up and say, 'Enough.' When I go to rallies and it is a fifty-fifty split of men and women, and when men start taking this seriously as a men's issue being perpetrated on women, that is when change will come. I hope to be part of that change. I hope that, through my actions and through my work, I'm able to divert some of these men. I hope that young kids, through my work with them, can role-model a way of life. And I hope that next year, when we're having these conversations, there is a very different outcome for a lot of Australia's women. 17:49 Ms STEGGALL 175696 Warringah The Domestic, Family and Sexual Violence Commission's yearly report to parliament is a sobering reminder that, while Australia has plans and strategies, we are still failing to deliver the safety and protection that women and children deserve. Domestic and family violence remains a national emergency, and we are still not seeing a mobilisation of resources and decision-making by government as it does for other issues. One woman is murdered every week in Australia, and, sadly, children are too, though not quite at the same rate. Some 2.3 million Australian women have experienced violence from an intimate partner. Nearly 60 per cent of women who are now single mothers have experienced partner violence. So, yes, Australian women are angry. I'm one of them. The commission is clear. We must move beyond fragmented responses and embrace coordinated, accountable delivery. The report sets out priority actions for the seven years remaining in the National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children—only seven years for that plan; remember that. We need prevention beginning in childhood and stronger implementation mechanisms, and we must strengthen the commission itself so we can gather the information needed to monitor progress and outcomes. If not, it is only words; that plan will not deliver its stated outcome. It's what I've been saying in this parliament since my maiden speech in 2019. Domestic violence is a major health and safety crisis, and we must treat it with the urgency that it demands. In Warringah, the electorate has five women's shelters. They are staffed by extraordinary people who show up every day to protect women and children. Last year, I convened a domestic and family violence roundtable with frontline organisations, and we heard from the Northern Beaches Women's Shelter, Mary's House, Women & Children First, the Women's Resilience Centre, Dalwood Spilstead, LocalKind and St Vincent de Paul. Despite different service models, they all described the same problem—women and children are waiting too long for help and in the most dangerous moment, which is when they're trying to leave. They are often having to be waitlisted. Police in our area tell me domestic and family violence is their most frequent call-out. In Warringah alone, more than 450 domestic and family violence assaults were reported last year. The Northern Beaches Women's Shelter has faced demand from more than 70 women per day, most of whom have had to be turned away because they don't have the capacity. So this yearly report reinforces all of those statistics on a national front. Our systems remain fragmented, too often underresourced, and the result is predictable harm. In Australia, one in four women has experienced intimate partner violence since the age of 15. Almost half of all women hospitalised for assault were injured by someone they knew or trusted. That is the most astounding statistic. And 39 per cent of people accessing homelessness services are there because of domestic and family violence. At the end of 2025, we saw an increase in the number of sexual assaults reported to police and a 14 per cent increase of women experiencing economic abuse. We're now also seeing evolving threats—technology facilitated abuse, nudify apps, stalking tools, deepfakes and the rise of the online 'manosphere', radicalising boys and young men with misogyny. While investments have increased, we cannot confuse expenditure with effectiveness. As I've said before in this place, it's not good enough to say, 'But we've spent record amounts,' or, 'We've spent more than the other side,' if the dial is not shifting in terms of outcomes. The commission highlights critical insights that must guide our next steps. Firstly, prevention must begin in childhood. We need respectful-relationships education early and emotional literacy. Education at universities matters too. Programs like Consent Labs play a really important role in creating change. Secondly, we must embed lived experience and centre the voices of those who have been most impacted in that decision-making. That includes having things like a youth advisory council. It means co-designing with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women, people with disability, multicultural communities and LGBTQIA+ people. Thirdly, the commission highlights how disconnected our social services and institutions are. Family law, child protection, police, health and housing are all systems that intersect in the lives of victims-survivors, yet too often they operate in isolation, in their own silos. The commission calls for coordinated implementation and delivery mechanisms across government, across all those services. The insights align with reforms that I've been consistently advocating for in this parliament and previously, including increasing and sustaining the funding for frontline services, so the capacity of these services aligns with the community need. We are still so far from the actual need. They include a national domestic violence offender register to support a disclosure scheme similar to Clare's Law; stronger, nationally consistent approaches to sentencing; AVO enforcement; and appropriate electronic monitoring for high-risk offenders. We take a preventive approach when it comes to terrorism. Why are we not taking a preventive approach when it comes to this domestic terrorism of women? It has to be shifted; the dial has to shift in this way. The reforms also include a major uplift in safe, affordable housing options for women and children fleeing violence. Of course, at the moment, too often they have to choose between safety and poverty, so unfortunately stay in unsafe environments. They include fixing systems that enable economic abuse and coercive control, including the broken child support system and the weaponisation of administrative processes. The government is complicit currently under the child support system with coercive economic control of single parents. They include a focus on prevention, including early intervention programs for men and boys and support for services like the Man Cave and Mentoring Men. Despite many submissions, they're being forced to downscale their operations because they have funding shortfalls, and I don't hold much hope that they are going to be funded in the upcoming budget. I really hope I am wrong. We must address these key drivers. I've repeatedly backed calls for a ban on gambling advertising and far stronger regulation of alcohol. The evidence is so clear that alcohol and gambling ads fuel violence. We know that incidents of domestic violence spike by 40 per cent during major sporting events. If the government are serious about prevention—and members of government have made great speeches here—then they have to act on the obvious drivers. We cannot continue to have gambling advertising peppered through our system that is leading to this crisis getting worse and impacting young men. We know alcohol is such a massive driver, but it's clear this government is still, I would argue, captured by big business and vested interests because, despite clear guidelines, we are not prioritising the recommendations of the Murphy report and banning gambling advertising, for example. The commission makes many recommendations, but it lacks the power needed to really hold the government and states and territories to account. Without the power to compel information from consistent public reporting, it's hard to genuinely hold government to account. I've been calling for a royal commission into domestic violence and femicide because we see, for so many other issues, that it elevates the issue to an area of significance. It sends a clear signal that this is a priority for the government. Instead, what we're seeing is a mixed response. I'm told a far-reaching inquiry can compel evidence across agencies and jurisdictions and expose where systems are failing, where funding is not reaching the front line and how perpetrators exploit loopholes in our system. I believe strongly that a royal commission would elevate this crisis to a national priority alongside other issues examined by royal commissions. The commission itself can also be strengthened as a statutory authority with expanded powers to gather timely information, data and evidence. We also have to fix the issue of data on this issue. It's insane that we still don't have clear data across our country. The commission points to the need for better monitoring, review mechanisms and transparent public reporting. Right now, we don't even have longitudinal data to understand the complexity of intimate partner violence over time. Of the 131 measures tracked under the current national plan, only 32 per cent currently have a data source. So how are we even going to know that the other measures are on track? Without robust, widely available data, we can't accurately measure the promised outcomes of the national plan. We have to confront systems abuse. Child support, tax, family law processes—too often they are used as tools for coercion and control. Women should not have to enter dangerous conflict situations to receive payments or entitlements to take care of children. So, whilst there is some progress, there is so much more to be done on this issue. 17:59 Ms FRANCE 270198 Dickson I rise to make a statement on the Domestic, Family and Sexual Violence Commission's yearly report to parliament. Gender based violence impacts one in three Australian women in their lifetime. One in six have survived sexual and physical violence. Women with a disability over the age of 15 are three times more likely than women without a disability or men with a disability to have experienced intimate partner violence. These are not just numbers; they represent lives shattered. The impacts of domestic violence ripple through communities, impacting families, children and friends. I recently met Lauren in Petrie in my electorate. Lauren bravely told me about her experience of domestic and family violence and the devastating impact of her partner harming her beautiful newborn baby at just three months old. She spoke of the heartbreak and the guilt but also of the shame and the judgement she felt as a result of interactions with police and hospital staff, how she became homeless as a result of the abuse, the court battles she fought and the decade-long impact on her life and the lives of all those around her. We all know in this place that her story is not unique. Since being elected to this place, I have sat with many women in my community who are struggling with the impacts of domestic violence. Even if they manage to leave their abusive partners, they still experience abuse, coercive control and financial manipulation by government and court systems. Lauren said something that has stayed with me: 'The shame I felt was indescribable.' No woman should ever have to feel that way for seeking help. In her report, the commissioner expresses a clear sense of urgency, and this government shares that urgency. We have been relentless in our efforts to address gender based violence. Since coming to government, Labor has invested more than any Australian government ever—more than $4 billion in frontline services and preventive programs, as well as providing $3.9 billion in support for frontline legal assistance services. We've made the $5,000 leaving violence payment permanent, providing support for women leaving violence. Over 100,000 people have accessed this payment. We're investing $1.2 billion in emergency and transitional housing, and we've legislated 10 days of domestic violence leave. We are supporting essential frontline services with $700 million in new match funding with the states and territories to support women and children at risk to reach safety. We're investing over $81 million to support children who are trying to heal, expanding services like child-specific counselling. We're investing over $21 million to expand trauma informed legal services and pilot new services to help victims of sexual violence navigate the justice system. We're investing over $82 million to detect, monitor and intervene earlier with high-risk and serial domestic violence offenders. We have reformed the family law system so that it is safer, simpler and more accessible. Financial abuse is often hidden and unseen. Often it is a big reason why women feel it is impossible to leave an abusive relationship. Now, it's harder for perpetrators to use the social security system to leave survivors with tens of thousands of dollars in debt. That reduces the barriers to women and children leaving violent relationships. We recently released 'Our Ways—Strong Ways—Our Voices', the first ever national Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander plan to end family, domestic and sexual violence. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women are seven times more likely to be the victims of intimate partner homicide and 27 times more likely than non-Indigenous women to be hospitalised due to family violence. On the international day for the prevention of family, domestic and sexual violence, the Albanese Labor government announced a 40 per cent funding increase to the 1800RESPECT line, a 24-hour sexual assault, family and domestic violence counselling line for any and all Australians. Last financial year, 1800RESPECT received a whopping 342,000 calls, video calls, online chats and texts. Today Minister Plibersek and Assistant Minister Kearney announced a 72 per cent funding boost for our frontline family, domestic and sexual violence workforce. The Albanese Labor government will invest $291.7 million for the next phase of the 500 Workers Initiative, supporting the workforce and recognising the specialist skills and expertise they have to support women and children fleeing violence. Frontline workers are often the first, most trusted point of contact for victims-survivors. By investing in them, we're investing in the safety of every woman and child they reach. We are working to adapt to new challenges, We're addressing the impact of online harms through our social media ban and by restricting access to predatory technologies like nudify apps and undetectable stalking tools. While we have put decades of work into fighting domestic and family violence, it never seems to be enough, which is just gutting for gen Xers like me. Some of us feel that our hard-fought changes in this space are being eroded and that antifemale, gender biased, misogynistic talk is on the rise. The key messages and lines of the manosphere online are seeping into the relationships of our young people—undermining women's rights, reducing social barriers to abuse and promoting rigid traditional ideas of masculinity. Women are still dying—58 women in 2025. Women are still fighting to keep their children and themselves alive. This year, so far, eight women have died at the hands of a partner or former partner. Eight women have been failed by the systems that were supposed to protect them and their families. It's just not good enough; it's devastating. We will keep adapting to emerging challenges. We will work even harder to help women and children to reach safety and heal. We will better support children to recover and thrive. We will prioritise the most effective ways to change the behaviour of men who use violence. And, as we continue steadfast in our commitment, we will listen to the voices of survivors, seek guidance from experts and be informed by evidence, because everyone deserves to live without fear of violence. I want to thank the commissioner and the team for their hard work towards addressing and ending violence against women and children in all its forms, and I really want to acknowledge our amazing Labor women's caucus, led by Ministers Gallagher and Plibersek and Assistant Ministers Kearney and White. Thank you for all of your work in this space. 18:07 Ms BELYEA 309484 Dunkley I share with the House the vital work contained in the yearly report of the Domestic, Family and Sexual Violence Commission. Too many Australians have felt the deep and lasting impact of gender based violence: mothers, sisters, daughters, sons, colleagues, neighbours and friends. Violence does not discriminate. It cuts across suburbs, incomes, cultures and generations. Tragically, in Dunkley we know this reality all too well. My electorate carries some of the highest rates of domestic, family and sexual violence in the country, and that is why I set up the Women's Spirit Project to support women to heal and recover from such trauma. I want to begin by acknowledging the victims and survivors of domestic, family and sexual violence. I want to acknowledge their pain, their grief, their strength and their determination to rebuild their lives in the face of unimaginable trauma. For many, walking through the doors of a refuge, a police station or a courtroom, or reaching out to a friend, is an act of enormous courage. I honour every single person who has done that and every person who is still trying to find the strength to do it today. In 2022 the Albanese Labor government launched the National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children, a coordinated whole-of-nation effort bringing together the Commonwealth, every state and territory, frontline services experts and, most importantly, victims-survivors. The plan was launched because too many lives were being lost, too many children were growing up in fear and too many women were being failed by systems meant to protect them. In 2024, one woman was killed every eight days due to domestic and family violence. In 2025, 74 women were killed by a partner or former partner. These are not statistics; they are women whose lives were cut short and who should still be here. The reality remains stark. One in four women has experienced violence from an intimate partner since the age of 15. One in five women has been the victim of sexual violence. These figures represent real people—people with families, dreams, careers and lives that have been irrevocably changed forever. They demand not only our attention but our action. Last year, the commission's report was presented by Minister Plibersek with the strong support of the Attorney-General, Minister Rowland, and Assistant Minister Kearney. A critical outcome of this report is the announcement of the inquiry into domestic, family and sexual violence related suicide. I spoke in the chamber in November last year to express my support for this inquiry. My support is grounded not just in my work over decades in the sector but in my own lived experience of domestic and family violence. I have known the fear, the confusion and the deep shame that can suffocate a person until they believe they have no way out. If we fail to understand the link between gender based violence and suicide, then we fail those who most need our help. The Albanese Labor government recognises this and is acting decisively. We have been persistent and consistent, taking the most significant suite of actions any government in our nation's history has taken to address gender based violence. We introduced leaving violence payments to support people escaping unsafe situations, recognising that financial control is often one of the strongest tools used by abusers to trap victims. We have committed $4 billion to tackling violence against women. That investment reflects our strong belief that safety is not optional; it is fundamental. We are also responding to the rise in digital abuse. Under the leadership of the Attorney-General and the Minister for Communications, Australia is now taking global leadership in reducing online harms, restricting dangerous technologies such as nudify apps and covert tracking devices, strengthening protections for young people online and backing measures that hold platforms to account for enabling abuse. In 2024, the Prime Minister convened an urgent National Cabinet focused solely on gender based violence. That sent a clear message. This is not a women's issue. This is not a private issue. This is a national crisis, and every level of government must respond with urgency. As part of this investment, we have delivered $700 million in matching funding with the states and territories to improve frontline services, so when a woman makes the decision to flee, she is met not with a waiting list but with a safe place to go. We are investing $21 million to expand trauma informed specialist legal services and pilot new victim navigator roles to help those experiencing sexual violence find their way through complex legal systems. Through the National Access to Justice Partnership, the government has committed $3.9 billion, including $800 million specifically for family violence legal services. We are also strengthening the response to high-risk offenders, with $82 million to better detect, monitor and intervene in the behaviours of serial domestic violence perpetrators, because we know a small cohort of men commit the most serious and repeated harm. Because children are too often invisible victims of domestic violence, we are investing $81 million to expand child focused counselling and recovery programs. Every child deserves a childhood. Every child deserves to feel safe. We must also confront the painful truth that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women face higher rates of violence. They are 33 times more likely to be hospitalised due to family violence and up to seven times more likely to be killed. This is unacceptable. It is heartbreaking and it is preventable. That is why we are finalising 'Our Ways—Strong Ways—Our Voices', the first standalone national plan designed by and for First Nations people to end domestic, family and sexual violence. Its strength lies in its cultural authority and in its grounding in community led solutions. Today was yet another milestone by this government, delivering a 72 per cent boost for our frontline family, domestic and sexual violence workforce and an additional $291 million for the next phase of the 500 Workers Initiative. This funding will ensure the sustainability and security of critical workforce and recognises the specialist skills and expertise needed for women and children fleeing violence. As the Minister for Social Services affirmed today, these workers are a vital part of our response to domestic and sexual violence. They are at the front line, saving lives every day. We also know that, for many victims, the risk of suicide is heightened by fear, isolation, financial stress and trauma—by feeling trapped in situations where every option seems unsafe. This national inquiry helps us better understand these risks and build pathways that save lives. No-one should feel unsafe—not at home, not at work, not at school, not on campus, not anywhere. Ending gender based violence will require men and boys to play a central role. As Minister Plibersek has said, it is going to take the leadership of men to help turn these numbers around. The commission has seven years remaining in its mandate to support the National Plan to End Violence Against Women and Children. Its annual report and the new suicide inquiry represent ongoing and essential steps in our national commitment to confronting and ending gender based violence. Every person deserves to live free from fear. Every child deserves a safe home. Every survivor deserves justice, support and hope. That is the Australia we are working to build, and we will not stop until we achieve it. 18:17 Ms MASCARENHAS 298800 Swan I rise to make a statement on the significant matters arising from the Domestic, Family and Sexual Violence Commission's yearly report to the parliament. I want to acknowledge the commissioner and her team for work that is evidence based and grounded in the experience of victims-survivors. I recognise that this is a really challenging topic and that this continues to be a national crisis. The thing that I think is fascinating about this topic is that it is rare to have a conversation with a woman that has not been directly affected or had a close friend or family member that's been affected. This is something that is really grounded in the first experience of many people here. I'm really proud to be a part of a federal government that listens and acts and backs women. We are standing up for vulnerable women, and we will continue to do that because our goal is to end all forms of domestic, family and sexual violence. A significant matter raised in this report is the scale of the challenge and the need for sustained and coordinated action. Since the national plan was launched in 2022, the Australian government has invested over $4 billion in women's safety initiatives. Safety must be practical, not theoretical. I'd also say that financial insecurity is a major barrier to leaving violence, and that is why making the Leaving Violence Program permanent matters. I remember speaking to a woman who was in the process of leaving their partner. As a schoolteacher in some states, if you don't work on the last day of the school term, you don't get paid for your two weeks of school holidays. So this person was going through this traumatic break-up and did not know that this domestic violence leave was available. She made it to the last day of the school term and then had a conversation with her principal before she almost broke down. That was a barrier, and the thing that we have to continue to do as a government is look at the barriers that exist for women to ensure that they can leave relationships. For all the barriers that we lower, we have to continue to do that. The program enables eligible victims-survivors with up to $5,000 in assistance, alongside safety planning and referral pathways. We must back frontline services. The renewed National Partnership Agreement on Family, Domestic and Sexual Violence responses will deliver over $700 million in new, matched investment across the Commonwealth, states and territories to support frontline services. This includes specialist services for women and children and men's behaviour change programs. This matters because a plan on paper is not enough if a person can't get timely help when they reach out. Harrowingly, as we explored the role of financial abuse as a form of gender based violence, the link between domestic, family and sexual violence and suicide came into view, and we heard devastating stories like Molly Wilkes. Molly experienced severe emotional and sexual abuse. She had tried to leave her perpetrator six times since they married, and the last three times were in the last five months of her life. Tragically, Molly committed suicide. What is particularly shocking about this form of domestic violence is that even death does not stop perpetrators from continuing to abuse you. The perpetrator was successful in getting Molly's superannuation, which was pretty shocking. That's something that Julie Adams, her mother, fought about, and this is something that this government is continuing to work on. I also welcome the House Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs inquiry into the relationship between domestic, family and sexual violence and suicide. Domestic violence related suicide numbers are not understood very well within our communities. There have been some reports and studies done in the past, including in WA, and, for every woman that is murdered at the hands of a perpetrator, there are many more that commit suicide because of the emotional and physical abuse that they have experienced. I think that this is a really important area, and I hope that this inquiry sheds some light into this issue. Fundamentally, we need better data, better systems and better prevention, because one death is too many. Financial abuse, as an aspect of this, is something that I have seen and investigated through the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services. Financial abuse is insidious and often hidden and has devastating long-term impacts. The ABS reports that 16 per cent of women and almost eight per cent of men have experienced partner economic abuse since the age of 15. Victims-survivors and experts have also told us that economic abuse can occur within and through government systems. That is why it's significant that the government commenced consultation on options to combat financial abuse perpetrated through coerced directorships, where perpetrators can use corporate and tax settings to saddle victims-survivors with liabilities. The consultation canvasses options to strengthen consent and removal processes for directors, expand relevant defences, improve responses for director penalty notices and set up safe mechanisms to hold perpetrators to account. We acknowledge the progress, but we also acknowledge that it's not enough, and this is why continued reform is important through the second action plan. Victims-survivors' voices are important, and we need to continue to work on evidence based policy. We also need to make sure that we continue to look at things like stopping serial perpetrators, supporting children's recovery and adapting to emerging threats. This report will sharpen our resolve, and the thing that I think is particularly fascinating about this issue is protective behaviours. As a mother that has a son and a daughter, protective behaviours is one of the things that I teach my children. I recognise that one of my children is statistically more likely to be a victim compared to my other child, and that's based on gender. I recognise that there are things we can do in our family household unit, but to achieve the change we need to see I recognise that we need local, state and federal governments and communities working together—to make sure that we stop and end family domestic violence. 18:25 Mr NG 316052 Menzies I rise today to speak about the vital work that is occurring across our country to prevent and respond to the national crisis that is domestic, family and sexual violence. Late last year, Domestic, Family and Sexual Violence Commissioner Micaela Cronin tabled her annual report in this parliament. This report is an important reminder that we must maintain our commitment to making sure every woman and child in our community is safe and our commitment to breaking the cycle of violence that shatters families, lives and communities. We know that still too many women and children are being killed or experiencing lifelong physical and psychological harm from people who should be loving and protecting them. Too many men are making the choice to use violence. Every eight days, a woman is killed by a man's use of violence, almost always a man she knows. This commissioner's 2025 annual report provided a timely update of the progress we've made through the leadership and collective efforts of governments, frontline services and communities, but it's also a reminder of how far we have to go. The Albanese Labor government's leadership on this issue has driven collective action across our country that is essential for success. Our government has matched our commitment to ending this epidemic within a generation by investing more than $4 billion since 2022, the most of any government in history. We have committed $1.2 billion for crisis and transitional housing. Too often, women cannot leave a family violence situation because they feel they must make a choice between an unsafe home for themselves and their children, and no home at all. This funding ensures this happens less of the time. We have made the leaving family violence payment permanent so that more people have access to financial support to escape violence. We have delivered 10 days of paid domestic violence leave. We are protecting more women from attempts to use government support to inflict financial abuse, and we have ensured that community legal centres are given the resources they need to support women and children. I have volunteered at community legal centres in the past, giving me an understanding of how vital they are in helping women obtain and enforce intervention orders, manage criminal proceedings and navigate the complex web of legal issues that arise when leaving a family violence situation. In my electorate, Eastern Community Legal Services provide this vital support day in, day out, helping people in Menzies and across Melbourne's east to deal with one of the most difficult times in their lives. We are investing in evidence based interventions that change the way we think about how we respond to those using violence and how we help victims-survivors to heal. Unfortunately, as the commissioner's report notes, we must do much more to end violence against women and children. Within my electorate of Menzies, I see almost daily the significant impact that those choices have across our community. We have services from Doncaster to Blackburn, Box Hill and Warrandyte that dedicate themselves day in, day out to supporting people affected by family and sexual violence, frontline services like the dedicated team at Box Hill Orange Door and other specialist family violence services. Doncare in Doncaster, which are near my electorate office, provide a unique locally based model that delivers low-cost counselling, and their innovative dawn mentoring and volunteering program provides long-term support for women recovering from family violence through mentoring. This is a unique program that focuses on recovery, and I'm grateful to Assistant Minister for Social Services Ged Kearney for visiting Doncare with me to hear about the fantastic work that they do. The reality is this problem is so endemic and widespread that it touches every community service in Menzies because of the numerous ways in which it affects people's daily lives. Health and disability services like Access Health and Community, healthAbility, the Family Action Network, Doncare, local neighbourhood houses and Box Hill Rotary are all working to keep families safe. I am proud to be part of a community that takes seriously our collective responsibility to call out and address this violence and support women and children to be safe. There is no place, suburb, community or city where gender based violence doesn't exist. Given this, it is on all of us to do our bit to demand better and bring about change. Today this government made an additional announcement to strengthen the frontline workforce to help combat this scourge. The Albanese Labor government has announced a 72 per cent funding boost to our frontline family, domestic and sexual violence workforce. Without this critical and specialised workforce, there is no way for us to effectively combat family violence and keep people safe. They are the people who are the most trusted and qualified to assist victims-survivors to navigate complicated and dangerous situations, which is why we will continue to support them through our commitment to deliver 500 additional frontline workers across Australia. Continuing our government's leadership, Minister Plibersek last year announced an inquiry into domestic, family and sexual violence related suicide, to be conducted by the House Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs, of which I am privileged to be a member. This inquiry will be critical to progressing our understanding of the ways in which gender based violence impacts on victims-survivors and those around them. Briefings for the committee are underway, and public hearings have been scheduled. I look forward to doing my part in understanding this important work. The lived experience of victims-survivors must be the foundation of any reform. Too often, victims-survivors have had laws and policy made about them without their input or perspective. This leads to less effective policy and programs that don't work for the people they are meant to serve. It leads to disempowerment and disenfranchisement. Regularly in Menzies my staff and I speak with victims-survivors who know firsthand how fragmented and difficult to navigate services can be. They know there is no quick fix and that policy solutions have unintended consequences that can be a matter of life and death. As a government, we believe we need to empower those affected by family violence to not just survive but thrive. This doesn't happen without centring their experience and understanding. That's why I'm so pleased that the Domestic, Family and Sexual Violence Commissioner has highlighted this as a key priority as we move forward in delivering the national plan. The commissioner's Lived Experience Advisory Council will lead the development of an engagement framework and toolkit that will help inform best-practice approaches across the country. In addition, we are establishing a DFSVC youth advisory council to embed young voices in planning and to help make sure that voices are heard. Ending family violence in a generation will require the whole of society to be working together, and we must acknowledge that gender based violence is not just a women's issue; it is a men's issue. The vast majority of family and sexual violence is committed by men. It is vital that men speak up to condemn this violence, call out bad behaviour and encourage others to be better. Men need to call out disrespect and misogyny with their mates, with their colleagues at the pub and on the footy field. Men need to show their children, their peers and their community what respectful relationships look like. This is not about demonising all men; it's about making sure we recognise the problem and support people to make better choices. I'd like to acknowledge the amazing work of Professor Kate Fitz-Gibbon from Monash University and Matt Tyler, executive director of the Men's Project, at Jesuit Social Services. In November last year, I met with Kate and Matt and heard about their work on The Man Box and The Adolescent Man Box, which examine how adolescents perceive and enforce damaging and traditional stereotypes around masculinity. These man-box rules say that vulnerability is a negative thing and that to appear manly by putting others down and maintaining stereotypical gender roles is the only way to be a man. The Man Box survey also reminds us of the reality that many perpetrators of abuse are also victims of abuse themselves. This groundbreaking research helps give us a road map to effective interventions to help break these cycles of intergenerational abuse and trauma. This is about creating a better future for both women and men. I will continue to take every opportunity I can to use my voice to call out gendered violence. I am proud to be part of this Labor government, which has invested more in tackling this violence than any other government in history. I am proud to be part of a government that is committed to ending family and domestic violence in a generation, and I am proud to support the work of the frontline services in my electorate of Menzies that are working to protect vulnerable people every single day. 18:35 Mr REPACHOLI 298840 Hunter I rise today to speak on a matter that is confronting, urgent and unavoidable. I speak as a man, as a father, as a representative of my community in the Hunter and as Special Envoy for Men's Health. Today I acknowledge the women, the men and the children who lost their lives to domestic, family and sexual violence. I acknowledge the survivors, who live with the trauma every single day. I acknowledge the families, who carry grief that never fully leaves them. If we are serious about ending domestic, family and sexual violence, men must be part of this conversation—not on the sidelines, not defensively and not pointing fingers somewhere else. Men must stand up, take responsibility and do the work. Real change happens when men are willing to look honestly at themselves and say, 'The violence must stop.' As the Special Envoy for Men's Health, I've been working with the Domestic, Family and Sexual Violence Commissioner. It's great to have an opportunity to speak on the yearly report. I want to thank Commissioner Micaela Cronin, her team and the Lived Experience Advisory Council for their rigorous work, their honesty and the insistence that we move beyond words into action. This report makes one thing painfully clear. We do not lack evidence, recommendations or an understanding of what works. What we lack is speed, scale and the courage to change behaviours that have been normalised for way too long. From a men's health perspective, this matters deeply. Violence is not only a justice issue and a safety issue; it is a men's health issue. Because violence is learned, violence is reinforced and violence is repeated. And violence destroys lives on every side of the equation. The report tells us that nearly one in three men self-report having used some form of violence against an intimate partner in adulthood. That statistic should stop every man in this Chamber in their tracks. It stopped me when I first read it because behind that number are real people, real harm and real consequences that unfortunately last a lifetime. The truth is this: the reality is that the overwhelming majority of domestic, family and sexual violence is committed by men. Until men are willing to confront that reality honestly, we will never break this cycle. But here is the other truth: men are also capable of change. Men can be protective, respectful, caring partners and fathers. Men can model healthy relationships. Men can actually ask for help. Men can learn new ways of dealing with anger, fear, shame and stress. That is where men's health intersects directly with violence prevention. For generations we have taught boys that strength means silence, that emotions are weakness, that asking for help is a failure and that control equals masculinity. Those messages do real damage. They damage mental health, they damage relationships and, in the worst cases, they escalate into violence. The commissioner's report is clear that prevention must begin in childhood. That means teaching emotional literacy alongside literacy and numeracy. It means helping boys understand their feelings, communicate safely and build respectful relationships from the very start. It means breaking the intergenerational cycle before it hardens into behaviours. The evidence is powerful. Men who grow up with positive father figures who show affection are almost 50 per cent less likely to use violence as adults. That is not a soft statistic; that is a road map. This is why engaging men and boys is not optional; it is essential. The report calls for a national coordinated approach to healthy masculinities, and I could not agree more. Healthy masculinity is not about taking something away from men; it is about giving men better tools—tools to manage stress, tools to regulate emotions and tools to be better partners, fathers and mates. When we invest in men's mental health, early intervention and behavioural change programs, we are not excusing violence; we are preventing it. The report also shines a harsh light on the role of technology in modern abuse. Coercive control no longer stops at the front door; it follows people through phones, apps, smart devices and other online spaces. Young men are being targeted by online misogyny and radicalisation that feeds resentment, entitlement and dominance. If we do not meet that challenge head-on, we will be dealing with the consequences of this for decades. That is why action on online harms matters. That is why restricting predatory technologies matters. That is why teaching digital respect and accountability matters. Through a men's health lens, I want to speak directly about seeking help. Too many men wait until they're in crisis before they reach out for help. Too many men bottle things up until the pressure turns into explosion. That pattern is dangerous not just for men themselves but for all the people around them. The report acknowledges that many men who use violence have experienced trauma themselves. That does not excuse their behaviour, but it tells us something important: if we intervene early, if we support men before harm occurs, we can stop violence before it starts. That is why programs that work with men who have used violence must be properly resourced, evidence based and held to national standards—not tick-a-box courses, not short-term fixes but real programs that challenge beliefs, build accountability and support long-term change. At the same time, we must never lose sight of the victims and the survivors. Women, men and children must always feel safe. Holding those who use violence accountable and keeping victims safe are not competing priorities; they are inseparable. The report makes clear that children are not silent witnesses; they are direct victims. Exposure to violence shapes brain development, mental health, education outcomes and future relationships. If we want to stop violence in one generation, as the national plan commits us to doing, then protecting and supporting children must be central to every decision. I acknowledge Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women and communities who experience violence at profoundly disproportionate rates. The report rightly calls for shared decision-making, long-term investment in community controlled organisations and listening to voices that have been ignored for far too long. From a men's health perspective, supporting Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander men through culturally safe and healing programs is crucial. Healing men heals families. Healing families heals communities. This report is not a comfortable read, nor should it be. It is a call to action. It tells us that instrumental change is not enough. It tells us that coordination, accountability and urgency matter. It tells us that engaging men and boys is not a side issue; it is central. I speak directly to the men watching or listening to this debate: strength is not control. Strength is accountability. Strength is knowing when to step back. Strength is asking for help before you hurt somebody you love. Strength is breaking patterns that you inherit but refuse to pass on to others. If you are struggling, reach out. If you are angry, talk to somebody. If you are scared of what you might do, go get help now because real strength is choosing not to cause harm. As a parliament, we have a responsibility to act, to implement the commissioner's recommendations, to find what works, to hold systems accountable and to lead a cultural shift that says violence is never acceptable, never inevitable and never someone else's problem. I also want to be clear that this work cannot only sit with governments or services. It must reach workplaces, sporting clubs, schools, sheds, kitchens across this country—the places where men spend their time, where attitudes are shaped, where behaviour is either challenged or quietly accepted. Every coach, every employer, every mate has a role to play in calling out harmful behaviour and backing healthier ways forward. Cultural change does not happen in policy documents alone; it happens in everyday moments when respect is modelled, violence is rejected and silence is broken. I support the tabling of this report. I support its urgency and I commit to continuing this work through the lens of men's health because healthier men means safer women, safer men, safer children and stronger communities. We owe it to the next generation to do better than the last, we owe it to survivors to turn evidence into action, and we owe it to ourselves to be brave enough to change. I commend this report to the House. Federation Chamber adjourned at 18 : 45