I present an authority I have received from Her Excellency the Governor-General authorising me to administer to members the oath or affirmation of allegiance.

I present report No. 35 of the Selection Committee, relating to the consideration of committee and delegation business and private members' business on Monday 7 April 2025. The report will be printed in the Hansard for today, and the committee's determinations will appear on tomorrow's Notice Paper. Copies of the report have been placed on the table.

The report read as follows—

Report relating to the consideration of committee and delegation business and of private Members' business

1. The Committee met in private session on Tuesday, 25 March 2025.

2. The Committee deliberated on items of committee and delegation business that had been notified, private Members' business items listed on the Notice Paper and notices lodged on Tuesday, 25 March 2025, and determined the order of precedence and times on Monday, 7 April 2025, as follows:

Items for House of Representatives Chamber (10.10 am to 12 noon)

PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS

Notices

1 MR BANDT: To present a Bill for an Act to provide that major emitters of greenhouse gases are liable for climate change damage that occurs in Australia, and for related purposes. (Liability for Climate Change Damage (Make the Polluters Pay) Bill 2025)

(Notice given 25 March 2025.)

Presenter may speak to the second reading for a period not exceeding 10 minutes pursuant to standing order 41. Debate must be adjourned pursuant to standing order 142.

2 MS TINK: To move:

That this House:

(1) notes that:

(a) at three years, Australia's Commonwealth Parliament has one of the shortest parliamentary terms in the world;

(b) three years is an insufficient period for any government to effect meaningful change as the business of the House is curtailed, being sandwiched between post-election organisation and planning, and pre-election campaigning;

(c) the short period of effective governance reduces the efficiency of the House and is not in the public interest; and

(d) Australian states and territories have already moved to four-year terms;

(2) acknowledges that extending the parliamentary term has in principle bipartisan support; and

(3) calls on the 48th Parliament to immediately put this to a referendum.

(Notice given 25 March 2025.)

Time allotted 20 minutes.

Speech time limits

Ms Tink 5 minutes.

Other Members 5 minutes each.

[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 4 x 5 mins]

The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.

3 MS CHESTERS: To move:

That this House:

(1) acknowledges the Government's commitment to strengthen Medicare by delivering:

(a) more bulk-billing for all Australians by expanding the bulk-billing incentive;

(b) even cheaper medicines by lowering the maximum Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme co-payment to $25; and

(c) 50 new Medicare Urgent Care clinics, on top of the 87 already opened;

(2) recognises this stark contrast to the Opposition, which:

(a) tried to end-bulk billing with a tax on every General Practitioner visit when in government;

(b) voted against cheaper medicines; and

(c) called Medicare Urgent Care Clinics wasteful spending;

(3) notes the Leader of the Opposition's comments that 'the best indicator is past performance', when he as health minister:

(a) handed down a budget that cut $50 billion from public hospitals;

(b) tried to end bulk billing and make Australians pay for treatment in emergency departments; and

(c) was voted the worst health minister in the history of Medicare by Australian doctors; and

(4) further acknowledges that the only way to strengthen Medicare is having a Labor-led Government.

(Notice given 25 March 2025.)

Time allotted 40 minutes.

Speech time limits

Ms Chesters 5 minutes.

Other Members 5 minutes each.

[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins]

The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.

Orders of the day

1 SMALL BUSINESSES: Resumption of debate (from 25 November 2024) on the motion of Mr van Manen—That this House:

(1) notes that small businesses are struggling under the:

(a) burden of the Government's cost of living crisis; and

(b) weight of the Government's additional administrative red tape;

(2) acknowledges that according to the Australian Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman:

(a) conditions for small business:

(i) have deteriorated by 3.5 per cent; and

(ii) continue to be well below the long-term average;

(b) the operating environment for business has been in decline for the past two years with rising concerns about regulations, increased costs and slowing demand; and

(c) fewer people are considering starting a small business and businesses are less likely to invest in expansion; and

(3) calls on the Government to address its failure to support small business, the backbone of Australia's economy.

Time allotted remaining private Members' business time prior to 12 noon.

Speech time limits

All Members 5 minutes each.

[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins]

The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.

Items for Federation Chamber (11 am to 1.30 pm)

PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS

Notices

1 MS SHARKIE: To move:

That this House:

(1) notes that:

(a) house insurance premiums are increasing above the inflation rate, more than 100 per cent in many instances;

(b) many postcodes have been deemed uninsurable by insurance companies with little or no evidence of increased or increasing risk;

(c) insurance premiums for many businesses are also increasing above the inflation rate resulting in some businesses being forced to close;

(d) increases in insurance premiums are adding to existing historically high cost of living pressures; and

(e) regional areas are disproportionately affected by increasing insurance premiums; and

(2) calls on the Government to:

(a) consider the broader implications on household budgets and businesses of insurance premium increases above the inflation rate;

(b) establish an inquiry into the insurance sector to determine fair pricing mechanisms are setting premiums; and

(c) consider underwriting premiums as a last resort for postcodes deemed uninsurable or experiencing insurance premium increases greater than 50 per cent.

(Notice given 7 November 2024.)

Time allotted 20 minutes.

Speech time limits

Ms Sharkie 5 minutes.

Other Members 5 minutes each.

[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 4 x 5 mins]

The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.

2 DR REID: To move:

That this House:

(1) recognises the Government's commitment to strengthen Medicare by delivering cheaper medicines;

(2) notes that these policies have already saved Australians $1.3 billion on Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) scripts;

(3) acknowledges that the Government's cheaper medicines were opposed by the Opposition; and

(4) further notes that the Government will lower the maximum co-payment on PBS scripts to $25, saving Australians over $200 million each year.

(Notice given 25 March 2025.)

Time allotted 40 minutes.

Speech time limits

Dr Reid 5 minutes.

Other Members 5 minutes each.

[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins]

The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.

3 MR CHESTER: To move:

That this House:

(1) acknowledges that:

(a) councils across Australia make a vital contribution to the delivery of local services, roads and community infrastructure; and

(b) the Government has an important role to play in securing the financial sustainability of the local government sector;

(2) notes that the Government:

(a) has broken its promise to Australia's 537 local councils that it would deliver 'fair increases' to local government;

(b) has cut funding to regional programs which were essential for improving infrastructure; and

(c) cynically launched an inquiry into local government sustainability in March 2024 to avoid providing actual increases in funding; and

(3) urges the Government to release the findings of the inquiry and work constructively with councils across Australia to reduce the cost of living pressures on ratepayers, and deliver the infrastructure and services our communities need.

(Notice given 4 February 2025.)

Time allotted 30 minutes.

Speech time limits

Mr Chester 5 minutes.

Other Members 5 minutes each.

[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]

The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.

4 DR GARLAND: To move:

That this House:

(1) notes that the Government is the first majority female government; and

(2) acknowledges that the Government is delivering better health care for Australian women by:

(a) listing new oral contraceptives, endometriosis treatments, and menopause therapies on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme for the first time in decades;

(b) providing more choice, lower costs, and better access to long-acting contraceptives;

(c) delivering a public health campaign, first ever national guidelines, and more Medicare support for menopause; and

(d) establishing more endometriosis and pelvic pain clinics, now including specialist care for menopause and perimenopause.

(Notice given 25 March 2025.)

Time allotted 40 minutes.

Speech time limits

Dr Garland 5 minutes.

Other Members 5 minutes each.

[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins]

The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.

5 MS WARE: To move:

That this House:

(1) notes that:

(a) one in eight children worldwide have been victims of sexual exploitation, equating to 302 million children last year;

(b) 2.5 per cent of Australian men have deliberately viewed child pornography;

(c) in the 2023-24 financial year, over 58,000 reports were made to the Australian Federal Police relating to online child sexual abuse;

(d) the global human trafficking industry is worth over $150 billion per year; and

(e) the livestreaming of child sexual abuse earns between $3 billion and $20 billion per year in Southeast Asia alone;

(2) acknowledges:

(a) that child exploitation continues to be a disturbingly prevalent issue both in Australia and abroad;

(b) the former Government's efforts in combating child sexual exploitation, including:

(i) the establishment of the Australian Centre to Counter Child Exploitation;

(ii) the development of Australia's first National Strategy to Prevent and Respond to Child Sexual Abuse; and

(iii) the allocation of $307.5 million towards combating child sexual abuse; and

(c) the Australian Centre to Counter Child Exploitation's continued efforts in combating child exploitation; and

(3) calls upon the Government to:

(a) affirm Australia's commitment to upholding the following international instruments, to which Australia is a party:

(i) Optional Protocol on the Right of the Child on the Sale of Children, Child Prostitution and Child Pornography; and

(ii) Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children; and

(b) increase efforts to minimise Australia's contribution to the global sexual exploitation of children.

(Notice given 20 November 2024.)

Time allotted remaining private Members' business time prior to 1.30 pm.

Speech time limits

Ms Ware 5 minutes.

Other Members 5 minutes each.

[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 4 x 5 mins]

The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.

Items for Federation Chamber (4.45 pm to 7.30 pm)

PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS

Orders of the day

1 CHILD CARE: Resumption of debate (from 10 February 2025) on the motion of Ms Bell—That this House:

(1) notes that:

(a) it has been almost three years since the Government was elected and the cost of child care has increased by a whopping 22.3 per cent;

(b) since the Government introduced its cheaper childcare policy, out of pocket costs for families have sky rocketed by 12.7 per cent;

(c) almost 30 per cent of child care services are charging over the hourly rate cap under the current Government, compared to 21 per cent under the previous Government; and

(d) this is just another broken promise from the Government, that continues to leave Australian families behind; and

(2) calls on the Government to deliver:

(a) more access to early childhood education and care places to support Australians to return to the workforce; and

(b) real cost of living relief to families.

Time allotted 40 minutes.

Speech time limits

All Members 5 minutes each.

[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins]

The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.

Notices — continued

6 MR LAXALE: To move:

That this House:

(1) acknowledges:

(a) that:

(i) small businesses are the engine room of Australia's economy;

(ii) an average of 5,700 new small businesses are created each week; and

(iii) small businesses make up 97 per cent of all business in Australia, a record total of 2.6 million nationwide; and

(b) the release of Australia's first ever National Small Business Strategy, which will:

(i) elevate small businesses in government decision making;

(ii) complement existing work within jurisdictions; and

(iii) inform policy making to deliver better outcomes for small businesses; and

(2) notes that the strategy sits alongside the Government's $640 million package to support Australia's nearly 2.6 million small businesses, alongside:

(a) extending the $20,000 instant asset write-off;

(b) providing target energy bill relief of $325 to around a million eligible small businesses, on top of $650 in relief in the 2023-24 financial year;

(c) investing $60 million to help small businesses build their digital and cybersecurity capabilities;

(d) extending access to free mental health and financial counselling support for small business owners;

(e) updating Commonwealth Procurement Rules to ensure small businesses get their fair share of Government contracts;

(f) improving payment times for small businesses by naming and shaming big businesses who fail to pay on time; and

(g) remaking the Franchising Code of Conduct to help ensure a fairer franchising sector.

(Notice given 4 February 2025.)

Time allotted 40 minutes.

Speech time limits

Mr Laxale 5 minutes.

Other Members 5 minutes each.

[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins]

The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.

Orders of the day — continued

2 ROAD SAFETY: Resumption of debate (from 10 February 2025) on the motion of Mr Pasin—That this House:

(1) notes that 1,300 lives were lost on Australian roads in 2024;

(2) recognises that:

(a) this is the highest road toll since 2012; and

(b) the national road toll has risen each of the past four years, a situation not seen since 1966, or before the introduction of compulsory seat belts;

(3) acknowledges that the annual fatality rate per 100,000 head of population is now 4.8, well over double the National Road Safety target of 2.0; and

(4) calls on the Government to take action on the road safety crisis that is now killing more than 100 Australians every month and hospitalising 100 Australians every day.

Time allotted 45 minutes.

Speech time limits

All Members 5 minutes each.

[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 9 x 5 mins]

The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.

Notices — continued

7 MS LAWRENCE: To move:

That this House:

(1) notes that the Government has stood up for and supported Australian families living in outer suburban and peri-urban communities through investments across a wide range of portfolios including:

(a) communications, including improvements to the National Broadband Network and mobile phone coverage;

(b) emergency management, and fire and flood preparedness;

(c) health, with vastly increased support for bulk billing, cheaper medicines and urgent care clinics;

(d) education, by cutting HECS debt, working with states and territories to fully fund public schools, and investing in more affordable and accessible early education;

(e) infrastructure, including road, rail and community facilities; and

(f) training, with free TAFE places available for in-demand areas, allowing young people to start a good career and older workers to reskill for the jobs of the future;

(2) acknowledges that:

(a) outer suburban and peri-urban areas contain many residents looking for housing and paying mortgages; and

(b) these people will benefit from the Government's record-breaking investments in housing and from the Government's sensible economic management, including two budget surpluses and the paying down of debt, which has seen inflation lowered from the 6.1 per cent and rising rate left by the former Government to the rate of 2.5 per cent for the fourth quarter of 2024;

(3) further notes that most or all of the measures taken by the Government to support families in outer suburban and peri-urban communities have been opposed by the Opposition, and that some have been opposed or delayed by the Australian Greens; and

(4) commends the work done by the Government thus far in each of these areas and encourages the Government to continue and consolidate that good work in a second term of office.

(Notice given 4 February 2025.)

Time allotted remaining private Members' business time prior to 7.30 pm.

Speech time limits

Ms Lawrence 5 minutes.

Other Members 5 minutes each.

[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins]

The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.

THE HON D. M. DICK MP

Speaker of the House of Representatives

26 March 2025

by leave—I move:

That further statements on Tropical Cyclone Alfred and the Queensland floods be permitted in the Federation Chamber.

Question agreed to.

On behalf of the Select Committee on Nuclear Energy, I present the committee's interim report, incorporating dissenting reports, for the inquiry into nuclear power generation in Australia, together with the minutes of the proceedings.

Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).

by leave—I present the committee's report titled Interim report for the inquiry into nuclear power generation in Australia. The establishment of this committee in October 2024 signalled a critical moment in Australia's ongoing debate on energy policy. As we navigate a rapidly evolving landscape, it is our responsibility to ensure that Australians pursue the most effective, affordable and sustainable energy solutions. Our mandate was clear: to investigate and report on potential deployment of nuclear power generation in Australia, including the feasibility of small modular reactors. This was not an ideological exercise, nor should it ever be. Rather, it was a rigorous, evidence based exploration of whether nuclear power is a viable and practical option to meet Australia's energy needs both now and into the future. Our goal was to examine the facts, assess the costs and determine whether nuclear energy is compatible with Australia's economic and environmental objectives.

Through extensive consultation, expert testimony and in-depth analysis, the committee has arrived at a definitive conclusion: nuclear power is not the right choice for Australia. The evidence is overwhelming. Nuclear energy is too slow to build, too expensive to implement and would drive up power prices for Australians. Simply put, it is not the best option for our future energy needs. Even under the most optimistic projections, the first nuclear power station in Australia would not be operational before the mid-2040s. That's two decades from now, and that's assuming it is an entirely smooth process, free from regulatory hurdles, legal challenges and unexpected cost blowouts. If history is any guide, looking at international nuclear projects suggests that delays and budget overruns are the norm, not the exception.

One of the most critical considerations in this inquiry is timing. Australia's coal-fired power stations are already being phased out, with many scheduled for closure by the operators and owners of those power stations within the next decade. A transition to alternative energy sources must be in place before these closures occur to ensure energy security and affordability for all Australians.

The reality is that nuclear energy will not be ready in time to replace these outgoing power stations. The construction and commissioning of nuclear power plants requires extensive planning, regulatory approvals and infrastructure development. Even in countries with existing nuclear expertise and supply chains, projects take well over a decade to complete. Australia, which currently has no nuclear power industry, would face even greater delays.

By the time a nuclear power plant is operational in Australia, if it ever is, our existing coal fleet will have been decommissioned, leaving a massive energy gap that cannot be ignored. This gap needs to be filled with reliable, cost-effective and rapidly deployable solutions, such as renewables and storage technology, backed up by gas. Betting on nuclear means gambling with our energy future, risking blackouts and higher energy costs due to supply shortfalls.

Throughout the inquiry, it became evident that proponents of nuclear energy, including the member for Fairfax and other LNP members of the committee and members on the other side, have consistently undermined and questioned the scientific evidence presented by reputable institutions such as AEMO, ARPANSA and the CSIRO. Rather than engaging in a genuine debate based on facts and expert analysis, they have sought to cast doubt on well-established research that highlights the financial, technical and environmental challenges of nuclear energy.

The CSIRO's GenCost report, widely regarded as the most comprehensive and independent assessment of energy costs in Australia, makes it clear that nuclear energy is significantly more expensive than renewables. The report outlines that small modular reactors—which the opposition continues to champion—remain unproven at scale, with no commercially operational examples anywhere in the world.

Despite this, the member for Fairfax and his colleagues have dismissed the CSIRO's findings, claiming that the costs are made up and misleading. They have chosen to ignore the overwhelming global evidence that nuclear power is both cost prohibitive and too slow to deploy. Instead, they have relied on cherry-picked data from nuclear industry lobbyists presenting an unrealistic picture of nuclear energy's viability in Australia.

This disregard for independent science is deeply concerning. Australia's energy policy must be driven by evidence, not an ideology. When policymakers attack institutions like the CSIRO simply because the institutions' findings do not align with their political agenda, they undermine public trust in scientific research and jeopardise Australia's transition to a clean energy future.

The findings of this interim report are so unequivocal that I assumed that the member for Fairfax would grasp them. However—

Opposition members interjecting—

Thank you for the laughter from the other side. However, it seems that I overestimated his commitment to facts and science. Rather than confronting the reality, he and his colleagues prefer to take Australians on a fanciful journey, one that leads us to a nuclear power utopia that exists only in their imaginations. Let's be clear: nuclear power in Australia is not a serious policy option. It's a distraction from real energy solutions.

The committee undertook an extensive consultation process, holding hearings across Australia over a period of 19 days and reviewing 857 written submissions. This thorough engagement with experts, stakeholders and communities reinforced what we already knew. Starting a nuclear energy sector from scratch in Australia is not just a daunting challenge; it's an impractical and unnecessary one.

One of the most pressing issues the report addresses is cost. It is clear why private investors remain hesitant to commit to nuclear. Long construction times, excessive capital costs and uncertain returns make nuclear a financial gamble. If the private sector sees nuclear as a bad investment, why should Australian taxpayers be forced to foot the bill?

Testimony from the Smart Energy Council suggests that the costs could reach an eye-watering $600 billion and potentially even more. For context, that is more than Australia's entire annual federal budget that we just handed down yesterday. That is more money that could be spent on upgrading our transmission networks, expanding battery storage and accelerating the rollout of renewables—investments that would deliver results far sooner and at a fraction of the cost.

It is deeply concerning that those advocating nuclear power have failed to provide Australians with any clarity on key details of their proposal. Their policy is riddled with uncertainties and devoid of any practical solutions.

In recent weeks, we've seen that Liberal Party members and candidates have quietly removed references to nuclear power from their websites. They're not talking about it. They're scared to talk about it. It appears that they too have come to terms with reality. Their nuclear dream is in meltdown. They are not happy with the path that their leader and shadow ministers are taking. Now that they've seen the committee's interim report on nuclear energy, they realise nuclear power won't be ready in time to help Australian workers or to keep our power affordable. They know it will drive up electricity prices. But they can't tell us how much it will cost. They can't say how long it will take. They can't say how much water it will use. They can't say where all the reactors will go, besides the seven sites suggested. They can't even tell us what reactors they're actually going to use. There are a lot of 'can'ts' in this policy, but there are not a lot of 'cans', I can tell you that.

The conclusion of this report is as clear as it is compelling. If we want reliable, affordable and sustainable power, nuclear power is not the option. It is definitely not the answer for Australia. The technology is too slow, too costly and too risky. Australia has better, faster and more cost effective alternatives to meet its energy demands. The government must now act decisively to invest in renewable storage and grid infrastructure, the technologies that will deliver the affordable, clean and reliable energy that Australians deserve.

I finish by saying thank you to all the committee members on this inquiry. Thank you to the deputy chair. We did have an enjoyable time going around and doing this inquiry. A massive thankyou to all of our staff members and a huge thankyou to the committee secretariats for all their work—what they did within the very short and demanding schedule that we had. Huge thanks go to Kate, Antonia, Ash, Kimberlee and Cathy for all their work.

I commend this report to the House.

I seek leave to make a statement on this inquiry report.

Leave granted.

Australia already is a nuclear nation. Australians know that nuclear technology saves lives. They know that nuclear technology protects lives. They know that nuclear technology underpins livelihoods. On saving lives, Australians know the importance of our nuclear reactor, which sits just outside of Sydney's CBD, creating medical isotopes that help solve, identify and cure cancers. Australians know nuclear technology saves lives. Australians also know that nuclear technology protects lives, because both sides of this parliament have agreed to adopt nuclear propelled submarines, knowing full well that the best way to protect our nation is to invest in nuclear technology. Australians also know that nuclear technology underpins livelihoods by virtue of our world-class uranium and having the largest reserves of uranium in the world, already supplying jobs and incomes for many Australians, with enormous unlocked opportunity. So, as an already nuclear nation, what this inquiry proved was that adopting nuclear energy is the next step in Australia's journey.

What we also saw in this inquiry is that Australia is, in fact, isolated internationally by not adopting nuclear energy. Australia is the only nation of all advanced economies—the only nation in the G20—which is neither using nuclear energy today nor moving towards doing so. We are isolated internationally. In our own region of the world, we know the big players when it comes to nuclear energy. We know China. We know India. We know South Korea. But there are a string of other nations in our own region which are now moving towards adopting nuclear energy. These include Bangladesh, Myanmar, Laos, Vietnam, Thailand, Cambodia, Malaysia, Philippines, Sri Lanka and Indonesia. All of these nations in our own region are joining other nations across the world in adopting nuclear energy. We also heard evidence, including from the International Atomic Energy Agency, about the importance of nuclear energy internationally. They say that nuclear energy is already one of the largest sources of zero emissions electricity globally and that it supplies about 10 per cent of global electricity and over 25 per cent of all clean electricity.

As you look internationally, there's also a difference when it comes to nuclear energy. In Australia, thanks to the Labor Party and the Greens, this issue has become politicised because the left of politics in Australia want to make this an ideological battle. Yet, as you look around the world, what you see in other like democracies is an enormous amount of bipartisanship when it comes to nuclear energy. Much has been seen and heard of US politics of late, on the back of last year's presidential election and indeed the new Trump administration's decisions. Yet, in the United States, of all the partisanship, indeed some might say hyperpartisanship, both sides of Congress unite on one key thing: the importance of nuclear energy. It is why you see other like nations all around the world, unlike Australia, having bipartisanship on this technology. Why do the Democrats and the Republicans in the United States come together on nuclear energy? They know that, when used as part of a balanced energy mix, nuclear energy gets prices down. It solves energy security and it is the best means, the fastest means, of decarbonising electricity grids. Indeed, we've seen this again in the evidence before the committee. If you look at the world's top 5 fastest decarbonisations of electricity grids, four of the five are due to nuclear energy.

Let me go to some of the detail. In particular, the chair of this committee raised the issue of cost. I was just speaking about the United States. The United States Department of Energy released a report last year which compared the total system cost of a renewables-only plan for the US with that of a plan for a balanced energy mix of renewable storage and nuclear energy, and what the Department of Energy in the United States found is that, once you have nuclear in the mix, the total system cost reduces by 37 per cent. That data, that evidence, was not challenged by anybody through the course of this inquiry. Then you look at Australia. Independent modelling done by Frontier Economics showed something similar, and that is that, when you compare the Labor government's all-eggs-in-one-basket, renewables-only approach all the way through to 2050—the total system cost of Labor's plan—to the coalition's balanced energy mix of renewables and gas, with coal retiring from the system and zero-emissions nuclear energy, the coalition's plan is 44 per cent cheaper than Labor's plan.

Government members interjecting—

I'll take some of the interjections from those opposite. One of the big differences between Labor's plan—

Order! The Minister for Veterans' Affairs—

Government members interjecting—

This is a report. There are far too many interjections. This is not a general debate. I want to hear what the member for Fairfax has to say. Everyone is interjecting not from their seats, so that's also not helpful. We're going to listen to what the member for Fairfax says.

The total system cost of the coalition's plan to transform the national electricity market, the grid, through to 2050, including nuclear energy, is $331 billion. Again, I say that that includes the total system cost. That includes transmission, that includes renewables, and that includes gas. Labor's plan, by comparison, is 44 per cent more expensive. This independent modelling came up throughout the inquiry, yet there was not one piece of evidence that challenged the veracity of those conclusions. No evidence was put forward that could challenge the assumptions made.

When it comes to the nuclear plan of the coalition, it comes to up to $120 billion. Much has been said, including by the chair of this inquiry in his words just now, about the CSIRO and the importance of listening to the CSIRO, yet the coalition's own modelling and the independent modelling done by Frontier Economics accept a comparable capital cost of nuclear power plants, as put forward by the CSIRO, with respect to the large modern plants. The chair has just mentioned the number $600 billion. In fact, the coalition's plan is $120 billion. The chair is again exaggerating the cost by a multiple of five. What he is doing, therefore, is multiplying CSIRO's own advice by a multiple of five, undermining Labor's very argument about the importance of listening to the CSIRO. This is where Labor is exposed. In fact, they were exposed throughout the inquiry. Yet again, they are trying to multiply a figure by five, which is disingenuous—it is not honest.

There's somebody else in this chamber who has multiplied something by five. Guess who that is; he is sitting over there. It's actually the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. It's on this very same topic, and it's relevant to this inquiry, because he claims Labor's cost to get to net zero is five times cheaper than what it really is.

Government members interjecting—

Members on my right will cease interjecting. The Leader of the House has the call. I'll just get the member for Fairfax to resume his seat for a moment.

Mr Speaker, we've now had the deputy chair go for longer than the chair, with respect to this inquiry. So, if he wants to go for another minute and wind up his remarks, that's fine, otherwise leave will be withdrawn.

It is normal practice with reports for about the same time to be given when the deputy chair and chair are speaking in the House. I'm just trying to assist the member for Fairfax and all members. If you are able to begin to conclude your remarks, that will assist the House.

On costs, again we see that what has been put forward by the Labor Party is based on deliberate untruths, and every single MP in this House knows it. Every time you use the amount '$600 million' you are exaggerating the CSIRO's costings—by a multiple of five—the coalition's costings and the independent modelling. That's independent modelling, by the way, that this government has failed to land a glove on because they know it's accurate. In fact, the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, when asked about the independent modelling's first report about his own costings, which were $640 billion, stood at this dispatch box and actually said what a good report it was. Be very careful about the lack of honesty when it comes to the Labor Party on this topic.

That leads me to the second issue raised by the chair, and that is the issue of timing. Again, we had evidence after evidence come before the committee demonstrating that the coalition's plan on timing is accurate—

The Leader of the House?

I respect this is the biggest audience he's had, but leave is withdrawn.

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Today we are proud to introduce the Treasury Laws Amendment (More Cost of Living Relief) Bill 2025.

This bill delivers more relief in the tax system to Australians, more tax relief for every single Australian taxpayer—all 14 million Australians, in all parts of the country, not some.

From tradies to nurses, aged carer workers to teachers, sparkies to hairdressers, this legislation gives a tax cut top-up to every taxpayer, right up and down the income scale.

These additional tax cuts are responsible. They are modest in isolation, but they will make a difference in combination with the tax cuts which are rolling out already and all of the cost-of-living relief that we are proud to fund in last night's budget.

This bill amends the Income Tax Rates Act 1986 to cut the first marginal tax rate from 16 per cent to 14 per cent over two years starting from July 2026.

These changes will take the first tax rate down to its lowest level in more than half a century.

And they will mean the average earner will have an extra $536 in their pocket each year when they're fully implemented.

Combined with our first round of tax cuts, this rises to $2,190.

And the average total tax cut will be $2,548, or about $50 a week.

These tax cuts are the biggest part of a substantial and responsible cost-of-living package in last night's budget.

We know that the cost of living is front of mind for Australians and it was absolutely front and centre in the economic plan that we set out last night.

A plan that includes tax cuts and energy bill relief for households, cheaper medicines and early childhood education, student debt relief and free TAFE, plus strengthening Medicare and higher wages.

The tax cuts we are rolling out and topping up are cost-of-living relief with an economic dividend.

They return bracket creep.

They boost workforce participation.

And they incentivise people to take up that extra shift, which could push up hours worked in our economy by 1.3 million hours—mostly driven by women's workforce participation.

This all means they will strengthen household budgets at the same time as they strengthen our national economy.

We have also designed them to ensure our fiscal settings are consistent with inflation remaining sustainably in the Reserve Bank's target band.

As part of this legislation, we will also increase the Medicare levy low-income thresholds.

This is a bit more tax relief for more than a million Australians as well.

We will amend the Medicare Levy Act 1986and the A New Tax System (Medicare Levy Surcharge—Fringe Benefits) Act 1999to increase the thresholds for singles, families, seniors and pensioners.

The thresholds will rise by 4.7 per cent so more than one million Australians on lower incomes will continue to be exempt from paying the Medicare levy or pay a reduced levy rate.

At the core of the economic plan we laid out in the budget last night is a simple objective.

Our government is all about ensuring more Australians earn more and keep more of what they earn.

The results of our plan are clear and compelling.

In the five quarters before our first budget, real wages fell in annual terms.

They have now grown for the last five consecutive quarters.

And real incomes per capita are growing now too.

This is a direct result of our plan to get inflation down, wages up, and tax cuts flowing in our economy.

This legislation is another important step in implementing that plan.

It's about giving extra help to Australians doing it tough.

It's about providing cost of living relief in a responsible way that strengthens the economy at the same time.

And it's about making sure all taxpayers see the benefits, not just some.

To stand in the way of this legislation is to vote for higher taxes on Australian workers.

To vote against this legislation would be to stand in the way of more hard earned money in the pockets of every hard-working Australian.

To vote against this legislation would be to stand against more cost-of-living relief that Australians need and deserve.

This is what those opponents are proposing, with the shadow Treasurer's brain snap last night when he said that he would oppose more tax cuts for every Australian taxpayer. That was the brain explosion that came out of the opposition lock-up last night, when the shadow Treasurer decided, after bleating about lower tax cuts in the lead-up to the budget. When this government is delivering it, they say that they're against it. Is it any wonder that those opposite are forming an orderly queue to say the shadow Treasurer is not up to the job of being the Treasurer of this country.

There's no consistency or clarity on the coalition's policy positions except for this—their commitment to cut cost-of-living help for Australians.

Those opposite want to cut everything except for income taxes. That's their position. They have consistently opposed the government's cost-of-living relief over the last three years. If they had their way, Australians would be thousands of dollars worse off already, and they have now made it clear that Australians will be worse off still if they win the next election.

They opposed our cuts to student debt, cheaper early childhood education and cheaper medicines. They opposed the first two rounds of our energy bill rebates. They opposed more homes for Australians and more urgent care clinics, if you can believe it, Mr Speaker.

They opposed the tax relief that started rolling out halfway through this year, and now they will oppose these tax-cut top-ups as well.

They are saying no three times in three years to three tax cuts. This makes the choice at the election abundantly clear. The shadow Treasurer's brain explosion last night, opposing these tax cuts, now makes the choice at this election absolutely crystal clear: a Labor government under this Prime Minister, cutting income taxes for Australian workers and helping with the cost of living, or those opposite and an opposition leader with a secret agenda for cuts which will make Australians worse off. That is the choice at the election.

On this side of the House, we proudly stand for lower taxes for Australian workers.

We are for Australians earning more and keeping more of what they earn.

And we are for doing everything that we responsibly can to help Australians under pressure.

That's what the budget was all about last night.

That's what this legislation does.

And that's why we are proud to introduce it to the House.

Debate adjourned.

I move:

That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the resumption of the debate on the motion that the bill be read a second time being made an order of the day for a later hour.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Last night we saw handed down by this hopeless Treasurer a budget for the next five weeks, not for the next five years. It is a budget for the prosperity and security of two people and their jobs—the Prime Minister and that hopeless Treasurer who is sitting over there. It is only about them. It is absolutely not about the hardworking Australians trying to get ahead, who are going backwards under this government. In 2½ years, Australians have seen the biggest collapse in their standard of living in the history of this country. We've never seen anything like this before. It is worse than any other country in the world. This hopeless Treasurer doesn't understand economics. He has never worked in the private sector—actually, I'm wrong; he worked in the private sector for six months, and he says he absolutely hated it. That's because he doesn't get it. He absolutely doesn't get it. And it's why, in his time as Treasurer, we have seen an eight per cent reduction in the standard of living of hardworking Australians. The truth is, for many Australians, it's far worse than that. If you're running a small business, it has been 18 per cent. If you're working overtime, weekends, because you can't afford to pay for your workers, it has been an 18 per cent collapse. If you are an Australian and you live in Western Sydney and you've got a mortgage, you've paid $50,000 more since this government came to power than you expected to pay just 2½ years ago. That's in after-tax income. That's what you have seen under this government.

Their answer to all of that is 70c a day over a year from now. That's their answer. That is the best this hopeless Treasurer, who simply doesn't understand economics—he's a PhD in spending; he's a PhD in excuse-making. That's the one thing that he focuses all of his time on. The best he has is 70c a day in over a year's time. The Australian people are smarter than that. They know they have been let down by this Treasurer, who is only focused on one job—his own. Actually, no—

He has got two jobs in mind.

I tell a lie. He's interested in two jobs—the one he has got and the Prime Minister's job. They're the only jobs he's interested in.

He has got a housing plan at the Lodge!

Yes, he does have a housing plan at the Lodge. I agree with that. Well said. I thought it was worthwhile having a look and seeing what you can buy for 70c. What is it you can buy with the 70c that the Treasurer thinks is the answer to the economic collapse that he has been behind over the last 2½ years? It turns out it's this: a single lolly at some old-school corner stores or service stations; a bread roll from a major supermarket, if they're on sale; a small coin donation to a charity box—it would be a pretty small coin donation; a single photocopy at libraries or office supply stores; a discounted soft-drink can at a clearance sale—it's probably past the use-by date; and an entry into a guessing competition, like, 'How many jelly beans are in the jar?' That is this Treasurer's solution to the biggest collapse in our standard of living in the history of this country. This Treasurer has no idea when it comes to what it takes to have a strong economy.

I said before the budget we've had three budget flops under this Treasurer—three flopped budgets. I said before this one there are three tests. There are three very simple tests. The first is that this budget needs to restore Australians' standard of living. We've seen in 2½ years, on average, an eight per cent reduction in Australians' standard of living, and we know what is behind that—the homegrown inflation that this Treasurer has driven. The Reserve Bank governor called it homegrown. We see grocery prices, for instance, up 30 per cent. Energy prices, gas prices and electricity prices are up over 30 per cent. Insurance bills and mortgage costs—you name it; this Treasurer has overseen a catastrophe on the cost of living that Australians have had to bear. The truth is, throughout that, our core inflation has been higher than most of our peer countries most of the time because this Treasurer never understood what he needed to do about it.

We've seen interest rates that have been higher for longer in this country. I talked about the average Australian family with a mortgage; they've had to find $50,000 that they weren't expecting to have to find—$50,000! The Treasurer's answer is 70c. You've got to be joking. He has no concept of the pain that they are experiencing. I go to food banks—

Government members interjecting—

You should listen to this. I go to food banks right across this country, and I see working people with mortgages going into those food banks who simply can't feed their families. And this Treasurer stands up here and says: 'It's all okay. You're all okay. I'm okay, so aren't you okay?' This bloke has never got it.

The second thing I will say about the cause of this collapse in the standard of living is the increase in personal income taxes being paid. The average Australian is paying $3½ thousand more in personal income taxes than when those opposite came to power, and that's on its way to $10,000.

Government members interjecting—

Nothing you are talking about is going to change that one little bit—

Honourable members interjecting—

Order! The member for Hume, I'm sorry. If you could just pause—

You have been responsible for higher taxes in this country because you have absolutely failed—

The member for Hume, resume your seat for a moment. There are far too many people interjecting outside of their seats; this is not going to continue. If people wish to interject from outside of their seats, they will leave immediately. There is far too much noise. The member for Hume is going to give his speech, and everyone's going to listen to what he says.

As I said, the first test is restoring Australians' standard of living. We look at the budget papers, where we can see whether or not Australians' standard of living is going to be restored under their plan, and the answer is: no time soon. They've seen an eight per cent reduction in their real disposable incomes. That's the goods and services that their incomes can buy—eight per cent down since this Treasurer took on the role. He smashed Australians' standard of living. He smashed household budgets to try and improve his budget. He's found $400 billion more to spend by taking it from Australian households, which was my earlier point about taxes.

The truth of the matter is that, when you look at the budget, there is no pathway back anytime soon to the standard of living that Australians had when we were last in power. The Reserve Bank tell us that they expect our standard of living to get back to that level in 2031. That is a lost decade. And, if you leave this bloke in the role, it will be a lot more than a decade, because he has completely failed in this budget to restore Australians' standard of living.

The second test for this budget is whether it restores the hope of Australians who are losing hope. Aspiration and hope are central to the great Australian dream. The hope and aspiration that, over time, you can buy a house, pay it off, keep it as you approach retirement and use it as the basis for a great retirement are disappearing under this government. Hope is disappearing fast. We have seen them make a commitment to build 1.2 million houses, but there's no sign of that. The experts are telling us we'll be lucky to get to 800,000. There was absolutely nothing in this budget that suggested that that great hope of owning a home is coming back anytime soon.

Of course, the other great aspiration so many Australians have is to start and build a business over time. We know on this side of the House—because, unlike those opposite, so many of us have worked in small businesses—that small businesses are the backbone of our local communities. They are absolutely at the heart of employment and prosperity, ensuring that our communities are strong and that we have rising real wages, rising real incomes and a rising standard of living—something that those opposite don't seem to have much interest in. Again, there is absolutely nothing in this budget to suggest that there is any hope being restored anytime soon for those many Australians. There are 2.5 million Australians who own a small business, and we know there are many more who would like to over time, but they are losing hope. Young Australians are giving up on that hope.

I said the third test for this budget was restoring fiscal integrity and honesty. Peter Costello put in place a series of rules back in the 1990s—

Government members interjecting—

Listen to them crow. They've got a new model of government where they just spend like drunken sailors. That's their approach. Peter Costello put the rules in place that have worked for this country for many, many years, and the first thing that this Treasurer did when he came into the role is he threw them all out. He threw them all out because he knew better. His degree in spin taught him that you don't need fiscal rules. You don't need any discipline over the bureaucracy or your colleagues—who all want to spend like drunken sailors; there's no doubt about that. He decided to throw all of those rules out, and the result of that in this budget is red ink as far as the eye can see.

Since Labor came to power, they have added over $400 billion of spending to the final budget numbers that came out when we were in government. That's $400 billion of extra spending. That's $400 billion of extra taxation and red ink as far as the eye can see. Indeed, if you add up the five deficits the Treasurer announced last night, they add up to $170 billion—that's 6,000 bucks for every Australian—being put on the credit card to save this bloke's job. Actually, it's his aspiration to have another job, I think, as well. That's what we saw.

What we saw in this budget was not just a big-spending, big-taxing Labor budget; we also saw a big Australia budget. The numbers here are totally out of control.

An opposition member: It's jaw dropping.

They are jaw-dropping—absolutely right. They are out of control. Those opposite are going to see a number approaching two million people coming into the country in just five years. Now, we are a great immigrant nation, but you've got to get the balance right. There needs to be a balance between the housing supply in this country—which has been in freefall—and our immigration rate. That has been absolutely out of whack whilst this Treasurer and those opposite have been in power. It has been a complete disaster. Every time we get a new forecast, up it goes. Up it goes. They've added 700,000 to the forecast over just a few years. And the actual outcomes are quite extraordinary: over a million people coming into this country in just two years. They've lost control.

The result of that is that GDP per capita in this country has gone backwards for seven consecutive quarters. The only thing driving this country is Australians working for more hours, and their real incomes have gone backwards. The Treasurer should actually listen to some of this because he should try to get across the economics of what's going on here and not just focus on the spin. He has absolutely no idea about how an economy works. We see, as I say, an immigration rate which is completely unsustainable under this government. And they have lost control of our borders.

Now, there is a better way. There is a better way. We know that the way forward is to beat inflation, to boost growth, to back small businesses with accelerated depreciation. Those opposite reluctantly come to this place each year and say, 'Oh, I suppose we've got to give something to small business.' But I tell you what we've done is we've said, 'No, we're going to change that.' We're going to make this a permanent part of our taxation system. It's a permanent incentive for every small business in this country to invest, create jobs, create opportunities, and create prosperity for every Australian. Those opposite will never come at that. That's lower taxes. That's lower taxes that are going to drive prosperity for every Australian.

And we know, while I'm on this topic, that the worst thing that we could do with our taxation system is to start creating a system where you tax unrealised capital gains. But this Treasurer has absolutely no idea about how wealth is created. The truth is he is quite happy to go after unrealised capital gains of smart farmers and small-business people. And you know what, Mr Speaker? That means that those capital gains are going to have to be realised; that means a farm gets sold, a small business gets sold because they have to find access to that cash.

I said we've got to beat inflation, boost growth and back small business. We've got to fix our housing supply too. That means making sure that we are breaking the infrastructure bottlenecks that we know are holding back housing supply in this country. We also know that we need to deliver affordable, reliable energy. The failure on this has been astronomical. Those opposite promised a $275 reduction. The Minister for Climate Change and Energy promised a $275 reduction. The Treasurer was asked about this the other day, and he couldn't name the number; he couldn't do it. It was like an episode out of Fawlty Towers. Don't mention $275. Don't mention $275, because the truth of the matter is they have absolutely failed on one of their core promises from before the last election.

I know in my electorate and the electorate of the minister for energy Australians are paying $1,300 more than was promised by Labor. This is an absolute disaster, and we know putting more supply into the system is always going to be the answer. A renewables-only strategy is never going to work, but that is the path those opposite are on, and it has been a complete disaster for our country. Australians cannot afford another three years of Labor. Australians are poorer after three years of Labor, and 70c a day in over a years' time is going to do absolutely nothing to change that.

We've seen a rare occurrence: the Treasurer speaking, followed by the shadow Treasurer actually having something to say! He didn't quite get to 30 minutes, but, after I speak, I'm looking forward to the Leader of the Opposition explaining to people why he doesn't support tax cuts for hardworking Australians. Then again, it shouldn't come as a surprise, because this time last year they were in here, firstly, saying they would oppose our tax cuts, then saying they would roll them back and then demanding an election—that was a year ago—just to stop hardworking Australians getting a tax cut.

What last night's budget was about was building on the foundations that we have laid in our first term for a stronger economy in order to deliver even more in our second term. This is a government that came to office in the middle of what have been five difficult years. We had the COVID pandemic with its long tail and the issues with supply chains that arose out of that. We then had a global inflation crisis, exacerbated by the Russian invasion of Ukraine. That saw, around the industrialised world, inflation and unemployment in some countries hit double digits, in either or in both. We have New Zealand, just across the ditch, in a deep recession. And our task has been to navigate these turbulent seas whilst keeping our eye on the horizon, to navigate the circumstances and bring inflation down whilst providing cost-of-living relief, whilst making sure we didn't follow what some of the pointy-headed economists would say, which is you need unemployment up and you need people to suffer. That is not the Labor way. The Labor way is to get inflation down whilst supporting working people. That's why what we have done is get inflation down. We've got wages up, we've got taxes down, we've got employment growing, all of it achieved on this Treasurer's watch with the four budgets that we have produced.

In addition to that, when we came to office—just to go through some of the figures—inflation had a six in front; now it's at 2.4 and falling. Wages had gone backwards five quarters in a row. Now they've gone forwards five quarters in a row. Living standards were falling. Now we see a per capita increase in living standards, making a difference for Australians. Interest rates had started to rise before the last election. Now they have started to fall, before the coming election. All of these measures are important, but nothing's more important to the Australian Labor Party than jobs, and we have created 1.1 million jobs on our watch, more than any government in Australian history. Average unemployment is lower than at any time for any government in the last 50 years, and we've done it because we have had a cohesive strategy going forward to strengthen the economy while looking after people, while dealing with the immediate pressures, but with our eye always on the long term.

If you look at the measures, I want to go through three categories: what we've done, what we will do in our second term and what the risk is. On tax cuts, what we've done is make a difficult decision. I went to this place that's foreign to the opposition leader, known as the National Press Club, and I put the case for tax cuts for every taxpayer, not just for some. That particularly assisted young people. It particularly assisted women. It of course made sure that some people missed out. It's difficult saying to people, 'You are going to get legislated nine grand, but you're going to get 4½ grand in your pocket. But, you know what, the country's going to be stronger for it because Middle Australia will benefit.' We did that. What these tax cuts in this legislation do is build on that, once again having a tax cut for every Australian taxpayer, not just some. Together with the measures that began this financial year, they will benefit average Australians by over $2½ thousand. That's $2½ thousand extra money in their pockets.

Then we go to energy bill relief. We intervened in the market. Those opposite have talked a bit about gas and securing gas in the last couple of days. We intervened at the end of 2022 to make sure that we have security, to make sure that we can direct gas for domestic supply when it's needed and to make sure that we have a mandated code of conduct, not the voluntary thing that those opposite had during their so-called gas led recovery that they announced a decade ago, when nothing happened, which didn't result in anything at all. We did all that. You know who voted against it? They did. We brought parliament back, and they voted against it, like they voted against our cap on gas and coal prices. And then they had the hide to say, 'Energy prices—we care about it.' They voted against caps—

Because your caps didn't work!

and they voted against the energy bill relief of $300. And they voted against—they didn't support—our second lot of energy bill relief as well.

It's an unmitigated failure!

Order! The member for Fairfax will cease interjecting.

And the leading advocate for the nuclear reactor industry over there is going off. There's a meltdown happening! There's a meltdown. This guy wants a plan that will cost $600 billion, that's the most expensive form of new energy possible and that will produce four per cent of Australia's energy needs sometime in the 2040s—sometime in the 2040s! And it is a plan that the private sector won't have a bar of, which is why it has to be funded by the taxpayer, which is why they will have to cut health, education, services, housing, public servants—everything. The only cut this bloke doesn't want is a cut to peoples' taxes. That is the only cut he doesn't like.

Then we go to health care and bulk-billing. In our first term, in the last budget, the bulk-billing incentive was tripled for 11 million Australians, and last night's budget extends that to 27 million Australians, enabling the bulk-billing rate to be lifted to 90 per cent. We know those opposite supported zero rates of bulk-billing because they tried to introduce a tax for every time people visited the GP or every time they visited an emergency department and they tried to increase the cost of pharmaceuticals as well. There is one thing that they have said right in the last week: 'If you want to look at what they'll do, have a look at past performance.' We know what their past performance has been.

Then we get to urgent care clinics. We promised 50; we delivered 87 and we are going to deliver another 50. This is the sort of investment that those opposite say is 'waste' that they want to get rid of. When it comes to medicines, they ridiculed our plan for cheaper medicines and they ridiculed our plan for 60-day dispensing, both of which are making a difference to Australians out there. We have frozen the cost of PBS medicines for pensioners to just $7.70 while for other Australians the price for PBS medicines is down to $25, the same price that they were in 2004. This bloke, last time he was in office, tried to increase it by $5.

During our first term, we delivered cheaper child care, benefitting families by $2,700. This time around, we have abolished the activity test, provided three days guaranteed child care and put a billion dollars into childcare infrastructure. Then we go to schools. We came into office in 2007, and Julia Gillard, as education minister, implemented the Gonski review, which identified the school resourcing standard, to give every Australian young person the opportunity to succeed in life. We started that process. Those opposite came into office and, at the same time as ripping $50 billion out of public hospitals, they ripped $30 billion out of public schools. They don't like anything to do with public over there; that is very, very clear. This week, after working with sensible people in the state conservative parties like Premier David Crisifulli, we have included a schools funding agreement, $16.5 billion, in last night's budget. We have increased investment from the states and territories to make a substantial difference.

Then we have TAFE. We have free TAFE; 600,000 Australians have benefited. The deputy leader came to this dispatch box and said, 'People don't value it because it's free'. Those opposite don't understand what Australians' values are, so no wonder they don't like Medicare, no wonder they don't like free TAFE, no wonder they don't like public education. We will make our free TAFE permanent. We have already taken $3 billion off peoples' HECS debts but we will take a further 20 per cent off the HECS debt that people—young Australians, in particular—have to pay. Again, those opposite, by saying it's all waste, are holding the line.

Slap a bit on the credit card, son.

I look forward to your contribution, Mr Pasin. When it comes to housing, those opposite have opposed all of the initiatives. It doesn't matter where it is, whether it be increased support for public housing or increased support for build-to-rent, for private rentals, or whether it be increased home ownership through the Help to Buy scheme, they have opposed all of that as well.

Then they had the hide on this morning's radio—this is a mob that left us with a $78 billion deficit that we turned into a $22 billion surplus. The following year, they left us with a $56 billion forecast deficit that we turned into a $15 billion surplus. This year, we have almost halved the deficit that they forecast. And those opposite had the hide this morning out there on their TV roundups to speak about a stronger economy and to speak about fiscal policy. They are delulu with no solulu. They are completely delusional when it comes to that. And then they go and sledge young women out there who Australians are listening to. You just keep sledging away. You just stay in touch with the narrow base that you have, because that is what this bloke has spent three years doing—shifting the Liberal Party further and further to the right.

There are four moderates up there. They sit in the second row—the members for Menzies and Flinders and Bass and Bradfield on the way out. And that's it. They get further and further out towards the door as more and more the geniuses from the LNP right occupy the front benches over here. They are more and more conservative, more and more right wing and more and more divisive. They have no solutions for the Australian people. They come before this parliament and say that they oppose tax cuts yet again for Australians. Mind you, it is what they said last time they would do, just before they rolled over and then supported it and then pretended that none of that ever happened. Today they will have an opportunity. Today they will have to vote on whether they support Australians earning more and keeping more of what they earn, which is what our agenda is. I look forward to the contributions.

I don't want to show my age here, but you'll remember The Comedy Company, and there was a great character on The Comedy Company called Uncle Arthur. Remember Uncle Arthur? There he was floating around, rambling around. That speech by the Prime Minister darted back to the Gillard years. He projected himself forward. He was stuck yesterday. What was that incoherent rant from this Prime Minister who is out of luck and out of time? The reality is that this government has let down the Australian people. We saw from the Prime Minister then somebody who has lost his way, somebody who has an inability to hear what it is that Australians need.

Last night, we saw a budget which really encapsulated what we already knew about this government and what we knew about previous Labor governments, going back to the Whitlam government. This is a tax-and-spend government. This is a reckless-spend Labor government at its very worst. This Labor Party has racked up a trillion dollars of debt, and they're saying to Australians, to an average family who is $50,000 worse off under the last three years of the Albanese Labor government: 'Be grateful. Be thankful, because 70c a day is coming your way in 15 months time.' You heard the Prime Minister earlier say: 'Mission accomplished. The job is done, and Australians should be thankful for everything they've got.' Well, Prime Minister, there are a record number of homeless Australians. There are a record number of single parents. There are a record number of pensioners who are sleeping rough this very day. There are millions of Australians who have lost their businesses, have lost their livelihoods and have lost hope in this government.

This government had an opportunity in the budget to deliver support. Indeed, they had the opportunity in the last three budgets to deliver support. They didn't do that.

They've spent money on projects which have driven up the cost of electricity, and I say to the Australian people that, at this election, we will provide an opportunity for you to make a choice. The choice will be between a high-spending Labor government that will drive up the cost of electricity, that will force you out of a home and that will make our country less safe and secure on the one hand, and, on the other hand, a coalition government which has a vision for our country and which has a plan for our country to make sure that we can address cost-of-living pressures that have been created by this bad Labor government.

We have a plan to sort out the energy crisis that Labor have created. We will make sure that we put in place structural reforms that allow us to address the impact on grocery prices. Grocery costs under this government have gone up by 30 per cent. We will address that in our offering to the Australian public. We will then say that we will have a plan to reduce migration so that we can increase houses for Australians. We will restore the dream of homeownership for young Australians. We will say to Australians that we're going to put you first, because we're going to put a two-year ban in place that will stop foreign buyers from competing against young Australian homeowners bidding at an auction. We will put Australians first. We will say to the Australian public that we want to keep our country safe and secure. I want Australians to feel safer in their homes, in their communities and in their regions. I want to make sure that we reflect, in our policies, the difficulties that are the reality of today's world. And we don't know what our children and our grandchildren will face, but, if we don't prepare for it today, we will be a weaker and less safe country into the future.

This election will be about the difference that people make between a government that's going to continue to ramble along, put us into further debt, make it harder for families and crush small businesses, and a coalition that has a plan for our country to get it back on track. Last night in the budget, not only was this cruel hoax perpetrated on the Australian public in its offering of 70c a day in 15 months time, not only did they rack up a trillion dollars worth of debt, not only did they say to the Australian public that they don't have a clue what they're doing on housing—they rehashed the same housing policies from the last four budgets.

Do you know how many houses they've delivered? Out of the four budget announcements, you would have thought, if they're promising 1.2 million homes, that, maybe after three years, they would have achieved 400,000 homes. You might think that was reasonable. It's not 400,000 homes. You might think that it could be 250,000 homes. That would help young Australians get into a home. You would have thought 100,000. It's not 100,000. We could have said thank you for 100 homes—not one home! If anything sums up the hopelessness of the Albanese government, it's their housing crisis. At the same time that they've choked supply and they have increased demand for housing, they've also driven up the cost of housing. They've allowed the CFMEU to run riot across the construction sector. Why would they do that? Why would they abolish the Australian Building and Construction Commission—the cop on the beat—on day one? I'll tell you why, because $11½ million was donated to the Labor Party by the CFMEU so the CFMEU and Gatto and all of the other crooks associated with the CFMEU—the bikies, the enforcers and the people breaking arms and kicking women on building sites—have all been allowed to run riot under this government, and Australians have paid the price of Labor's inaction. There has been a crisis on Labor's watch, but it's not just cost of living, it is not just in relation to health and it is not just in relation to national security but it's everything this Prime Minister touches which turns to dirt.

On the weekend, we saw the Treasurer out on Insiders, and normally the idea on the Sunday before the budget's delivered is that the Treasurer would be out there putting forward some ideas, responding to a policy that they dropped to the Sunday papers and getting their grabs up and hoping that that was going to be the package on that night's news. But without precedent, strangely enough, knowing that the Treasurer was due on Insiders at nine o'clock, the Prime Minister popped up in the prime ministerial courtyard with an impromptu press conference. Why was it held? Was it because the Prime Minister thought that the Treasurer wasn't competent enough to deliver the lines on Insiders? As the Treasurer tells us, he is the greatest communicator in this country since settlement! He has been an amazing communicator in front of the mirror regularly! But the Prime Minister is out there in this beauty contest with the Treasurer. There he is on Sunday morning trying to insert himself, claiming the $150, because behind the scenes at the moment it's not so rosy on the Labor side. They want to paint this picture going into the election. But you have the Leader of the House out there trying to win votes in Western Sydney by signing up as many people as he can to vote for him before the election because he knows that he is on the nose as much as the Prime Minister. You have the health minister who is presiding over a bulk-billing rate that is much lower than when I was health minister. When I was health minister, it was 84 per cent. It's now 77 per cent under him. So he's not going to be a contestant. Who's the dark horse here? I would say—

An opposition member: Chris Bowen!

No, it's not Chris Bowen. Let's stay in the credibility space. It is not Chris Bowen. For goodness sake, for the sake of our country, it is not Chris Bowen. That is comical. Tanya Plibersek's not going anywhere. The Prime Minister has legislated over the top of the environment minister because the environment minister won't make the decision that he is hoping she will make in relation to the North West Shelf gas extension in WA or in relation to the salmon industry in Tasmania.

This government is in disarray. Our country can't afford three more years of this. Our country cannot afford three more years of a Labor government. As every political commentator is pointing out, the Albanese government cannot be elected in a majority form after the election. It can only be returned here with the support of the dangerous, reckless, extreme Greens and with the Green teals, and that would be an absolute outrage for our economy and for our country. Twenty-nine thousand small businesses have gone broke under this government's watch, and many more will follow if we have a Labor-Greens minority government.

This government has been dictated to by the Greens over the course of the last three years. This government has responded by seeking to trash industry and jobs in Tasmania and doing the same in Western Australia because they have played to the Greens. The environment minister and the Prime Minister are desperately worried about what the Greens will do to them at the next election, and that's why they have sold out our country. That's why they have sold out parts of our community, including the Jewish community—because they have seen political advantage in putting forward policies that will see support from the Greens in their seats in inner-city Sydney and Melbourne. It has been a shameful way to act and it has been on full display for the Australian people.

Right here and right now, we contemplate a budget under this government which will make it much harder for Australians at a time when families deserve support. Last night, the Treasurer demonstrated that this Albanese government is in form with the Whitlam government and with other high-spending Labor governments, and this is a point worth making. We need to make sure that we understand that we live in uncertain times—economically uncertain with tariffs, uncertain in relation to the energy crisis that we have seen grip Europe as a result of war and uncertain in relation to inflation, which hasn't gone away in our country. A government that has spent an additional $425 billion is, ultimately, fuelling inflation.

I want a country where families can afford to pay their mortgages again. I want a country where we can afford to go to the supermarket again. I want a country where people aren't forced into rough sleeping arrangements, sleeping in the back of their cars or couch surfing as young people. I want a country again where young Australians can achieve the dream of homeownership. I want a country where we can live with peace and certainty in an uncertain world. The first charge of a prime minister of our country is to keep us safe.

This Prime Minister, along with the defence minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, has repeatedly said to the Australian people that we live in the most precarious period since the end of the Second World War in 1945. That's a big statement. In 80 years, we've spanned the Cold War and we've gone through the Vietnam War, the Middle East campaigns and uncertainty now with the prospect of war in broader Europe. We see what's happening in the Middle East. The Prime Minister of our country and the Deputy Prime Minister say we live in the most dangerous period now in 80 years.

You would have expected that, in the budget, they may have put money into defence. Instead, they've taken $80 billion out of defence. Defence industry is collapsing in this country. Defence industry saw some light of hope and opportunity when the Deputy Prime Minister became the defence minister, but I tell you, that flame has long extinguished, and there are many people across the country who are worried about our ability to protect and defend ourselves in an uncertain century.

I give this commitment to the Australian people, and I demonstrated it as defence minister and as home affairs minister: I will take the decisions that we need to take to keep our country safe. I took a decision to deport 6,000 criminals: bikies, rapists, pedophiles—people who made us less safe. This government has released criminals unnecessarily from jail, and those criminals have gone on to commit further offences. I will keep our borders secure. I will make sure that our government keeps our country safe when we don't know what the next years or decades hold for us and for our region.

We will lead a government which will stand with our allies and make sure that we do so proudly and with distinction. We will make sure that we make the investments to keep us safe and to keep Australian families with hope. We will support small businesses. We will grow manufacturing in this country again. We will have an energy system which will be the envy of the world—not one where we're now featuring blackouts and brownouts and paying three times the electricity cost as in comparable markets in the world. We will achieve cheaper, greener and more reliable power, because we have the plan to do that.

And between now and the election, we will outline that plan, and we will give a very stark choice to the Australian people to have a more definite and brighter future for their families, for their small businesses and, most importantly, for our country. And that will be the test at the upcoming election. Australians cannot afford three more years of an Albanese government which will be bad for them, bad for their families and bad for our country.

The words that you've just heard from the Leader of the Opposition are the ultimate testament to Liberal lunacy. The Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Treasurer have dragged their colleagues, hangdog, into this chamber to vote against lower taxes. That's what's going on here. All of those are lining up opposite to vote against lower taxes. The party of so-called small government in this moment is in this chamber voting against lower taxes. Robert Menzies would be rolling in his grave—which is perhaps why the seat of Robert Menzies is no longer in their pile!

All we hear from the Leader of the Opposition is his method of division and his attempt to come and scare the Australian people. Fear and division is what he has been about. He simply comes in here and rolls out his old bag of tropes, which he has had for the last two decades, around what he says in relation to the Labor Party. In terms of the contribution of the shadow Treasurer today, every time the Shadow Treasurer opens his mouth is a moment closer to the Rhodes Trust asking for their money back! He has done absolutely nothing to make an argument about why the Liberal Party should be in here voting against lower taxes, and yet that is the situation that we find ourselves in.

We understand the challenges that Australians are facing. Those on the other side are sneering at the money that we are ensuring is in the pockets of Australians around this country. In total, the tax cuts that we have put in place will see $50 a week for the average income earner stay in their pockets; that's a result of the tax cuts that we've put in place. But those opposite sneer at that. They say it's nothing. They're out there pretending that what we are doing in terms of income tax relief and energy bill relief is making no difference. They will give every description under the sun about the challenges that people are facing right now, but, when it comes to actually doing something about that and helping Australians who are facing those challenges, they stand in opposition to all of it.

They have been opposed to tax cuts. They have been opposed to energy bill relief. They have been opposed to more affordable child care. They have been opposed to cheaper medicines. At every step along the way, as we have sought to put in place policies which make it easier for people to deal with the circumstances that they face, those opposite stand resolutely opposed to it. The Australian people understand that, and, in the coming weeks and months as we lead up to the next election, they will not forget it, nor will they forget the country that those opposite left us.

When we came to power, inflation was running at 6.1 per cent, and it was going higher. Today it is 2.4 per cent, and it is going lower. When we came to government, those opposite had left us a trillion dollars of debt with nothing to show for it. And to be clear, the debt story started well and truly before the pandemic. There was nothing they wouldn't throw money at. Again, the party of smaller government, the party of so-called prudent economic management, gave this country debt as far as it could see. That is what we inherited. That is the situation that we were dealing with.

In the very first full financial year that we presided over this nation's affairs, we delivered a surplus, and, in the following year, we delivered another one. Two surpluses, two years—that is something that the Liberals promised they would do every single year but didn't do once. As a result of the budget that we handed down last night, the budget bottom line now is $207 billion better than what was forecast when the Liberals were in power. That means that over the course of the decade $60 billion worth of interest is being saved by the Australian people. We have released the country from $207 billion of Liberal debt. That's what we've done. But we've done it because we understand what we are about.

We understand that the people who feel the economy most are the people who have the least. It is in places like in the Treasurer's seat of Logan or in my seat of Corio where people feel what it means when the economy is doing it tough. That's why we understand that the most Labor act that we can take is to manage the budget in a prudent way. That's why, as we have faced the global inflation challenge, we have done so in a way where we have not only brought inflation down but have made sure that unemployment has remained low and that we've got real wages going again for the first time after a decade of wage stagnation.

We've done that by improving the wages of those who need it the most. Literally, the first act of the Albanese Labor government was to intervene in the national wage case to see an increase in the minimum wage above the rate of inflation. From there, we saw increases in wages for those in aged care and for those in child care—feminised industries where people are not paid a lot. It is off the back of those interventions—those acts of policy on the part of the Albanese Labor government—that we are in a position where, on this day, real wages are growing across the country again. We understand that an economy where wages are growing, where unemployment is low, where we've had economic growth in every quarter throughout this period and where we have got inflation down is an economy which works for the people who have the least, and we are focused on that. In the process, we've been focused on making sure that we are giving people cost-of-living relief along the way by cutting HECS debt, which was in the budget last night and is an historic investment in education; by the biggest investment in Medicare that we have seen since the establishment of Medicare more than 40 years ago, an investment which will mean that nine out of 10 visits to the GP will be bulk-billed—there will be no gap fees and people will need to pay nothing; or by energy bill relief or cheaper medicines, such that the maximum price for a PBS medicine payment will be $25. The last time people were paying $25 for medicines was back in 2004. All of those measures are focused and have been focused on enabling people to deal with the cost-of-living challenges that the nation has faced—that, in fact, the world has faced—over the last few years.

All of that has been done in the face of the opposition of the Liberal Party. Now, they drag their members into this chamber to vote against lower taxes, and they sneer at those who are receiving lower taxes, because of the amount that's being talked about—$50 a week. That is what the accumulated amount of tax cuts represents for those who we have provided tax cuts to since we have been in power. That is what they are voting against. It's the cost-of-living relief that we've been putting in place that they are challenging.

Those opposite managed the economy appallingly. Back then, we had a prime minister who, unbeknownst to us all, was also the Treasurer and the resources minister. The Treasurer and the resources minister at the time didn't know that either. That was the chaos of the government that led this country through a lost decade. Let me be clear: the lost Liberal decade remains absolutely fresh in the minds of Australian voters. It will very much be there when the Australian voters go to the polls in the coming weeks and the coming months. Let's also be clear: the guilty party—the Liberal Party—remain absolutely present in terms of their place in this parliament and the choice that is given to the Australian people at the next election.

On this side of the House, with the Albanese government, we stand on the side of Australians. We stand for cutting taxes. We stand for investing in education. We stand for investing in health. We stand for building opportunity. We stand for building aspiration. In the words of the Prime Minister, we are a government which is holding no-one back and leaving no-one behind.

The Greens will be supporting this bill and voting for it, but we should be clear. This tiny tax-tweak budget is a massive missed opportunity for real cost-of-living relief, like getting dental into Medicare—73c a day in 15 months time won't help that much when your rent has gone up by hundreds of dollars already.

Everyday people are being asked to wait over a year for a very, very small amount of relief. Meanwhile, big corporations continue to laugh all the way to the bank right now. Under Labor's budget, one in three big corporations pays no tax. They could be raking in billions of dollars a year. Exxon Mobil brought in $15 billion in revenue one year and paid $0 tax. When a nurse pays more tax than a multinational, something is deeply wrong, but that's what Labor's budget delivers.

When it comes to coal and gas corporations, it's closer to one in two of them paying no tax at all, and, most of the time, they don't even pay for their gas in the first place. You show me any other business that gets its materials free, paid for by the government. Restaurants don't get that. Offices don't get that. Factories don't get that. But, if you're a big gas corporation, this government's budget gives you the gas for free, and then they don't ask you to pay any tax on it. Under this budget, under Labor's budget, by 2028, everyday Australian beer drinkers are going to be paying twice as much tax as the gas tax collects, because that is Labor's priority. This budget was a massive missed opportunity to make the big corporations pay their fair share of tax. One in three big corporations are paying no tax at all. When a nurse pays more tax than a multinational, under Labor, something is deeply wrong.

It is because the government has refused to make the big corporations pay their fair share of tax—it has been happy to take their political donations but has refused to make them pay their fair share of tax—that we see this tiny tax tweak coming for people in over 15 months' time while the big corporations continue to get massive support and massive subsidies now. There are $56 billion in subsidies, in handouts, paid for by the everyday taxpayer to the fossil fuel industry. There are $176 billion in handouts to wealthy property investors. But everyday people, well, they get told they've got to wait over a year for 73c a day, even though their rent has gone up by hundreds of dollars and their mortgage has gone up by similar amounts.

The Greens have a plan to make the big corporations pay their fair share of tax to deliver real cost-of-living relief, like getting dental and mental health into Medicare, like wiping student debt, like making public school genuinely free so people don't have to pay those so-called 'voluntary' fees of hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars every year. We could do all of that. But it's going to take a bit of courage to make the big corporations pay their fair share of tax and not keep shifting the burden onto everyday people.

Right now, people are skipping meals to pay the rent. People are avoiding going to the dentist because they can't afford it. People are skipping going to see the GP because of low bulk-billing rates. There are things we could do about this right now. We could not ask people to wait 15 months but deliver some real cost-of-living relief to people right now. That's what this place should be about; it should be about acting in the public interest, not acting in the corporate interest. But that's what this budget does.

The government say, 'No, you've got to look at all of the tax cuts we've put in together.' Well, even when you do that, billionaires and politicians still end up getting four times the tax cut as a low-income earner. People are really doing it tough and need assistance right now. We could deliver it if we said to those one-in-three big corporations that are paying no tax, 'You've got to start paying tax.'

The Greens have outlined a plan to make big corporations pay tax, and it will deliver over $500 billion over the next decade. That would help fund getting dental into Medicare now, getting mental health into Medicare now, making it free to see the GP now. But what are this government's priorities? In this week, which is the last week of parliament before the election, we could have legislated to lock in tripling the bulk-billing incentive for everyone, something the Greens announced months ago and pushed for months ago. The government came on board and said it was a good idea, and we said: 'Let's legislate it now to Dutton-proof it, to ensure that it can't be undone in the future either by a hostile Senate or by a hostile minister. Let's get it into legislation.' No, the government didn't want to do that.

We were the only ones at the last election saying we've got to wipe student debt. It means people are never able to get ahead. We're becoming a country where, even if you do all the things that are asked of you—you work hard and you study hard—you still can't afford a place to rent and you still find yourself with a massive debt to pay that influences so many decisions over your whole life. We pushed and pushed at the last election and all the way through this parliament, saying, 'We've got to take action on student debt.' The government came along and said, 'Well, tell you what, we'll wipe 20 per cent.' And we said: 'Okay. That's a good start. Let's legislate it. Let's Dutton-proof it. Let's not hold it ransom to the outcome of the election. Let's start legislating it and deliver relief for people right now.' No, the government didn't want to do that. The government wants to hold help for students and former students and families ransom to the outcome of the next election when we could be delivering it now. So the government don't want to legislate cutting student debt this week and they don't want to legislate being able to see the GP for free, even though they say it's their policy and, 'Just trust us; we'll do it after the election.' They don't want to legislate those.

What they did find time to do this week was work with the coalition to gut our environment and climate laws simply because the Leader of the Opposition asked. They found time to come into this place and rush through legislation that is not just about something happening in Tasmania—delivering for the rotten salmon corporations, as the government wants to do—but that is going to have an impact across the whole of the country. That's why the Australian Conservation Foundation has said today that this is a sell-out and that—get this, Deputy Speaker—environment protections were stronger under Scott Morrison than they are under this Prime Minister. That's where we're left at the end of this parliament. That's the verdict. That is the verdict of Australia's biggest conservation organisation.

The government didn't find time to legislate to wipe student debt and deliver help to people right now, nor to legislate to triple the bulk-billing incentive even though they say it's their policy, but they did find time to deliver for the big corporations and gut our environment and climate laws and leave our environment laws weaker than they were when Scott Morrison was in power. They didn't find time to do any of that, but they did find time to bring forward legislation that won't have an impact until 15 months time.

This is why people are shifting away from the major parties in droves. This is why we have a situation at the moment where less than a third of the country votes for the government and a bit more than a third of the country votes for the opposition. About a third of the country is now voting for someone else, including the Greens. When governments are in and they don't use their power to make people's lives better now, then people lose faith in governments. That, in turn, leaves space—as we've seen overseas—for the likes of Trump and for the likes of the Leader of the Opposition here, because they feed off that discontent.

There's an antidote to this. There's a way to prevent Trump-style politics coming to Australia, which is to use the power of government to make people's lives better now—to say that in a wealthy country like Australia everyone should be able to afford the basics: a roof over their head, groceries and housing. That's what government should be for—to help now.

Instead, we've seen rents go up by 30 per cent and mortgages soar as well, and the government say, 'There's nothing we can do about it.' We've seen student debts soar, and the government say, 'We can't legislate about it in this parliament.' We've seen people avoiding going to the doctor because they can't afford it, and the government say: 'You just have to trust us; we might do something about that next election. There's plenty of time to gut our environment and climate laws and plenty of time to ensure that Gina Rinehart and Clive Palmer continue to get billions in subsidies, but, sorry, no time to help you people.' That is what gives rise to discontent in our community. It sees the gap between the haves and the have-nots grow. And then along come the likes of the hard right, the Trumps and the Leader of the Opposition, and they feed on that discontent. We should be using this place just to make people's lives better. That's what we should be doing, and we should be doing it now.

And we could do it now. Stop tinkering around the edges, Labor. Stop saying, 'We can only do something in 15 months time.' Let's use this place to make people's lives better now, to deliver real cost-of-living relief. Because the thing is, in the long run, doing something like getting dental into Medicare, legislating so that we can see the GP for free or making it genuinely free to send your kids to a public school, funding it by making the big corporations pay their fair share of tax—that's the action that people want to see, and when it happens people will reward you for it. Instead we have a government addicted to timidity and an opposition that would be terrible.

That is why, in this environment where a third of the country is now saying, 'We don't want either of you'—and that figure is growing—I'm actually a bit optimistic. I'm optimistic because this election gives us a once-in-a-generation chance to keep Dutton out and get Labor to act. The experts are all saying there is going to be a minority parliament. Last time there was one, the Greens got dental into Medicare for kids, we got action on climate that saw pollution starting to come down and we got $13 billion for clean and renewable energy. This is our chance to get dental into Medicare for everyone.

We know, because we've just witnessed three years of it, that the opposition is going to try and tear everything down, which is why the Liberals need to be kept as far away from power as possible. But, even when they've got the opportunity to, Labor won't act. At best, we get tinkering around the edges. At worst, they take us backwards, like the environment groups have said has happened with our environment laws. Imagine that—what a badge of honour to have the biggest environment organisation now say environment protections were better under Scott Morrison than under this current Prime Minister! But that is why. We have seen over the course of this week an object example of why we need to keep the Liberals out and get Labor to act. And that will happen with more Greens in the coming minority parliament. We got dental into Medicare for kids last time. Let's get it in for everyone else now.

You just have to look at who's lost out in this budget. People on income support are still living in poverty, there are more cuts to the NDIS and the Treasurer didn't mention 'climate' or 'environment' once in his speech last night. There's nothing new for renters. The cost of AUKUS two budgets ago was $6 billion. It went up to $12 billion. And now, in their latest budget, it's $18 billion. That's for submarines that are never going to arrive, that tie us further to Donald Trump and that paint a huge Donald Trump shaped target on Australia's back. Those are the priorities of this government and they need a shake-up as we keep the Liberals out.

We've seen in this budget that Greens pressure works. We've seen some action on student debt. We've seen a tripling of the bulk-billing incentive. But we've got to, at this coming election, seize the chance to get some real action. People want assistance. People need help right now. We are in a climate and environment crisis, we are in a housing and rental crisis and we are in a cost-of-living crisis. We know that the opposition will tear everything down and deliver for billionaires, just as we've seen Donald Trump do in the United States, which is why we've got to keep them out. As we've seen this week, the only way that we're going to keep Dutton out and get Labor to act is by getting more Greens in parliament.

The Treasury Laws Amendment (More Cost of Living Relief) Bill 2025 legislates a small cut to personal income tax—$5 a week next year and then $10 a week the year after that. We rely way too much on personal income tax. A big driver of this overreliance is bracket creep. These tax cuts are a one-off way of addressing bracket creep, but there's a simple way to stop this getting worse and make both sides of politics accountable for their spending decisions. There's only one honest, long-term way to address bracket creep, and that's to index our tax brackets.

In Australia, you pay more tax when you move into a higher tax bracket. So, when you get a raise to cover increasing living costs, more of your income is taxed at a higher rate. That means people pay higher average income rates every year. That's right—more tax every year. This is bad news for taxpayers and good news for whoever's in government. It means the government gets a slush fund each year of extra tax that they can spend on whatever they want. Every Australian loses because of this. In lots of other countries, tax brackets are indexed with inflation and so you only pay a higher average rate of tax if your pay goes up more than the cost of living. But, unfortunately, because indexing tax brackets serves neither major party, you won't hear much about it unless there's pressure from the crossbench and from the public. Both major parties value the fact that they'll be given access to additional tax revenue when it's their turn in government.

I've asked the Treasurer about this in question time, and there's not much enthusiasm for it. With indexed tax brackets, successive governments wouldn't be able to treat the hidden additional revenue as accountability-free pocket money or demonstrate periodic confected largesse. Any decision to spend more would need to be made explicitly, with clear trade-offs and with the permission of the electorate.

A stalemate over genuine tax reform has evolved between the major parties over the last 30 years, with ideology overriding facts and evidence. Political leaders are hamstrung by their legacies of promises not to touch anything, so we end up tinkering around the edges like this. Tax policy cannot be taboo. We must design a tax system for future decades. Now, I will back these tax cuts because they're better than nothing. They're one short-term way to address bracket creep. But, if the government were serious about transparency and tax reform, it would be going further and prioritising longer-term fixes.

I'm an accountant who's been in practice and had my own practice. I worked in corporate, cost and tax and had my own business for about 10 years. I had about 600 clients. This document just confounds me. What I see in this document is obviously a document that people thought they didn't have to write. It's a Balmain budget brain burp. It is the tie you put on as you run out the door when you didn't think you had to go to work. It's like the homework that's been written by the student on the bus to school.

You have to have productive assets to underpin a profit and loss. You must buy assets. You've got to have productive and prudent assets. A prudent asset for a nation is dams, rail, roads, mines and ag country. They're the things that allow you to produce wealth so you can pay for your NDIS, so you can pay for your pensions and so you can pay for other policies that are essential. But this didn't talk to it. What it spoke to is how we spend money, not how we earn money. That is always a very dangerous outcome.

I will give you one example. We've never had a trillion dollars in debt, but we are going to get there now. The concept of a trillion dollars—it's such an easy word. But you can't fathom exactly how much debt you're going to have. If a trillion dollars was in seconds, it would be 31,700 years. If a trillion dollars was to be split up amongst the—I don't know—28 million people we have, that would be about $35,700 for every man, woman and child on their own individual credit cards with their own name on it. It has to be repaid. If you don't meet your interest payments on your credit card, you know what happens.

Ladies and gentlemen, your second-biggest expense now is the interest on your credit card. Do you understand what that compromises—the other things we could have done, from cancer research to defending our nation, that we can't do now because your debt is out of control? I said that maybe 15 years ago. I got sacked from the shadow finance minister job because they said, 'That's outrageous.' Then, ladies and gentlemen, it was $150 billion. I said: 'Be careful. This is getting out of control. It could go through half a trillion.' They said that was outrageous. They didn't know what I was talking about. You know—laugh, giggle, laugh, giggle. I got my backside booted out of the job.

Now you've outdone me. You're going to a trillion. You've really done well. Congratulations. Superb effort. We have a time right now where we should be, as this nation, becoming as powerful as possible as quickly as possible. It is not time for the vagaries of teals and Greens. There are only two sides—I have to say it—that have ever had the responsibility of running the show. It's the Labor side and coalition.

Everybody else can have marvellous commentary, but we've had the communist party of China off the coast of Sydney practising live fire. Do you get that? Do you get what that means? Where do you want them to go—into Sydney Harbour? When do we understand how serious this really has become? They circumnavigated Australia, probably working out where all our communications are. They're working out how they get to a place, what they can do and how quickly they can do it. We couldn't even get one of our own naval vessels out there to follow them. We had to rely on New Zealand. We didn't even know what they were doing. We had to rely on a Virgin commercial aircraft to tell us.

You look at this budget that follows it up—that's right. You would think it would be screaming at that issue. It would be working out right now what to do. It would take the Australian people into their confidence and say, 'We've got this. We know it is before us. The rule book is going out the window now. We are going to focus absolutely 100 per cent on this nation and protect it. We don't care.' Other things are great ideas. They are benevolent ideas and they are well-meaning but we haven't got the time anymore; that is beyond us. Whether it is our side or their side, we don't have that epiphany. We had better have it—in a big rush.

The other issue in our seats and in regional seats—in the member for Cowper's seat and my seat—is we have the poorest people in Australia. To be quite frank, they probably don't follow the budget; they wouldn't watch it. They would probably know very little about it. We actually do see them. We see people who are living in their cars and they are not drug addicts, not alcoholics. Some of them have jobs but they just can't afford to live in a house. In this incredible nation, with all our resources, more and more of these people are becoming destitute. When the floods went through Queensland and northern New South Wales, so many people who were living in parks didn't even have those at the end; they were gone. We have an obligation to those people as well to throw out the rule book. We have an obligation, as we make our nation as powerful as possible, as quickly as possible, to give them some dignity back in their lives and to understand what is the essence of this. How do you do it? Where do you go?

You have to have a fundamental structural analysis of your balance sheet—your assets and your liabilities. You know your liabilities are there so you have to get red-hot productive assets to drive the PNL to a profit because it is out of that profit that you get the capacity to help these people. One of the fundamental things that sits underneath our capacity to do any of that is energy prices. If you don't have cheap energy and you want to be competitive, you really only have two places to go. You can have cheap labour, but the member for Watson would rightly stand up and absolutely smash us on that. Cheap labour is not the solution. Or you can have your minerals, your base commodities, cheap but you can't because they are on the global market. They come in on the global market, are tradeable on the global market and that is it.

So you only have one strategic advantage—that is, cheap energy—but we don't have it. We have become infatuated with intermittent power. Intermittent power—res ipsa loquitur—speaks for itself. It is not working. It is now the most expensive power in the developed world. Getting more of it is not going to make the problem better; it is going to make the problem worse, much worse, and the chances of getting that lady out of her car and into a house becomes fewer and fewer because nothing fundamentally changes the dial. This is a part of the process. These things, our external threat and the internal dilemma, work together—that is, the external threat of what is happening geopolitically and the internal dilemma of how we manage to get dignity back into peoples' lives.

Does this budget address that? I fundamentally believe that there was a belief that they were going to call an election but for the ex-tropical cyclone, and this budget became an afterthought. Nonetheless, it should be a document that gives some respect to the job that it has before them, which is to take Australia to a better place, and it is not doing that. Last night in the Treasurer's speech, I never heard the word 'agriculture' once. It was never mentioned. I did hear the words 'climate change'. 'Regional development'—didn't hear that. When you think about it, where is our wealth coming from? These are not made in Australia. This is not made in Australia. Shoes are not made in Australia; although maybe they are if they are RMs. The car you drive, the fuel that is in it, the stereo at home, the phone in your pocket, all come in from overseas. Going back to your P&L and going back to your assets and your balance sheet, all that comes in from overseas. For that little piece of polymer in your pocket, called your dollar note, to have any value, somebody from overseas must want it. And what do we want off us? We don't make anything really, so what they want off us is iron ore, coal, gas, cotton, beef, grain, banking—there is a bit of banking—and education. I'll give it to you there with education. But overwhelmingly those are products from regional Australia. Given a document that was prudent and that was competent, whether you liked people in regional Australia or not, you would speak to it. You would speak to how that was going to segue into the national purpose of having a fundamentally cogently constructed document that would give us both the prospect of a better standard of living to deal with the cost-of-living crisis, and the capacity, in what are incredibly vague times, to defend our nation.

If you don't give it in that document, then where are you going to give it? Because that is your election pitch. Last night was it. There it is, Australia. There is the reason to re-elect the Labor government. Make a decision—do you believe that they've done their homework, or do you believe that was scratched out on the way to school?

If there has to be, within this coming electoral debate, a decisive and clear understanding of the predicament that Australia now finds itself in—very assertive moves must be made to deal with that issue. The courage is needed to put aside what are wonderful ideas but which are obviously not working, such as intermittent power, and just to say, 'We are only going to do one thing here. We are going to make Australia as powerful as possible as quickly as possible, and we're going to go to the person who is at the bottom end of the social strata and say, "We are fundamentally changing the structure of how we do business to give you a prospect of getting ahead, of getting out of your car, of getting back into a house and of getting away from the indignity of, basically, living"'—I've seen them around. There are no toilets, no police, no hospital and no sewerage around the house. Come out to regional areas. You actually see it. What we're seeing for this is $5 a week, truly. It's supposed to be the seminal item of where this electorate will go. When you watch television, they say there's going to be a debate about this—about $5 a week! In Peel Street in Tamworth, there is not a coffee shop where you can buy a cup of coffee for 5 bucks. Those days are over.

Is this as complex as this debate's going to get? Is this where we've arrived? To try and get some sense, we have to have, across the parliament, the ability to attract people to this place who have run a business. I think that is something that we are desperately in need of. We need to attract more people, on both sides, who have actually run a business, because it is that fear you get when you've run a business—when Friday comes and you have to pay the wages for the staff and you think, 'I don't know whether I've quite got it in the bank,' and you have to ring up the people who owe you money and say: 'You gotta pay me. You've gotta pay me. You've gotta pay me.' It is drilled into you—the realities of what happens when your budget, your document, is unsound.

In my life, in closing, there were three groups of people, and two fascinated me. There were the people who became exceptionally wealthy, and I had to deal with them. They were very lucky. My best client paid about $160,000 a year in the accountancy fees that I charged them. There were the very wealthy, then there were a big group in the middle. They're really nice people, but you don't really learn much from them. And then there were the people that went broke. They fascinated me as well. You look at those two different types of people, and what were they doing? The one fundamental thing you could say is that the people who get ahead are brilliant at understanding the value of productive assets, and they have a thing—it might be old-fashioned—called prudence. The people who go broke have an absolute desire for chattels—for consumable goods—and no idea about the value of money. They go broke, and we better get with the first group and away from the last one.

I'd advise the House and advise members that at the end of this speech we'll be bringing this to a vote, because it's time for this parliament to decide whether or not we're going to provide a tax cut for every Australian.

You would have thought that, for the big fight that those opposite decide to pick when they get to budget night and do the presser afterwards, the whole backbench would be ready to come in behind its leadership. But we get the shadow Treasurer making a speech, then the Leader of the Opposition and then no-one—none of the backbench turn up! We have two speeches from the crossbench—because no-one from there jumps. Then the member for New England comes in to be the one loyal soldier to give a speech about tax cuts. It's a 15-minute speech, but he gets to the 13-minute mark and still hasn't mentioned them, then refers to them for all of 24 seconds before returning to the rest of his stream of consciousness.

Today is the day when this term—and where the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Treasurer have taken their party—reaches full circle. Never again let it be said by those opposite that, somehow, they think they are the party of lower taxes. Up until today, they've been able to say, 'It was just the Leader of the Opposition,' or, 'It was just the shadow Treasurer.' We know they're saying that, because it's in the papers. We know that they're all running off all their backbenchers, complaining about the lack of a coherent economic message.

Today, all that changes. When the tax cuts were announced for the previous budget, they were initially going to fight them. They were going to hold an early election over them. But, eventually, they folded and said: 'Okay. Maybe we'll support them. We just won't be happy about it.' Today, you can't go back to your branches anymore and say: 'That's just the leadership. That's not what we believe.' You will now go back to your branches after what's about to happen, and it will be on you that you have voted for every worker in your electorates to have higher taxes. You're about to actively be part of that decision.

Part of the reason why we're bringing this to a vote now is that I want to give the Senate the chance to consider this tonight. I want there to be an opportunity for this to be law. Because, make no mistake, the conversation that those opposite will be having with their party members and with every single person who votes for them will not be about explaining whether or not they want to give this money but about the fact that they want to take it away.

They keep telling us in interview after interview—the shadow Treasurer used the line again on the weekend—'The best guide to future action is past performance.' Well, they are about to provide the textbook case of past performance, which is: when you are given a decision, do you vote for taxes to be lower or higher? Members on this side are about to vote for taxes to be lower. We're about to vote consistently with how we've voted on every cost-of-living measure. We know that if you want cost of living to be eased for people, you want their taxes to be lower, and we voted for that. Those opposite are about to vote for taxes to be higher. To ease cost of living, you want wages to be higher, and we voted for that. At every single opportunity, those opposite have voted to restrain wages, just as they did for nine years, when low wage growth was a deliberate design feature of how they managed the economy.

They have been consistent with every other cost-of-living measure, opposing energy bill relief, opposing free TAFE and opposing cheaper medicines, but it has taken until today that they have been forced to have the vote on where they stand on taxation. Let's remember that these tax cuts build on what we did last time that they didn't want us to do. They are a top-up on what happened last time. When you put them together, you get an average tax cut of $43 a week for 2026-27 and an average tax cut of $50 per week in 2027-28. Does that mean that the cost of living is solved? Of course it doesn't. You also need all the other measures, including higher wages and what we have done to bring inflation down. You need all of that to be able to make sure you're looking after people. But what is there up in lights is that those opposite oppose every single one of those measures—absolutely everything that would make life easier for people. Those opposite don't just believe that it should be harder for people; they vote that it should be harder for people. So, after this moment, never think that there is an option for those opposite to claim that they're the party of lower taxes, because they will have voted for tax to be higher for every single Australian taxpayer—every one of them.

As the PM said, tax cuts are the only cuts that they don't support. They're the only cuts they don't support. Those opposite have cuts planned, particularly because of their plans for nuclear. You don't get to spend $600 billion without making cuts. We know that they oppose what we did on medicines. They've opposed energy bill relief. They've opposed higher wages. They've opposed cheaper child care. Three times in three years they've opposed three tax cuts, and throughout all of that time this government has had a very simple refrain: people should be able to earn more and keep more of what they earn. No-one on the other side was able to make it to their time defending what is in front of us.

Maybe you want your audition for the front bench. I got to say that there are a good number you are better than. It's a very special front bench that those opposite have provided.

Order! It's not a two-way conversation.

When they've gone off on tangents on other issues, let me just very quickly correct some of the things that they've said that have just been bizarre. They claimed that they will lower immigration at the same time that they voted to make overseas students unlimited. Unlimited was how they voted. They claimed that they're going to put a two-year ban in place that will stop foreign buyers from competing against young Australians for homes when a ban of that nature has already been announced and starts on Tuesday of next week. They claimed to be outraged about 29,000 businesses that have gone insolvent without mentioning that insolvencies as a proportion of companies under the Albanese Labor government is in fact the lowest of any government on record. While they might want to talk about 29,000 businesses across the term, what they don't want to mention is 25,000 new companies registered every single month, which makes the average monthly new company registrations higher under this government than under any other government on record. For every single metric that those opposite put out, every principle they claim they believe in, they vote the opposite way. I'd love to understand how you're meant to help with the cost of living by making taxes higher, wages lower and getting rid of cost-of-living relief.

Let's not forget that someone kept telling me that the best guide to future actions is past performance. The best guide to future actions is past performance, and the Liberal Party has been fundamentally a party that has decided, under the leadership of this Leader of the Opposition and this shadow Treasurer, it's so committed to saying no to everything that it will say no to tax cuts, no to wage rises and no to cost-of-living relief. People know that when the Leader of the Opposition cuts, they will pay. That is what people know. People know that he wants to cut wages, because the opposition kept wages flatlining, and everything we've done to get wages moving in this country, those opposite have opposed. When he launches those wage cuts, people will pay for them.

We've made prescription medicines cheaper, getting them down to the prices they were in 2004. Yet, every time we've acted on cheaper medicines, those opposite have opposed us. Whenever they see something that will help Australians, those opposite have been absolutely determined to oppose it—every single measure. Those opposite are absolutely committed to higher taxes, lower wages and getting rid of cost-of-living relief. You don't have to believe their interviews or their rhetoric; you just have to look at how they voted.

Up until now, we haven't had a vote in this parliament where they've actually gone through with their rhetoric and voted for higher taxes. Here's an opportunity for all those on the back bench, for all those on the front bench, for all those people—and I don't know who you are—who give the background comments to the papers about how much they hate the economic decisions that are being made by their leadership group. I don't know what level of consultation happened before the opposition announced they were going to oppose the tax cuts. I don't know what level of consultation happened, but I do know this: in the vote in a couple of minutes time, because you keep boasting to us that in your party you can vote your own way, you're about to own this vote. You're about to be in a situation where, for every elector, you either support them getting a tax cut or you don't. It will be on the Hansard record. It's a vote you'll never be able to walk away from. You can't blame the leadership, because you keep telling us you can vote whichever way you want. My simple call to every member of this parliament is, if you believe there should be a tax cut for every Australian, then vote for this bill. If you believe in higher taxes, then vote no and own the consequences.

I move:

That the question be now put.

The question before the House is that the question be put.

The question is that the bill be read a second time.

We want to get this across to the Senate, so I move:

That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the motion for the third reading being moved without delay.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

I move:

That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the following from occurring immediately:

The Member for Fairfax making a statement of no more than 15 minutes in relation to the Select Committee on Nuclear Energy's interim report into the inquiry into nuclear power generation in Australia.

What is it about the Labor Party, when they want to gag debate on nuclear energy—

Order! The member for Fairfax will resume his seat.

The member for Kingsford Smith is interjecting outside of his seat, so he'll cease interjecting. I call the Leader of the House.

Thanks, Mr Speaker. When we were on this item earlier, I made it clear, when you asked me, that we would in fact return to it. So we'll be able to return, and there will be a motion to which he'll be able to make whatever speech he wants.

Does the member wish to proceed under that information provided to the House?

I would like to proceed, if that is alright.

You may.

I want to proceed with this debate, as Labor MPs leave the chamber—yet again afraid to have a debate about Australia's energy future. If I were Labor, I, too, would be leaving in shame, because every MP in this chamber on the Labor side of the House promised their constituents a $275 reduction in household power bills, including the minister, whose own constituents are now set to pay $1,300 more than he promised them.

This inquiry has been an important one, and there's a reason why this Labor government set up an inquiry that has been a political stitch-up from the very get-go—a political stitch-up by way of the members constituting that committee. In fact, as a very rare occasion in this parliament, we have the crossbench, including the Greens and the teals, supporting the coalition on a motion to bring balance to that committee because it was so poorly skewed in favour of the Labor Party because they wanted to manipulate the process in order to have a go. Also, the terms of reference were narrow so the Labor Party could try to get across its political points.

But, of course, as it transpired during the inquiry, we heard evidence after evidence coming from Australian and international experts which said, 'If you add nuclear to a balanced energy mix, the prices come down.' That has been the evidence right across the world. It is why Australia is now isolated—the only nation in the G20 that is either not using nuclear energy or not moving towards using it in the near future.

The Department of Energy in the United States made it very clear in their own report: there's a 37 per cent reduction in costs compared to a renewables-only scheme if you have nuclear in the mix. The independent report from Frontier Economics here in the Australian context did a similar study, a total system cost analysis, that proved the coalition's plan to get to a 2050 zero emissions grid is actually 44 per cent cheaper than Labor's. But Labor ignores all this. Labor don't want to have a debate, which is why they seek to gag this debate today.

On timing, again we heard evidence after evidence in the committee that the timing put forward by the coalition for introducing zero emissions nuclear energy in Australia was accurate and it was doable. In fact, we had the Albanese government's own advisers on nuclear technology. Their view with respect to small modular reactors is that they have an expected deployment timeframe of around five years from construction start to electricity or heat generation—that's the Albanese government's own advisers. The committee report itself, written by the chair, the member for Hunter, actually ignores that advice. It also ignores the advice of Professor Andrew Whittaker, who has advised the White House in the United States on nuclear energy. He says that, when it comes to timing, it should take five to 10 years to build a plant with two-gigawatt-scale reactors in Australia, taking advantage of the lessons learned. Again, whether it be costs, whether it be timing, the inquiry bore this out. The experts, globally and domestically, basically said the coalition's plan is based on international best practice. But they want to ignore this.

The chair of the inquiry, the member for Hunter, stood up earlier in this parliament, before they gagged the coalition, to claim that the real problem with nuclear is the speed at which coal plants are coming out of the grid. As somebody who has seen him in the coal communities and in this parliament can I remind that member that his constituents have two very different members. When we sat in coal communities across regional Australia, the chair of this inquiry, the member for Hunter, on multiple occasions denied Labor's plan to close coal plants prematurely. It's all in Hansard. Loy Yang, the latest, goes all the way through into the mid- to late 2040s. He said: 'No, no, no. It will be allowed to proceed, of course, all the way through until the end of its life.' Yet the inquiry report drafted by the chair himself, the member for Hunter, makes clear that all coal plants are closed by 2038.

Under Labor's plan 10.8 gigawatts of coal generation will be exiting the grid over the next 10 years without replacement. That's before the scheduled closure, according to the coal plant owners. The member comes into this place and tries to argue that the coal plants are going to be closed early, but back at home he tells a very different story. Again, you have to look at what Labor's policies really are and what their impacts are, rather than listen to what comes out of the mouths of those opposite depending on different situations. We heard from regional communities—from Muswellbrook, for example. That is a community the member for Hunter should know very well. The former mayor of Muswellbrook, Steven Reynolds, told the inquiry:

… a replacement of a power station here—

referring to nuclear energy—

would see jobs being transferred into a familiar role whilst retaining the permanent well-paying jobs.

The Latrobe City Council Mayor, Dale Harriman, said:

I know I talk regularly to a number of coal power station workers. They're excited by this idea that they're actually going to have a future … The discussion now that nuclear is there and it gives an option to our coal-fired power station workers—that there is a future that pays like-for-like jobs—they're very, very supportive of it. I think, as a community, that's something we've been asking for: those jobs that are like for like.

Keep in mind, of course, that studies by the Department of Energy in the United States have explained that around 77 per cent of coal plant workers can transition to work in a nuclear power plant without any change to their occupation, seamlessly so, which is why these communities which are being shut down—regional economies being hollowed out by the premature closure of coal-fired power stations with no replacement on the way from the Labor Party—are screaming out for a future.

Our proposal, which is a balanced energy mix—a future which will have renewables, gas and, as coal eventually does retire from the system, zero emissions nuclear energy—gives these regional communities the future they deserve. The two I just quoted, the Hunter and La Trobe, are regional powerhouses that have underpinned energy security for generations in this country.

The Labor Party's plan is to hollow them out. They want to turn boilermakers into baristas. That's their plan; that is how shallow their plan is. We don't agree with that. We believe in regional Australia. We believe these communities have a bright future. And that is why we are interested in introducing zero emissions power plants, plants that will be designed to last for 60 to 80 years—maybe, with extensions, up to a hundred years.

We're talking about a plan that allows for regional deals to ensure that transport infrastructure and community infrastructure can be built in these communities. We're talking about integrated economic development zones so we can ensure these communities are rich when it comes to manufacturing, when it comes to mineral processing and when it comes to high technology, because they will have the cheapest, cleanest and most consistent power in the country. But the Labor Party refuse to have a conversation. They gag debate. They're into memes and untruths about this plan because they know there's a reason why our friends and allies around the world are adopting nuclear energy as part of a balanced energy mix. It's because it gets prices down, it is the fastest way to decarbonise an electricity grid, and it guarantees security—all the things that this Labor Party has promised the Australian people and failed on. Today it's no surprise that they have, yet again, sought to gag debate.

Is there a seconder for the motion?

I second the motion. Labor's energy plan is off the rails. It's gone woke and it's sending companies broke. I firmly believe Labor's plan to reach net zero is unrealistic. It's a plan for higher prices, rolling blackouts and environmental damage. Labor's plan is just for higher household energy bills, and we see it. We see it in the bills that have gone up to $1,000 since they've entered office, and, with the new plan passed, we will see bills rise a further $300 more next financial year. And why? We now know Labor's plan, which it previously touted at $122 billion, will actually cost $642 billion.

This is a number that the government does not dispute, and there's still north in that figure of $642 billion. It excludes Snowy Hydro, Orana and a whole host of other projects. It excludes consumer energy costs such as batteries and solar. This is why Australians are paying a thousand dollars more and will pay, as I said, up to $300 more next financial year. Yet we watch them high-fiving over that $150 subsidy and talking about the relief they're wreaking for everyday Australians. We watched them high-fiving over these subsidies when we watched Whyalla Steelworks close, because businesses are going broke. And it's not just big businesses like Whyalla Steelworks; it's small and medium manufacturers, small boilermakers, machine workers and shop workers. This plan is not realistic and it's not fit-for-purpose; it's intermittent energy and higher prices.

Let's take onshore wind as an example. Onshore wind will need to increase to five gigawatts a year to meet their 2030 target. Is that realistic? Guess what—we have not produced more than one gigawatt a year to date. Do we think we can increase by 500 per cent the amount of offshore wind to meet their targets? Actually, offshore wind has been decreasing. Yet we're meant to believe this magic pudding plan that, somehow, it will increase by 500 per cent. Labor also assumes hydrogen power will become available in the 2040s. This is despite Origin and Twiggy Forrest walking away from it and no leading country in the world planning on hydrogen to be a significant part of their energy mix. Yet there it is in the AEMO step change and Labor's plan. We're banking on hydrogen. It also says gas should increase by 50 per cent. That's Labor's own plan. Yet they're not approving further gas. We are not approving it. This is why this will send this country broke. It's because we've gone woke.

Labor's plan also predates artificial intelligence. It predates blockchain and all these energy-intensive industries. That is why we've seen Google, Microsoft and Meta all investing in this sector. This is why we've heard evidence from the Minerals Council of Australia that it's negligent. This is why we heard from Dr Chris Greig from Princeton, who worked on Australia's and America's net zero plans and gave evidence. The Daily Telegraph called it 'not even close' in the article 'Leading scientist's scathing review of Australia's net zero progress'. This is someone who actually promotes net zero in both Australia and America.

Further, our continued prohibition stands in stark contrast to the rest of the world. Twenty-five countries in COP28, including the US and UK, pledged to triple global nuclear capacity, but not Australia. Embarrassingly, they actually announced that Australia would be part of this and would be sharing research with the US and UK. But, embarrassingly, our government trotted someone out there to say that we'd be withdrawing from an agreement where they would voluntarily share intel and research with us to help us decarbonise our grid and lower prices. We backed out of it—pathetic. Even the former chief scientist of South Australia gave evidence saying that we should be looking at nuclear, and she had no hope that we could get to a decarbonised grid or lower prices without nuclear. We heard expert after expert over these weeks. I'm new to parliament. I actually thought this would be an inquiry where we got together, we looked at it and we talked about it but, instead, what we had was an inquiry with a majority of Labor members who actually wrote a report. We proposed amendments, none of which were considered, none of which were debated, all of which were rejected in about 10 minutes. Therefore, we had no option left but to put together a dissenting report to try and help Australian businesses, to try and help Australian households, make ends meet. (Time expired)

Before the member takes his seat, you need to formally second the motion.

I formally second the motion.

The question before the House is that the motion be agreed to.

by leave—I move:

That the House take note of the following document:

Interim report for the inquiry into nuclear power generation in Australia—Report, incorporating dissenting reports, February 2025.

Debate adjourned.

Ordered that the resumption of the debate be made an order of the day for a later hour.

I move:

That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate.

Question agreed to.

by leave—On behalf of the Albanese Labor government, I'm proud to deliver our fourth regional ministerial budget statement.

I'd like to acknowledge the traditional custodians of where we are today and pay my respects to their elders past and present.

Across our first term in government, our message to regional Australians has been loud and clear—your postcode shouldn't be a barrier.

Just because you grow up in Bega, on the NSW far South Coast or in Gladstone in Central Queensland and just because you live at Mount Gambier in regional South Australia or in the Pilbara Region in outback WA doesn't mean that the services and the opportunities available to you are second best.

I say this as a proud regional member of this place and on behalf of my fantastic regional colleagues here with me today.

I say this as someone that's always lived in our regions—from Traralgon in regional Victoria, to Merimbula on the NSW far South Coast—where I watched my parents work hard every day to build a small business and to provide our family with a better life.

It is in a regional community where I myself now run a small business with my husband and where we're raising our kids.

And I say this as someone that's had the privilege of spending a lot of time talking to regional people across Australia—both as the member for the mighty Eden-Monaro and as the Minister for Regional Development, Local Government and Territories.

From the Hunter region in NSW, Caboolture in regional Queensland, Devonport in Tasmania to communities across the 42,000 square kilometres in my electorate, regional Australia is a great place to live, to work, to study, to visit and to invest—and I wouldn't live anywhere else.

Our regions generate a third of the nation's economic output, and there are so many opportunities that our government wants to take advantage of.

You'd be living under a rock if you said life outside of our big cities doesn't come without its unique challenges; it absolutely does.

Unlike those opposite though, on this side of the House we're not shying away from that.

I'm proud to be part of a government that, across its first term, has delivered record investments to improve the reliability and the accessibility of critical services that regional people rely on to support more regional people to work and train closer to home, because you shouldn't have to pack your bags to build your career; to build more things in our own backyard, investing in the hard work and know-how of regional people; to give regional Australians more support to buy or rent a home; to support local businesses and local economies to grow, with small businesses in particular the backbone of our regions; to ensure the local roads we drive every day to drop the kids off at school and to get to work are safe and keep pace with growing communities; to improve our major highways linking our cities to our regions so more visitors support our local businesses and experience everything we have to offer; to keep our regions connected and better prepared for natural disasters, something that so many regional communities, including across Eden-Monaro, have needed to rebuild from; and, most importantly, to relieve immediate pressures on regional families and businesses, which, let's not forget, those opposite talk a big game on, despite opposing every single cost-of-living measure to date and committing to tearing apart every measure that'll support regional Australians into the future.

While we're delivering record investments to build regional Australia's future, the wreckers opposite are determined to leave regional communities, which aren't the right colour on their spreadsheets, behind.

The Albanese government is delivering better outcomes for every regional community, because we're addressing the challenges, harnessing the opportunities and taking the needs of our regions seriously.

Through our Regional Investment Framework, we're ensuring targeted investments support regional people, the places they live, the services they need, and the industries that stimulate our local economies, with investments through the 2025-26 budget building on everything we've delivered across our first term.

Investing in p eople

Our No. 1 priority has been easing pressures faced by regional families and businesses today, while supporting more work, training and economic opportunities outside of our big cites.

We've delivered tax cuts for every regional taxpayer—a huge impact for taxpayers in my own electorate of Eden-Monaro, putting an average of $1,633 back into their pockets—with two new rounds of tax cuts on the way, which those opposite just voted against.

We've delivered $300 in energy bill relief to millions of households and $325 to small businesses, along with cheaper child care and cheaper medicines.

We've cut $3 billion in student debt, with a further 20 per cent to be cut if we're re-elected.

And we've supported over 127,000 free TAFE places in our regions—from construction courses to child care.

We're getting more people into industries that are screaming out for workers, after those opposite gutted the vocational education system during their failed decade.

We've introduced legislation to make free TAFE permanent—something those opposite have said they'll repeal, because, as the Deputy Leader of the Opposition said in this very chamber, 'If you don't pay for it, you don't value it.'

But I want my kids and every regional person to know that your postcode and your bank balance shouldn't limit your potential.

Through this budget we'll provide additional cost-of-living relief, along with increased investments to remove study barriers, and $1.8 billion to provide all households, and around one million small businesses, with an additional $150 in energy bill relief.

We've also added $800 million to expand our Help to Buy scheme to support more people to get into their own home—including in our regions.

This builds on the 32,000 regional Australians we've already helped into homeownership, through the regional home guarantee.

There is $626.9 million to support $10,000 incentive payments for construction sector apprentices—with $7 million to increase the living away from home allowance for apprentices.

As an operator of a small plumbing business that hires apprentices, and having recently spent time with bricklaying apprentices at Queanbeyan, I know that every cent counts when you're starting out, especially when you're living away from home.

That's why we're boosting apprentice wages and we're easing cost-of-living pressures—because we value their hard work and we know that building this workforce is essential to delivering more homes.

My mum, my dad, my brother, my sister and my husband all went to TAFE, which is why I'm incredibly proud to be part of a government that is strengthening this sector—and ensuring more regional people can build a better future.

Through this budget, we're delivering $407.5 million to states and territories, as part of the Better and Fairer Schools Agreement.

This is record funding to give our teachers, including in our regional schools, more support—to lift education standards, and to better support students from kindergarten through to year 12.

And, if you want to go on to further study, fantastic. Existing investments like the 56 regional university study hubs we're delivering—from Port Augusta, in South Australia, to Goulburn, in my own electorate—will mean you don't have to leave the region that you live in and love.

A further $33.6 million will flow to the Clontarf Foundation to support up to 12½ thousand First Nations boys and young men access better education support.

We're delivering record investments to continue improving the affordability and accessibility of regional health care—because when you need to see the doctor, or when you need to buy a script, your street address and your wallet shouldn't stop you.

We've already delivered $3½ billion to triple the bulk-billing incentive, supporting over 2½ million additional claims across regional Australia.

Through this budget, we're investing an additional $7.9 billion to deliver more bulk-billing to all Australians, including in our regions.

Having delivered the largest cut to the cost of medicines in the history of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, we're now making medicines even cheaper.

$689 million to bring a PBS script down to $25, keeping more money in the hip pockets of regional Australians—with our pensioners and concession card holders to continue paying $7.70 for PBS medicines until 2030.

$792.9 million to deliver more choice, lower costs and better health care for women—including the first PBS listing for a new oral contraceptive pill in more than 30 years along with more bulk billing for long-term contraceptives, more endometriosis and pelvic pain clinics to treat more conditions, and more Medicare support for women experiencing menopause.

Investing in Services

Regional health and aged care were left in crisis under those opposite—a mess the Albanese government has been cleaning up from day 1.

We've delivered $17.7 billion to fund increases to the minimum award wage for aged-care workers—not only to support and retain these critical workers but also to ensure that our loved ones get the care that they need as they get older.

We've delivered an additional $1.6 billion to strengthen our public hospitals and to reduce waiting times across the country, bringing our hospital funding to a record $33.9 billion in 2025-26.

We've also increased the number of regional GP training places, along with waiving HECS for doctors and nurses that work in our regions—getting more skilled workers where we need them most.

Through this budget, we're investing $662.6 million to grow our health workforce.

There will be hundreds more GP and rural generalist training places to grow the future pipeline of GPs—with fairer salary incentives for junior doctors who choose general practice as their speciality.

100 more Commonwealth supported places for medical students a year from 2026, increasing to 150 more by 2028—with a focus on encouraging students to pursue general practice in our regions—and hundreds of scholarships for nurses and midwives to help meet our current and future demands.

A re-elected Albanese government will deliver another 50 Medicare urgent care clinics across the country, from Burnie in Tassie to Bega in my own electorate, with our $644.3 million investment.

This builds on the 87 Medicare urgent care clinics we've already delivered, which are making a huge difference in our communities.

Of these 137 clinics, 48 are in our regions, from Broome in WA to Townsville in Queensland and Tamworth in New South Wales.

The urgent care clinic just down the road in Queanbeyan has already supported over 7,000 fully bulk-billed presentations in the last nine months alone.

Rusty, a local constituent of mine, told me about the huge difference it made for him when he had an infection.

He walked right into the clinic and received the help he needed, for free—a service that's also supported his children and grandchildren.

As Rusty said, this type of clinic is critical to taking the pressure off our hospitals—as we continue to rebuild the health sector.

But regional services like this will cease to exist under those opposite, because you only have to look at the billions that were cut from Medicare by the Leader of the Opposition when he was the health minister to know their plan for Medicare is nothing but cuts.

No government has done more for regional services than the Albanese government—but health care wasn't the only service completely abandoned, during the wasted decade, by those opposite.

We're already investing $2.2 billion to strengthen regional communication, particularly in disaster-prone areas—after programs like the Mobile Black Spot Program were pork-barrelled by those opposite.

We've invested record amounts of money in the NBN, where we've seen half of some streets and half of some suburbs being stuck on unreliable copper, including just 15 minutes down the road in Jerrabomberra.

It takes more than a bit of string and a can to run a small business or to work or study from home.

In this budget, we're providing an additional $3 billion in equity funding to NBN Co to complete upgrades for all remaining fibre-to-the-node premises, including connecting an additional 334,000 regional premises to high-speed internet.

A service that we can't forget would be sold off to the highest bidder under those opposite.

We're also introducing a universal outdoor mobile obligation—requiring telcos to provide access to mobile voice and SMS almost everywhere across Australia. This will have huge benefits for regional and remote communities, particularly during emergencies and disasters.

Natural disasters are something that many regional electorates deal with, including my own of Eden-Monaro, and we've felt this deeply, which is why I'm really proud that our government established the National Emergency Management Agency. We've seen the support that it's provided to regional communities, most recently in Queensland and New South Wales during ex-Tropical Cyclone Alfred.

Our $1 billion Disaster Ready Fund continues to support regional communities to be better prepared.

And our additional $35 million investment to boost our national aerial fleet gives regional communities more emergency support when they need it most.

But it's not just during disasters when our regions need reliable aviation.

Despite the Leader of the Nationals in the Senate telling Sky News just last week that the opposition had been fighting for a more competitive aviation sector—the reality is that they sat idle at the departure gate.

They did nothing with the Sydney airport slot review handed to them in 2021, something we've responded to with our own Aviation white paper.

And they've said that keeping Rex Airlines' regional routes operating during the voluntary administration process is sabotaging the sale process.

I'm really proud, as is every member of my constituency, that the Albanese government has kept Rex's regional flights in the air, with an $80 million loan facility to Rex administrators and additional support to reduce the debt that Rex owes, because for regional communities like mine these flights are critical to our local economy, they're critical to accessing important health services, and they're critical for just getting around.

The reality of living in our regions is we need to travel longer for some services, which is why we'll continue to stand up for a strong regional aviation sector.

Investing in places

We all know travelling by car is generally how we get around, though, which is why we've already increased local road funding for every council across the country.

Roads to Recovery funding is going up from $500 million a year to $1 billion per year, road black spot funding has increased to $150 million per year, and we've launched our $200 million per year Safer Local Roads and Infrastructure Program—all while continuing to invest in major transport projects—because every local community should have confidence in the roads that they're driving on.

In his budget reply last year, the Leader of the Nationals said those opposite would deliver the strong infrastructure funding pipeline that our regional communities need.

But let's not forget, when they were responsible for the infrastructure pipeline, it below out from 150 projects to 800 projects, without a single dollar extra being added to the budget, and without the delivery taking place.

Regional communities deserve much more than promises in press releases with no follow-through, which is why we continue to deliver critical projects to build regional Australia's future.

Funding through this budget includes $7.2 billion for the Bruce Highway safety upgrades in Queensland, $200 million towards duplicating the Stuart Highway from Darwin to Katherine, $40 million for the Main South Road upgrade in South Australia, and $1.1 billion towards upgrades along the Western Freeway in Victoria.

After colour coded spreadsheets from those opposite, we've delivered on our commitment to establish transparent grant programs that every postcode can apply for.

Our $600 million Growing Regions Program is already supporting 112 projects, with 29 projects supported under our $400 million Regional Precincts and Partnerships Program so far.

I had the pleasure of visiting Wagga's Lake Albert—one of this region's most popular recreational sites, which will be completely transformed thanks to $4.4 million in growing regions funding.

Projects like this that are making our regions better places to live, to work and to invest in but having more housing to attract and retain those workers is something that every community tells me they need, which is why we've already committed $32 billion in housing measures, including over 13,000 homes nationally under the first round of our Housing Australia Future Fund—many of those in our regions.

And that's more than those opposite delivered in an entire decade—when they had no plan for building, and their only idea for turning more keys was letting people raid their super for a deposit.

But, to their credit, they've now said that they will fund enabling infrastructure—labelling this a fantastic idea.

It's so fantastic, we're already doing it—through our $1.5 billion Housing Support Program.

That that has supported great projects, like the $27.2 million program to support upgrading Marulan's sewage treatment plant in the mighty Eden-Monaro, which lays the foundation for more housing.

Through this budget, we're delivering $54 million to turbocharge advanced manufacturing of prefabricated and modular homes, which gets more homes into our regions where we need them most—lifting our total housing commitments to $33 billion.

Investing i n i ndustries and l ocal e conomies

More housing is a key part of how we're building regional Australia's future, and it is supporting our regional businesses and our regional economies to grow.

Under those opposite, car manufacturers left our shore, which left our regional people behind.

But Labor has always had the back of regional manufacturing, and we've shown that again with our new investment of $2.4 billion with the South Australian government to save the Whyalla Steelworks, supporting 1,100 direct workers, and encouraging more investment into Australian made steel.

This builds on our existing $22.7 billion Future Made in Australia agenda, ensuring we build more in our own backyard. It includes over $500 million to boost Australia's battery manufacturing capabilities, and $1 billion to supercharge the production of solar panels in our regions.

Our investments are putting regional communities at the centre of industries of the future—unlocking more secure and well-paid regional jobs, and ensuring that we train and retrain our regional workforces.

This includes $38.2 million to boost the diversity of our STEM workforce, with a focus on supporting more women to secure jobs in these critical industries.

Through this budget, we're delivering further investments to build regional Australia's future—by leveraging the competitive advantages that come with our vast energy resources, our world-leading agricultural sector, and regional innovation.

$250 million to accelerate the pace of Australia's growing domestic low-carbon liquid fuels industry will help to drive economic growth and jobs in regional areas, as well as $1 billion under our green iron investment fund to boost green iron manufacturing in our regions.

This builds on our existing commitment of $2 billion to support aluminium smelters' transition to renewables—in places like Portland, Victoria; Tomago in NSW; and in Queensland's Gladstone region.

From our factories to our fields, we're backing our regions—with $11 million to tackle established pests and weeds in our agriculture and forestry sectors—keeping them productive.

And an additional $20 million for a new round of the On Farm Connectivity Program so farmers can use the latest technology to make their work more efficient.

And $20 million to encourage more Australians to buy Australian made products, which will have huge benefits for regional economies—because so much of what we love and rely on comes from our regions.

Close

In his budget reply last year, the Leader of the Nationals said the opposition will take decisive action to give regional Australians a fair go.

But all we've seen since then is those opposite continuing to vote against every single cost-of-living measure, while petrifying regional communities with their nuclear thought bubble.

An idea that was announced with zero consultation, and most importantly—one that will deliver zero savings for regional Australians and their power bills.

Since my last regional budget statement, the Albanese government has continued to relieve pressure on regional families and businesses, while improving access to the services and the supports regional people rely on—regardless of their postcode.

Through our 2025-26 budget we're delivering more energy bill relief, making cheaper medicines even cheaper, and providing extra support to get more regional Australians into their own home.

We're strengthening Medicare. We're expanding regional health services. We're delivering further investments to boost regional connectivity, and we're investing in more support to help build workforces in our in-demand sectors.

That's because only the Albanese government is serious about building regional Australia's future.

It's been three long years since the Albanese government was elected, and we all remember the election night, when the Prime Minister stood before the nation and declared, 'No-one held back; no-one left behind,' a pledge that was supposed to be the government's guiding principle. However, with another dismal Labor budget handed down last night and with a federal election on the horizon, those words ring hollow in regional, rural and remote Australia. There are millions of men and women in the regions—the people who drive our economy, grow our food and fibre, power our resource sector and work tirelessly in healthcare, small businesses, tourism and manufacturing. This government has failed them. These proud, resilient Australians deserve better. After three years of a weak and incompetent government, regional Australia is hurting. Under Labor, our regions have been abandoned and forgotten. Under Labor, our regions have been held back and left behind.

Year after year, budget after budget, we've seen damaging policies inflicted on regional Australia by a government obsessed with ideology and out of touch with reality. The results? A cost-of-living nightmare crushing Australian families; a farming sector strangled by workforce shortages, made worse when Labor scrapped the dedicated agricultural visa and damaged the PALM scheme; billions slashed from regional infrastructure and water projects; an outrageous proposal to tax Australian farmers to pay for the biosecurity risks of their foreign competitors; a healthcare crisis worsened by the gutting of distribution priority areas for overseas trained doctors, which is ripping GPs from small, rural communities and sending them to the cities; prime agricultural land, native bushland and pristine coastlines sacrificed for industrial-scale transmission lines, solar panels and wind turbines, all to prop up Labor's chaotic renewable agenda; bipartisanship torn up on the Murray-Darling Basin Plan to push through damaging water buybacks; a new emissions reporting burden on primary producers, threatening the productivity and competitiveness of our agricultural exports; a hike on popular vehicles, forcing up the costs of SUVs, four-wheel drives and utes; and, in Western Australia, sheep producers seeing their livelihood shattered by Labor's decision to shut down the live sheep industry.

This government has waged a relentless war on regional Australia, and last night's budget shows that this pain is far from over, because there is absolutely nothing in it for regional Australia other than more ruthless Labor cuts. Right now, regional Australia finds itself at a critical crossroads. The men and women who live in this part of our nation simply cannot afford another three years of the Albanese government. Over the past three years, Australia has descended into a cost-of-living crisis—a crisis that has pushed families and households in the regions to the brink. We've seen the biggest fall in living standards in the developed world. People in regional Australia are asking the question: are we better off now than we were three years ago? The reality is that, under the Albanese government, Australians are paying more for their food, more for their rent and more for their power and gas. Under Labor, the cost of food is up 13 per cent, health is up 10 per cent, housing is up by more than 14 per cent, rents are up by 18 per cent, insurance is up by 35 per cent and gas is up by 34 per cent. Instead of seeing a $275 reduction to their power bills, as Labor promised, families have seen them increase by up to $1,300, while the government's new $150 energy subsidy is simply an admission of failure and won't touch the sides.

When it comes to effectively tackling the cost of living, what Australians desperately need is a federal government that gets back to basics—a government that has the courage to pull the fundamental policy levers to help fix a broken energy system. If elected, that's what the coalition will do. We'll take decisive action to immediately pump more Australian gas into the system to bring down power prices, we'll remove the moratorium on nuclear for a long-term transition and we will ensure that we deliver a mixed and balanced energy grid, one that sets Australia up for the future without carpeting our regions with renewables.

To ease financial pressures, we need to do more. In regional Australia, we know that Labor's cost-of-living pain is being felt at the checkout. Groceries are getting more expensive. Right now, Australians are struggling to put food on the table and our producers need a fair go. When families can't cover the cost of essential items, it's more important than ever that they can have faith that businesses, including the major supermarkets, are doing the right thing by their customers and their suppliers.

In contrast to the weakness of those opposite, the coalition has a comprehensive plan of action to put integrity and fairness back into the market. It's a plan that will protect consumers, small businesses and farmers against any instances of improper conduct by supermarkets. A coalition government will impose stronger and tougher penalties for anticompetitive behaviour in the supermarket sector, starting with infringement notices of $2 million for breaches of the grocery code, which is 10 times higher than Labor's measly $198,000.

Under our plan, the coalition will deliver increased court-ordered penalties for more serious contraventions, and we will introduce sector-specific divestiture powers as another powerful deterrent. We will establish a supermarket commissioner who will cover the entire supply chain and provide a confidential avenue where farmers and suppliers can have their concerns heard and acted on without the fear of retribution. Our measures will help Australian shoppers at the check-out and support our farmers and suppliers throughout the supply chain in regional Australia. Supermarkets don't fear the Albanese government. That's why we will introduce real deterrence and real consequences for them.

Across the nation, homeownership is one of the defining issues of our generation. We're experiencing a full-blown housing disaster, and it's hurting regional Australia as well. This is a crisis that's being fuelled by record-high migration, skyrocketing rents and scenarios where families with a typical mortgage are now up to $50,000 a year worse off. Meanwhile, the construction of new homes is at a decade low. After three years in government, the Labor government has not built a single home under its Housing Australia Future Fund, Help to Buy scheme or build-to-rent scheme. Australia needs a new approach to fix housing, one backed up by practical action.

A coalition government will boost housing supply, rebalance migration, incentivise first home buyers and take pressure off interest rates and rents. We'll implement a two-year ban on foreign investors purchasing existing homes, and we'll unlock up to 500,000 new homes by investing $5 billion to fund essential infrastructure like water, power and sewerage at housing development sites, with up to 30 per cent of that secured for regional Australia. It's time to restore the dream of homeownership for young people in this nation, and these measures will make a real difference.

Under this government, we've endured three years of economic vandalism, and businesses have paid a very high price. Since Labor took office, nearly 29,000 businesses have collapsed. In the budget last night, there was more bad news for business, with the government slashing the popular instant asset write-off scheme, ending the current $20,000 asset threshold. This means that the threshold is set to drop to its rock-bottom legislated rate of $1,000 next financial year. In regional Australia, the decision will shock many small businesses who are planning capital upgrades, and it will spark major concern in a sector that is already doing a tough.

When it comes to delivering infrastructure in regional Australia, we know that this government has an atrocious record. Over the past three years, the Albanese Labor government has cancelled, cut and delayed more than $30 billion worth of infrastructure projects across our nation, and this horror budget is no different. Last night, we saw that this government's appalling trend to cut and cancel regional infrastructure will continue. This fourth federal budget has no funding for the Stronger Communities Program, the Local Roads and Community Infrastructure Program, the Growing Regions Program or the Regional Precincts and Partnerships Program. We know that, of these, the Stronger Communities Program and the Local Roads and Community Infrastructure Program are critical to building community infrastructure and engagement in regional Australia. The Growing Regions program is the government's own measure, intended to support regional communities. It has no new funding from last night's budget. This essentially means that no more Growing Regions grant opportunities will be available over the next four years.

It's a major concern that this government is utilising federal funding that could otherwise extend these regional community programs to instead pay for 41,000 new public servants here in Canberra. It's shameful that this budget inflicts cut after cut, but in regional Australia there's no money to fix basic things like potholes. Even after being in government for three long years, Labor will spend less than one per cent of their infrastructure announcements in 2025-26.

Going through the budget papers, this government is attempting to mislead the Australian public on infrastructure, because, if Australians are waiting to see work commence on recently announced projects, then they will have to wait, and they will be sorely disappointed. Of the $17.1 billion claimed to be for new infrastructure investment, only 0.7 per cent of the so-called new infrastructure announcements will be delivered next year in 2025-26, and only 10.7 per cent of infrastructure funding announced in the budget is over the forward estimates. Meanwhile, when it comes to road funding, it appears that this government plans to short-change the states by $1.1 billion a year, with a further $273 million cut in 2025-26 compared to last year's budget.

We've just covered the damage done by this budget to infrastructure. Looking over to the water portfolio, there is similar carnage. Building on the billions of dollars that was ripped out of water infrastructure in the early budgets, the Albanese government has yet again deferred $190 million in funding for crucial project such as the Paradise Dam Improvement Project, the Hughenden Irrigation Project and the Big Rocks Weir project. All the while, in our nation's food bowl, the government continues to hide the cost of the Murray-Darling Basin. What Labor doesn't understand is that, when you take away infrastructure for water, you take away the future of our communities in regional Australia.

Last night's budget was a deeply disappointing one for Australian agriculture. Although the budget papers show that the production value of agriculture, fisheries and forestry is projected to be worth $98 billion in 2025-26, this government can only throw a few crumbs their way. Despite driving our nation's wealth and feeding the world, there's virtually nothing in this budget for our primary producers. The Treasurer couldn't even utter the word 'farmer'. The government's lack of action on agriculture only highlights their ongoing mismanagement of this portfolio.

One glaring omission from last night's budget is the absence of Labor's failed biosecurity protection levy. First announced in the 2023 budget, this $150 million fresh food tax proposed slugging Australian producers with a levy that would make them pay for the biosecurity costs of their international competitors to bring their products to this country. What sort of government would do that to their own farmers? As soon as it was announced, the biosecurity protection levy copped a fierce and universal backlash led by the agricultural sector and the coalition. As soon as the legislation was established, this levy was withdrawn from the Senate earlier this year because of the resounding victory of strength from Australian farmers and the coalition. We fought hard against this disgraceful new tax, and we are pleased that we were able to deliver a good outcome.

In stark contrast to the wrong approach of those opposite, the coalition government will substantially fund Australia's biosecurity system by targeting the risk-creators: the importers. We'll do this by introducing an import container levy, as recommended by the independent Craik biosecurity review. This is the sensible way forward to fund biosecurity in this country. But when it comes to the scale of the pain, anguish and trauma being inflicted on farmers right now by the Albanese government, their harmful policy to shut down the live sheep export industry in Western Australia is a shameful stand-out.

As this government continues to push ahead with this appalling measure to end what is a lawful and sustainable industry, all over rural WA, we are seeing the consequences and the human toll. We've seen world-leading animal welfare standards abandoned, the science ignored, a botched consultation process, abattoirs actually closing down, jobs being lost, trading relationships threatened and innocent livelihoods thrown into turmoil. We've seen the impacts of this policy reverberate, with the WA sheep flock declining by 25 per cent last year and more production in the state—which is intrinsically linked to live exports—at its lowest level in a century.

Then there's Labor's inept transition package—the sort of package that allocates $2.3 million to a media company based in the USA to promote the closure of Australia's live sheep trade, while not a single cent of transition funding has gone to helping an impacted farmer. This insanity and cruelty must stop. On behalf of the federal coalition, I reaffirm our ironclad commitment that, if elected to government, we will legislate to reinstate the live sheep export industry.

Over the course of its first term in office, reinforced by four disastrous budgets, the Albanese Labor government has failed regional Australia. Our nation urgently needs to change course. Australia deserves new leadership, a vision and a new government that has the right priorities for the regions—a new government that can fix the basics and restore some common sense. On this side of the House, the coalition is ready to govern and ready to deliver. A coalition government will provide the economic leadership that's needed in regional Australia to ease the cost-of-living pressures and to get a fair deal for consumers and farmers at the check-out. We'll bring down energy prices by unlocking our massive reserves of Australian gas and invest in a balanced long-term energy plan. We'll secure regional Australia's fair share of funding by properly investing in roads, rail, local infrastructure and water. We will provide the workforce that our primary producers need by reinstating the ag visa and fixing the PALM Scheme. We will sustainably fund our biosecurity system with an import container levy instead of taxing farmers. We'll protect our prime agricultural land from being destroyed by ideological renewable projects, and we'll stop water buybacks. We will reverse the disgraceful ban on live sheep exports. We'll invest in essential infrastructure, like water sewerage and roadworks, to build more housing across our nation, and we will stop foreigners from competing with Australians at auctions on a Saturday. We will back local solutions to provide flexible access to child care for families living outside the major cities, and we will make it easier to see a GP by bringing in more doctors, specialists and nurses to rural communities by providing more incentives to work in the regions. This is the coalition's commitment to regional Australia. It's all part of our ambition and our comprehensive plan to end the Labor rot and to get regional Australia back on track.

I rise to speak on the Telecommunications Amendment (Enhancing Consumer Safeguards) Bill 2025. The bill makes important changes to the Telecommunications Act to strengthen consumer safeguards—something we all agree is a top priority. The bill will create a register of carriage service providers, enable the direct enforcement of industry codes, amend the existing two-step process for the application of penalty amendments for infringement notices, and increase the maximum penalty amount for breaches of the codes from $250,000 to $10 million.

The new carriage service provider registration scheme will require all telecommunications providers to apply to the Australian Communications and Media Authority for registration to operate in Australia. This will provide ACMA as a regulator for the sector with visibility of all of the operators in the Australian market, of which there are an estimated 1,500. This will ensure ACMA is able to educate, monitor and, where necessary, take swift enforcement action for breaches of any codes or standards. Should providers breach their obligations or pose a risk to consumers, ACMA will have the ability to cancel their ability to operate. These arrangements are similar to those in the energy sector, where the Australian Energy Regulator has the power to exclude operators from the market where there is a risk to consumers.

As part of the scheme, providers will also be required to report all cybersecurity incidents. Where there is a cyber breach, the appropriate bodies must be notified and remedial action taken swiftly. Full visibility of all telecommunications operators will also ensure ACMA can target compliance and enforcement activity and, where necessary, take appropriate action. Stakeholders have raised some concerns with us about the scheme, primarily around the application process and the need to ensure there is limited administrative burden on providers, particularly the smaller operators. There is also some concern around a provider's ability to contest the decision to deny registration, or registration renewal, to ensure that they have appropriate appeal channels. We have raised these matters with Minister Rowland's office, who assured us that these will be addressed administratively and there is no need to amend the legislation.

Schedule 2 of the bill amends the Telecommunications Act to make registered industry codes directly enforceable by ACMA. The telecommunications industry has a co-regulation model by which industry is responsible for the preparation of codes, which are then submitted to ACMA for registration. Once a code is registered with ACMA and in force, the code must be complied with by the sector. In practice, what has been established under the act is a two-step enforcement process. If there is a complaint, a wrongdoing or a breach of an industry code, ACMA will direct a provider to comply—essentially, issue a warning to do the right thing and to get their house in order. Should they not, ACMA's enforcement powers then become available. This enforcement action can include penalties through the Federal Court, enforceable undertakings and issuing an infringement notice. Currently, part 6 of the act says:

Compliance with an industry code is voluntary unless ACMA directs a particular participant in the telecommunications industry … to comply with the code.

This phrasing has led to a misconception that compliance with industry codes is voluntary. As the explanatory memorandum to the bill states that, while code compliance is technically voluntary, after ACMA issues a direction to comply, or a formal warning to a provider, ACMA can take enforcement action if the provider continues its non-compliance. Between September 2023 and September 2024, ACMA issues 23 enforcement actions, 12 formal warnings, two remedial directions, 20 directions to comply, two enforceable undertakings, infringement notices totalling close to $7 million, and, in one case, court proceedings. Some of these breaches relate to people's safety, which is of the highest priority. For example, there were seven notices issued to providers in 2024 for breaches of the emergency call database rules. These rules require the telco providers to keep a person's telephone number and address updated so that when the number calls 000, emergency services like police, fire or ambulances, are deployed to the correct address the first time. Adherence to this code is vital. People's lives depend on it.

The requirement to monitor and report suspected scams and spoof numbers is another important one. If telcos aren't adhering to the code, the impact on people financially, psychologically and emotionally is significant. In 2024, phone scams had the highest overall losses of scam types, with more than $107 million lost by nearly 2,200 people. ACMA issued nine breaches of the scams code last year but none resulted in a financial penalty to providers. That's because of the two-step process. People's safety and wellbeing is of the utmost importance.

The changes in this bill will strengthen ACMA's powers and the speed at which they can use them to provide even greater protections for consumers and ensure that we have responsible operators in our telecommunications sector. The bill will make compliance with industry codes mandatory, removing the requirement for a two-step process before ACMA can then take action—no more warning shots—ensuring more immediate action can be taken for breaches of the codes. I will note, given much scrutiny of the telecommunication sector over recent years, this is a change the sector itself has called for, notably the Communications Alliance, which represents the telecommunication industry and has been calling for these reforms since 2023. These changes will strengthen the regulator's powers to ensure that the regulatory regime is as robust as it can be and that operators are held to the highest standards.

Finally, the bill will increase the penalties issued to providers for breaches of industry codes and standards from $250,000 to $10 million. The revised penalty framework will also allow penalties to be based on the value of the benefit obtained from the breach of conduct or the turnover of the provider, allowing for penalties of greater than $10 million should it be deemed appropriate. The Australian Communications Consumer Action Network, the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission have long advocated for civil penalty reform to ensure penalties for breaches of codes and standards reflect the severity of the breach and harm caused. The increase in the penalties will address this and align the telecommunications penalty framework to those in the energy and banking sectors, competition, legislation and Australian consumer law.

The coalition will support the bill. It strengthens consumer protections, streamlines enforcement activity and provides greater visibility of operators in the market. This is the sort of legislation this parliament should be focused on, legislation that protects Australians. Disappointingly, though, this bill has entered the parliament on the eve of an election and is unlikely to pass the Senate and become law before the parliament is prorogued. What is more disappointing is that this bill took second place behind the Albanese government's NBN commitment to public ownership bill, which this parliament has spent hours debating so the Albanese government could attempt to revive their privatisation scare campaign. That bill does nothing for Australian consumers, nothing to protect them from the cost of living, nothing to protect them from never-ending price increases of energy bills or when at the petrol bowser and nothing to protect them from interest rate increases. Yet it is, again, this week before the Senate, prioritised over bills that might actually make a difference.

The NBN bill is nothing more than a political stunt and tells you everything you need to know about this weak and failing government. The Albanese government's priorities are all wrong. The shutdown of the 3G network was a complete mess. Thousands of consumers have been left with worse coverage or no coverage at all, particularly those in regional and remote areas. Our farmers have had their agtech equipment rendered useless. There is no coverage on their properties to call triple 0 if there is an accident or an emergency. People with life-saving health devices are having to charge them constantly because the device is searching for a signal that isn't coming, rendering the device useless—because it isn't on them; it's on charge. It isn't good enough, and the Albanese Labor government should be ashamed of their lack of response to help people impacted.

And where is the government's legislation to reduce gambling harm? No, we haven't seen it. It's been a long time coming. It is not here in the House nor the Senate. But the coalition brought forward legislation. The Australian Greens even brought forward legislation. Even the crossbench has brought forward legislation. The government have refused to support a single one of these bills that would protect Australians and their families from gambling harm. They've offered nothing of their own.

There's been no action by this government to implement laws against 'posting and boasting' acts of crimes online, despite crime being a significant national concern in each and every one of our communities across this country. Offenders of youth crime, in particular, are using social media in an effort to one up each other online with brazen acts of vandalism, breaking and entering, stealing cars and violence to gain notoriety. Despite my predecessor, the member for Banks, introducing a bill to this parliament that would take strong action on this terrible trend—which included imposing jail terms and providing stronger social media take-down powers—the Albanese government has refused to allow it to be debated.

It is unsurprising, though, given they had to be dragged kicking and screaming to take action to protect our kids online from social media harms, only doing something about it after the Leader of the Opposition announced the coalition's policy. Shame on the Albanese government for prioritising political stunts over practical and impactful legislation that will help Australians.

I rise today to contribute to the debate on the Telecommunications Amendment (Enhancing Consumer Safeguards) Bill 2025. This bill represents a crucial step forward, ensuring that telecommunication providers are held accountable for the services that they provide and the obligations that they owe to their customers.

Communication is fundamental to the human experience and, in our day, to existence. We need to be able to communicate with people. It is the very foundation of our social structures, our economies and our democracies. Throughout history, the ability to communicate effectively and efficiently has driven human advancement. Today we can connect with people around the world in seconds. We can conduct business, maintain relationships and access vital services with a click of a button. This unprecedented ease of communication has opened doors to opportunities that previous generations could have only dreamed of.

But, as incredible as our telecommunications infrastructure has become, we know it's not perfect. In fact, for too many Australians, it's a source of frustration and hardship. Poor service, misleading contracts, billing errors and unresponsive customer support have left many consumers feeling powerless in their dealings with big telecommunications companies. We have heard all the stories of people left without phone or internet services for weeks, being overcharged with no clear path to a resolution or being ignored by providers that fail to uphold even the most basic standards of service. The current telecommunications consumer protection framework exists to prevent harm, but it is clear that it has not kept pace with industry practices and consumer expectations. Too many people remain vulnerable. That's why this government has taken decisive action to strengthen safeguards, particularly for those experiencing financial hardship, domestic violence and other vulnerabilities.

This bill is about more than just regulation; it's about ensuring fairness. It enhances the compliance and enforcement powers of the Australian Communications and Media Authority to hold telecommunications providers accountable. A key measure is the elimination of the ineffective two-step enforcement process, which currently allows companies to breach consumer protection rules without immediate consequences. Under the existing system, the ACMA must first issue a direction to a company before taking further action, essentially granting big telcos a free pass on their first violation. This loophole has allowed bad actors to operate with impunity, disregarding their responsibilities, while consumers suffer. This bill removes that loophole. It empowers the ACMA to take direct and immediate enforcement action against telcos that fail to meet their obligations. This change ensures that breaches are met with swift consequences, reinforcing the message that consumer rights cannot be ignored.

Another major component of this legislation is the significant increase in penalties for noncompliance. The maximum general penalty for breaching industry codes and standards under the Telecommunications Act 1997 is currently capped at $250,000, an amount that in 1997 may have been a meaningful deterrent, but, in 2025, for multibillion-dollar telecommunications companies this sum is nothing more than a minor operational cost. This bill increases the maximum penalty to approximately $10 million and, in certain cases, allows penalties to be based on the value of the benefit obtained from misconduct or the revenue of the offending provider. This approach ensures penalties have real teeth. Telecommunications companies will no longer be able to view fines as just another cost of doing business. Instead, they will face financial consequences substantial enough to deter unethical behaviour and incentivise compliance. These changes bring the telecommunications sector in line with other heavily regulated industries, such as banking and energy, and align telecommunications regulation with the broader Australian consumer law.

To further support enforcement efforts, the bill expands the government's ability to increase infringement notice penalty amounts issued by the ACMA. This ensures that penalties remain proportionate with the nature of the violation, strengthening incentives for industry compliance and protecting Australian consumers.

Beyond enforcement and penalties, this bill also increases transparency in the telecommunications market. It establishes a carrier service provider, or CSP, registration scheme, a long overdue measure that will allow more effective oversight of telecommunications retailers. This scheme grants ACMA the power to prevent high-risk or harmful providers from operating in the market, ensuring that only those that meet strict standards are allowed to provide services in this country, in Australia. This is common sense. No company that poses an unacceptable risk to consumers should be permitted to continue operating unchecked. The maximum tolerance for providers that exploit or harm consumers should be zero.

These reforms are implemented through four key schedules. Schedule 1 establishes the CSP registration scheme, helping to prevent high-risk providers from operating and stopping those that have already caused harm. Schedule 2 makes industry codes directly enforceable, equipping the ACMA with the necessary tools to address harm and ensure compliance. Schedule 3 modernises the penalty framework by increasing the maximum general civil penalty from a mere $250,000 to 30,300 penalty units, currently equalling up to $9.9 million, bringing it in line with other regulated sectors. Schedule 4 clarifies and extends the authority of the Minister for Communications to increase infringement notice penalties, ensuring that breaches of telecommunication rules are met with appropriate consequences. These changes will provide stronger protections for consumers right across this country. They demonstrate our government's commitment to ensuring Australians receive the telecommunication services they deserve—services that are reliable, fair and accountable to the people that they serve.

For my constituents in the Hunter electorate, one of the most frustrating and damaging issues has been regular telecommunications outages and the lack of accountability from providers. I can tell you that I am sick of it in my office, so I can only imagine what the people of the Hunter feel. The Hunter is a large and diverse region encompassing rural, regional and urban areas, and each of these face distinct challenges in addressing reliable telecommunications services. Over the past few years, there have been several major outages that have significantly impacted on the daily lives of residents and businesses right there in the Hunter.

One such incident occurred during the 2022 storm season when severe weather caused widespread damage to telecommunications infrastructure across the region. For days, many residents were left without phone or internet services. While such storms understandably cause disruptions, the ways these outages were handled by the telecommunications providers were unacceptable and absolutely atrocious. In many instances, service providers failed to offer timely updates or clear communication about the restoration process. There was little to no information shared with affected consumers and customers about the extent of the damage or the timeline for their repairs. People were left in the dark, with no way of knowing when they could expect to get their services back. For some, this meant being completely cut off from emergency services, essential communications and online platforms for work or education.

In rural and regional areas like those in the Hunter, many people rely heavily on telecommunications for business and education. Farmers and small-business owners in the region were hit especially hard, with several unable to complete vital transactions, contact suppliers or stay in touch with consumers. One constituent, a farmer from the Upper Hunter, reported losing several days work during an outage that left him without internet access. With no way to communicate with his clients, he suffered significant financial losses that would have been entirely avoidable had services been properly maintained and the outage better managed.

Similarly, during these outages, there was a stark lack of responsiveness from telecommunications providers. Many residents tried to reach out to customer service only to be met with long wait times, unhelpful responses and a lack of accountability. In some cases, providers failed to acknowledge that the services had gone down until days after the issue had started. By the time any meaningful updates were shared, the damage was already done. Many businesses suffered and many families were left without critical means of communication.

The communication failure does not stop at outages. Many residents have experienced frustration over ongoing issues like billing areas, dropped out phone calls and unreliable internet. Yet, when consumers raise these issues, they often feel dismissed or ignored by these large telecommunications companies. One constituent shared their experience of repeatedly reporting poor internet speeds and being told that the problem was being looked into, only for nothing to improve. The feeling of being powerless in the face of unresponsive telecommunications companies has led to the growing sense of disillusionment between them all. These repeated outages, combined with poor communications, are a clear sign of systematic failures within the telecommunications industry.

Consumers are expected to rely on these services for essential activities—health care, work, education and even staying in touch with loved ones. When these services fail, the impacts are not just inconvenient; they affect people's ability to function in society. What makes matters even worse is that the companies responsible for these services are not held accountable for their negligence. There is no meaningful compensation or apology for the harm caused to residents and no significant deterrent in place to prevent these outages from occurring into the future.

With the existing regulatory framework, these providers can continue to cut corners and neglect their obligations, knowing that any consequences would likely be very minimal. This is where the reform in the Telecommunications Amendment (Enhancing Consumer Safeguards) Bill comes in. By empowering the ACMA with the ability to act swiftly in the face of such outages and by increasing the penalties for poor service and poor communications, this bill will ensure that telecommunications providers in the Hunter and across Australia take their responsibilities more seriously. If a provider fails to deliver the services that consumers are paying for, they will now face real consequences. This includes a much-needed focus on improving transparency, providing timely updates during service disruptions and ensuring that consumers are kept informed every step of the way. In addition to increased penalties, we'll make sure that the financial cost for failing to meet consumer standards is substantial enough to prevent companies from cutting corners.

The provisions in this bill, such as the new carrier service, the CSP, registration scheme will make sure that providers who harm consumers or fail to meet basic service standards will no longer be allowed to operate unchecked. This is especially crucial in regions like the Hunter where many areas are still underrepresented or have limited access to reliable telecommunications infrastructure. The changes in this bill are not just fixing the system for the future; they are about addressing the failures that have already hurt so many Australians.

For the people of the Hunter electorate, these reforms represent a much-needed shift towards fairer treatment and greater accountability in the telecommunications sector. It is time that the big companies understand that they are accountable, not only to their shareholders but also to the people that they provide services to every single day of the week. The changes made in this bill to improve the compliance and enforcement of consumer safeguards are implemented through four schedules. These reforms work together to provide protection for the whole community. They benefit us all. These reforms also reflect the commitment to making sure that Australians are appropriately protected and supported in their interactions with telecommunications service providers.

It is also important to take note that the key players in the sector are right behind these changes. Organisations and bodies like the Australian Communications Consumer Action Network, the Consumer Action Law Centre, the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman, the Australian Communications and Media Authority and the Communications Alliance are all on the same page. We're all fighting for this the same way. Everyone is on board, because even blind Freddy could see that things need to change. What we have now is just not good enough. It isn't working. As the old saying goes, if something isn't broken, don't fix it. But this system is broken. It is truly broken, and we are here to fix it. I've had constituents come to me feeling like they are being ripped off by their service providers, and constituents have told me that they pay for a service that does not always work and that they do not always get what they want from their service provider. As an Albanese Labor government, we are making this better. We will fix this problem. That's what this bill does. I commend the bill to the House.

The Telecommunications Amendment (Enhancing Consumer Safeguards) Bill 2025 has some worthy aims. It seeks to ensure telecommunications businesses do not treat consumer protection provisions and specifically their penalties as a cost of doing business. Consumers ought to be treated with respect, and from the perspective of the Nationals, especially in regional Australia, this bill would allow ACMA to directly enforce industry codes and increase the penalty amounts for infringement notices and civil penalties. By the by, this parliament passed legislation by the same name last May for consumers affected by the statutory infrastructure provider, SIP, scheme.

When it comes to safeguards for consumers, I want to talk about the frequent contact my office has with Telstra, including at the recent Wimmera Machinery Field Days at Dooen, just north of Horsham, where I had the opportunity to meet with many, many locals with just as many issues and concerns. I took constituents who came to talk with me about their Telstra issues down to the Telstra stand and raised one or two of my own. After all, I drive the length and breadth of the 83½ thousand square kilometres of my electorate and encounter many mobile black spots. Sometimes you even hit one at the same place as a bitumen black spot—that is, a pothole—which are opening up on our neglected Mallee roads. That is a case in point, actually. Our roads are increasingly more dangerous, and we have had some bushfires this summer, so good mobile coverage for emergency situations is critical. I went for a chat with Telstra with constituents at the Wimmera Machinery Field Days, and to their credit Telstra representatives were only too happy to help.

The following Thursday, 13 March, I was in the district again holding mobile offices, and it was my absolute pleasure to be at Beulah in Yarriambiack shire, standing alongside Mayor Kylie Zanker and community members Shaun Thompson and Graeme and Jenny Turnbull from the Beulah supermarket action group, with many others, to announce that a coalition in government will provide $1.392 million to complement the $130,000 Shaun and the community have raised themselves to rebuild their supermarket. I remember all too well in 2019, the year I was elected member for Mallee, listening to distraught community members after the Beulah supermarket burnt down. I sincerely hope that we can get into government and get that supermarket built. Shortly after announcing the Coalition's funding commitment to Buehler supermarket, I went to the Buehler convenience store, the business centre which was once a hospital, to see the great job of repurposing that into a temporary supermarket. I note that money raised from the film The Dry has helped chip in financially to help keep Buehler's temporary store going.

I sat down in the business centre for a mobile office, and the first comments from everyone who came to speak with me were the same: 'Can you fix my phone signal?' Even my team and I onsite had trouble holding a mobile signal in the town. I got onto Telstra about that, and I am liaising with them to get some bars of signal back to Buehler. Incidentally, one lovely lady at the Buehler mobile office said, when asked about her Telstra signal, that hers is fine because she's with Optus! But then she mentioned, 'It's only okay on the verandah, not inside the house.' Were she, say, to have a fall and her mobile phone be the only communication device handy, how would she get out onto the verandah?

This is the lived experience in regional Australia, particularly in rural and remote towns. Their signal is patchy at best. I do ask the minister, while we are here, to bring to the House a government position on the 3G signal shutdown, because the anecdotal view from my constituents is that the mishandled 3G shutdown has now seen regional mobile telecommunications signals worsen, not get better. I dare the Albanese government to call regional Australians stupid, because there was a surge in complaints to the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman between October and December. That's 13 per cent more than in the previous quarter, including 190 complaints about the 3G shutdown in October, which rose to 566 in November. To quote the ombudsman, Cynthia Gebert:

It is encouraging to see the drop-off in 3G shutdown complaints in December, yet we are continuing to hear from people in rural and regional Victoria who are facing ongoing challenges. I implore the telcos to keep working on solutions that ensure equal access to reliable and phone and internet service for all people in Australia.

So my constituents, with my electorate covering one third of regional Victoria, were those lacking safeguards from this government when it came to the 3G shutdown. This bill is, after all, about consumer safeguards, and as I've said, what greater safeguard can you have than reliable mobile service in locations where you could encounter an emergency, like home? Indeed, as we recently experienced in devastating bushfires in Little Desert and the Grampians, let's remember, too, that Labor have not financed a single mobile tower in Mallee in this term of office—not one. I've lost count of how many we financed when in government. When we talk about safeguards for consumers, let's talk about all consumers, including regional Australians. I do go back to the Prime Minister's statement when he was elected that not one Australian would be left behind. Well, I'd say—woohoo!—the Mallee are included.

On black spots for regional Australians, I note that West Wimmera Shire put a number of submissions to the Round 8 Project Noticeboard, and Pyrenees Shire put in one for the CFA tower at Moonambel. I'm asking the minister to bring us a guarantee that a funding round will proceed and that this successful program will keep going as the Mobile Black Spot Program into the future. Regional Australians have no such confidence in this Labor government.

This brings me to the fanfare of the Albanese government pointing up in the sky and saying, 'Look up there—a UOMO!' What is a UOMO? Is it like FOMO, even though regional Australians cannot avoid missing out? Or is UOMO a man, which is apparently what 'uomo' means in Italian? Is it a bird, a plane or a bar of signal? No; a UOMO is the Universal Outdoor Mobile Obligation. I think, given my constituents' experience with Optus at Buehler, the 'outdoor' word must be important. You need to be on the verandah, not inside the house.

I know this government has been eager to claim that the Leader of the Opposition is having thought bubbles, but you really have to ask how bubbly this thought is from Minister Rowland. I hope she can fill us in. The government announcement is that legislation will be introduced this year. Well, with the election imminent, we're already effectively halfway through the year. And they say UOMO will be implemented by late 2027, a bit like Labor's electric car and greenhouse gas emission projections. But I digress.

UOMO apparently depends on identified flying objects, the low-Earth-orbit satellites, and direct-to-device technology allowing phones to be satellite phones. It sounds pretty straightforward. But, given the experience my constituents had with the bungled and stumbling 3G shutdown, how much more are regional Australians going to be asked to fork out to upgrade their handsets to UOMO? Will government and/or their telco give them a new handset?

The minister spruiked UOMO, saying you will have a signal almost anywhere that Australians can see the sky. That doesn't sound like inside your house, unless you put in a skylight, take the roof off or cough up more money for another device so you can get the same signal people enjoy at no additional cost in, say, Blacktown.

Some would argue that the right to communicate, including telecommunications, is a basic human right. Somehow, I feel this UOMO business isn't an attempt to tip the hat to FOMO or UFOs but to another acronym: USO, the universal service obligation. We have it with public utilities, where people pay the same price and get effectively the same service, wherever they live in Australia. We will have to wait and see if yet another enhancing consumer safeguards bill emerges to hold telcos to the UOMO as well. Nonetheless, I sincerely hope that this work is the work of the future coalition government in May. We aim to be on the other side of the House, and we will get a good look at how bubbly this thought bubble actually was.

But, when you consider that Labor couldn't even deliver on their own selective black-spot fund for Labor electorates, committed to before the last election, how will they be able to deliver for the rest of regional Australia? Labor couldn't even deliver under the selective improving-mobile-coverage round in several parts of Eden-Monaro or in parts of Robertstown, Braddon or Macquarie.

Mr Albanese's slogan before the election was 'No-one left behind, no-one held back'. But Mallee constituents have been held back, with no mobile towers and crumbling, dangerous roads, railroaded by the Albanese government's Rewiring the Nation agenda to cover Mallee in a spider's web of transmission lines, a pincushion of wind turbines and a series of mineral sands mining proposals, all emboldened by an Albanese government that is leaving farming communities behind or, worse, walking all over them. It is holding farming communities back, and, I've got to say, they are distressed. Labor are trying to convert Mallee into an industrial wasteland, taking away its primary industry: a sustainable, productive, agricultural industry. All they think is 'out of sight of the inner cities, out of mind'.

The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour.

When the worst hits a community, we see the best in that community rise to the surface. I never need a reminder of how incredible our Forde region and its people are, but Tropical Cyclone Alfred probably reaffirmed this for many others. Seeing people band together at sandbag stations and dig deep to help their fellow community members—likely strangers in many cases—was so heartening. People were literally brought to their haunches after shovelling sand for hours on end for many, all in the name of doing their community duty—and it was terrific to see so many people there at the Beenleigh Showgrounds. Natural disasters such as Alfred or the 2022 floods might tear holes in homes or flood homes, yet I never cease to be amazed by the willingness of our community to get out and support those in need.

I want to give my sincere thanks to so many who individually helped across the electorate in the course of Tropical Cyclone Alfred. In particular, I give a heartfelt thankyou to the SES, Energex, and the volunteers and workers at Bethania Community Centre, Beenleigh lifestyle centre, Pimpama Sports Hub and the three recovery hubs in and around Forde, as well as many others. These wonderful volunteers are what make our community such a great place in which to live. Thank you once again for supporting those in need at a difficult time.

I rise in relation to the sad news that Nick Lalich, another stalwart of the Labor Party in my part of the world, passed away overnight. He served our community for over 35 years. Nick was old school, always impeccably dressed with a great head of hair, very much 1950s style. He never had a single hair out of place. In some ways, that sums up Nick.

He lived in changing times but always upheld unchanging principles and values. Those can be summed up in one word: decency. Nick was a decent man. He was always generous in his support for me, offering sage advice and encouragement. The member for Dobell also told me today that she remembers him very fondly for his support of her father, Grant McBride, and their family during his illness.

Nick Lalich's achievements for our community are wide and varied. He served the community as an elected representative for more than 35 years and held the position of mayor for eight years. He then went on to serve as the member for Cabramatta for a further 15 years. I offer my condolences and those of Labor Party members in south-west Sydney to Nick's family and friends. So many of them must be feeling the loss quite acutely today.

Last night's federal budget was devastating for the bush. The lack of funding for regional Australia was once again on show for us all to see. There was no new funding for the Local Roads and Community Infrastructure program, there was no new funding for the Growing Regions Program, there was no new funding for the Stronger Communities Programme, and WA will get a pitiful 2 per cent of federal Labor's road and rail funding. And with 57 local governments across O'Connor, we are hit hard.

This Friday 28 March is an opportunity to put regional WA back in the hearts and minds of our nation. Once again, Western Australians will take to the streets of Perth, united in their support for the live sheep export trade and the communities that depend on it. Farmers, truck drivers, shearers and their families will travel up to 800 kilometres to urge the Albanese Labor government to bin the ban. People will leave their businesses and their communities to once again highlight the impact of shutting down a legitimate and world-leading trade, a trade that provides food security for those countries who cannot produce their own.

So I call on the good people of WA to keep on fighting for their regional communities. Whether you're from the city or the bush, show up and support the call to save the live sheep export trade and send a clear message to the Albanese government. It's time to vote Labor out and #keepthesheep.

This year the Fernhill Foxes football club are celebrating an incredible milestone: 100 years of football in the Illawarra. In 1925, the club kicked off their first game on 28 March, setting in motion a century of sporting excellence and community spirit. The 1926 season saw the club secure not one but three trophies, which was a sensational start for the newly established team. The decades that followed were filled with remarkable achievements, including the club's golden era in the early 1950s, which saw the club collect one shield and two cups and win two grand finals.

The Illawarra Premier League was established in 1977, and the Foxes were fortunate enough to be accepted into this new competition and also establish their women's side later that year. Again, the decades that followed the late seventies were filled with more accolades for both men's and women's sides. In 2024, the Fernhill third division team were crowned league champions and went on to win the grand final. The men's team are chasing a historic Illawarra district league third grand final win after winning the grand final in both 2023 and 2024. In what is already an important year in your proud history, I wish you all the best for this season.

Thank you to life member Justin Norris for compiling the Foxes' history, which is no easy job. Congratulations to president Murray Walker, secretary Shane Howard, past and present committee members, life members, past and present players and all of your volunteers on reaching 100 years.

With the federal election looming, there are two things I want to warn Australians about—lies and data harvesting. There's no law preventing lies in political ads. This is mind blowing. Businesses can't tell lies; that's called 'misleading and deceptive conduct'. But politicians can say whatever they want without any repercussions. I've introduced two bills to protect voters from lies in political ads. The government has finally introduced its own bill, but it's not going to be passed in this parliament. So voters must look out for the lies. If it doesn't sound right, email the person involved, and ask them about it. The other issue is data harvesting. Political parties have made themselves exempt from privacy laws, and they engage in some pretty dodgy practices. It's common for both major parties to send out a postal vote application form with an addressed envelope that goes to the party, not the AEC. Then the party records all your personal data before sending the form on to the AEC, and there's no law against this. There should be, and I've put my own up, but neither major party wants to stop harvesting your data. So, this election, remember that attack ads might be lies. I will not do this in my campaign. If you want to vote by post, go straight to the AEC, and don't be tricked into sending your personal data to political parties.

Inflation is down, incomes are rising, unemployment is low, and interest rates are easing. On every front, the Australian economy is in better shape than it was three years ago, but we know there's more to do. That's why, under Labor, Australians will pay less tax than under the coalition. Labor has delivered tax cuts of $1,320 a year, with an extra $536 on the way. We're making the largest ever investment in Medicare so more Australians can see a GP for free. Labor will deliver another $150 in energy bill relief for families and make cheaper medicines even cheaper by cutting the cost of a PBS script to $25. We are wiping 20 per cent off student debt because gaining skills shouldn't mean a lifetime of debt. Labor's budget is about cost-of-living relief for families and building an Australia that we can all be proud of. The choice couldn't be clearer. Labor is investing in our country's future, while the Liberals are only offering higher tax cuts and cuts to our public service.

Two mornings ago, I attended a strike being held by nurses and midwives at our local Northern Beaches Hospital. The Northern Beaches Hospital is the only privately run public hospital remaining in New South Wales. Along with other local MPs, we wanted to show our support for this group of hardworking carers. These professionals are striking because of the conditions they are being made to work under by the private operator Healthscope. They are being stretched to the limit and burning out. These experienced nurses and midwives are our greatest asset, and yet, every day, more are forced to leave. Tragically, there have been a couple of very high-profile deaths of children at the hospital. These have been utterly devastating for our community, and the hearts of the Northern Beaches community broke for their families. For years, nurses and medical staff have been blowing the whistle on work conditions inside the hospital. Even now, the private operator is refusing to commit to minimum safe nurse-to-patient ratios that are being rolled out in every other public hospital in the state. I helped to get a performance audit of the hospital up and running, and it is due to report imminently. A 2019 inquiry into the hospital recommended that there be no further public-private hospitals in the state. It's clear to me and it's clear to my community that this hospital must be returned to public hands, and I'm calling on the state and federal health ministers to hurry up and get the job done.

Last Monday, we lost a giant of the union and labour movement with the passing of David Cragg. David's career and achievements spanned decades. Everything he contributed to our movement and through his enduring legacy could not possibly fit into 90 seconds, but I will do my best to capture what a great man he was. He served at the Australian Workers Union in Victoria from 1991 to 2009 and then became, at Victorian Trades Hall Council, its assistant secretary from 2009 to 2018. Importantly, he developed a deep passion for representing people injured at work and the safety of workers. He advocated fiercely for workers' rights to adequate compensation, and this was an issue that he remained passionate about long after his retirement.

David was also an avid historian of the Labor Party and labour movement. Whether it was through his written words or in an animated account at a union meeting, he told our history with a compassion and fervour that few seldom could. You always walked away from time with David feeling enriched and enlightened with a newfound appreciation for our movement and our party. So many people share my memory of a man who shared his humour, his knowledge and his insights. He was generous with his time. David's contributions to the labour movement were immense. The impact of his work is felt by people across Australia. It is a testament to the incredible person he was. He lived his values with a profound and deep commitment. All of us who knew David—his family, his friends, the entire AWU and labour movement—will miss him very deeply. Vale, David.

It's hard to hold onto good friends over time, but you've got to make an effort. So, when a club that was formed by friends celebrates its 60th anniversary, we shouldn't just celebrate it; we should find out what they did and then learn from it. I was really pleased to join Amelia Hamer and Katie Allen at the 60th anniversary of the Hong Kong Club—60 years. The current president, Michael Tse, was there, and the founding president, Kam Leung, was there as well. To see both presidents bookended by 60 years of friendship was an amazing thing. Just imagine when they came as students in the 1960s, a lot of them at RMIT but some at Melbourne university and Monash also. They didn't have any friends, didn't know anyone, had to learn the language and had to try strange food. They got together, learned from each other and gave each other a leg-up through tough times. They had a magazine; it was called Flight of the Southern Geese.For those of you who don't know your birds, southern geese fly across the whole planet. They do so in a V-shape, and they take turns being at the lead. What I noticed about this club is they don't have ballots for president; they take turns being president because being the head of that is tough. I want to say to all of the committee—the past president Emily Tang as well as David Wong, Maria Hui, Paula Lau, Kendy Tat and Patrick Leung—I admire you, and I really appreciate being your member in this place.

My parents came here in the 1960s to work in the Public Service and play their part in the national story, just like thousands of other Australians who came here and the generations that followed them. They worked in areas of tax, industry, science and the bureau of stats. They played their part in the national story. Like my parents, I worked in the Public Service in the 1990s, for the Department of Industrial Relations, which became the Department of Workplace Relations. I remember the cuts of the Howard government; 30,000 jobs were lost in three years. In my agency, it was one in three. The generational damage that occurred to policy development and program delivery was extraordinary. It took us years to recover. Of course, beyond that, the damage it did to the local economy was extraordinary as well. After that, I worked in the labour movement representing Federal Police officers and science and engineering professionals—many in the Public Service. It gave me an insight into the many other forms that public service takes on. I represent members in Services Australia, the DSS and the Department of Health and Aged Care, and they're under threat again. They come to work every day working for the Australian people. They deserve to be honoured, not have their jobs cut.

I want to take this opportunity to thank my community for the superb manner in which they dealt with ex-Tropical Cyclone Alfred. We were pretty fortunate; we dodged a bullet. We didn't get it as bad as some of our southern neighbours, but the eye of the cyclone actually went over my electorate, through Bribie Island. My thanks go out to all the emergency service workers: police, fire and ambulance. They all stood up again when they were needed. Thank you also to those volunteer organisations like the SES, the rural fire brigade and, of course, the legendary volunteer marine rescue, or VMR, over on Bribie Island. Again, they did a great job. I give a special shout-out to the Moreton Bay Council, as well—they did a really, really good job of informing local, state and federal members of what was going on, and I knew they'd stand up; they always do.

But the cream for me was the locals, the everyday people there.

I went to a sandbag station over at Beachmere where a lot of people had taken it upon themselves to shovel sandbags. People turned up and, instead of having to find a bag and do their own shovelling, it was already pre-done and they were just loading them into the car. This reduced lines. These were people who weren't getting paid. They didn't have a uniform on; they just took it upon themselves to help out their neighbours and their mates. So well done to everyone. It's a great electorate, and I love representing it.

I represent a community that understands the value of our land, our industries and our future. That's why there is so much community opposition to the proposed Mitchells Flat Solar Farm. We all support new energy proposals, but we cannot support this continued loss of prime agricultural land for projects that could and should be located elsewhere. Every hectare of farmland we lose to development is a blow to our local farmers, to our food security and to our economy.

On top of that, this project would require around 20km of additional powerlines just to connect it to the grid, carving out more of our landscape and putting more pressure on landowners in our area. That is not smart planning, and that is not in the best interests of our community. There is a better way.

We should be prioritising post-mining land and existing buffer zones that are already cleared and available to be used for projects like these, yet, right now, planning laws make that very difficult. We need the New South Wales government to change those laws and make it easier to use this land for renewable energy projects. We need to strike the right balance, supporting new energy without sacrificing the land that feeds us.

Our community deserves a say in these decisions and, today, I am making sure that their voices are heard. I've met with many of these residents, and we say no to the Mitchells Flat Solar Farm development.

ARCHER () (): Last week, a group of 120 Tasmanian women gathered in Launceston for the Micha Women Leaders Network dinner. The event brought women together for an important conversation on social justice, leadership and how to use your voice as an advocate for change. The aim of the evening was to inspire and equip attendees by connecting like-minded individuals and empowering them to support and drive meaningful action. As part of the evening, the women had the opportunity to take action to advocate for rebuilding Australian aid to one per cent of the Australian budget.

I was delighted to be invited to speak to the gathering and share insights into the power of advocacy. I've had the great pleasure of working with the Micha organisation and Executive Director, Reverend Tim Costello, across several years now, as we advocate for a safer world for all. It was an honour to speak and share conversations about the powerful role women play in advocacy, the importance of choosing hope, joy and grace over frustration and despair, and empowering empathetic and vulnerable leadership in a polarised world. Thanks to the Tailrace Centre, and particularly Sharon O'Neill, for hosting the event.

I collected postcards from participants calling for increased support for Australia's foreign aid and, as promised, have brought copies of those to Canberra this week to deliver to decision-makers. Thank you to all the women who attended. As I said on the night, hope is not a strategy. Your voice is powerful and can make a difference.

There was a lot of good news in last night's budget. We had tax cuts and we had more policy for housing and help for people to buy their first home. But something that my community are really passionate about is Medicare, and we have unashamedly backed Medicare in our four budgets that we've delivered. I'm very excited to confirm that the new Medicare Urgent Care Clinic in Chatswood was funded in last night's budget as part of $8½ billion budgeted for to increase access to GPs and to provide urgent care when needed.

We've opened one in Top Ryde, and that's been going really well. There have been over 5,000 visitors there. I was there last week when my partner, Jo, had a little scare. We were able to go up to the Top Ryde Medicare Urgent Care Clinic at about 9.15 pm—they're open until 10 pm—and we were able to see a doctor. Dr Grace and her team do a fantastic job.

We have unashamedly backed Medicare, because we know what the opposition will do with it. We just need to listen what the Leader of the Opposition says, 'The best indicator for future performance is past performance.' What did they do to Medicare when they were in government? They promised no cuts to Medicare, and then, as health minister, the Leader of the Opposition took the axe to Medicare: $50 billion cut from hospitals and a six year Medicare rebate freeze. We spent the last three years cleaning up that mess, and we know that Medicare will get stronger under Labor because we created it.

A glimpse into the future can be inspiring, it can be exciting or it can be frightening. The view of the future is often informed by the deeds of the past, or, as the philosopher George Santayana said, 'Those who forget their history are condemned to repeat it.'

We are one term into the recklessly spending Albanese government, but, if you want to fast-forward the movie about what Australia will look like if this incompetent government is re-elected, then look at my home state of Victoria after more than a decade of Labor. The public finances in Victoria are in a dire state. Total Victorian government debt is forecast to hit $187 billion by June 2028—equal to a quarter of the state economy. In too many cases, there's very little to show for this unrestrained expenditure. Commonwealth Games money was flushed down the toilet because of bad decisions and infrastructure projects have blown out because of incompetence and a lack of business nous. There is also a lack of respect for taxpayers' money.

My electorate is an entrepreneurial area, and business owners and employees know how hard it is to earn a dollar. It involves hard work, risking your capital, milking cows, picking fruit and driving a truck. To see a government be so irresponsible with many of these dollars frustrates these hardworking people more than you can imagine. If it wasn't enough to cop this at a state level for over 10 years, now we are getting similar bad government at a federal level with the promise of more pain unless they are voted out.

As my wonderful colleague the member for Reid, Sally Sitou, said last night about the budget, 'It's like a fourth child.' It was unexpected but a very pleasant surprise. I tell you, last night Treasurer Jim Chalmers delivered for our nation. He delivered a tax cut for every single working person in Paterson. He delivered more energy bill relief for every single household and business in Paterson. He delivered more homes, help for people to buy their first one and a $10,000 bonus for the apprentices who are signing on to help build those houses. While we're talking apprentices, we've made free TAFE permanent in Australia. Finally, we've funded public schools properly.

But the biggest ticket on my list last night listening to the Treasurer was health. I know, in my area, which is one of the fastest growing areas in New South Wales, young families and older people care about their health. Last night, we made the biggest investment in Medicare since its creation over four decades ago. As part of that, we are investing in our hospitals and in training more doctors for regional areas like ours. The most exciting thing is that we are bringing an urgent care clinic to Maitland. We've got one in Cessnock. We've got one in Charlestown. Maitland, an urgent care clinic is coming to you. You will get it. It'll be bulk-billed. You won't need an appointment.

There's only one thing that regional Australians fear more than the second term of the Albanese-Marles government and that would be the first term of an Albanese-Bandt government backed by their friends in the teals. Representing some of the most privileged seats in Australia, the teals have become the Greens with trust funds, and they are waging war on our regional jobs every day. When they're not tearing down Liberal Party campaign signs, the teals are tearing down the jobs of regional people.

A minority Labor government dictated to by the inner-city Greens and the teals is the greatest fear of regional Australians today because they've already had a taste of what it looks like throughout Australia. In Western Australia, it was the banning of live sheep exports because Labor buckled to the demands of the Greens and the inner-city lefties in their own party. In Victoria, the modern Labor Party has consistently sold out blue-collar workers in the timber industry and the energy sector just for Greens preferences. Old Labor warriors would not recognise those timid souls opposite who keep buckling to the Greens. An Albanese-Bandt-teal government is a recipe for disaster in regional Australia. We need to get Australia back on track.

The No. 1 priority of the federal Labor government is fighting the cost of living. As the Treasurer got to his feet in this place last night, Australia took another step to undo the rot that set in under the Liberal government. This is a budget for the taxpayer—a budget for every worker in this country. Under Labor, every Australian worker is earning more and keeping more of what they earn. The tax cuts announced for every Australian in this budget, combined with Labor's tax cuts implemented last year, add up to an average of $2,394 extra in the hip pockets of South Australian taxpayers by 2028. This is for my electorate, which benefited the most from our better, fairer tax cuts last year, and for my community, which benefits the most from their government finally levelling the playing field. This uplifts the working class.

Yet the Liberal Party continue to push them down, voting against tax cuts and kicking and screaming at the thought of workers getting a leg-up on the cost of living. It's the only cut they won't do. The Liberals will cut 36,000 workers, the Liberals will cut Medicare, the Liberals will cut support for housing, and the Liberals will cut free TAFE. But the Liberals draw the line at cutting costs for everyday Aussies. The Leader of the House said it best earlier today: 'Robert Menzies would be turning in his grave.'

As a regional MP, what I like to remind everyone in this chamber when I get up—everyone opposite and especially on the crossbenches—is that regional Australia is the economic powerhouse of this nation. To give you some examples, the four biggest exports from Australia are all from regional Australia. Coal is one of our four biggest exports, iron ore is one of our four biggest exports, gas is one of our four biggest exports, and, obviously, food/ag is one of the four biggest exports. None of them are produced in the cities. Of our $650 billion of exports, $400 billion of those come from regional Australia. It's actually more than that, but it's $400 billion just from those four exports.

You would think that, when the teals, the Greens and the inner-city Labor MPs charge up their EVs overnight with coal fired power and they go for a drive in the country, they'd be driving out there to say—guess what— thank you. You'd think they'd be driving to the country to say, 'Thank you, regional Australia, for the wealth that you produce for this country and the jobs that you provide across Australia.' But, no, what we get from the inner-city teals, Greens and Labor MPs is demonisation. It's not good enough.

Australians know the Albanese government represents all—everyone—because we too come from all walks of life. We are tradies, we are small-business owners, we're lawyers, and we're doctors. What this means for Australian workers who are suffering from lower wages and cut penalty rates is that we can understand because we've been there too. Belinda, a casual retail worker in Adelaide, tweets that, with worker rights, penalty rates and wage increases and without a robodebt chasing her down for $12,000, she is happier, healthier, safer and saving for a future under Labor.

Many of us here have TAFE qualifications. Having free TAFE helps people who want to get new skills and who want to upskill. Because business confidence is on the rise, with 25,000 more businesses opening every month, there are now 1.1 million new jobs for those people with the TAFE credentials and everything else. There are people like John from Beechboro, who not only is taking advantage of free TAFE to upskill with mental health counselling to get a better paid job but can now also have an opportunity to own a home. Just like my folks, who benefited from shared equity under the Whitlam government, that's now an opportunity that we're extending to people like John.

Unlike the Liberals, who have opposed the Housing Australia Future Fund, who have opposed free TAFE, who have opposed Future Made in Australia and today even opposed tax cuts, we know that— (Time expired)

This Treasurer has delivered a disastrous, appalling, embarrassing budget. There are massive deficits as far as the eye can see. Here are the numbers: $28 billion deficit, $42 billion deficit, $36 billion deficit and $37 billion deficit. It goes not only for the four years but for the entire decade. The National Australia Bank said this morning, 'There seems to be no attempt to start to return to budget balance any time in the next decade.' That is an admission of defeat, and it is shameful.

We also know about the collapse in living standards, which are the worst in the OECD. If you've got a mortgage, your family is $50,000 worse off under this Prime Minister and this Treasurer. We know that this Prime Minister said 97 times that electricity would come down by $275. What's actually happened is that it's gone up by up to $1,300 per family.

It's not funny. It's actually a very big problem for Australian families. You won't say $275 after the election—you said it 97 times before. I'd also say that Labor has lost control of the immigration system, which was reflected again in last night's budget figures. Once again, the numbers have been revised up; 1.8 million people over five years. That puts pressure on infrastructure. It puts pressure on housing. Immigration is a very good thing, but it needs to be managed, and it is not being managed on that side. The final insult is the $5 tax cut, which is a small cup of coffee at best. It's a disgrace. (Time expired)

Order! In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded.

I inform the House that the Minister for Education will be absent from question time today, fulfilling ministerial duties. The Minister for Aged Care and Minister for Sport will answer questions on his behalf.

My question is to the Prime Minister. Given last night's cruel hoax of a budget, can the Prime Minister explain how giving struggling Australians just 70 cents a day in 15 months time will help them with their mortgage, energy, insurance and grocery bills today?

I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. He asked about people under cost-of-living pressure—the same guy who voted earlier today against tax cuts that would top up the tax cuts from last year to deliver $2½ thousand for people. That's $2½ thousand in people's pockets that they said they'd oppose before they saw it. Then they said they would roll it back, and then they called for an election—a year ago! That's how much they hated it; they hated tax cuts. This is the mob that want to cut everything to pay for $600 billion of their nuclear reactors. They want to cut education, and they want to cut health, but what they don't want to cut is people's income taxes.

I'm asked about the cost of living. Well, we have introduced, of course, not just the tax cuts for all; we've ensured that real wages have increased five quarters in a row. When they were in office they decreased five quarters in a row—not as an accident and not because of other factors but because it was a deliberate design feature of the economic architecture of those opposite. We also have produced not one, not two, but three tranches of energy bill relief.

We are delivering the largest investment into Medicare since Medicare was created. And, in the health sector, we have tripled the bulk-billing incentive, firstly for 11 million Australians; then we built on that for 25 million Australians in last night's budget with an $8½ billion injection. But it's not just that. We also provided funding for 50 urgent care clinics so that people can go to the midpoint between their GP and an emergency department, and all they need is their Medicare card. That is all that they need. But those opposite, of course, regard urgent care clinics as wasteful spending. Then we come to medicines—something that they opposed. They opposed the 60-day dispensing; well, we now have medicines down to $25, the same price that they were in 2004.

We have free TAFE, which they've opposed as well. There'll be a vote on that in the Senate, later today, to make it permanent. We'll wait and see what those opposite will do about that, but I suspect they'll oppose that as well. They have opposed every single measure—every single one. They have also opposed the actions that we've taken to get the budget into better nick.

My question is to the Prime Minister. How is the Albanese Labor government providing more cost-of-living relief to every taxpayer, and is there any opposition to this plan?

I thank the member for her question. Indeed, every Australian taxpayer will get another tax cut from next year, building on what we've delivered this year—all 14 million, not just some. It's taking that first marginal tax rate from 16 down to 15 and then down to 14, bringing the bottom tax rate to the lowest level it's been in over 50 years.

Under the previous government's tax plan, of course, those earning under $45,000 would not have received a single cent—not a cent! And those opposite have been consistent, because today they voted again against those taxpayers getting a single cent. Three million Australians would have missed out on a tax cut. Well, we are delivering a tax cut for every taxpayer, not just some. Because of our government, the average tax cut for average taxpayers will be that $2½ thousand. That makes an enormous difference to people, and it makes a difference when combined with cheaper child care, fee-free TAFE and the other measures that we have put in place—our energy bill relief and our Medicare urgent care clinics. All of these measures are making a difference.

But at the same time, of course, we want workers to earn more, which is why we've changed the industrial relations system through measures like same job, same pay; making sure that the casualisation definition is not abused; making sure that people have the right to disconnect—and we don't sledge people who work from home, unlike those opposite. If you combine those things together, think about this. The opposition leader doesn't want people to work from home, but he doesn't want them to have a right to disconnect either. He wants them on track 24 hours a day.

Now, those opposite are against tax cuts for every taxpayer. It's consistent with an opposition that wants to cut people's pay but doesn't want to cut their taxes. That is what they want. He will always cut, and Australians will always pay. We know that the 2014 budget papers show very clearly the $80 billion in cuts to education and health that were envisaged by 2024-25, over 10 years. This guy was the health minister. I know that he wants to walk away from his record, but I assure him he'll get a few reminders over the coming weeks. (Time expired)

My question is to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister's cruel hoax of a budget offers cash-strapped Australian families 70c a day in 15 months time. Prime Minister, when Australians with a mortgage are $50,000 worse off under Labor, isn't this a budget for the next five weeks, not the next five years?

It hasn't dawned on the shadow Treasurer that he's asking that question on the same day that he voted against tax cuts for every Australian worker. Now, if the shadow Treasurer genuinely cared about cost-of-living pressures and living standards in our economy, he would have voted for our tax cuts, but instead he voted against those tax cuts. This was the consequence of the brain snap that the shadow Treasurer had in the budget lock-up yesterday, when he decided, in the face of these cost-of-living pressures, to recommend to his backbench that they vote against a tax cut for every Australian worker to help them with the cost of living. That's why they're all looking at their phones and looking at their shoes—because they know once again that the shadow Treasurer has been found out and he has been found wanting. This is why one of them described the shadow Treasurer to the Australian as a dead weight. I couldn't agree more.

What the budget is all about is providing cost-of-living relief, cutting taxes for every Australian taxpayer, strengthening Medicare and building Australia's future. It's disappointing but not surprising to see that those opposite voted against our tax cuts, because, whenever we've tried to help Australians with the cost of living, they have tried to prevent it.

So, as we get closer and closer to this election, when the Prime Minister calls it, Australians will have a very clear choice: this Labor government and this Prime Minister, cutting taxes for every taxpayer and helping Australians with the cost of living; or that opposition leader, who has a secret agenda for cuts which will make Australians worse off. As the Prime Minister said before—and I couldn't agree more—this opposition leader wants to cut everything except taxes for workers in our economy. So how dare those opposite come up here and ask about living standards and ask about inflation, when they left us inflation multiples of what it is now and rising fast? We've got inflation down, very substantially, together as Australians.

In addition to the brain snap vote against tax cuts in the parliament this morning, the other reason that this question from the shadow Treasurer is characteristically ham-fisted is that we got new inflation data today, actually, at about 11.30, and what that shows is inflation is down again. Headline inflation is down again. Underlying inflation is down again. It is a fraction of what we inherited from those opposite, so spare us the lectures about inflation and living standards. If you really cared about the cost of living, you would have voted for our tax cuts. Instead, you voted for higher taxes on every Australian worker. Well done!

My question is to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. How will further investment in the Medicare urgent care clinics make it easier for Australians to see a doctor, and are there any risks?

Thanks to the member for Hasluck for that question. She remembers that at the last election we promised 50 Medicare urgent care clinics. They would be open seven days a week with extended hours and would be available for walk-in urgent appointments. Well, we didn't open 50; we opened 87 clinics. Already they've seen more than 1.2 million patients, a third of them seen on weekends and a third of them under the age of 15, but every single one of them fully bulk-billed. All they needed to take was their Medicare card. They're not only getting terrific-quality urgent care where and when they need it in their own communities, free of charge; they're also taking real pressure off our hospital emergency departments.

That's why last night we funded 50 more urgent care clinics, including in Ellenbrook in the fast-growing north-eastern suburbs of Perth. Once they're open, four in five Australians will live within a 20-minute drive of an urgent care clinic. More than two million patients will be seen every single year.

The opposition leadership have opposed this from day 1. They've called it wasteful and opposed it. But, like with so many of the ideas from the Leader of the Opposition, the backbench is starting to take a different view. The young, energetic member for Casey back there loves urgent care. He has a petition calling for a Medicare urgent care clinic in the Yarra Ranges:

Imagine this: You wake up feeling unwell on a Saturday morning. It's not an emergency, but you need to see a doctor.

…   …   …

That's why we need a Medicare Urgent Care Clinic for the Yarra Ranges.

And he will be so pleased that one of the 50 from last night will be in the Yarra Ranges. He might not be so pleased that that this bloke, the Leader of the Opposition, is opposed to it. We will support it. I say this to the member for Casey: we've got your back, sunshine, even if this bloke has left you high and dry.

But I also say to the member for Casey: you shouldn't be surprised. This guy has never liked free Medicare services. He's always wanted American-style user-pays health care. That's why he tried to make everyone pay every time they went to the GP. That's why he tried to make everyone pay every time they went to a hospital emergency department. And he'll do it again because—he warned us last week—past performance is the best indicator of this guy's future action. We know he will cut the urgent care clinics and patients will end up paying, including patients in the Yarra Ranges.

Order! The member for Fisher is now warned. He's had a good go, but he is not going to continue to interject, hopefully.

My question is to the Treasurer. In yesterday's budget there was no new funding for the Growing Regions Program or the Regional Precincts and Partnerships Program, the two grant programs that fund critical infrastructure in regional Australia. There was $1 billion of funding announced for roads in Victoria, but this was for Melbourne's suburbs. Why is there so little new funding for infrastructure in regional Australia?

I thank the member for Indi for her question. The regions are a big focus of the budget. Even in the member's own electorate, when you put together the three tax cuts that we are providing, the average tax cut is about $43 a week. The 30 clinics in Indi will be financially better off, switching to bulk-billing as a result of our reforms. We expect something like an extra 148,000 bulk-billed visits in the honourable member's electorate by 2030 as a consequence of the investments in health that the Minister for Health and Ageing secured in the budget and that we announced last night and previously.

As I said, in the budget there are a number of important elements for the regions. I know that the member for Indi mentioned two funds in particular. I acknowledge that. We have invested $1 billion, my colleague reminds me, in those two funds, one of them $600 million and one of them $400 million. That is because we do believe in providing grant funding to the regions, and we're doing that in the most robust and responsible way that we can.

But those aren't the only investments that we're making in regional Australia, if you think about the investments the communications minister is making in the NBN or if you think about the investments we're making in health care, in regional education. There are a whole range of investments in my own portfolio, making sure that banks stay open in the bush, making sure in the minister's portfolio that we have access to decent aviation services.

The regions were a big focus in the budget. I know that the member for Indi won't mind me saying publicly what we talk about privately. She is a very effective advocate for her local community, always seeking more funding and more advantages and more opportunities for her local community, but those two funds already have a billion dollars in them. We're finding other ways to invest in the regions because, as the Australian economy recovers, we want the regional economies to be a bigger and bigger part of Australian story and that drives our investment in infrastructure in particular in the regions.

My question is to the Treasurer. How is the budget easing the pressure on Australians now, whilst strengthening the economy for the future? What approaches have been ruled out?

The member for Blair is a terrific local member and it's a real honour to serve with him here in the House of Representatives. As he knows, our budget last night was all about helping people with the cost of living, strengthening Medicare and building Australia's future. In the communities that the member for Blair represents, the communities represented right around the room today, we know how important that is. What the budget does is it tries to build on the progress that we're making together as Australians in our economy. We have got inflation down. Real wages are up. Unemployment is low. Debt is down. Interest rates have started to be cut and growth is rebounding solidly in our economy as well, with a bigger and bigger role for the private sector, which is especially welcome.

Now, as I said before, in terms of a stronger economy that the member asked me about, we did get some very good news today on inflation. Monthly inflation fell to 2.4 per cent—in the lower half of the Reserve Bank's target range. Annual trimmed mean inflation fell to 2.7 per cent, well within the band as well, and this reflects the very welcome, very encouraging progress that we're making together as Australians on inflation. The budget last night forecast that inflation will come down quicker and sooner than was anticipated, even at the end of last year. What that reflects and what that recognises is that, with all of the investment we're making in helping with the cost of living and strengthening Medicare and investing in every stage of education, investing in housing, making our economy more resilient in the face of all of this global economic uncertainty, we have found a way to do that consistent with inflation coming down further and faster in our economy. And what all of that means is that the soft landing in our economy that we've been planning for and preparing for now looks increasingly likely.

The Australian economy is genuinely turning a corner and we saw that in the budget last night. Now, we acknowledge that, even as the national aggregate numbers turn in our favour, we know that that doesn't always immediately translate into how people are feeling and faring in the economy and communities like those represented by the member and every member here, and that's why the cost-of-living help is so essential in the budget. We know that cost-of-living pressures are front of mind for most Australians, and dealing with the cost of living is absolutely front and centre in our budget that we handed down last night. That's why it beggars belief that, when we're trying to cut taxes for every Australian worker not one more time but two more times, those opposite came into the House today and voted against it. What that now proves beyond any doubt is that, if those opposite win the next election, Australians will be worse off. They'll be paying higher taxes, and that's because this opposition leader wants to cut everything except taxes for workers.

My question is to the Treasurer. The Albanese Labor government will bring in over 1.8 million immigrants over five years, whilst Labor's housing crisis escalates. When will the Treasurer come clean on the real impact of Labor's big Australia plans?

First of all, on housing, we're very proud to have found room in a tight budget for $33 billion in investment in building more homes for more Australians to buy and to rent. We understand that there's a difference between this side of the house and that side of the House. They want to cut funding for housing, and we've found room to increase funding for housing, because, when we came to office, the construction pipeline was not what it needed to be, and we've been working as hard as we can and dedicating as many resources as we can to turning that around. And that's what we're doing. What the shadow Treasurer's question refuses to acknowledge is that net overseas migration is coming down quite substantially, and we saw that in the budget numbers that were released last night. There was a spike after COVID, and we have been responsibly managing down that net overseas migration, recognising that we needed to do that.

If those opposite have got a different view about migration, they should say so. But what happened was the opposition leader came in here and gave a budget reply speech and said he was going to do something, and, ever since then, he's pretended that never happened. And somebody should tell the Leader of the Opposition that they write this stuff down! And so let's hear what those opposite intend to do, because what happened was, after the Leader of the Opposition made this big pronouncement, the shadow Treasurer went to the Press Club, described not by me but by some of the friends upstairs as one of the worst performances they've ever seen at the Press Club—he couldn't explain the difference between the permanent intake and the net overseas migration intake. So they should come clean. What we're doing on this side of the House is responsibly managing migration down at the same time as we build more houses. If they've got an alternative view, then they should clear it up.

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Workplace Relations. How is the Albanese Labor government helping Australians earn more and keep more of what they earn? Are there any threats to this?

I want to thank the member for Reid because the workers in the electorate of Reid earn more because of the actions of the member for Reid, and they keep more of what they earn because of the votes of the member for Reid here in this chamber, which is not the case for every member of this chamber. Because, on everything about how much people earn in Australia and on how much they get to keep of what they earn, you have found members on this side voting in favour of people earning more and keeping more of what they earn and those opposite voting for lower wages and to hike taxes. They've done it the whole term and right through to today.

There were a series of policies that they'd already announced. Every one of them went, in different ways, to undoing what we've done to get wages moving, perhaps the most iconic being removing the right to disconnect. As the Prime Minister noted a few minutes ago on the right to disconnect, they don't actually object to you working from home; they just object to you being paid when you're working from home. That's the bit that they've got a problem with. Because what's happened with wages? When they were in office, in their final five quarters, real wages fell in every one of those five quarters. For the last five quarters, in every single one of those quarters real wages have grown. Workers as well have been held back because of noncompete clauses, where the current employer can actually prevent you from going to somewhere where you would earn more. In the budget last night, the government's made clear that we'll take on those noncompete clauses, because there are lots of things that an employer can lawfully do, but they should not be able to prevent you from getting the next job.

Workers across Australia know what these policy changes have meant for them. Same job, same pay—flight attendants know what it's meant for them. Mining workers know what it's meant for them. Gig workers know that there's a government here that believes we shouldn't be a country where you have to rely on tips to make ends meet, yet those opposite believe that there should be no minimum standards at all for gig workers. Flight attendants know that he'll cut and they'll pay. Mine workers know that he'll cut and they'll pay. Anyone on award or minimum wage knows that he'll cut and they'll pay. Aged-care workers, funded through this budget for pay rises, know that he'll cut and they'll pay. Early child educators working in child care know that that extra funding in the budget, criticised by those opposite—he'll cut and they'll pay. Gig workers, some of the lowest paid workers in this country, know that he'll cut and they'll pay. The only cuts he doesn't support are tax cuts.

I remind all members to use correct titles.

My question's to the Treasurer. Under the Albanese Labor government, the cost of groceries has now increased by 30 per cent. This means, for the average family, they are around $3,000 a year worse off. How will 70 cents a day in 15 months time help cash strapped families like these, which are paying thousands of dollars more at the checkout?

It will help them, with their combined tax cut of $50 a week, with the cost of living. If the honourable member really cared about the cost-of-living pressures that people are confronting, he would have voted for tax cuts. The consequence of the position that the shadow Treasurer talked the honourable member into is that a Liberal Party came in here, given the opportunity to vote for lower income taxes, and instead voted for higher income taxes. That's why I'm told that there's a bit of chirp on the back bench, because people don't think this is a good idea. And we don't think it's a good idea either. We think—

The Treasurer will pause.

Has the Treasurer completed his answer? Yes.

My question is to the Treasurer. How is the Albanese Labor government delivering tax relief for Australians in the budget? What is standing in the way of tax cuts for Australians?

I thank the member for McEwen not just for his question but for the way that he advocates for his local community, particularly when it comes to helping them with the cost of living. The honourable member for McEwen is one of those local members who stays focused on the main game. If only those opposite had the same qualities and characteristics as the member for McEwen does. He knows—and every member on this side of the House knows—that one of the most important elements of the budget we handed down last night from this dispatch box was about helping people with the cost of living, with tax cuts for every Australian taxpayer.

We are cutting taxes not once, not twice but three times for every Australian taxpayer. Already the vast bulk of those tax cuts are flowing, but we'll top them up twice next year and the year after. That's all about making sure that more Australians earn more and keep more of what they earn. In the suburbs like the ones that the member for McEwen represent—the suburbs, towns and regions of cities of this country—nothing could be more important than helping people earn more and keep more of what they earn for all of the reasons that my ministerial colleague ran through a moment ago.

This does set up a very substantial contrast at the next election between this side of the House, helping Australians with the cost of living and cutting taxes for every Australian taxpayer, and those opposite, who have a secret agenda for cuts, which will make Australians worse off. As the minister said a moment ago, nothing could be clearer in this election: if they win the election, he will cut, and Australians will pay.

Now, this is the worst possible time to risk the progress that Australians are making together in our economy. Those opposite say that they want to turn back—they want to go back to higher and rising inflation and no help with the cost of living. They want to go back to stagnant wages, deliberately suppressed as a design feature of their economic policy architecture. We've deliberately taken a different approach to wages and incomes and tax cuts. We've done that proudly in all four of our budgets and especially in the budget last night.

These tax cuts are an important way that we can help people with the cost of living. They're modest in isolation but substantial when combined with all of the ways that we are helping Australians with the cost of living. And every Australian should know—

Opposition members interjecting—

Every Australian should know—over the top of the guffawing from those opposite—that at every turn, when we tried to help people with the cost of living, those opposite tried to prevent it. If they had their way, Australians would be thousands of dollars worse off already, and they'll be worse off still if he wins.

TAYLOR () (): My question is to the Treasurer. A short time ago the Treasurer suggested the instant asset write-off was already budgeted for. Can the Treasurer confirm that there are no budgeted funds to extend the instant asset write-off from 1 July this year?

Opposition members interjecting—

Order, members on my left! When people ask questions, just wait until there is a response, rather than giving your own opinions.

Not for the first time and unfortunately not for the last time the shadow Treasurer is confused. He's confused about the instant asset write-off that has been in the parliament for eight months and is being held up by those opposite, which is in the budget. He's confusing that with any future further assistance that we might give to small business. If he cared about small businesses, he would tell his friends in the Senate to vote for our instant asset write-off. He would stop holding it up. Small business need and deserve that instant asset write-off. If they agree with us, they should have voted for it at any time in the last eight months. Once we get that passed, we can consider whatever further additional assistance small businesses might require.

In addition to that, we are providing energy bill relief for small businesses. On the first occasion when we did that, those opposite didn't support that. They pretend to care about small business, and then they hold up the instant asset write-off in the Senate, and that speaks volumes for the approach that they've taken in this place and in this parliament. So, as we get closer to the end of this parliamentary term, it looks like it will end like it began—us trying to help people with the cost of living and help small businesses, and those opposite opposing us at almost every turn.

There was far too much noise during that answer. If this persists, action will be taken.

My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. Minister, how does the budget help with household energy bills, and what are the risks to more affordable energy bills?

The member for O'Connor will leave the chamber under standing order 94(a). I just said something to the House about wanting the noise level to come down, and then you thought it was okay to interject. That's against the spirit of the standing orders but also incredibly disrespectful.

The member for O'Connor then left the chamber.

The member for Lingiari represents a beautiful and important part of Australia and she does that very, very well. I thank her for the question. She asks how the Albanese government is supplying support to Australian households with energy bills. There are a couple of ways. There is energy bill relief, and there are tax cuts, both of which were in last night's budget. What energy bill relief and tax cuts have in common is that they give support to the Australian people, but they don't get much support from the Liberal Party of Australia. That's what they have in common. There is $1.8 billion of energy bill relief flowing directly to the Australian people, households and small businesses. On the tax cuts, when taken in total, the three rounds of Albanese government tax cuts are more than $2,000 a year in tax relief for the average Australian taxpayer. That is not a small amount of money. It's important relief for Australians when taken as a whole.

The member for Lingiari asks me if there are any risks to this relief. I am happy to be asked about relief and risks and alternative policies. Not everyone is happy to talk about the alternative policies. Those opposite don't like talking about it very much at all. One person in particular doesn't like being asked about the alternatives, and that's our friend the member for Hume, the shadow Treasurer. We know he was on Insiders on the weekend. He was asked about the cost of their nuclear policy. But that's not the only place he's been asked that recently. He was asked recently at the AFR Business Summit. This hasn't had as much attention as the Insiders interview, I have to allow, so I feel obliged to correct that. He was asked at the AFR Business Summit by Phil Coorey, a distinguished Australian journalist. It's controversial, but I will stand by it! The question to Angus Taylor was: 'Labor has said it's $600 billion. I think your own modelling says it's $331 billion for the build and operating costs.' Angus Taylor said, 'Both those numbers are nonsense.' Phil Coorey said: 'It's your own modelling—$331 billion.' Angus Taylor laughed. His only response when caught out not knowing that his own modelling said that was the cost was to laugh. He couldn't give an answer to the question. Well, I will help the shadow Treasurer out: $600 billion of taxpayers' money must be paid for.

If the shadow Treasurer's doesn't know how much it costs, the Australian people are entitled to conclude it's a big risk that those costs will be paid for by cuts—cuts to health and cuts to education. That's because the only cuts the Leader of the Opposition doesn't like are tax cuts. He tried $50 billion of cuts when he was the Minister for Health. We know the opposition came out and said they did not support the Albanese government's education funding model finally delivering on 15 years of work to ensure that every Australian student, regardless of whether they are in the electorate of Lingiari or the electorate of North Sydney, has access to the same support from the Australian government. We think that's a good thing. The Leader of the Opposition calls all these things wasteful spending; we know he'll cut them to favour his nuclear fantasy.

My question is to the Prime Minister. Australia's biggest environmental organisation, the Australian Conservation Foundation, said that your gutting of environment laws with the coalition today is a sellout and 'means nature is more poorly protected at the end of the Albanese government's three-year term than it was at the start of it'. Prime Minister, was the environment better protected under Scott Morrison than you, and why has your government sold out the climate and environment?

I thank the member for Ryan for her question and for identifying her preference for Scott Morrison as Prime Minister compared with a Labor government that has put in place measures including the most serious climate change policy ever put in place by any Australian government in history—a 43 per cent target by 2030, with mechanisms to get there. We have the safeguard mechanism, the Capacity Investment Scheme, the Solar Sunshot program, Hydrogen Headstart, programs for batteries, programs for the National Reconstruction Fund to drive this through and programs for critical minerals and rare earths through our production tax credits, but they have the hide to come in here and mention Scott Morrison, who may well have been the environment minister as well. That is possible! But such contempt did he have for the environment that, when he was making himself Treasurer, finance minister, industry minister and everything else, he forgot to appoint himself as environment minister. That's how much contempt he had for the environment.

But we protected just on Saturday an extra 100 million hectares of Aussie ocean and bush. A program of some $250 million was announced by our environment minister in the budget to meet our commitment to protect 30 per cent of Australia's landmass by 2030. That is what we have done. We have quadrupled the size of Heard Island and McDonald Islands Marine Reserve—the biggest act of ocean conservation anywhere in the world in 2024. We've tripled the size of Macquarie Island Marine Park. We have blocked proposals like Clive Palmer's big Queensland coalmine. We have doubled funding to better look after national parks, including Kakadu and Uluru, and we're working with First Nations rangers to deliver that protection of the environment, taking account of 65,000 years of knowledge. Throughout our environment, we have invested $550 million to better protect our threatened plants and animals and to tackle the feral animals and weeds killing our native species.

When it comes to the urban environment, we've got our urban rivers program. We have a comprehensive plan and, what's more, a lot of it would have been implemented earlier if the Greens had just voted for it. (Time expired)

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Women. What is the Albanese Labor government doing to support Australian women with the cost of living? What threats are there to this support?

Can I thank very much the member for Holt for the question. I want to wish her all the very best in the next adventure she's about to have. It was also a real privilege to stand alongside her and the member for Bruce in Clyde North to announce investments in her electorate into important road infrastructure and new housing estates. It was terrific to be there with the Victorians as well.

The Albanese Labor government, of course, is not just building physical infrastructure; we are also taking real action to support women and to drive gender equality. Since 2022, we've put gender equality at the centre of decision-making, and, across every single economic update, we have made responsible investments to help shift the dial towards a much fairer Australia. This work has been led by the first majority-women government in Australia's history, and it shows and makes a difference. It means that we've made significant and substantial investments that directly improve women's lives and support gender equality. We've increased wages in the female dominated industries of aged care and early childhood education. We have delivered cheaper child care. We have included more medicines like contraceptive pills and menopause hormone therapies on the PBS, and I am so proud of our Assistant Minister for Health and Aged Care for doing that. But also, for the first time I have heard a Prime Minister in public forums talk about menopause—it is extraordinary for women, really significant and makes a difference for us. We have invested over $4 billion in women's safety, and we've expanded paid parental leave. Our investments have seen real improvements for women, who are earning an average of $217 a week more than they were in May 2022. Women's economic participation has reached record highs, and the gender pay gap is at record lows.

But, of course, we know all of that is at risk because of the Leader of the Opposition and what his record has always been. This progress on real action for women is under threat, and who will pay for the cuts that we know are coming? Who is going to pay? Will it be the women who are working hard in aged care and early education, looking after our children and older Australians and finally receiving a fair wage? Will it be the families who are able to access better child care? Will it be the single mothers now accessing better support to raise their children through expanded access to parenting payment single? Will it be women finally receiving superannuation on their paid parental leave? We know this guy's got form when it comes to cuts. Every single time, the Leader of the Opposition makes cuts, and who will it be who pays? The women of Australia.

My question is to the Minister for Small Business. Can the minister confirm that there is no provision for the ongoing instant asset write-off of $20,000 in the budget and that the instant asset write-off will now fall to $1,000 next year?

I thank the member opposite for her question. What I would say to the member opposite is that, as the Treasurer has suggested, the instant asset write-off for this financial year is $20,000, and, of course, those opposite have been playing around with this, as they did last year with the instant asset write-off. Last financial year, it only passed parliament in the last week of the financial year. Of course, the legislation has been in the parliament now for eight months, and those opposite continue to say that they're not going to support it in its current form. But it is, of course, just one part of the assistance that we are provide are for small business. We know that they didn't support the energy bill relief—

The minister will pause. The deputy leader is going to raise her point of order.

It's on relevance. The question was about whether there was provision in the budget for a $20,000 ongoing instant asset write-off.

Order! The minister was asked a detailed—order! The Treasurer is not helping. The deputy leader did ask the minister. She has been relevant. She is straying into other territory, so I'll ask her to return to the question she was asked about. She wasn't asked about alternative policies or anything else that the opposition had or had not supported. So I'll just ask her to be relevant to the question.

As the member opposite would know, it's around $290 million of support for small businesses, and, of course, it was in the budget and is part of our budget statement—over $2 billion that we have provided to small businesses over our term.

My question is to the Minister for Early Childhood Education. What action is the Albanese Labor government taking to make early childhood education more affordable for families [inaudible] to cheaper and more accessible child care?

I thank the member for Aston for her question. She's such a passionate advocate for children and families in Aston. And, like all the members on this side of the House, the member for Aston has continuously voted to support the families and the children in her electorate through cost-of-living measures that those opposite failed to vote for. It demonstrates just how much she really cares for families and children in Aston.

When we came into office, we inherited an early childhood education and care sector that was in crisis. It really was in crisis. They couldn't find workers. There were all sorts of issues, particularly around the workforce. And it was expensive; the price kept on going up for parents. And we've made progress on reform. We've made significant progress on reform towards a quality, universal early childhood education and care service that works for every single Australian child, informed by our ACCC inquiry and by our PC inquiry.

Since our coming into government, there are now around 42,000 more educators in the sector,1,189 more services in the sector, 30 per cent of which are outside of major cities, and around 97,000 more children in early childhood education and care. Our cheaper child care reforms decreased the out-of-pocket costs by 17 per cent when they were first introduced. Now, that means an average family is $4,400 better off. We're building on that, of course, by capping fee increases as part of our worker wage rise. Recently, we introduced our three-day guarantee, scrapping the Liberals' prohibitive activity test. That means 70,000 families will save $1,370 a year.

Now, our reform rests on retaining and building a strong workforce. That's why we have a policy for fee-free TAFE. That's why we increased the wages of early childhood educators. But our reform does not stop there. We know there's more to do. We've got $1 billion set aside to build early childhood education and care services where they're needed, and a service delivery price which will help us underpin future reform.

But I'm asked about threats. Let us start with the fact that the opposition has absolutely no plan, no vision and no policy for early childhood education and care. Instead, it has a plan—a secret plan—to cut essential services. We want to build; they want to cut. (Time expired)

My question is to the Minister for Small Business. Minister, the instant asset write-off is before the House at the moment. If it's not passed this week, the small businesses of Kooyong won't get that tax write-off. Do you commit that you will put it through the House today so that it can go to the Senate and so that the small businesses of Kooyong can benefit from this measure in this financial year?

I do thank the member for that question, and I understand her concern and her support for small businesses. We also want certainty for small businesses across Australia, which is why, of course, we introduced the legislation back in June—because we saw what those opposite did with the instant asset write-off last financial year, and we wanted to provide that certainty and support for small businesses.

What I can say to the member opposite is that, if those opposite want to commit to getting it through this financial year, we will see what we can do. But I would also say to the member opposite that they obviously can't be trusted in terms of the instant asset write-off. They played around with it last financial year, as I said. It only passed the parliament in the dying days of the last financial year. So, for this financial year, if they want to make a commitment that we can get it through speedily, we'll see what we can do.

More importantly, we are looking at ways that we can ensure we give small businesses the certainty that they need when it comes to the instant asset write-off and, of course, the targeted support that we are providing to small businesses.

My question is to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs and Defence Personnel. How is the Albanese Labor government supporting veterans and are there any threats to this?

I thank the member for Paterson for that very important question. She's a great advocate for the veterans in her community. I've visited the East Maitland RSL with her a number of times. It's great to visit and meet the local veterans in her community in Paterson.

Under the Albanese government, DVA is the best resourced that it has been in decades. Veterans and families are now receiving the services and support that they need faster. We've employed an additional 640 staff in DVA since we came to government in 2022, and we've cleared the unallocated claims backlog of some 42,000 claims that we inherited. This has led to more demand for support and services to actually be provided to veterans and families—supports and services that veterans deserved but were prevented from receiving by the last Liberal government because they weren't processing veterans' claims. Our success in processing claims has meant that more veterans are now lodging more claims with more conditions per claim, because they now have confidence that their claims will actually be processed.

In February 2025, all new initial liability claims were being allocated to a staff member within 14 days. Back in 2022, under the last government, it was taking around 200 days. But let's look at what they were dealing with back then. In 2021-22, there were just under 66,000 claims lodged with the Department of Veterans' Affairs. Last financial year, it was 89,530, and, in the eight months to February of this year, we've already had 65,412 new claims lodged with DVA. Under the last government in 2021-22, they made 94,629 decisions in the whole year. Last financial year, DVA made 200,200 decisions. Up to February of this financial year—just eight months—148,294 decisions have been made.

So we can see why it's important to maintain the staffing levels in DVA so that those staff can keep doing the vital work to process claims and provide services and support to our veterans. Yet we saw, earlier in the week, Senator Hume, the shadow minister for finance, saying that the opposition thought that they should roll back those additional staff that have gone into DVA.

Senator Lambie, a great advocate on behalf of veterans across this country, called Senator Hume out on this on television just this morning. Senator Hume seemed to have some form of amnesia; she didn't know what Senator Lambie was talking about all of a sudden. But it's okay, because Natalie Barr reminded Senator Hume that it is the opposition's policy to roll back the additional public servants that our government has hired. We know what will happen under this opposition. They will cut, and you will pay. (Time expired)

My question is to the Treasurer. Will Australia's gross government debt hit more than a trillion dollars next year?

That's what it says in the budget. The interesting thing about that, from an opposition point of view, is that when we came to office we inherited that trillion dollars of debt. What we've been able to do because of our responsible economic management is—debt is down $177 billion this year compared to what those opposite left us with. And that's because we delivered two surpluses, which would have been absolutely unrecognisable to those opposite.

When we came to office the budget was already weighed down with a trillion dollars of debt in a budget which was absolutely chockers with rorts and waste, to which the shadow Treasurer had made a contribution. We've gone about making sure that we manage the budget in the most responsible way. We've found almost $100 billion in savings. We've banked most of the upward revisions to revenue, and, because of that, we've delivered the first two surpluses in almost two decades. We've shrunk the deficit this year as well, and we're making progress.

If those opposite really cared about debt, they wouldn't have left us with a trillion dollars of it. They wouldn't have left us a budget which was weighed down with rorts and waste. We inherited a big mess from those opposite and we've been cleaning it up. Because of our efforts, the budget bottom line over the years that we take responsibility for is $207 billion stronger than it was under those opposite, who promised a surplus in the first year and every year thereafter and went precisely none for nine when it came to surpluses. We've delivered two.

We understand that the task of responsible economic management and budget repair is ongoing. In every single one of our four budgets we've found savings, and people should expect that to be the case in the future, too, if we get the opportunity.

My question is to the Minister for Health. How is the Albanese Labor government delivering more choice and cheaper medicines for Australian women? Why is it important to deliver more choice, lower costs and better healthcare options? What are the risks?

I thank the member. Along with the Assistant Minister for Health and Aged Care, the member for Macquarie and the vast number of women on this side of the House consistently remind me that you can't be serious about strengthening Medicare without a strong focus on women's health because women consume about 60 per cent of all healthcare services in this country, and they face huge lifetime health costs—not because they're sick but because they're women—in areas like contraception and reproductive health, and during perimenopause and menopause.

In this term a couple of really important Senate inquiries have lifted the lid on literally decades of neglect, revealing a very deep sense among so many Australian women that they're just not listened to, that their symptoms are often minimised or even fully discounted in the healthcare system. We've heard that message loud and clear, and last night's budget includes almost $800 million to deliver Australia's women more choice, better care and lower cost.

It's extraordinary to me that it has been more than 30 years since a new oral contraceptive pill has been added to the PBS. A bunch have been added to the private market and registered with the TGA. This year already we've added three new pills including the only single hormone pill, Slinda, which is used by about 100,000 Australian women who've been paying top dollar in the private market. Jemima from St Kilda, who's 42, wrote to us and said, 'I've been taking the pill since I was 17, but as I've got older I've wanted to know more about the progestogen-only pill. I've been taking Slinda for 18 months, but the cost does add up.' All contraceptives should be affordable, but this PBS listing is going to deliver huge benefit and opportunity for so many women.

And it's not just contraception. For more than 20 years, not a single new menopause hormone treatment was added to the PBS. This year already, we've added three, ensuring that around 150,000 women every year will save up to $400. And, for more than 30 years, there was not a single new medicine added for endometriosis, a condition that impacts about a million Australian women. In the last six months, we've added two, including most recently one that will save women almost $3,000 a year. We're also opening more endo and pelvic pain clinics. We're increasing funding for GPs to provide support during menopause and for the insertion and removal of long-acting contraception.

After literally decades of no action in these areas at all from the former government, Australia's women are finally getting the support that they deserve and they need from a stronger Medicare. We've done more in the budget last night than literally has been done for decades. It's the sort of action you only get from a Labor government.

My question is to the Treasurer. I refer to the government's increase to the Migration Program to 1.8 million people over five years. Will the Treasurer guarantee it will not go higher than 1.8 million?

Order! The member for Moreton is warned.

It's so good to get a question from them on net overseas migration because, if there is ever a gap between their rhetoric and what they have done, it's on this issue. The latest figures that came out only last week showed a 31 per cent fall in net overseas migration year on year. A particularly fast-growing area of net overseas migration had been student visas. The government's action on student visas also showed a 31 per cent fall. But, when we put that measure to the parliament, which way did they vote on student visas? They voted for student visas to be unlimited. While this government has taken action, you don't like it, do you? It's terribly sad. But it's the record you're responsible for, and there's a lot more to come. There's plenty more to come.

Order! We're going to do this in an orderly fashion. We're going to hear from the manager, who is entitled to raise a point of order. We'll deal with his point of order, and then we will rule on that and work through back to the minister. Okay?

Let the peacock parade continue.

Leader of the Opposition—

Sorry, Mr Speaker.

Fair go. We don't need anything ever like that said.

The point of order is on relevance. In an environment of record-high migration, it's fair that we ask a very tight question about the government policy. We've seen in successive budgets the budgeted amount of migration and the actual amount vary quite significantly with much higher migration in reality than what is budgeted. The question is therefore very tight about whether the government guarantees that the 1.8 million migrants that they budgeted for won't be exceeded.

Order! The manager was given a bit of licence there. He knows that's not the normal approach, but he is entitled to have his say. I was listening carefully because it was a tight question, but the minister was giving facts and figures around net migration.

An honourable member interjecting—

Well, he was giving information about net migration. If he strays off into alternative approaches or policy, which he wasn't asked about, we'll deal with that, but, while he's giving facts and figures, I don't know what he's going to say in terms of net migration, but he is talking about that and being directly relevant. I know you wanted an answer about a guarantee. I can't get him to do that. But, while he's giving numbers and facts and figures to the parliament, he is being directly relevant.

Of course, with net migration, the key driver that any government has over it is how many visas you issue. There are some visas where we've taken action, like we have with respect to student visas—action which they voted to make unlimited. There are other actions we've taken—for example, we got rid of the 'golden ticket' visa, one of the things that would feed into net migration figures. The 'golden ticket' visa, the one that we've previously described as 'cash for visas', is something that the Leader of the Opposition wants to bring back.

But the overriding control you have in immigration is how many visas you issue. Now, in terms of the concept of record highs on that input, it has only happened twice in Australian history that a minister for home affairs or immigration has issued more than nine million visas. It has only happened twice. It wasn't me as minister. It wasn't my predecessors. Who possibly would've issued more than nine million visas for two consecutive years? No-one else has caught up with this record.

Honourable members interjecting—

Order! Members on my right. The Manager of Opposition Business on a further point of order.

The point of order is 91(c). You were very clear in your direction to the minister. He's now wilfully ignoring your, I think, quite direct suggestion, Mr Speaker, and he should come back to the question. It was very tight; it was about the 1.8 million migrants in the budget.

Yes, and the minister is talking about that. I can guess where he's going to go with this. I'll just ask the minister one more time to make sure he's being directly relevant in terms of the figures that he's referring to. He'll need to make it relevant to the question he was asked about the 1.8 million figure in this budget.

The biggest driver for any minister of net overseas migration is the number of visas they issue. No-one has ever issued more visas in Australian history than the Leader of the Opposition when he held this portfolio.

My question is to the Minister for Aged Care. How is the Albanese Labor government supporting aged-care workers with pay rises and tax cuts? Are there any threats to this?

I thank the member for Parramatta for his question and for his commitment to restoring dignity to all the recipients of aged care in his electorate. There aren't many jobs more important than those that our aged-care workers do. Being an aged-care worker is physically and emotionally draining work, and it's highly skilled work. I saw this firsthand during ex-tropical cyclone Alfred, when I visited Emma and her team in Mercy Community's services in Nudgee. In preparation for gale-force winds and torrential rain, Emma, Grace, Kamala, Salushana, Isha and others all packed their overnight bags and left their own homes to do double and sometimes triple shifts and even sleep over at the nursing homes to make sure that their residents got the care that they needed.

But you wouldn't have known how important aged-care workers were based on what they were paid under consecutive coalition governments. For too long, women like Emma, Grace, Kamala, Salushana and Isha were undervalued and underpaid, and that's not because these jobs aren't skilled or important. It was because these jobs are predominantly done by women.

In last night's budget the Treasurer announced another $2.6 billion to deliver pay rises to nurses working in aged care. That means that, since 2023, the Albanese government have invested $17.7 billion to increase the award wage for more than 400,000 aged-care workers. Under the Albanese government, registered nurses are earning an extra $430 a week; that is $22,000 a year. And, with Labor's tax cuts, they're keeping an extra $2,667 in their pockets. With Labor 's investment in Medicare, they will be able to see a bulk-billing GP. With Labor's plan for cheaper medicine, they won't pay more than $25 for their PBS script. With Labor's investment in affordable housing, they will have more help to buy a home, with a lower deposit.

The Albanese government is firmly focused on the issues that matter to Australians: easing the cost of living while fighting inflation, helping people earn more and cutting their taxes to help them keep more of what they earn. The only thing the coalition will not cut is your taxes.

Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.

Documents are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable members earlier today. Full details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.

I have received a letter from the honourable member for Hume proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:

The government's budget is designed for the next five weeks, not the next five years.

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—

It is absolutely clear that what we have just seen handed down in this place is a budget for the next five weeks, not the next five years. It is a budget for the prosperity of the Treasurer and the Prime Minister, not the prosperity of hardworking Australians. What Labor is offering in this budget is a cruel hoax, and this Treasurer is a cruel hoax and this Prime Minister is a cruel hoax because what they have said to the Australian people, as their standard of living has absolutely collapsed, is that all they need to make up for that is 70c a day, starting over a year from now. This is truly offensive to the Australian people.

I laid out before this budget flop, as I did before the other three budget flops, a very clear test for what the Australian people could reasonably expect of a good budget. At the top of that list was the restoration of their standard of living that has collapsed under Labor. The facts on this are important, because we have never seen a collapse like we've seen in the last 2½ years in Australia's standard of living. That is the goods and services that their incomes can buy. We've never seen it before.

Many of us remember the early seventies under that great government, the Whitlam government, from 1972 to 1975—they were an absolute shocker. It was so bad that by 1975, at the ripe old age of nine, I was out campaigning for the Country Party. That's how bad it got. But it wasn't as bad as this. Many of us will remember the 'recession we had to have' from the hero of the Treasurer, Paul Keating, who now hates the Treasurer because the Treasurer wants to go after unrealised capital gains. It's worse now than it was back then. We have never seen that eight per cent drop. The hard reality for an Australian family with a mortgage in Western Sydney and much of Australia right now is that they have had to find in the last three years $40,000 in after-tax income that they did not expect to have to find—$40,00—and this lot think that 70 cents a day, in over a year from now, will make up for that. Now, that's a cruel hoax.

The second thing we said was that we need to restore hope for the Australian people. We need to see a light at the end of the tunnel, a genuine light at the end of the tunnel, and we did not see that in this budget. When we get around Australia and talk to small-business people and hardworking Australians, which is what my colleagues here today do every single day when they are outside of this place, we hear time and time again that Australians are losing hope. Young Australians who are wanting to buy a house are losing hope. Slightly older Australians with a family who have bought a house, who have a mortgage and who want to be able to pay it out, are losing hope. Those 2.5 million Australians who have a small business, I tell you what, they are losing hope. Some 29,000 small businesses have gone under, a record number, under this government. We have seen incomes of small-business people absolutely smashed. When I get around my electorate, what I see time and time again is people who run cafes and pubs having to work weekends because they can't afford to pay the overtime if they are going to be able to pay themselves. This is a disastrous situation for small businesses, and it's no wonder we are seeing them go under. With an 18 per cent drop in their incomes, they are losing hope.

The third test for this budget was that they restore some integrity to the budget. Now, we have already seen three budget flops. The hope was they would re-establish those disciplines, those rules, that were put in place all those years ago by the Liberal government to make sure that there was a budget that wasn't going to leave billions and billions of dollars on the credit card for the Australian people. When we look at those three tests, Labor has absolutely failed. Our standard of living, according to the Reserve Bank now, won't get back to where it was when Labor came to power until 2031. If there was ever a lost decade, this is it. We are not getting back to where we were when we were in government until 2031. These are dark times but there is nothing in this budget that has any hope of getting us back to where we were any faster.

In terms of hope, there is nothing here. All any Australian can hope for is 70c a day. Is that it? Is that the full extent of it? In terms of budget integrity, well, this was truly a shameful budget. It was a big spending, big taxing, big Australia, big deficit budget. I will go through each of those pieces because each of them is worth expanding on. On big spending, there has been over $400 billion of additional spending since Labor has come to power. The Treasurer likes to say that he hasn't spent all the windfalls he got. Well, you know what? He is also a big taxing Treasurer because that's gone up by $400 billion as well. He has spent the lot of it and more, and that is why we see red ink as far as the eye can see, with $170 billion of deficits over the forwards. That is 6,000 bucks on the credit card of each Australian—$6,000! For an Australian family, it's more like $15,000 put on the credit card. I tell you what, Australians are indeed paying for that 70c a day they will be getting in 15 months time, which is not going to touch the sides.

What we also saw in this budget is a big Australia plan—1.8 million new Australians over the course of five years. We are a great immigrant nation. As the member for Banks said just before question time, we are a great immigrant nation. We have managed to be a great immigrant nation by getting the balance right between the number of new people coming into the country and our capacity to cope with that—the new houses, the infrastructure and the services that we need. The trouble is, when you bring in over one million people in just two years, the balance is never going to be right.

As it turns out, it's worse than that, because the housing supply under this Labor government has absolutely collapsed. The ambassador for excuses over there—the Treasurer—will blame anyone. President Xi gets a blame. Donald Trump gets a blame. Putin has had a blame. He'll blame the lot.

The dog has always eaten this bloke's homework! He was struggling today because of the $1 trillion of debt. We heard a lot about that. It turns out it's his. He'll be looking for excuses for that, but the truth of the matter is that their housing supply has absolutely collapsed. They promised 1.2 million houses, just like they promised a $275 reduction in electricity bills and just like they promised a lower cost of living. Their housing programs haven't delivered a single house—zippo. They haven't delivered a single house; meanwhile, the records keep getting broken for the number of people coming to Australia. What we saw in the forecast for this year is another increase as they get the forecast wrong yet again.

There is a better way—beating inflation; boosting growth; cutting waste; getting rid of red tape; knocking down the barriers to growth like the CFMEU, which has made the construction industry a nigh-on-impossible place to get things done; fixing the housing supply by breaking infrastructure bottlenecks; delivering that affordable, reliable energy that every Australian wants to see; and balancing housing supply with immigration. We cannot afford another three years of Labor; there is a better way.

You have to hand it to the shadow Treasurer. Really, you do have to hand it to him because he doesn't have it himself. The fact is that this bloke has a three-part plan: (1) criticise Labor; (2) pause; and (3) hope no-one asks him for point 3! He's continuing as he has this entire term—a policy-free zone. Tomorrow night, we're going to hear more spin than substance from the Leader of the Opposition—the man whose only serious policy proposal has been that Australians should spend $600 billion on a madcap nuclear fantasy that won't deliver until the 2040s.

In last night's budget, you heard Labor put forward our positive economic plan: a new tax cut for every taxpayer, more energy bill relief, growing wages, even cheaper medicines, cutting student debt, strengthening Medicare, making it easier to buy and rent a home, permanent free TAFE and a fair go for families and farmers. You'll hear much more about that from the other Labor speakers in this debate.

I want to focus my remarks today on non-compete clauses, which are an important part of Labor's competition reforms. The fact is, if you had a competition agenda, then you would be pretty worried about something called a non-compete clause. The clue is in the name. These are affecting real people across Australia. Let me start with a couple of stories.

Charlotte, a 17-year-old, landed her first casual job as a dance teacher. She was forced to quit after experiencing harassment. Months later, she took a job at a different dance studio and immediately received a warning letter from her former employer. It said she'd breached a restraint of trade clause to not work or even volunteer for a competing business for 36 months within a 15-kilometre exclusion zone. Her former employer went so far as to contact the new dance studio.

Or take Mia, a disability support worker who is registered for a National Disability Insurance Scheme provider. Mia was offered a new contract with a lower hourly rate that she'd been on. So she went out on her own as an independent and joined a rival registered provider. Without cajoling, several former clients decided to transfer their care plans over. She then received a letter from her former employer saying she'd breached restraint of trade clauses.

Or there's Patrick, a 21-year-old boilermaker who decided that he would take up a new opportunity working not for a competitor but in-house for a former client. He was branded a troublemaker and sent a letter from his former employer saying he breached his post-employment obligations.

These clauses are spreading across the economy. Once was the time when people would say non-compete clauses only applied to highly paid executives, who were required to take a period of gardening leave. Now it's just about the case that gardeners are being hit by non-compete clauses.

The case against non-competes is in several parts, and I want to take the House through those. First of all, we know that job mobility is important to the whole economy. As people will know from their own careers, some of the biggest wage gains you get come when you switch jobs. Switching jobs is a bit like the run rate in cricket; it is a measure of the health for how the economy is going. Worryingly, it declined under the former government. We know from work by the e61 think tank that workers can increase their wages by thousands of dollars by shifting to a better job. It's a productivity boost too, as workers find a job that's a better match for their talent. Non-compete clauses put sand in the gears of job mobility, which is so critical to a productive and efficient economy.

Second, non-compete clauses are more widespread than we'd thought. When I began talking about this several years ago, some people said, 'We've seen these surveys out of the US that say that 18 per cent of American workers are subject to a non-compete, but that's an American thing.' Then we surveyed Australia with the help of e61 and Australian Bureau of Statistics, and the e61 survey came back showing that 22 per cent of Australian workers were subject to a non-compete—a higher share than in the United States. Non-compete clauses are widespread through the economy.

Non-compete clauses aren't just applying to high-wage workers. They're not just applying to barristers but to baristas. They're not just applying to traders; they're applying to waiters. They're not just applying to auditors; they're applying to janitors. They're not just applying to coders; they're applying to cabbies. They're not just applying to surgeons but to servers. They're not just applying to accountants but to aged-care workers. Non-competes aren't just applying to those folks whose jobs involve guarding trade secrets but also to the bloke whose job is to guard the car park. They're not just applying in the boardroom; they're applying in the mailroom too.

The Australian Bureau of Statistics survey found that most businesses that apply non-compete clauses do so to 75 per cent of their employees or more, and US research found that when confronted with a non-compete clause only a tenth of prospective workers choose to negotiate. Who wants to negotiate a non-compete when you're just starting off your employment relationship? We know too that non-compete clauses can have a chilling effect on workers, impacting labour mobility. These clauses can be complex negotiate out of and complex to handle, and they can often come in the form of cascading causes. One contract which went to court said that the worker was banned from working for a competing employer for 15 months or, if that was, invalid for 13 months or, if that was invalid, for 12 months. And 'competing employers' meant those employers in all of Australia or, if that was invalid, in the state or, if that was invalid, in the metro area. So who's to know what's the true non-compete clause?

US research on this has found that even in places where non-competes have been unenforceable—like California, where they've been unenforceable since the 1870s—non-compete clauses can still have a chilling effect on worker mobility. It's no great surprise when you consider the fact that going to court can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. People don't litigate their non-competes; they simply sit out, costing the economy and costing workers.

Businesses have better options to protect their interests.

In last night's budget, the Treasurer made clear that we're cracking down on non-compete clauses for those earning under the high-earner threshold of $175,000, but we're not changing the rules on non-disclosure clauses. Employers still have intellectual property protections. There's a statutory protection under section 183 of the Corporations Act which prevents any director, other officer or employee of the corporation from improperly using information obtained in that position for their benefit, the benefit of someone else or the detriment of the corporation. Employers who pay above the $175,000 threshold wouldn't be affected in the first instance by our reforms. And non-competes for the sale of a business aren't affected. We also know that there will still be an ability to constrain workers from working for another employer at the same time—these so-called concurrent non-competes.

There are better options for employers. Indeed, our approach will provide simplicity to employers and employees. It's a red tape reduction mechanism, removing an approach which has been confusing and has led to litigation and replacing it with one which provides simplicity and precision.

No-poach agreements between businesses could also be harmful, and in last night's budget the Treasurer made clear that we're looking at arrangements such as those that franchise chains McDonald's, Domino's and Bakers Delight have that prevent a worker from moving from one franchise outlet to another. I've heard stories of workers who want to move to a McDonald's closer to home, but they've been told they cannot do so because of the so-called no-poach clauses. The employee isn't even a party to these clauses, but they're hurting worker mobility.

Finally, Australia has been well-placed to learn from other countries. Spain, Finland, the UK, the US and Austria are among other countries dealing with non-competes. We put out a Treasury issues paper last year and garnered feedback on that. We've had significant and valuable research from the e61 Institute; the Grattan Institute; the Productivity Commission; and the competition taskforce, ably headed by Jason McDonald and Marcus Bezzi.

I want to acknowledge the work of Dan Andrews, Jack Buckley, Ewan Rankin, Bjorn Jarvis and Iain Ross in working through the issues behind non-competes. Labor wants to unleash ambition, to boost wages, to increase productivity and to put downward pressure on prices. Our non-compete reform will do just that.

It was Prime Minister John Howard who said Australia is a country of optimism and fairness and resilience. It's really hard, though, for Australians to be optimistic right now. It's certainly not fair the approaches the Albanese Labor government is putting on the Australian people. Yet, everyone across this country remains so resilient, so strong, because that's the foundation of our country. But they shouldn't have to be. Labor's tax cuts, even though they're patting themselves on the back and saying, 'We're wonderful, and Australians should be so grateful', don't touch the surface of the cost-of-living crisis that they've gotten this country into. Today, I looked up online what 70c could buy you at our major supermarkets. It cannot even buy you one banana. Actually, one of the supermarkets had apples on special, so it could buy you an apple—

An asparagus spear.

or one asparagus spear. What a joke! But it's absolutely not a joke; it's this government's absurd faux fix for the cost-of-living crisis that the Albanese government itself created. In fact, this five-week budget has been seen as a joke right across this country, a sad joke. The nation wants a plan for our next five years, not just until the May election. Not only are groceries up; a substantial number of other items are as well—like our mortgages, rent, petrol. Seventy cents a day will not make a dent in the empty pockets of so many everyday Australians.

One thousand and three hundred dollars: that's a lot of money for so many Western Sydney families, yet this is what they're now paying for their energy bills over and above what Labor promised. Remember that $275 pledge to drop household energy bills by this year made on 97 occasions? I know people across Western Sydney in my electorate of Lindsay have not forgotten that huge broken promise. I know the McMahon community from Santa Clara to Fairfield haven't forgotten. They're getting smashed with higher household energy bills, and they're not happy with their local member.

We need to get the country on a sensible direction with energy policy. We need 24/7 baseload power with nuclear and more gas. Renewables are only killing our country's small businesses and our Western Sydney manufacturers. We've seen more than 29,000 small businesses hit the wall due to this government's lack of understanding and care of small businesses in this country. Instead of backing small businesses, the Labor government has boosted the federal public servant count by 41,000. It's extraordinary. Green Valley in Werriwa is one of the top places in the country for business consultancy, but where is the local member for Werriwa on this topic? Is she advocating that small business get a permanent instant asset write-off with the threshold lifting to $30,000? Our Liberal candidate in Werriwa, Sam Kayal, is. He's a fighter for Green Valley, Austral and Prestons and right across Werriwa. He's an accountant and small-business owner that gets small business.

We will ensure $5 billion of funding goes towards local roads, sewerage and other works to get homes built across Werriwa and right across Western Sydney and our whole country, because housing in this country is a major part of the cost-of-living crisis and we need to boost supply. Rattan Virk and Mike Creed, our candidates for Macquarie and Greenway in the north-west, understand the housing pressures due to population growth. We need better infrastructure. Letting Australians use their super will ensure families in Western Sydney can get ahead and get onto the next phase of their lives.

I'm glad the health minister is here, because another cost-of-living issue is cost of health care. Mental ill health is a challenge many families are facing in this cost-of-living crisis, particularly young people and mums and dads trying to pay for their kids' mental health appointments. This is why our wonderful Liberal candidate for Parramatta, Katie Mullens, has fought so hard for headspace in Parramatta. The coalition will bring back better access for psychology sessions. It is great that the health minister is here, because he was in charge of health when the Labor government cut the 20 sessions back to 10. We want to double the Medicare psychology sessions back up to the 20 that Australians deserve. This will provide so much relief for working families, young people and pensioners who need this support. Our Western Sydney team understand the pressures facing our region, from the Blue Mountains to Parramatta and the Hawksbury to Camden. Whether it's the member for Hume, Hughes, Banks or Mitchell or me as the member for Lindsay, our team knows that only a Dutton led coalition government will get Western Sydney back on track.

This responsible budget is about building a better and fairer future for Australia. In this budget there are more tax cuts for every taxpayer. That's 14 million of them around the country. There's more energy bill relief for every household and for small business. There's more bulk-billing, which will help Australians to see a GP for free. We have more cuts for the 23,000 people in my electorate who have HECS debts and we have historic funding for schools like Bremer State High School and Ipswich State High School in the electorate of Blair. We have more help to get Australians in a home of their own. That will help in suburbs like Spring Mountain and Ripley Valley in the city of Ipswich in my electorate.

But then, of course, we have those opposite. They are really keen on this MPI, because there are so few of them! I count three of them over there. That's how important this MPI is. What we know today from the Liberals and National Party about how they believe the economy should work is simply diametrically opposed to their patron and spiritual leader, Robert Menzies. These two parties, the Liberals and Nationals, are blocking help for small business. Today 1.5 million small businesses, by the way, could have got the help that they need, because they are actually taxpayers. They are sole traders. They could have got tax cuts today, two tranches of them, but the opposition opposed it today. When they were in government, they never saw a budget where they didn't deliver a deficit and increased debt. The biggest-taxing governments in the history of the Commonwealth of Australia were Liberal and National party governments—Howard's and, of course, Morrison's. This is what they do. They claimed that were going to deliver a surplus in their first year and every year thereafter.

What have we done? We've delivered two surpluses. We've delivered historic funding for Medicare. We have lifted the wages of Australia's lowest-paid workers. The lowers-paid workers in this country will get $143 more a week as a result of the work that we have done in supporting minimum wage rises and investing in aged care and child care by supporting those industries and getting wages up. Those opposite never saw a wage rise they didn't want to oppose. The never once supported a minimum wage rise. But that's what the Liberal and National parties do—they do not support workers or tax cuts. They opposed energy bill relief. Who can forget what they did in 2022, in opposing that. Today they say, 'We won't stand in the way,' but they don't actually support it. They don't actually support energy bill relief for families in the country.

What we're doing is making sure that we're building, not cutting. Those opposite would cut the NEMA workers who helped us in South-East Queensland in the cyclones and floods—the public servants there on the frontline helping people get $1,000 and $400 for their kids, in the Australian government disaster recovery payment. They're the frontline workers from Services Australia that are helping people in South-East Queensland in the aftermath of Cyclone Alfred and the veterans assessors in the Department of Veterans' Affairs. Those opposite let the veterans entitlements claims fly out to 43,000—they were out of date. They could not actually look at the claims for months and months. We had to put on 500 extra public servants to deal with the claims. During question time today the Minister for Veterans' Affairs articulated what we've done in this space.

The Liberal and National parties would cut those public savants. They all don't live, by the way, here in Canberra. We like the member for Fenner, but they don't all live here in Canberra. They live in Toowoomba, Ipswich, Rockhampton, Mackay, Townsville and Cairns. They're the people—in regional Queensland and around the country—serving the public. But there are 40,000 on the chopping block if those opposite get the chance. I say to the public servants around the country who have been helping us in the aftermath of cyclones, bushfires and floods that we've got your back and we will support you. The Liberal and National parties will cut your jobs. As they look to their spiritual guiders in America, they will cut your jobs.

What will we do? We'll Invest in education. We'll cut your HECS debt. We will provide support for child care. We will reduce the childcare costs for families. We will cut taxes. We will bring down inflation, as we have been doing, and we'll make wages rise, improve productivity and improve economic growth in the country. We'll build a fairer society and a more responsible society. We'll back small business. Those opposite cannot even see a small business that they would support today. There are 1.5 million small businesses today that did not get the tax cut they deserved.

Going through the budget papers, there are some things that jump off the page and concern you. I am looking through 'Liabilities and assets included in net debt', and this year it's $935 billion. Next year we're over $1 trillion. Then we're up to basically $1.1 trillion, and then we start heading towards $1.2 trillion. By 2029, we're up to $1.239 trillion in gross debt. This is a huge problem, and any person who has run a business will tell you that an escalating debt like that comes with massive servicing costs. Running through our servicing costs, I've noted that we're going from $25 billion and then jump up next year to $29½ billion. Then in the year after that it will be over $34 billion. We're ending up with close to $43 billion in the financial year ending 30 June 2029.

At the moment, we spend roughly $50 billion on defence. We are now basically taking the money that we should be using to defend our nation and using it instead to service our debt. We've done this to ourselves. About 50 per cent of your placements, of what are called non-resident holdings of Australian government securities, are foreign.

So we've got ourselves into a real pickle here, and there is nothing in these budget papers that talk to how on earth we pay this off. You can't just blindly go. I've been here 20 years now. I've never seen a forward projection work yet, to be quite frank—not usually within a bull's roar of it—but you can talk about your debt here and now. If you go to AOFM, if ever you are curious, you'll see 'Australian government securities outstanding'. It's on the front as you go in there. To try to manufacture some process of strengthening our balance sheet in such a form as to have a hope of just holding the debt where it is, we'd have to see in these budget papers some substantive, prudent investment in proper assets—not chattels, but proper assets that provide a determined return. I'll give you the names of some of those assets that we have tried in the past to get going but that have stalled. I'm going to hope that they've not stopped but have stalled.

The Inland Rail is one such asset. No matter where you go in the world, intermodal fast-track freight rail makes your economy stronger. It builds your economy's base. But this one's just stalled. It's gone nowhere.

You need water infrastructure. You need dams. Dams are the essence—the substance—of what generates wealth. If you don't believe that, find me a country that goes without water—how are they going? Go down to any river system and see what happens if they can't use water. It just withers. We don't have any vision of dams; we don't have any visions of rail.

In this nation, we've still only got two sealed roads from east to west—one through Camooweal and one across the Nullarbor. I hate to point it out to you, but have a look at them on a map, and you'll notice that they're very close to the coast. If we have a strategic issue that comes into play, we're not going to have much luck with roads on the coast, and—might I remind people—the Chinese were doing live-fire exercises off Sydney—

Government members interjecting—

I don't know why you laugh at that. Why do you laugh at that?

An invasion?

I'll take that interjection. What do you think they were doing there with their live-fire exercises?

That is ridiculous fearmongering!

Do you think they were lost? Do you think they were worried about the Antarcticans coming up and discovering our underbelly? What do you think they were doing off Sydney doing live-fire exercises?

The member for Hawke!

That's why we are in trouble. That exact interjection is why this nation is in trouble. It is exactly that process that underlies the incapacity of the Labor government to take the defence of this nation seriously.

The member for Hawke!

That is why, when you look at this, they blow the budget, they hock us up to the eyeballs in debt, they build nothing to service it and then, when you talk about the defence of the nation, the honourable members opposite start laughing. It's all a joke, isn't it?

I appreciate the contribution from the member for New England. I know that he, in his former life, was an accountant. That's why we had the long explanation about assets, dollars and making the books balance. My question to the member for New England, then, is: how would you explain—how would you advise—a party that had a $600 billion black hole in their books? What advice would you be giving to your coalition members about how you would be filling that black hole? What sort of asset would you be investing in? Because, to me, that sounds like a dud asset.

We all know why we are standing here to debate this MPI proposed by the shadow Treasurer. It's because he's running scared. He refuses to debate the Treasurer. Why is he refusing to debate the Treasurer? It's because he has no policies to debate the Treasurer with.

But there was one debate that he agreed to participate in, and that was with the member for Parramatta, my colleague here. I guess that made sense to him. The shadow Treasurer and the member for Parramatta, Rhodes scholar and Rhodes scholar—he thought he had an even match. Unfortunately, he was wrong, because the member for Parramatta, by all accounts, cleaned up in that debate. So he's now said no to all debates, and I can understand, because there is no long-term vision in their plan.

We do have a vision—a long-term vision—and I'll take the premise of this MPI. Let's not take it over five years; let's take it over the lifetime of a child. I'm going to talk you through what the four budgets that we've had mean for an eight-year-old child. That's the age of my son. Let me talk you through what we are going to be doing not just for the next five years but for the remainder of his life. This eight-year-old child is most likely going to attend a public school. In this budget the Labor government will lift our contribution for public schools from 20 to 25 per cent of the schooling resource standard by 2034 in New South Wales so that public schools will be fully funded—something that students in New South Wales have been waiting more than a decade for. That's $41 billion of investment into our public schools in New South Wales so students will get smaller class sizes, better learning resources and additional support for teachers. So that means that that eight-year-old child will get high-quality education, and, as he grows up and decides whether he's going to go to TAFE or university, we've got plans to help there. We're making free TAFE permanent and introducing 100,000 more places, ensuring that young people can pursue further education without financial barriers. This is good for the child because they get the skills for a lifelong career, and it's good for the country because we can get workers into areas where we've got skills shortages. If he chooses to go into university, next year we are going to wipe 20 per cent off HECS debt because university is an investment, and it shouldn't be a burden.

This child's family will benefit from Labor's tax cuts because every taxpayer will receive a new tax cut of up to $800 over the next two financial years. Because of successive tax cuts by the Labor government, the average New South Wales taxpayer will receive around $2,500 in tax cuts by 2027-28. This means more money for school supplies, extracurricular activities and family expenses. And each time we've wanted to give all Australians a tax cut, those opposite have opposed it.

Good health care is also essential for that child's future, and we are making health care more affordable. We've tripled the bulk-billing incentive for concession cardholders and children who need to see a GP, and the Medicare data shows that this investment is restoring bulk-billing for more than 11 million patients who this change covers. More than nine in 10 GP visits are now bulk-billed for those patients.

So the alternative between this side of the House and that side of the House is clear for that eight-year-old child. The shadow Treasurer has no policies and no vision, and it's no wonder he can't debate the Treasurer.

Well, what does this tricky Labor government have to say to struggling Australians who are $50,000 worse off under their leadership? What cost-of-living relief do they have for them? Well, hang in there. In 462 days, Labor will give you 70 cents a day. That's the generosity—the cruel hoax—of Labor's so-called cost-of-living relief for those struggling today under Labor's homegrown inflation crisis. If Labor were a prison warden, that would be a crumb flicked to the inmates for their daily meal. It gets worse. Labor rattle the bars as they strut to the election thinking they are so generous—so brilliant. But the Australian people, particularly regional Australians, are the inmates trapped after three years of 'hard Labor' in the Prime Minister's homegrown cost-of-living crisis and unable to escape. Those opposite have locked up aspirational Australians, taken away their housing affordability and locked up their food affordability as well. Australians' wages no longer buy what they once did at the supermarket.

Leaving aside for one moment this government's inaction on the major supermarkets and price gouging, let's look at the food price hikes under Labor. Bread is up over 20 per cent, cheese is up 18 per cent, milk is up 17 per cent and breakfast cereal is up 15 per cent. Add to that cost-of-living pressures like mortgage repayments, which are up 41 per cent; gas prices, which are up 32 per cent; and rents, which are up 17 per cent. Electricity bills are up by $1,300, not down by $275 like Labor promised 97 times before the last election. They want you to forget that, and here they are again with the parlour tricks, extending energy bill relief of $75 for two more quarters. Wow!

That'll do it.

Yes. So let's do the math—40c per day in energy bill relief until 31 December. Then wait for six months—no cost-of-living relief then. But then, on 1 July 2026, you get—wait for it—70c a day.

But it gets worse. Under Labor, income taxes are up over 25 per cent. As this engorged government feasts on your income, using it to spend on largesse that exacerbates the cost-of-living crisis, Labor tosses Australians a daily morsel of their tax back. This is a government swimming in income tax revenue, not to mention mineral resources revenue. The jackpot machine of the Australian success story is spitting out chips, but Labor is letting it all go down the drain of debt, deficit and bloated public spending. Yet they come along here, gagging MPs, ramming through a debate today to legislate a 70c-a-day tax cut beginning in 462 days time. Excuse me, and excuse the Australian public, and excuse the press gallery for being a little cynical. This is a cynical government, a tricky government with a tricky budget, and here they are saying, 'Have we got a clever trick for you!' The Australian public have worked this government out. Those opposite know it. Mallee residents, their fellow regional Australians and all Australians have become conditioned to bill shock. They're not happy about it at all, but they have become used to the higher cost of electricity under those opposite. The independent costing came in last year about the coalition's energy plans, which cost 44 per cent less than Labor's reckless renewables rollout, a rollout that is railroading my electorate of Mallee. Those opposite know they've lost the crowd—the everyday Australians going without a meal, putting groceries back on the shelf because they can't afford them, the pensioners not running their air-conditioners in stifling heat in Mallee, because they live in fear of the next power bill. Australians need a coalition government that respects them, respects their hard-earned income and will get Australia back on track.

The government, the Albanese Labor government, is using this time, this week, this sitting week, as an important period. We've delivered a budget, which the Treasurer did, and we've come in today and sought to immediately legislate the tax cuts. I'll come back to the tax cuts in a second. We are using this week to continue to work hard for the Australian people. We know we've got an election on the horizon and there's a lot of electioneering going on, particularly on the other side of the chamber, but we are using this week as we've used the entire period of government to relentlessly focus and deliver for the Australian people. It's quite fun, nevertheless, to watch those opposite line up and audition at the despatch box for the job of shadow Treasurer. I think the member for Hume is probably sitting in his office watching one colleague after another come to the despatch box, and I think he can feel the pressure. He's probably loosening the necktie a little bit. I think he can feel the pressure. Let's be very frank here about where the Australian economy is up to. Inflation's down. Incomes are on the rise. Finally, incomes are on the rise.

For the last five-quarters.

For the last five-quarters, indeed. Unemployment is very, very low—historically low. Interest rates, which have been a burden on Australian households, are coming down. And now, on top of that, we are seeing that growth in our economy is starting to rebound. We've got to think about where we were just three years ago. I know the member for Casey has joined us because he does enjoy reflecting on where things were three years ago with me. The Liberal government, the Scott Morrison Liberal government, left the Australian people with $1 trillion of Liberal debt on the books—$1 trillion of Liberal debt. They had nothing to show for it. There was no economic dividend from their ridiculous pre-COVID and post-COVID expenditure. We all remember the wastage that went on, the colour-coded spreadsheets and the rorts. They left Australians with $1 trillion of debt on the books and nothing to show for it. They come here pretending or hoping that the Australian people will have forgotten that ridiculous mismanagement of the Australian economy and our budgetary circumstances. They left us with inflation peaking under the former Liberal government at 6.1 per cent. We're now back within the two to three per cent band. And, of course, the interest rates began rising under that government.

Labor inherited a budget and an economy from the Morrison Liberal government that had seriously deteriorated. When you think again about the turnaround—inflation down, income up, unemployment being very low, interest rates coming down and growth starting to rebound—those three short years have been used very productively. We've now legislated, or at least moved through this House, the top-up tax cuts to the very substantive tax cuts that the Prime Minister made the important call on last year to ensure that every Australian taxpayer got a tax cut. That's 73,000 taxpayers in my electorate.

When we talk about the long term, as this MPI seeks to do, I think we need to focus on the fact that this combined package means that the average worker in my electorate or perhaps the member for Reid's electorate would be paying $30,000 less in tax in 2035-36. When we talk about the long term, we're talking about saving families with an average worker $30,000 a year in tax. I know that, when you break it down to what it's worth on a minute-by-minute basis, the Liberal Party opposite get a cheap sound bite out of that, but this is substantive money. This is the kind of saving that will have an impact on people in my community and it is the kind of impact the people in our communities so desperately need.

Let me remind you again: inflation is down, incomes are strengthening, unemployment is very low, interest rates are coming down and now growth is starting to rebound. People have been doing it very tough in our communities over the last number of years. Again, that's what happens when the Liberals leave us with $1 trillion dollars of debt, leave us with inflation spiking above six per cent and leave us with inflation rising. They come to the dispatch box. They want the confidence of the Australian people to manage our economy and budget; they do not have it.

It's always great to follow the member for Hawke. It gives me an opportunity to fact-check some of the claims that he makes. Let's start with the first one, that inflation peaked under the former coalition government. He might want to check the ABS data. It would show that it actually peaked at 7.8 per cent in the December 2022 quarter. Last time I checked, the Albanese Labor government was in power in December 2022. Maybe fact-check that comment, Member for Hawke.

He also said that they inherited $1 trillion of debt. The problem with that is there are budget papers and—I've said this to you before, so you know this—$517 billion was the actual number in the budget papers. Thirty-one per cent of that was under the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government, which was a great success for the Australian people! When we're talking about auditions, the member for Parramatta wouldn't get those facts wrong. He would make sure that those numbers were right, because he's ready to go if the Treasurer makes those mistakes.

This Treasurer and this Prime Minister have delivered a budget in their true tradition. It is classic spin that sounds impressive with their cost-of-living plan—it's a headline—but it delivers nothing for the Australian people. It delivers 70c a day in 15 months. Congratulations to all those community members in Hawke that are struggling. You'll get 70c back in 15 months time. That'll help with the grocery bills this week. That'll help with the petrol when you have to fill up the car this week—70c a day in 15 months.

When the Treasurer and those opposite continue the political spin about how great the Australian people have it, how we've never had it better and everything they're doing, they like to give these big numbers about tax cuts and what they've supposedly done, but they always leave one number out. They never put one number into their calculations. They don't include the low- and middle-income offset that they let lapse under their watch—the $1,500 that the Australian people received in one go, in one hit, when they put in their tax return. Many people in my community and many people across the country were outraged when they didn't get that $1,500 they were expecting, because they'd received it in the previous years. We saw that this Prime Minister had the opportunity and had the ability to make sure that $1,500 in one hit made a tangible difference—a policy that was a coalition policy that the former government implemented. They could have kept that policy going, because they backflipped on the stage 3 tax cuts. 'My word is my bond'—apparently not!

They were prepared to backflip on stage 3, but they weren't prepared to backflip on the $1,500 in direct benefits to the Australian people. That says everything you want to know about this Prime Minister and this Treasurer. They've spent so long in this place that they think that spin and political headlines will make a difference for the Australian people, but they won't, because every Australian is struggling.

Discovery Church in my community—an amazing organisation that does a lot through their foodbank—had a 400 per cent increase in demand last year. That increase came from what they dubbed 'the working poor'—those that have jobs, even two jobs, and with three or four in their family needing food support. But we get told by this Prime Minister, by this Treasurer and by those opposite that we've never had it better and that the plan is working. If the Treasurer's plan worked for the last three years, I would hate to see failure, because the community members in Casey that are having to go to Discovery Church to get free food to feed their family and the people that are struggling to pay bills don't feel a soft landing. They're not feeling better today than there did three years ago when this Prime Minister promised that he could solve the cost-of-living crisis. We're not going to stand here and be lectured by those opposite who tell us that we've never had it better, that the plan is working and that we should be so lucky to have the Treasurer in control of the Treasury, making these decisions. These decisions are failing.

If he spent some time talking to people in the community, he would stop the hubris. He would stop bragging about how successful he has been, lining himself up to challenge the Prime Minister after the election, and focus on structural changes to help the Australian people in this cost-of-living crisis, because he's failed time and time again. (Time expired)

In the three years that we've been in government and that we've had the privilege of serving the Australian people in this place, we've taken really seriously the challenges that people have faced. It is really disappointing that on every occasion, including today when those opposite were given the chance to back Australians and to do something meaningful about the cost-of-living pressures people find themselves under, they have voted against those measures. I find that really disappointing. I wish that we would see more empathy, ambition and action from those opposite, rather than the aggressive political games we continually see from them in this chamber.

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this MPI and to highlight the ways in which we are acting with empathy, ambition and action for our communities through the investments that we're making across the country, including in my own state and community, to make people's lives easier and better. The budget that was delivered last night by the Treasurer, the fourth budget, is a budget squarely focused on helping people with cost of living and building Australia's future so we have a more prosperous future. Our government is providing relief whilst also investing in the future, and this is happening at the same time that we are delivering the biggest improvement to the bottom line in a single parliamentary term. We are delivering smaller deficits and much lower debt compared to what we inherited three years ago, and that that's happening is good for future generations of Australians too.

We have a really clear choice at this election. We can continue to keep building and have an ambition and vision for this country, or we can go backwards with the Leader of the Opposition, who we know is going to cut everything, but we don't know exactly what those secret cuts will be yet. So we have a choice. We can build, which is what those of us on this side of the House want to do, or we will see terrible, destructive cuts, which is what those on the opposite side of the chamber seek to do. The Leader of the Opposition will make people worse off by cutting the things ordinary Australians need. He's done it before; he'll do it again. To quote Maya Angelou, which is perhaps where the opposition leader got his inspiration from when he said the best predictor of future behaviour is past behaviour, 'When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time.' The Leader of the Opposition has absolutely shown us who he is. He will cut Medicare. He will cut education spending. He will make people's lives harder and worse.

Our responsible budget, on the other hand, helps Australians now and builds Australia's future by delivering cost-of-living relief, another tax cut—a top-up tax cut—for every Australian taxpayer, $150 of energy bill relief for every household and cheaper medicines, and, of course, we're backing higher wages. Ours is not a government that has wage suppression at the heart of our economic policy, because that is not what the Australian Labor Party would ever do. Only Labor is committed to delivering cost-of-living relief. Again, we have the proof of that in the voting record of those opposite, including this morning. We're strengthening Medicare with more bulk-billing, urgent care clinics and a record investment in women's health. I will use this opportunity to remind everyone that March is Endometriosis Awareness Month, hence my yellow pin, and our government is investing strongly in women's health, including in endo and pelvic pain clinics. We are growing wages, including a well-deserved wage increase for aged-care nurses, and we are stopping unfair non-compete clauses that are holding back Australian workers from switching to better, higher-paying jobs.

I'm really pleased to see that Victoria will benefit from our fourth budget in particular ways. We learned last night that every taxpayer will receive a top-up tax cut. Combined with our first round of tax cuts, the average benefit for Victorian taxpayers will be $2,530 in 2027-28. It's also good to see that each of the 2.5 million households in Victoria will get an additional $150 to help with their energy bills. This relief will also extend to 223,000 eligible small businesses. There are so many other things that we are delivering to provide cost-of-living relief for different generations for different cohorts. As always, I'm proud to be a part of an Albanese Labor government.

The discussion has concluded.

I move:

That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the following from occurring immediately:

(1) the Member for Calare presenting a Bill for an Act to stop windfarms in state forests, and for related purposes;

(2) debate on the second reading of the bill proceeding immediately for a period of no longer than one hour; and

(3) any questions required to complete passage of the bill then being put without delay.

Today I introduce this game-changing bill which would stop the building of wind farms in softwood pine plantations. The bill is aptly titled Stopping Windfarms in State Forests Bill 2025. Over the last few weeks, I have attended consultations and meetings in Sunny Corner and Yetholme in the seat of Calare, where the Sunny Corner State Forest wind farm proposal has been unveiled. I am not against renewable energy, but reasonable, commonsense balance is needed. I have to say that I was very concerned by what I saw there. These turbines are very close to many residential homes—in some cases, a mere one kilometre away. I was surprised by how big the impact would be on these residents. It seems to me like the developer has placed the turbines at locations which will cost them the least but will impact local residents the most. It's the same around Oberon. I cannot support these developments. While the developers say that they will consult, the reality is that for these companies it's a business decision that is made in faraway foreign boardrooms.

I've been working with local residents in other impacted communities on similar issues for many years. While I've had some success in getting wind farms moved or modified for local residents, I've experienced a number of companies who will just not do the right thing by local residents. To me, it's very clear that the controversies and conflicts that communities are having as a result of renewable projects is because of the failure in politics and politicians. The problem is that windfarms are regulated by state planning laws. In 2021, when the New South Wales National Party and their candidate for Calare passed a law to put wind farms in state forests, they did so without properly regulating and setting out the rights of impacted residents and neighbours. The result of this glaring failure to pass proper laws is conflict and controversy. You've got family members fighting family members over the fence and communities divided. It's simply not the country way. I spoke to one of our local Sunny Corner residents last week who told me that under the current proposal for the Sunny Corner State Forest she will have a turbine one kilometre from her house. She said she's hardly slept because of the worry and the strain. It's a classic example of country people bearing the burden of policies that are made in Macquarie Street and Canberra.

Rather than pretending to ride in on white horses, the National Party should be apologising to local communities for the conflict they've created through their failure to do their jobs when they were in government. All the major parties need to take responsibility for their glaring failure to protect impacted residents. They have left others to pick up the pieces. It's the same story with the creation of the New South Wales renewable energy zones and EnergyCo, the New South Wales government company that's building the power lines. The National Party put all of this in place without properly consulting with local communities and without passing laws which would clearly set out the rights of landholders. All the major parties are responsible for this.

Planning laws need to be overhauled. There should be no developments on prime agricultural land. I would include residential developments in this as well. Australia needs food security, yet we are increasingly importing food from overseas. Added to this is the fact that we're often dealing with city-based windfarm staff who have no real idea about country life or how country people live and work. Lack of proper consultation is a huge issue right across our region.

I've been dealing with these issues for many, many years. There are so many developments that I'm being contacted about on an almost daily basis, and I almost lose count of them. I recently went in to bat for residents at Tallawang—which is near Gulgong—who are going to be heavily impacted by wind turbines. Through my advocacy with the company, the turbines were moved to another area. I've also worked with farmers in the Hill End and Sallys Flat area to get turbines moved away from farmhouses and get the scale of the development reduced. In one case a wind turbine was going to be constructed outside the kitchen window of a farming family who'd been working that land for generations. It's a very messy situation for residents and also for communities.

But there is a way forward to clean up this mess. There is. We just need to take a different approach. I've come up with a new solution, which I mentioned at the meetings in Oberon and in Sunny Corner last week. My bill enables the federal government to use its constitutional powers to make laws to stop turbine developments in these state forests. This federal legislation would override the existing way-too-loose state law. This is the bill that I now present to the House.

Clause 3 of the bill is the operative clause. Clause 3(1) states a constitutional corporation must not construct, install or commission a wind farm in a state forest. To put it beyond any doubt, without limiting the definition of 'state forest', it includes the Sunny Corner State Forest near Portland and Lithgow, the Vulcan State Forest, the Mount David State Forest and the Gurnang State Forest—they are in the Oberon area—and also the Canobolas State Forest near Orange. But the bill and the operative clause are not limited to those named state forests; it's for any state forests. Also, I should point out that the constitutional power which is utilised in the framing of this bill is the corporations power.

I've introduced this bill because we need some different thinking on this. These wind farm developments are coming at local residents like a freight train down the line. Local residents are very worried about it and they're very concerned about it, and there doesn't seem to be a way to stop the train. You can talk about nuclear, but these developments will be up and running by the time that policy would even get out of bed. My bill would be the quickest and simplest way to stop them in their tracks.

Many of our local residents around the Central West have been in these areas for generations. Many are elderly and many were shocked, as I was, when the Sunny Corner proposal was unveiled and they saw the scope of these turbines and where they were placed—so close to many residential areas. I expressed my concern to the developer when I saw that plan, but the consultation around the Central West at its very best has been very patchy. As I have stated, there are some wind farm developers who simply will not do the right thing.

The residents of our area who are impacted by these developments in these state forests are looking for a voice. They have asked me to take this proposal, which is a legislative response, to Canberra. I'm very happy to do it because urgent action is needed. One of the common themes through the consultations that I've had around the area, particularly with respect to these state forests, is that the burden of these developments is falling disproportionally on country people rather than city people. They don't think that balance is fair, and they don't think that the balance is right.

This bill rights the wrong that the New South Wales National Party inflicted on country communities around the Central West when they bulldozed their legislation through the New South Wales parliament to allow windfarms in state forests. It was their legislation, and they voted it in. It was National Party and Liberal Party legislation. You can't make it up. So rather than pretend to ride in on white horses, as I've already indicated, the National Party should be apologising for the hurt and pain and conflict and uncertainty that the legislation which they have unleashed has created in our area.

It's now up to all parties to get behind this bill. We need a sensible, balanced and workable energy policy that is fair for everyone. I commend the bill and the motion to the House, and I seek leave to table a copy of the bill and the explanatory memorandum.

Leave not granted.

Is the motion seconded?

The motion is seconded, and I reserve my right to speak.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

I move:

That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the following from occurring:

(1) government business order of the day No. 5 relating to the Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Incentives and Integrity) Bill 2024 being called on immediately; and

(2) all questions required to complete passage of the bill being put without delay.

You heard today in question time from the government that somehow the parliament is frustrating their failure last night to extend the instant asset write-off for small businesses throughout Australia, plunging small businesses into unknown territory in relation to their taxation arrangements. What the Treasurer failed to state in question time today was that, in fact, the opposition moved a similar motion just a couple of months ago to bring on this bill for debate—to bring on an extension to the instant asset write-off to give small businesses the certainty that they need. We moved a motion just a couple of months ago to give small businesses the certainty that they rightly expect from the government in relation to their taxation arrangements, yet the government voted against that motion. So we're giving the government another opportunity today. If they are fair dinkum—if what they were saying last night was truthful rather than a monumental blunder or, even worse, a calculated decision to rip away a tax incentive for small businesses—then they should support this motion.

The Treasurer claimed at the National Press Club today that somehow the parliament has delayed or stalled this bill. He's blamed the Senate. He's blamed the opposition. But, as I have just outlined, the government themselves voted against a motion to bring this bill to the House.

We now are on the eve of a new financial year and on the eve of an election, and the government has cruelly ripped away a tax incentive for small businesses. We're not talking about major businesses in this country; we're talking about small and family businesses who are making decisions today about investments for the new financial year with absolutely no certainty of what those tax arrangements will be.

We know, for example, that this government cruelly reduced both eligibility for and the quantum of the instant asset write-off. We know that no-one in the government has an interest in small business. The small-business sector made that very clear last night in their assessment of this budget. Imagine going to a budget and telling the hundreds of thousands of small businesses in this country and the millions of people who work in small businesses—the engine room of our economy—that you are cruelly and in a calculated way ripping away a tax incentive that, quite frankly and quite rightly, they have come to expect. Sure, they were very unhappy when the government reduced eligibility for and reduced the quantum of the instant asset write-off. But they would not in their wildest dreams have imagined that, looking at the budget last night, that would be entirely ripped away to the point now where the instant asset write-off has dropped to $1,000 for the next financial year.

We saw today in question time the Treasurer, slippery as an eel, using very cute language, but he couldn't confirm that there was money in the budget, which is why this motion is so important and why this suspension of standing orders is urgent. Can I emphasise to the government, to the Prime Minister, to the Treasurer and to the Minister for Small Business, who didn't seem to have a clue what was going on in question time, that this is urgent. The urgency for small business is what drives this suspension of standing and sessional orders now.

Small-business owners in this country should not be put in a position where they are potentially buying that piece of plant equipment, buying the new coffee machine for the cafe or installing new equipment in their hair salon—myriad businesses. You can think of 10,000 business types and the assets they're thinking about. They don't just go into Myer one day, pick these things off the shelf, walk back to the business and install them. They've got to make these decisions months in advance. For many small businesses, a decision about whether or not to upgrade that piece of equipment, buy that asset, make that additional investment in the productivity of their people—their employees, who they often treat like family more than staff members—or make investments to make their businesses more productive is a decision that, in the end, may be catalysed by the fact that they can instantly write it off for tax purposes, not depreciate it over its effective life. I would have thought that members opposite knew that. I would have thought members opposite would be on the phone now to the Treasurer, saying, 'Hold on; I've got thousands of businesses in my electorate that are being left high and dry.'

This fake excuse that the parliament has somehow held it up is utterly wrong. It's misleading the House and is the worst alibi possible. Just admit it. To the government: you either made a calculated decision to remove this from the budget or you have overlooked it. Either way, the suspension of standing orders is absolutely crucial—

The minister, on a point of order?

The motion that is before the House is about suspending standing orders, not the substantive issue he's been going to for five minutes.

I draw the member back to be substantive suspension motion.

The suspension of standing orders is urgent. The point that must be made to the government through these remarks, whether you want to hear them or not, is that there is an urgency to this. If the government will not recognise that this is urgent and therefore requires the suspension of standing orders, then quite frankly they are even worse—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I call the minister on a point of order.

To assist the House, as has been done previously when the opposition have moved suspensions on bringing forward government legislation, this is the first that the government has been aware that the opposition would now be willing to support the entire bill.

No, we're trying to work this through.

Order! Let the minister complete.

This is the first we've been aware of the opposition being willing to support the entire bill. If that is the position of the opposition, then we can do all this by leave. We can do it straightaway, and it will go through the Senate tonight. We had not been advised of that until this motion, but, if that is the position, we can bring it on now. You don't need the motion, and we'll put it through all stages straightaway.

I'll respond to the point of order. On 12 February—I would be very surprised if the Leader of the House is not aware—I moved a virtually identical motion to this. If the manager is now suggesting to the House and to me that he was not aware of that motion on 12 February—

Can I see it?

I'll finish my remarks; I've got two minutes to go.

I will complete my remarks, and then we can talk. The Leader of the House has just made a claim. I'm sure he's being entirely honest with the House in saying that he was unaware, but I am shocked that he was unaware that the opposition moved this motion to bring on the bill in February, because we were conscious of the fact that small businesses in this country cannot just turn on a dime and make investment decisions—as I said.

There's an urgency here, which is why I'm moving to suspend the standing and sessional orders. The other reason why we need to suspend the standing and sessional orders to bring this on immediately is that, somehow, the government's been claiming that it's not their decision to park this bill, that it wasn't their decision to put this on ice, meaning that small businesses are now in limbo. They're claiming that, somehow, it was the decision of the Senate or of the parliament.

That was directly an accusation or assertion made by the Treasurer today in question time. Now, again, if the Treasurer is suggesting he was entirely unaware of a motion brought to this House seeking to bring this on for debate, it is negligence in the extreme. Small businesses deserve better from their government. Small businesses deserve to be at the centre of the government's thinking, not some afterthought or irritation.

So suspending standing orders is critical on this matter today, because, quite frankly, we have seen a government all at sea on this issue. They don't know what they stand for. They don't know whether they support small businesses or not. Perhaps they will be shamed into supporting small businesses in the end, kicking and screaming. If that's the case and if that achieves an outcome for small business, then we'll be very pleased to have led that debate here in the chamber.

The Manager of Opposition Business's time has expired. Is there a seconder for the motion?

I second the motion and I'll speak to it now. It's so important that this bill is dealt with right now, because, on 12 February, the Labor Party voted against their own bill, and, if we don't get this sorted today, there will be thousands of small businesses around the country that won't be able to write off assets that they've already purchased. In this financial year alone, there are people that might have gone out and put solar panels for renewable energy on their roof to reduce their electricity bills, which have doubled under this government—a 100 per cent increase for most businesses. There'll be cafes and so forth that have bought new equipment—it might be a brand-new coffee machine—that they're expecting to be able to depreciate this year, but they won't be able to. It will have to be depreciated over years, because this government hasn't sorted it out.

They've come to parliament today—and there's a little bit of hypocrisy here—wanting to put through tax cuts that are worth five bucks a week and that aren't due until 15 months from now, but they won't deal with the instant asset tax write-off when we've literally got two months to go with it. This is why it's so urgent, and the Leader of the House should know that, on 12 February, they voted against their own bill.

There are others—it might be carpenters or pest controllers or plumbers—who may have found a vehicle under 20 grand or new IT equipment that they bought in the last eight, nine or 10 months. If the government doesn't support the opposition's motion today and actually vote today on their own bill for the instant asset tax write-off, then those businesses will get to the end of the financial year, and it won't be there. It will be up to a new government, after the election, to put it through and make it retrospective.

In the budget last night, the ongoing instant asset tax write-off was killed completely. For the people of Moreton, there'll be no more instant asset tax write-off after you've gone, Graham. It'll be back to $1,000—it wasn't extended in the budget last night. What we're talking about right now is the instant asset tax write-off from last year's budget that still hasn't been legislated through the House and Senate.

The Treasurer doesn't even know what's going on because he said at the Press Club today, 'It's been held up in the Senate.' It hasn't even been to the Senate! It's still being held up here; you voted against it on 12 February. The Treasurer doesn't even know what is happening with their own legislation in relation to small and family businesses and sole traders. There are all these people out there whose electricity bills have doubled in the past three years under this government, and what do they put in the budget? One hundred and fifty dollars!

The instant asset tax write-off is important for the thousands of people who work in small and family businesses, for all the assets that they've bought to date. It could be a whole range of other things. It could be recycled timber that they've put into an office fit-out that cabinetmakers have put in, where it's come under that $20,000. Unless the government gets the bill through the House and the Senate today, they won't get it. They will have spent that money, and it will have to be depreciated over years and years. So I hope the Leader of the House is going to get it through and vote on their own legislation, unlike what they did on 12 February. That will be a win for small businesses, and we'll be happy.

First of all I'd like to clarify a couple of things that have been said in debate. It is common that tax law bills do remain in the House until we have an agreement in the Senate. We put lots of legislation through the House as quickly as we can, and then the Senate does amendments. A lot of amendments for anything that involves appropriations or revenue issues can't be done in the Senate. So it is not uncommon at all for bills of that nature to be kept in the House until we have a situation where we believe there is passage in the Senate. Then they go through here fairly quickly and go across. At the time, on the date in February—I've just asked some people about the context of that—(1) at that point we were not confident that we had support in the Senate; and (2) on that same day we were trying to get the three-day guarantee with respect to early childhood education through. The upending of the program was something that we weren't willing to do that day.

My understanding, from the speeches that have been said, is that we now have the support of the opposition for that whole bill. That was not previously the understanding of the government. There are other measures in that bill as well as the instant asset write-off. That day, as I've said, there was an issue with the upending of the program, as I've been advised; I've gone back through it. The other issues include the deductibility of interest payments for late payment and the luxury car tax adjustment, if it is as it appears from the speeches.

The capacity for amendments and disagreement between the houses is not actually with us because the Senate doesn't sit tomorrow. So I just want to be really clear. The opposition is making a decision now, in moving this, that they will support the whole bill in the Senate. Anything other than that will mean that this particular procedure will have prevented the instant asset write-off from being carried. That's what it will mean. They want to progress the government agenda. I'm happy to progress it. Up until this moment that has not been their position.

But I'm saying to the opposition now: if you're ever going to say, 'Oh, we'll just have a disagreement between the houses,' you can't do that today because we all know that these houses won't be sitting in their current form for too much longer. We all know that the Senate is not sitting on Thursday. In supporting this, we take the Opposition at their word that they are now supporting the entire bill. If that's not what happens in the Senate, we'll be in a situation where there is not an agreement between the houses and there is no way of resolving it. The action of the opposition right now is potentially the only reason we don't have a way of getting it through. So I'm going to take the opposition at their word. I'm going to take them in good faith. They have said they will support the whole bill. I'm going to presume that there will not be a backflip in the Senate. The opposition are now saying they'll support some of these measures that they have previously opposed. I'm going to welcome that. If they are consistent between 10 minutes to five in the afternoon and midnight tonight, and if they don't change their position between those hours, then we will get something through that the government has been trying to get through for months and months. I hope that is the case, and on the basis that that's the case and that we can take the opposition at their word, I'm happy to support the resolution and to see the passage of this legislation go through to the Senate.

Question agreed to.

The question is that the bill as amended by agreed to.

Question agreed to.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.

by leave—I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

On behalf of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, I present the following reports: report No. 1 of 2025: Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water—Davis Station critical infrastructure works and other works and report No. 2 of 2025: Department of Defence—facilities to support LAND 8113 phase 1 long range fires and other works.

Reports made parliamentary papers in accordance with standing order 39(e).

by leave—On behalf of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, I present the committee's first and second reports for 2025. Together these reports consider seven proposals referred to the committee by the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water; Services Australia; the Department of Defence; the Australian Sports Commission; and the Australian Electoral Commission. In total, these works have a combined value of just over $1,123,000,000. The two proposals from the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water together sought to spend $293 million to update infrastructure at the Antarctic research facility, Davis station, and deliver a cold-water marine research aquarium on the Derwent estuary in Hobart, Tasmania.

Davis station is one of three permanent Australian research stations in Antarctica. It is used to conduct research on upper atmosphere physics, geosciences, medicine, meteorology, environmental remediation, climate change, biological sciences and seabirds. Scientists, operation staff, tradespeople and support staff reside at the station year round to maintain the facilities and support ongoing scientific activities. The current buildings and infrastructure are aged or at end of life and this is limiting the number or researchers able to be accommodated at the station.

The works will update old water, power and mechanical systems, allowing an increase in accommodation capacity from 69 people in summer to 91 and from 30 people in winter to 35. Critical to the work is the diversification of the station's water supply. The current water supply produces water only in summer. A new reverse osmosis plant will make it possible to produce potable water all year round.

The works will be delivered in a program alliance model, a form of contracting which allows the Commonwealth to collaborate with non-owner designers and constructors. The alliance will deliver a program of works in Antarctica, of which this is the first. The committee was satisfied that the alliance will successfully address program outcomes in the extreme construction environment of Antarctica and did not have any concerns with the proposal.

The other project being delivered by the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water will deliver a cold water research aquarium, furthering scientific understanding of the biology of Antarctic krill and related species, as well as answer critical research questions on the effects of climate change and ocean acidification on the Southern Ocean ecosystem. Antarctic krill are a critical keystone species in the Southern Ocean, and Australia is a world leader in this research. The works will deliver the fit-out of a cold shell currently being constructed on the University of Tasmania campus. The fit-out will include a sea water intake pump station, a water treatment system, a water cooling and heating system as well as office and research spaces. The new facility will be able to connect to the mobile aquarium on board the icebreaker RSV Nuyina, providing for safer and more efficient specimen transfer. The committee visited the site earlier in the parliament and commends the department on their international leadership in krill research. The committee was satisfied with the proposal.

The two proposals from Services Australia sought approval for new office fit-outs for their offices in Canberra and in Townsville. The combined spend for the fit-outs comes to just over $143 billion. The Canberra office fit-out is taking place at the Caroline Chisholm Centre at 57 Athlon Drive, Greenway, and the Townsville fit-out on 186 Walker Street, Townsville.

The purpose of the Canberra fit-out is to consolidate four office sites into two by the year 2027. The leases at two of the existing office sites are due to expire, and the fit-outs are old and at the end of their useful life. The consolidation of the offices will also allow Services Australia to meet the government's desired targets for occupancy density of office space as well as increase efficiencies and reduce security risks as staff are brought into closer physical proximity. The scope of the works will see the number of workstations reduced from one staff member per workstation to a ratio of 10 staff to eight workstations. This ratio reflects the changing nature of office utilisation, with hot desking having become the norm and many staff utilising flexible working arrangements, as most politicians would understand. The fit-out will also include meeting and conference rooms, utility and store rooms, secure rooms, training rooms, breakout spaces, staff amenities and communication equipment rooms. The committee did not have any concerns with the proposal and was pleased that learnings from previous Services Australia fit-outs are being incorporated into the design and scope of the proposed works.

The Townsville office fit-out will similarly consolidate office space from two sites into one. Services Australia has a large presence in Townsville, with the officers there supporting the needs of Services Australia around the country at its face-to-face sites, smart centres, processing sites and occasional pop-up facilities, particularly noteworthy during disasters such as Cyclone Alfred. Services Australia considered extending their lease at their current premises, instead of pursuing the proposed works, but an approach to market showed that the new lease arrangement would provide better value for money. The committee was satisfied with this proposal.

The Department of Defence put forward a $376.7 million project to support the land-based long-range missile capability of the Australian Defence Force. The works will be delivered at both Puckapunyal Military Area, in Victoria, and the Edinburgh Defence Precinct, in South Australia. The scope of the works includes the refurbishment of the schools of artillery at Puckapunyal and at Edinburgh, the construction of a new headquarters, a combat services support battery, workshop facilities, and living and accommodation. The committee was satisfied with the proposal, noting that Defence's community engagement may prove more accessible with the inclusion of a social media strategy.

The Australian Electoral Commission sought to spend just over $35 million for a fit-out of a new leased office premises, something that all MPs and senators have an interest in. The works will see agency staff moved into a single purpose-built office space in the Canberra CBD. The agency notes that the consolidation will reduce the total net lettable area of office space; improve communication and collaboration between decision-makers, support teams and the command centre; as well as deliver an agile working model office set-up. The works will fit-out levels 2 to 7 at 26 Narellan Street, Canberra. The office will have an open plan layout for all staff and include workstation settings, bookable offices, breakout spaces and meeting rooms. The works will provide flexibility around possible future ways of working, as well as surge capacity during democratic events. The committee was satisfied with the proposed works and that the reduced net lettable area and agile office set-up would not negatively impact the Australian Electoral Commission's ability to successfully manage democratic events during the transition, which I think it's a Public Service speak for elections

Lastly, the Australian Sports Commission sought approval for a $250 million revitalisation of the Australian Institute of Sport, the AIS. The committee was shown around the site on Monday by the CEO, a gentleman by the name of Kieran Perkins, who well knows the benefits of training at the AIS. I seem to recall that he could swim a little bit. In fact, I think he set a couple of world records at the AIS, he mentioned. The works will enhance the AIS Canberra campus in the lead-up to the Brisbane 2032 Olympic and Paralympic Games. The AIS is the central hub for high-performance sports, providing accommodation, training facilities, recovery centres and sports science services, but it also caters for locals and internationals as well as that core group.

The works will deliver a new athlete village, a multisport dome and a high-performance training and testing centre. The new facilities will be useful far beyond the 2032 Olympic and Paralympic Games, as they will continue to support Australia's elite athletes. The works will be carried out in a way that ensures the training programs of elite athletes are not disrupted during the building phase. Instead of demolishing and rebuilding existing facilities, the proposed works will be built greenfield. The works will deliver an additional 200 beds to accommodate elite para-athletes and able-bodied athletes, a synthetic pitch suitable for a large variety of team sports and a multisport gymnastic area suitable for sports like gymnastics, basketball, netball, tennis, badminton, volleyball, cricket, skateboarding, sport climbing and BMX.

The committee was satisfied with the project and welcomes the inclusion of facilities for non-traditional sports in the design. The committee thanks the AIS for accommodating it on a site inspection of the proposed worksites. Seeing the AIS campus in person impressed upon us the need for accommodation which further supports both our Olympian and Paralympian athletes, including having extra-long beds.

On a different note, the honourable Keith Pitt, the former member for Hinkler, resigned as Deputy Chair of the Public Works Committee on 19 January this year to take up a new role representing our nation at the Holy See. I wish Keith and Allison all the best there, and I hope to catch up with them sometime soon. On behalf of the committee, I'd like to thank Keith for his dedicated service as the Deputy Chair of the Public Works Committee throughout the 47th Parliament. He remained committed to public works oversight ever since joining the committee back in 2022. His technical expertise and experience both in government and elsewhere in business and his excellent common sense provided valuable perspective for the committee's discussions and decisions. On behalf of the committee, I wish him all the best in his future endeavours, and I welcome Mr Andrew Willcox, the member for Dawson, as the incoming deputy chair.

I've decided not to stand for re-election for the next parliament, meaning these are the last public works inquiries to be tabled by me. I've enjoyed serving as the chair and deputy chair of the committee over the last decade or so. I've travelled to many interesting locations, including Norfolk Island in the member for Bean's electorate and also the Cocos (Keeling) Islands and Christmas Island—all over Australia! I've met any number of clever and hardworking public servants, particularly on Defence bases—all people who ensure the success of the government of the day's operations. And I've learnt more Defence acronyms than I ever expected to learn.

Back to the projects. The committee would like to extend its thanks to all those who provided written and oral evidence in support of the inquiries being tabled today. Thank you also to the staff from the various departments and agencies for accommodating the committee on a number of site inspections across Australia. It's always valuable for the Public Works Committee to see the location of proposed works and to get a feel for the conditions of current facilities when considering multimillion-dollar proposals. For all projects, the committee recommends that it is expedient that the proposed works be carried out. I commend the reports to the House.

On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, I present the following reports: Human rights scrutiny report: report 2 of 2025; Human rights scrutiny report: report 3 of 2025, incorporating a dissenting report; and the annual report 2024.

Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).

by leave—I'm pleased to present the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights's second scrutiny report of 2025 and table its third scrutiny report of 2025 and the annual report for 2024.

In our second and third scrutiny reports, the committee has considered 26 new bills and 477 new legislative instruments, commenting on one bill and five instruments. In our second scrutiny report, the committee commented on the Extradition Legislation Amendment (Commonwealth Countries) Regulations 2024. These regulations amend the definition of an 'extradition country' in the Extradition (Commonwealth Countries) Regulations 2010. The effect is to establish new extradition relationships with Cameroon, Gabon, Mozambique, Rwanda and Togo and continue extradition relationships with all other Commonwealth countries and British overseas territories that were previously listed in extradition regulations. The regulations also amend requirements relating to documents that must be produced by the Commonwealth country seeking extradition.

The committee notes that facilitating the extradition of persons in Australia to various Commonwealth countries and British overseas territories to face proceedings pursuant to the Extradition Act engages and may limit multiple human rights. The committee has considered the human rights capability of the Extradition Act and related legislative instruments on a number of previous occasions. The committee has concluded that such legislation risks being incompatible with multiple rights, including the prohibition against cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment and the rights to a fair hearing, equality and nondiscrimination, liberty and effective remedy. The committee has previously recommended amendments to the Extradition Act to improve its human rights capability. However, noting these recommendations have not yet been implemented, the committee's previous human rights concerns in relation to the Extradition Act remain applicable to these regulations.

In particular, the committee is concerned that many of the safeguards in the Extradition Act are discretionary, relying on the Attorney-General to exercise their general discretion not to surrender a person for extradition in various circumstances where there is a risk of human rights violations. The committee is concerned that discretionary safeguards in these circumstances are insufficient to adequately protect human rights. The committee also considers that the presumption against bail in the Extradition Act and the lack of any ability to challenge the lawfulness of such continued detention is incompatible with the rights to liberty and effective remedy. As such, the committee considers that the regulations also risk incompatibility with these rights. The committee reiterates its previous recommendation to amend the Extradition Act to improve human rights compatibility.

In our third scrutiny report, the committee commented on the Migration (Public Interest Criterion 4022—Code of Behaviour) Instrument 2025, and this requires certain visa holders to sign an enforceable code of behaviour, where breach of the code could lead to visa cancellation, immigration detention or reduction in income support. The code of behaviour was introduced in 2013 and then extended in 2024. This code of behaviour replicates the 2024 version of the code. The committee raised human rights concerns in relation to the code of behaviour when it was introduced in 2013 and again in 2024 when its operation was extended pending consultation and review.

In 2024, the committee recommended that a review of the code, which was noted as the reason for its extension, should closely consider the committee's previous comments. However, the committee notes with concern that this instrument replicates the 2024 code without any consultation or apparent review, contrary to the government's prior commitment. Further, the explanatory statement accompanying the instrument makes no reference to the committee's previous human rights concerns. As such, the committee reiterates our prior comments on the code of behaviour as they remain relevant to this instrument. The committee does make recommendations based on legal advice and the human rights considerations of this instrument, and we hope that they are taken seriously. The committee would again stress that the government take these on board and consider them in the future.

In particular, the committee considers that it is not clear that the code satisfies the quality of law test or pursues a legitimate objective, noting that the code is drafted in vague terms and it has not yet been demonstrated that the visa holders subject to the code present a particular risk to community safety. It is not yet clear to the committee that the code remains necessary, having regard to the numerous powers under the Migration Act to cancel visas and monitor the behaviour of visa holders and the fact that the migration legislation framework has undergone significant amendments since the code was introduced in 2013.

In 2024, the committee recommended that, in the event that the code was enforced, the committee's concerns and human rights implications be considered. The committee also recommended that a statement of compatibility with human rights be prepared in relation to this instrument. The committee expects that legislative instruments that are exempt from disallowance include a statement of compatibility where the measure engages and limits human rights, particularly where the committee has previously raised concerns in relation to the measure. The committee reiterates those recommendations in this report and recommends that the code of behaviour be reviewed, including an evaluation of the effectiveness of the code in achieving the stated objective. Such a review should closely consider committee's comments and be made publicly available on completion.

I also table the committee's 2024 annual report, which details the work of the committee for the 2024 calendar year. In 2024, our committee tabled 11 scrutiny reports examining 175 bills and around 1,300 legislative instruments. The committee substantively commented on approximately 23 per cent of the bills and three per cent of instruments. During this reporting period, the committee concluded its consideration on the vast majority of bills prior to their passage. A human rights analysis was available to inform members of parliament prior to the passage of 93 per cent of bills. This took a lot of work. The committee concluded its examination of all legislative instruments subject to disallowance within the disallowance timeframe. While the committee's scrutiny reports continue to be timely in 2024, there was decline in the timeliness of ministerial responses to requests for information, and in 2024 only 43 per cent of requests for information were received within the requested timeframe.

I want to make this point: I understand how difficult it can be to compile such detailed responses to the committee, and we do ask for a lot of detail. One of the things we looked at as part of one of our inquiries, which I will talk about in a second, is how the committee can better engage with the legislative process. Also, are there are ways in which the committee can be involved in the legislative process that would delay the passage of bills, at least ensure the committee is involved in the considerations of the passage of bills or potentially have greater powers to postpone? Obviously, we would put limits on that so that, if the government felt there were national security requirements or something that meant the passage of the bill was extremely important for the interests of the country, that would supersede the capabilities and powers of committee. But it is worth considering for future parliaments as well.

During the reporting period, the right to privacy continued to be the human right which the committee most frequently considered and commented on. The right to privacy includes the right to respect for private and confidential information, particularly the storing, use and sharing of such information. It also includes the right to control the dissemination of information about one's private life and prohibits arbitrary and unlawful interferences with an individual privacy, family, correspondence or home. The right to a private life is linked to notions of personal autonomy and human dignity. It includes the rights of individuals to enjoy a private sphere free from government intervention and excessive unsolicited intervention by others.

Over the years, the committee has observed an expansion in the scope of personal information that is collected by government agencies and private corporations. Such information is often highly sensitive, is increasingly being shared with a broad range of third parties and is often used for an array of purposes, many of which were nit envisaged at the time the information or data was collected. The more frequent collection of personal information and the fusion of personal data from various sources makes it increasingly difficult for an individual to keep track of what personal information is collected about them and control the many ways in which that information is used and shared. Depending on how the information is used and shared, it may result in further human rights violations. For example, personal information could be shared with foreign governments, and that information could lead to the arrest and prosecution of an individual for a crime that carries the death penalty. The right to life and the prohibition against torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment may be violated in that instance.

In 2024, the committee continued to comment on numerous bills and legislative instruments that engaged and limited the right to privacy, including measures that collected, used and shared personal information measures that interfere with individuals' right to a private life. For example, legislation relating to online safety frequently engaged the right to privacy. The committee considered that much of this legislation was directed towards the important objective of protecting people, particularly children, from exposure to harms online. However, the committee considered that many of the measures, such as age verification measures and measures requiring internet providers to collect, use and share personal information and monitor communications, were not sufficiently circumscribed or accompanied by sufficient safeguards and were therefore not proportionate limits on the right to privacy.

Strong safeguards to protect the right to privacy in the digital age, especially where information is highly sensitive, have great importance. Given the expanding scope of personal information being collected and the rising number of major data breaches in Australia, it is critical robust safeguards are embedded within the specific legislation that deals with such personal information. Such safeguards should be complementary to the broader safeguards contained in the Privacy Act and the Australian Privacy Principles, both of which contain numerous exemptions.

In addition to the committee's usual scrutiny work, the committee also undertook three inquiries, two of which were concluded in 2024. I want to start with the inquiry into Australia's human rights framework. The committee received 335 public submissions, over 4,000 formal campaign letters and held six public hearings. It heard evidence from a range of community groups, religious organisations, government bodies and experts. The committee tabled its report on 30 May 2024, which made 17 detailed recommendations including that the government re-establish and significantly improve Australia's human rights framework and that that framework should include a comprehensive and effective protection of human rights in legislation through a human rights act, a significant and ongoing commitment to national human rights education, requirements for public servants to fully consider human rights in the development of legislation and policies, enhancements to human rights parliamentary scrutiny and the role of the Human Rights Commission, a review of Australia's legislation policies and practices for compliance with human rights, and measures to monitor progress on human rights.

As part of our report, the committee prepared an example draft of a human rights bill to promote understanding of its proposed model for a statutory federal human rights act. As overwhelmingly supported by submitters, Australia needs a statutory human rights act to make rights real in everyday decision-making. A key benefit of a federal human rights act will be to drive human rights culture within the Public Service so that those who serve us have a clear framework to consider and balance the rights and freedoms of everyday people when making decisions and developing laws and policies that affect us all. The committee is yet to receive a formal response from government on this report and to our recommendations.

We also completed our first review of compulsory enhanced income management and compulsory income management compatibility with human rights. We received 31 submissions and held two public hearings. The committee tabled its report on 3 September 2024, which made seven recommendations, including that the government amend the Social Security (Administration) Act to make income management voluntary over a period of time and to establish more pathways out of compulsory income management. We have not yet received a formal government response to this report and to our recommendations.

On that note, let me just say that, with what is likely to be the last report of the Human Rights Committee this parliament, I want to thank the secretariat and the whole team in the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights. They are outstanding public servants who have, like always, prepared a huge amount of work for the committee and done so diligently, respectfully and thoughtfully, and I'm very grateful for all of their support.

As the chair of the committee, it's been a great honour to be the chair of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights. It is one of the finest and most important committees in this place. It is a work in progress. There are improvements that the committee itself has made recommendations on about the functioning of the committee but it is one that is essential to the checks and balances and the thoughtfulness of the way in which the chamber operates. It's been a great honour. I have really enjoyed working with the deputy chairs from the other side of parliament. I also want to particularly mention the current deputy chair, the member for Bowman, for the way in which he has engaged on a number of difficult and dense policy issues but he has done so with great collaboration and professionalism, and I thank him for that. I thank all the members of the committee for their participation and I commend the reports to the House.

On behalf of the Joint Standing Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, I present the committee's report incorporating a dissenting report entitled A review of the operation of the amendments made by the Autonomous Sanctions Amendment (Magnitsky-style and Other Thematic Sanctions) Act 2021. I ask leave of the House to make a short statement in connection with the report.

Leave granted.

On behalf of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade and as chair of the human rights sub committee, I present the committee's report into the review of the operations of the amendments made by the Autonomous Sanctions Amendment (Magnitsky-style and Other Thematic Sanctions) Act 2021. This report is a legislated review of the operation of one component of this framework, the thematic or Magnitsky style autonomous sanctions.

Australia's sanctions regimes offer the potential to tackle serious human rights violations and corruption and address situations of international concern around the world. The framework complements Australia's pre-existing multilateral and autonomous sanctions regimes and holds real promise in tackling human rights abuses, curbing serious corruption and addressing other issues of international concern globally.

A DFAT-led 2023 review of sanctions laws is welcomed, and the anticipated outcomes of the review will contribute to further legislative changes during the 48th Parliament.

However, given Magnitsky style thematic sanctions remain in their infancy, and noting the current complex and dynamic geopolitical landscape, further periodic reviews will be needed to strengthen the effectiveness of Australia's autonomous sanctions framework.

The autonomous sanctions framework is one tool among a suite of foreign policy tools that are available to the Australian government. However, it should be noted that, in the face of serious human rights abuses and corrupt conduct, sanctions will not always be appropriate or effective. It should also be noted that there is limited evidence demonstrating the impact of autonomous Magnitsky style thematic sanctions in either deterring or punishing human rights abuses or seriously corrupt conduct.

As such, ongoing efforts by DFAT and others to monitor the impact of Australia's sanctions regime and to identify opportunities for future legislative reform would be most welcome.

There are concerns that Australia's thematic sanctions do not yet live up to their full promise. The committee identified areas in which this framework can and should be strengthened. To this end, this report makes five recommendations aimed at strengthening Australia's autonomous sanctions framework: that sanctions decisions be accompanied by detailed reasoning; that reasons for sanctions decisions be included in the consolidated list of sanctioned individuals and entities; that the parliament receive an annual report on sanctions decisions taken during the previous year; that the regulations for imposing autonomous sanctions be updated to include listing criteria for all thematic areas; and that humanitarian exemptions be legislated to ensure humanitarian assistance is not adversely affected by the imposition of sanctions.

On behalf of the committee, I extend my thanks to the stakeholders and submitters who contributed their time and experience to the inquiry. I also thank all committee members for their collegiate approach. In particular, I'd like to thank the deputy chair, Senator Linda Reynolds, and also the member for Blair, who is a member of this committee but also chairs the wider foreign affairs, defence and trade committee, for their assistance. I'd also like to thank the secretariat for their support throughout this inquiry. I commend this report to the House.

On behalf of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, I present the following reports: Report 509: inquiry into public sector information technology procurement and projects, Report 510: inquiry into the use and governance of artificial intelligence systems by public sector entities'Proceed with caution',Report 511: inquiry into the contract management frameworks operated by Commonwealth entities and Report 512: report of the inquiry into the administration of Commonwealth regulations.

Reports made parliamentary papers in accordance with standing order 39(e).

by leave—I now present four reports of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit.

Report 509: i nquiry into public sector information technology procurement and projects found shortfalls in capability, planning and management at Commonwealth entities for external information technology contracts.

A key question that arose during this inquiry was whether Australian government departments have the adequate capability to deliver information technology systems, programs, projects and reforms.

Factors such as labour market competition impact on internal knowledge and skills in information technology.

This can lead to agencies having to supplement this capability through outsourcing, which can perpetuate their capability loss and continue to trend towards reliance on external contractors.

The committee's view is that departments should aim to enhance their internal knowledge and capability, and, if outsourcing is required, they should ensure that their own expertise on project requirements is maintained.

The committee also takes the view that engagement should be planned appropriately with a longer term view to enhancing internal capability and that outsourcing should not be seen as a permanent feature of information technology delivery.

Departments should also have strategic and longer term approaches to supplementing staff capabilities and embed this organisational thinking in governance documents such as procurement plans.

Projects discussed during the inquiry also suggested to the committee that the budgetary processes used for information technology investments could benefit from a longer term outlook.

Given that large infrastructure and defence projects allow for sustainment and asset management funding, information technology systems should be treated in a similar way to allow for both ongoing sustainment and changes in response to new policies or technologies.

The committee recommended that the Department of Finance improve the guidance given to other government entities about how to most effectively procure information technology.

The committee also recommended that the Department of Finance and the Digital Transformation Agency collaborate more closely to provide better guidance.

Report 510 : i nquiry into the use and governance of artificial intelligence systems by public sector entities concluded that, while AI systems can provide substantial benefits, they also pose potentially significant risks, especially in areas involving direct service delivery to the public.

The potential benefits of generative AI in terms of efficiency and productivity include the drafting and editing of documents, generating visually engaging presentations, summarising long and complex documents and conducting preliminary research.

The committee acknowledges however that common risks associated with the use of AI can include:

Evidence to the inquiry indicated that there are areas where the Public Service should not use AI. The European Union, for example, prohibits AI systems such as social scoring.

Australia would benefit from clearly defining a similar list of prohibited AI systems. The committee is also of the view that these systems must never be used for surveillance purposes in the Public Service or elsewhere.

Private information must also not be provided to generative AI systems where its security cannot be assured.

The committee shares the concerns of inquiry participants regarding the potential for generative AI or machine learning systems to reproduce negative biases present in their training data.

Strong evidence was presented to the committee that the presence of an informed human in the loop, while not completely removing the risk of unintended consequences, may reduce the risks where AI is used alongside automated decision-making.

The committee is also cognisant that not enough information is yet available on how many Public Service staff are using AI systems or what they are using them for.

There was consensus among inquiry participants that more AI training is needed at all levels. This will be critical to reducing the risk of AI systems being inadvertently misused, including situations where sensitive personal information is involved.

This field is developing rapidly, particularly in relation to generative AI. Effective and coordinated governance frameworks for AI use must be developed now before this technology outpaces government's ability to do so.

Among the committee's recommendations are a whole-of-government working group to consider rules and governance frameworks for AI and that a statutory joint committee on artificial intelligence and emerging technologies should be established to enable more effective parliamentary oversight.

To help inform future policy decisions, the committee is also recommending that the Australian Public Service Commission introduce questions on the use and understanding of AI and other emerging technologies into its annual APS employee census.

R eport 511 : I nquiry into the contract management frameworks o perated by Commonwealth entities found that a well-executed procurement process will not deliver value for money to taxpayers unless it is followed by effective contract management.

The committee has found that contract management is an important skill which has likely not had the same level of attention or development as procurement but is just as vital to project success.

The evidence to the inquiry revealed weaknesses in public sector contract management in several key areas, including:

Central to the committee's conclusions in this inquiry are that the Department of Finance needs to be more than just a policy steward providing advice and resources.

The committee understands that it is not feasible for Finance to be an overarching authority on the many thousands of contracts that exist across the Commonwealth.

The committee believes, however, that Finance must be more proactive in detecting and responding to 'red flags' in contract management capability, particularly when huge amounts of taxpayers' money are being expended.

The committee has recommended that the Department of Finance's self-assessment survey on procurement and contract management becomes mandatory and that the department take corrective actions if this survey reveals shortfalls in capability.

The committee is further recommending that the Department of Finance consults with the Australian National Audit Office and other relevant agencies as needed to produce more effective guidance in the aforementioned areas of contract management weaknesses that the committee has identified.

During the inquiry, the ANAO noted that it is having to increasingly use its legislative powers to obtain the information it requires to conduct an audit.

The committee fully supports the ANAO's contention that these powers should only be needed under very specific circumstances and that for most audits it should have unfettered access to the information it requires.

The committee has recommended that the ANAO report back with more detail on the increased need to use its legislative powers and that it provide a suggested course of action for the committee's consideration.

Finally, our Report 512: Inquiry into the administration of Commonwealth regulations found that government regulation has a profound effect on the daily lives of all Australians.

When it's administered effectively, regulation protects the public interest, ensures the efficient delivery of services, promotes trust, and improves community safety and wellbeing.

During this inquiry, the committee examined how regulators:

The committee found the performance of regulators to be patchy. Some entities are failing to effectively regulate at all, or their regulation was only partially effective. Even where entities were found to be largely effective, there were gaps and inconsistencies across various areas.

Some of the shortcomings, particularly the Department of Home Affairs' failure to effectively regulate migration agents and the Department of Industry, Science and Resources' oversight of trade measurement, were plainly unacceptable.

The committee made specific recommendations regarding these entities to ensure ongoing accountability for rectifying the issues discovered in the audits that formed the basis of this inquiry.

Accountable authorities of entities with regulatory obligations are ultimately responsible for ensuring these obligations are met. The committee concluded that transparency as to regulator obligations is an important aspect of accountability.

Accordingly, the committee made a very important recommendation that the Department of Finance expands the scope of the regulator stocktake to require entities with regulatory responsibilities to publish a regulator statement that provides information on regulatory obligations and how these are operationalised.

By implementing this recommendation, Finance will go some way to establishing a framework that will allow for greater accountability for what are significant responsibilities with potentially wide-ranging consequences if not performed appropriately.

The committee also examined the policy advice provided by the Department of Finance. Principles based policy advice provides information on the general disposition of regulators; the findings of audits by the ANAO over many years show entities require more practical advice on how to go about their regulatory responsibilities.

Finance has not been able to satisfy the committee that its policy advice is fit for purpose in light of the shortcomings in performance consistently uncovered by the Australian National Audit Office.

Consequently, again the committee has recommended that Finance develop an approach, including robust metrics, to provide reasonable assurance that the policy framework it administers with regard to regulatory policy, practice and performance is effective in ensuring regulatory systems function as intended by law.

Together, the nine recommendations in this report, when implemented, will go a long way to establishing transparency and robust accountability across the broad scope of Commonwealth entities with regulatory responsibilities, and the policy owner.

It is through transparency and accountability that the Australian public can maintain trust and confidence in the regulation that contributes so profoundly to improving their daily lives in a myriad of ways.

In closing, I thank the deputy chair, Linda Reynolds, and other committee members for their contributions to each of these important inquiries. I also thank the many contributors to these inquiries for providing written submissions and attending public hearings. I also acknowledge the professionalism of the secretariat in supporting this committee throughout the current parliament. I commend these reports to the House.

On behalf of the Joint Select Committee on Northern Australia, I present the committee's report Final report on the cyclone reinsurance pool, incorporating a dissenting report.

Report made parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).

by leave—This is the Joint Select Committee on Northern Australia's second and final report on the operation and implementation of the cyclone reinsurance pool. The increasing prevalence and severity of cyclones has been a concern for many years, particularly in high-risk areas of northern Australia. At the time of drafting this report, parts of northern Australia had experienced the effects of ex-Tropical Cyclone Alfred, with devastating floodwaters still impacting many individual houses and entire communities.

One outcome of the increased claims for cyclone related damage has been the hesitancy of insurance companies to take on this ever-growing risk. The cyclone reinsurance pool is one of the major levers used by the Australian government to influence insurance affordability and availability in cyclone-prone areas of northern Australia, as the availability of insurance can be a major factor in people's decision to move from or stay in the region. Although the pool operates Australia-wide, it targets support to cyclone-prone areas—in other words, much of northern Australia. The pool commenced operations from 1 July 2022.

This inquiry was to examine whether the pool is operating as intended and meeting its policy objective of improving insurance access and affordability in cyclone-prone areas of Australia. Some of the outcomes so far: the committee acknowledged that the pool has been in operation for only a short time, so it would not be unreasonable to expect significant changes to the overall cost of insurance premiums to consumers at this point. However, as noted by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, or the ACCC, in September 2024, the pool is beginning to deliver premium relief in some regions facing higher risk of cyclones.

Unfortunately, as the ACCC also acknowledged, these premium reductions are being offset by premium increases caused by other cost increases, such as higher building costs. Throughout the inquiry, stakeholders from all sides agreed that the pool is beneficial; however, many had differing ideas on how to improve its operations, including whether it should be expanded by lifting the sum-insured limits, extending the 48-hour period for flooding to be considered cyclone related, including marine insurance and introducing a national ongoing resilience program on a permanent basis to improve household resilience.

These are complex economic issues, and the committee has recommended that the Australian government investigate and provide clarity on its position on these potential changes to the reinsurance pool. One of the purposes of the pool is to provide incentives to reduce and mitigate the risk of eligible cyclone losses. However, whether or not discounts are ultimately given to insurance policyholders for mitigation remains obscure.

In the report, the committee has called on insurers to publicly commit to greater transparency on how mitigation impacts insurance premium costs both for individual insurance holders and for overall impacts to premium. The report notes the considerable efforts of the Australian government to provide financial relief to individuals impacted by these disasters.

However, the committee was also persuaded by arguments that more can and should be done given the science indicating that climate change will lead to increased severity and intensity of weather events over the coming decades. Given the importance of mitigation and resilience to reducing premium costs, the committee strongly recommends the Australian government support the ongoing national resilience program on a permanent basis. In addition, the committee has recommended that consideration be given by the Australian government to funding cyclone damage mitigation by a tax offset or by direct subsidies to eligible householders in northern Australia who engage in household resilience and mitigation.

Noting higher insurance premiums attract higher GST, the committee has also recommended the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, in its insurance monitoring role, investigate the impact of current taxation methods on insurance premium pricing. To aid the work of the ACCC, the committee has further recommended that the Australian government fund the ACCC to continue its insurance monitoring role until at least 2030 and consider expanding its remit to examine the extent to which insurers are reducing their insurance premiums in response to mitigation and resilience measures. The committee not only took evidence from those insurance bodies but also looked at recent events that have unfolded across northern Australia. There are concerns about housing, and more and more people are walking away from having insurance. That is certainly something that needs to be addressed. and the Australian government will certainly look at a number of recommendations. I know that another committee, the economics committee, has certainly been looking at some of this, so I look forward to some of that coming through from that committee in the next parliament. But I won't talk any further because I know one of the Nationals or Liberal members will speak.

In summing up, I do want to thank the deputy chair, who will be retiring from this parliament. I think it's been a good committee. While there is a dissenting report with this final report, I think all members have tried to work together in the interest of the electorates we represent that have been directly affected by these issues. I do want to thank Mr Willcox and all of the other members of the committee and I want to thank the secretariat for all of the work. It has been interesting. I'm sorry I missed the last meeting with those insurers, but we promised that we would get this last report through. I will wait to hear what Mr Willcox says.

I rise today to support the chair of the Joint Select Committee on Northern Australia and the final report of the inquiry into the cyclone reinsurance pool. Just on the wording, there are a couple of extra statements that have been added, so it's not quite a dissenting report. The committee worked very well together. The chair and deputy chair gave us a lot of opportunity to be involved with things, and I think we put some very good recommendations forward. There are eight recommendations in total, and I would really like the government of the day to have a good look at those recommendations, because a lot of good work has gone into this.

This is our second report. We had the first report tabled in March 2023, and that was a little bit early. The whole insurance pool was in its infancy. It's fair to say it's still quite in its infancy. The big insurance companies, the ones that have a book value of over $300 million, had to be in by December 2023, and the smaller insurance companies, with a book value of less than $300 million, had to be in by December 2024. That was only a few months ago, so we haven't seen the full effect of what this reinsurance pool has been able to do yet. It's fair to say that so far we have seen some savings. However, some of these savings have been eaten up because of the increase in costs of building. Building costs have gone up 30 or 40 per cent, so, any time they have had some savings within the insurance premiums, they seem to have been gobbled up. That is something that we do have to have a good look at.

Recommendation 2 is about marine insurance. We've actually asked the government to have a look at that. I'll just read that one:

The committee recommends that the Australian Government publish modelling on the cost and benefits of the inclusion of marine insurance in the Cyclone Reinsurance Pool.

That's quite important. We have a lot of marine operators who have been asking us if we can have a serious look at that, so I hope that the government will have a look at that.

I would like to take the opportunity to thank the secretariat. They have done a tremendous job on this. Our secretariat has bounced around a little bit, which has created a couple of headaches, but Alan and Ros have been with us through these last reports, and they've done a very good job.

We pay way too much for insurance in northern Australia, and something has to be done. I'm not necessarily wedded just to this reinsurance pool. If we have to tweak it in some way, then that's what we'll have to do. Some ideas have come forward about stretching out the flooding component of it; let's have a look at that. It's still in its infancy. I think it's got a long way to run, but it's certainly a good vehicle for what's happening so far.

I won't monopolise the time. I would like to thank the chair, Marion Scrymgour, for how she involved everyone. I really want to thank the deputy chair, Warren Entsch. He's been on this committee for quite some time. This week will probably be his last week in this place. He does some outstanding contributions and works really hard on this committee. With those few words, I think this is an outstanding report, and I commend it to the House.

On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Trade and Investment Growth, I present the committee's report entitled Final report:inquiry into the understanding and utilisation of benefits under free trade agreements.

Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).

by leave—It's quite fitting that you're in the chair, Deputy Speaker Buchholz, as you are the deputy chair of the trade committee as well. I'd like to acknowledge you and Andrew Bray, our committee secretariat, for the work that you both contributed to the report.

Australia is a highly successful trading nation with a strong commitment to very open international trade.

Open trade and investment flows have enormous benefits for Australia including increased economic growth and jobs creation, improved productivity and greater economic resilience, as well as reduced costs of living and higher living standards for all Australians. Over several decades, our nation, Australia, has built an extensive architecture of trade and investment agreements with 30 partner economies, fostering increased trade flows and deeper trading relationships, as well as closer diplomatic ties. These agreements reduce barriers to trade and they're absolutely essential to providing access to export markets in which Australian goods and services can be sold, as well as enabling access to imported goods and services at lower costs for both producers and consumers.

Many Australian industries and businesses have been highly successful in engaging in international trade even without the benefit of an FTA. In my own electorate in South Australia I know of two businesses that are doing incredible work, one, San Remo, by exporting pasta to Italy, and the other, Omega Foods, by exporting olive oil to Greece, believe it or not. This is through their own connections and knowing the culture, language et cetera. There are a lot of small businesses that use their own contacts to enable them to set up their own agreements with different countries overseas.

For some sectors such as agriculture, trade underpins the viability of many businesses, as well as that of the communities in which those businesses are located and the livelihoods of individuals. While Australia has been remarkably effective in reshaping the benefits of trade, there remains considerable untapped potential for further gains. If we are to maximise the economic and social benefits of trade for all Australians, we must ensure that more Australian businesses and communities are able to take advantage of the opportunities offered by free trade agreements around the world.

In undertaking its inquiry, the committee sought to understand the challenges that Australian businesses face in accessing the benefits of trade and how they can be encouraged and supported to participate further. The committee was particularly interested in the challenges faced by small to medium-sized enterprises, First Nations businesses and the diaspora communities in benefitting from trade. These groups have potential for much greater trade engagement, where the gains can have the most significant impact.

The committee's report makes 13 recommendations that it believes will contribute to reducing barriers to participation and to better equipping Australian businesses to engage with trade opportunities, including by publishing more information and data on the update and utilisation of trade agreements; developing a strategy to build the awareness of and capacity for Australian businesses to engage with trade and trade agreements, including through collaboration with industry bodies; accelerating initiatives to streamline requirements and processes involved in accessing trade agreements, particularly those relating to laws of origin and certificates of origin; creating a strategy for enhanced targeted education and outreach programs among groups such as small and medium-sized enterprises, First Nations and diaspora communities; supporting research to better understand how and to what extent different participants in the economy engage with and benefit from free trade agreements; and providing communications material and trade facilitation initiatives in non-English languages to more effectively engage with those local diaspora communities.

Often trade opportunities are stifled by challenges outside what we may think of as traditional trade barriers, such as tariffs, for example. The committee heard about the experience of Seven Seasons, an Australian spirits distillery which is owned by an Indigenous family and works with Aboriginal harvesters on Larrakia contrary in the Northern Territory. This is a great example of innovation in trade that is harnessing some of the oldest traditional knowledge of Indigenous people to provide a unique product into global markets. One of their award-winning products is a gin which content green ants. However, despite keen interest in this product globally, their efforts to export the product have been hampered by non-tariff barriers such as biosecurity requirements in the US, classification requirements in the UK and a definite answer on how to classify the product yet to be provided by China.

The committee heard of other issues arising as a result of the unfamiliarity of Australian native food and botanical products. Due to these and other examples, the committee recommended that the government continue to work proactively with industry to identify and resolve non-tariff barriers to trade, including advocating for greater standards harmonisation.

In recent years several factors such as the COVID-19 pandemic, Russia's invasion of Ukraine and a general rise in protectionist sentiment, as we've seen in the last few weeks, have combined to bring profound changes to the global economy. In just the past few months, the global trade environment has become considerably more uncertain.

As a nation that benefits immensely from open trade, this poses a significant challenge for Australia. There can be no doubt that an increase in trade barriers and the reversal of the decades-long progress made towards trade liberalisation is a risk to Australia's ongoing economic prosperity and the livelihoods of many Australians.

The Australian government must continue to closely monitor global developments for their impact on Australia. We must seek to mitigate such impacts by further strengthening relationships with our trusted trading partners while also seeking additional trade opportunities in emerging areas of economic activity and in new markets.

Now more than ever we must also actively foster a stronger understanding amongst the Australian public of the value of trade to the Australian economy, to businesses and to individuals.

Lastly, amid increasing uncertainty Australia must take every opportunity to continue to strongly emphasise the mutual benefits of the global rules-based trading system and multilateral approach to international trade.

In closing, I'd like to thank all the businesses that gave evidence and attended the committee inquiry, the industry bodies, the many government agencies that spoke to us, the community groups, the academics and the individuals that provided written submissions and appeared at public hearings throughout the inquiry. I'd also like to thank you, Deputy Speaker Buchholz, the member for Wright, in your role as deputy chair of the committee; the other members of the committee; and, of course, the secretariat: Mr Andrew Bray, who is here in the chamber, Adrian Daniel, Mia Oberin and April Stephenson for their tremendous work and support of the committee.

I commend the report to the House.

I rise to speak on the Telecommunications Amendment (Enhancing Consumer Safeguards) Bill 2025. This is a very important bill, and I'm very thankful to Minister for Communications Michelle Rowland's hard work in this area and her support of my electorate and my constituents in dealing with the significant telecommunications issues related to the previous, very poor rollout of the NBN and telecommunications services in Macarthur by the previous government.

When I was a student at school, we didn't have computers. We didn't have calculators. We used slide rules and logarithmic tables for complex calculations. When I was a medical student, I spent 12 months working in India at the time of the Emergency in a state called Orissa in a city called Cuttack, which was the capital of Orissa. It had a large paediatric hospital. As I said, it was the time of the Emergency. There were lots of refugees following the split of Pakistan into Bangladesh and Pakistan. Indira Gandhi, the Prime Minister of India, had declared a public emergency and essentially martial law. So we were working with refugees, and communications were very difficult.

In that year, I think I made three phone calls home and wrote two letters. The phone calls necessitated a trip from Cuttack in Orissa to Calcutta, the capital of West Bengal, which had a communications link to Australia. It took a long time to organise those phone calls and cost a lot of money. In those days, it cost the equivalent of $25 or $26. At that time, I was being paid the same rate as an Indian doctor, which was around 270 rupees or about $30 a month. They were very expensive phone calls, and the link was difficult. Sometimes I'd travel to Calcutta, and we couldn't get the link. I'd have to travel back to Cuttack and then back to Calcutta the next day to make the phone call.

When I started work as a doctor, we had only just developed electronic telephones that could be moved from place to place instead of using a phone booth or a fixed phone. The world has revolutionised since that time. Of course, doctors are very fond of the fax machine, and the fax machines were developed after I'd been in practice for a few years. Telecommunications developments after that have been incredibly rapid. Telecommunications are now an essential part of modern living. No-one goes anywhere these days without their mobile phone. In medical practice, we rely on efficient communications for all our electronic records and blood test results. We can now get X-ray results sent electronically to our telephones. In the days when I first started practice, most practices had a storeroom full of X-ray films. These are hard-copy plastic films, usually with silver nitrate for the images. These are no longer required because of electronic records and efficient telecommunications.

Many Macarthur residents are able to work very efficiently from home because of modern communications. However, as I've said, we have had significant problems in Macarthur because of the copper telecommunications wiring that is often many decades old and in poor condition. The concept of the NBN using fibre to the node rather than to the home and then relying on the copper network to get to the home was deeply flawed. Some of the older suburbs such as Leumeah, Glen Alpine and Campbelltown suffered incredibly poor telecommunications access because of the old copper network. We've also had difficulties even in some of the newer suburbs like Gregory Hills and Oran Park because of the new providers not providing adequate protection for the fibre network connecting telecommunications to the home. Every time it rained, we were having problems with people not being able to access their telephone or the NBN because of this poor initial rollout. We complained many, many times to some of the providers about the fact that only one of the developers had provided access to the fibre network to the new suburbs. Because of the providers skimping on the rollout and providing poor infrastructure, many of these suburbs, in the time since the NBN rollout, have not had adequate access to telecommunications, limiting businesses in functioning from the home and limiting the ability of people to work from home.

I am very thankful for Minister Rowland's work in fighting for the families and businesses across south-western Sydney to access fast, reliable, affordable and equitable connectivity. In my electorate of Macarthur, adequate telecommunications can not only bring convenience to the daily lives of residents but can also make sure they can function using their businesses or working from home. They can reach their nearest and dearest as well through a mobile phone call. They can work from home or have telehealth sessions with their GP at the push of a button with adequate telecommunications. The fact that many suburbs have not been able to have access is a tragedy. Since coming to office, our government has been improving the mobile and broadband connectivity across south-western Sydney and Western Sydney by bringing adequate telecommunications to over 230,000 households and businesses, which have been able to receive upgrades, with superfast broadband now across south-western Sydney. For every Australian, regardless of where they live—as we deliver the Labor vision to be the most connected continent in the world—there is over $8 million now being invested by the federal government, with 12 projects across Western Sydney, to improve our mobile infrastructure. There is more to be done, but in our three years of government we have done a lot to improve connectivity in western and south-western Sydney, and that's thanks mainly to the minister, Michelle Rowland. I thank her so much for that.

Connectivity is very important in Macarthur, where we have several suburbs that remain semirural and have been built in a way that has not provided adequate connectivity in the past. The natural terrain of hills and valleys can also impair connectivity, which makes it more complex to provide adequate connectivity and means that providers have to invest properly in robust infrastructure to do that.

The NBN fibre rollout that our government is working hard to implement has improved connectivity to over 6,000 households and businesses in the Macarthur region alone in the last three years. They're benefiting from a full-fibre connection rather than fibre to the node and then copper to the premises. This has made a huge difference in suburbs like Eagle Vale, Kentlyn, Narellan, Smeaton Grange, Claymore and Spring Farm, and that's naming only a few. There are many more that are benefiting.

On top of that, over 47,000 households and businesses in suburbs including Minto, Rosemeadow, Camden, Harrington Park, St Andrews, Glen Alpine and Mount Annan are benefiting from the existing full-fibre connection rollout to their homes. This benefits everyone in my community, from students at university to medical practices, those running their own businesses and those working from home. This is a really incredible social improvement for many people who can access working-from-home conditions and work very efficiently as well as care for their families. Our families are now enjoying streaming services that they couldn't previously access.

This is very good policy from a very good communications minister and good government. I've met with the minister several times. She's been to my electorate several times to see the problems we are having. I know this is replicated in other areas of Australia, including rural and regional areas. She's a very active minister and one who is doing her best to make sure everyone in Australia can access the best connectivity possible.

We know that some providers have not been doing the right thing. This legislation is helping to make sure they are accountable, so that everyone can make sure their providers are accountable to them and to the government for poor service. I know that the minister and the department are actively looking into how they can deal with a provider called Opticomm, which has customers in many suburbs including Gregory Hills, Gledswood Hills and Oran Park, who for many years have been dealing with poor internet performance and poor mobile connectivity. This is very specific, I know, but it is a local issue that I've been campaigning on since I was elected in 2016. The fact that we're still having issues is a testament to the really poor service to the people of these suburbs.

This amendment establishes a carriage service provider registration scheme to make sure that there is visibility of carriage service providers operating in the market. It enables the regulatory body to stop service providers who pose an unacceptable risk to consumers and businesses or cause significant consumer harm from operating.

Telecommunications is now such an important part of our lives and of our business that we can't work without it. Industry codes are directly enforceable by ACMA. This will enable ACMA to take immediate and appropriate action to address consumer concerns and complaints. It also provides incentives to industry compliance. There are civil penalties, and the courts can now issue breaches of key regulatory instruments, for the greater good of many people. It will expand and clarify authority to increase infringement notice penalties ACMA can issue for breaches in a short period of time. The current provisions are confusing. They do not allow the Minister for Communications to increase penalties in certain areas. These reforms go to the compliance and enforcement regime for consumers and for businesses and constitute a comprehensive package of improvements to those arrangements. This bill is a very important one to my community and I commend it to the House.

It's always important. I rise to speak about communications and the challenges that we as a community face in Casey. I'm lucky to represent a beautiful part of the world. We've got the Yarra Valley. We've also got the Dandenong Ranges, which is beautiful national parks and bushland but it's in mountains. We've got all the way out to the upper Yarra, with the Yarra Valley and upper Yarra combined area. So we do have many challenges with communications. We know how important it is that they work every day. I was out recently talking to residents in Powelltown at a community meeting and it was raised with me the challenges that they have around their day-to-day communications but also the issues they have when the power goes out. After a few hours, they lose phone reception as well. So there are many challenges in my community when it comes to access to reliable communications.

It is an area that has significant and ongoing disasters. Two-and-a-half weeks ago, we had a bushfire in our community. We have regular floods. Many people, including me, were impacted by the June storms of 2021, which left residents without power and communications for weeks and months in some cases. It is in an area that I spoke about in my first speech and I've advocated for. I've worked constructively with the minister over the last three years to make sure that we are doing everything we can to ensure reliable communications in my community.

The coalition is supporting the Telecommunications Amendment (Enhancing Consumer Safeguards) Bill 2025. However, I have to note that it is disappointing that the bill has entered parliament on the eve of the election. Given this is a setting week that we weren't going to have—we all know the Prime Minister was planning to not have this week—it wouldn't have been introduced at all. The unfortunate reality is that it is unlikely to become law before the end of this parliamentary term.

Hopefully there's a new government.

Hopefully, Member for Nicholls, there is a new government to continue to do more and more for communications in our community.

We are supporting this bill because it will give consumers greater protections. It will create a register of carriage service providers. It will enable the direct enforcement of industry codes, which is crucial. It will amend the existing two-step process for the application of penalty amounts for infringement notices. This is a really important one: it will increase the maximum penalty for breaches of the code from $250,000 to $10 million. That's important because it means that, if providers are doing the wrong thing and they are letting their consumers down and letting our communities down, there is a significant cost that they will bear from these penalties.

The new carriage service provider registration scheme will require all telecommunications providers to apply to ACMA, the Australian Communications and Media Authority, for registration to operate in Australia. This will provide ACMA, as the regulator for the sector, with visibility of all operators in the Australian market, of which there are an estimated 1,500. This will ensure ACMA is able to educate, monitor and, where necessary, take swift enforcement action for breaches of the code or standard.

The bill will make compliance with industry codes mandatory. It's removing the current two-step process whereby ACMA issues a warning for breaches of the code. This will ensure more immediate action can be taken for breaches of the code. We shouldn't gloss over the significance of that. The reality is that most organisations will do the right thing. But, if you're looking to do the wrong thing and you're looking at the regulations, you go, 'Well, as a first step, I'll do what I like because I'm just going to get a warning as a consequence.' As a parent of two children, I know that warnings don't go very far. So that's an important change, and it's a change that the sector has called for, because, in fairness to the sector, many do the right thing, and we need to protect organisations that do the right thing and punish those that do the wrong thing.

Unfortunately, there have been many examples of organisations doing the wrong thing. Between September 2023 and September 2024, ACMA issued 23 enforcement actions, 12 formal warnings, two remedial directions, 20 directions to comply, two enforceable undertakings, infringement notices totalling close to $7 million and in one case court proceedings. This shows and highlights the importance of these reforms and the importance of making sure that every organisation is registered. But it also shows, again, how disappointing it is that we've had to wait three years for this bill to come to the House. And, as I said, we would not be here except for, ironically enough, the cyclone in Queensland. I know, Deputy Speaker Vasta, that as a Queenslander you understand the need for the delay.

Some of these breaches relate to people's safety, which is of the highest priority. As an example, there were seven notices issued to providers in 2024 for breaches of the emergency call database rules. These rules require the telco providers to keep a person's telephone number and address updated so that, when the number calls triple 0, emergency services like our police, fire and ambulance are deployed to the address that is correct the first time. Adherence to this code is vital. People's lives literally depend on it. In this role, as we all know, we have the opportunity to engage with our emergency services—ambulance, CFA, local police—and, as they say to me and as we would all know and imagine, when people are making that call to triple 0, it is at a time of high stress. There is so much going on. By definition, there is a significant emergency happening. So having that number and being able to ping the address correctly and not rely on a human that is under significant stress at that time is crucial. It's an example of how having the correct rules and strong telecommunications in place can be the difference between life and death.

As I said at the start of this speech, in my community, reliable telecommunications are vital, but they're also an ongoing challenge. I've seen and we've seen as a community the importance of reliable communications in many weather events, including the June storms of 2021. At that time, my wife and I were locked in our house. A tree fell down in front of our house; we literally couldn't leave. We lost power and then, after a few hours, we lost communications. It hit us very hard when we realised—we had the conversation at the time—that, if one of the trees around our house fell through our house and injured one of us, we didn't have the ability to call for the help we would have needed from the SES or the CFA. That is a living example of how vulnerable we are as individuals and as community members without these communications.

Recently, 2½ weeks ago, we saw the importance of telecommunications in Montrose, as a bushfire took hold and, unfortunately, houses were damaged and lost. The CFA—and I want to thank Matt and the team at Montrose CFA and all the CFA members from our community who came out in support to suppress that fire—the FRV crews, Forest Fire Management and air support from helicopters fought the fire all day and got it within containment lines in the early evening. So, many residents went to bed believing it was safe. However, with any emergency and with any fire, it's a dynamic environment. That fire reared its head and skipped containment lines, and it wasn't long before the VicEmergency app started beeping. Residents woke around midnight to find that the fire had escalated and that embers were flying towards local homes. The warning was quickly updated to 'take shelter now' for a larger area of the community. It shows just how quickly things can escalate and how vital it is that we have reliable telecommunications.

In the days after, when the fire was contained but still being controlled, communications came to the fore, and I want to pay credit to Liz at the Montrose CFA. As people would see fire trucks going through town, choppers flying overhead and different beeps on the emergency app, Liz was providing real-time information to the community through Facebook and on the Montrose fire brigade's Facebook page. Ironically, Liz should have been out on the fire lines, but she's recently had knee surgery and she was at the station. But it turned out that was where she needed to be. I was there at the Montrose Community Market on Saturday two weeks ago, when residents were coming up and thanking her for the communications she had given them to make sure they knew what they needed to do and for playing a crucial role in relieving their stress and anxiety.

In my community we have beautiful mountains and topography, but our terrain makes communications more of a challenge. That's why the former coalition government funded and delivered towers across the Yarra Ranges, in East Warburton, McMahons Creek, Reefton, Mount Evelyn, Steels Creek and two in Chum Creek. We also committed to towers in Silvan and Menzies Creek, and these are in the planning stages and will be operational soon. It was the coalition in 2013, as the member for Riverina would well know, that established the Mobile Black Spot Program to solve this challenge not just in Casey but across the country. It is a legacy that we should be proud of as a coalition because it's making a difference in many communities all across the country. And that's why I'll continue to fight for the telecommunications coverage that we deserve. Connectivity is above politics. It's about saving lives in emergencies and making sure farmers can get the support they need to clear and collect their crops and communities can stay connected. In a regional community—a community like mine—your neighbour isn't 50 metres away; they can be hundreds of metres or hundreds of kilometres away. Communications with them and others is vital.

Since the bushfire in Montrose, I've been contacted by local residents, including those in the Dandenong Ranges, because Montrose sits at the foot of the Dandenong Ranges. They were rightly concerned—and it was a genuine threat—that, had the wind been going the other way, the fire would have ravaged up the mountain. It does not take long—between six and 10 minutes if the conditions are catastrophic—to send that fire up the mountain. They were concerned about their ability to receive emergency alert messages, after the communications in our community fell silent in the June storms of 2021. Those storms caused so much widespread damage—fallen trees and powerlines—which impacted critical infrastructure and our communications networks. Many residents at that time experienced difficulties in receiving emergency information via the traditional methods during the storm and in the days following.

My community wants to see reliable communications right across the electorate of Casey, because it's not just in the bushfire season when we need to be alert; it's during winter as well, because, once the bushfire risks subside, our community prepares for storms, flooding and other wet weather events. It's why we always need to advocate for stronger communications, and that's why this bill is important. The changes in this bill will strengthen the regulator's powers to ensure the regulatory regime is as robust as it can be and that operators are held to the highest standards. The increase in penalties will align the telecommunications penalty framework to those in the energy and banking sectors, competition legislation and the Australian Consumer Law.

This is an important bill, but I'll finish where I started. It is disappointing that it has taken three years for the Albanese Labor government to bring this bill to the House. It is disappointing that, despite its importance, it looks like it will not pass in this term of the parliament, and that is something that the government has to own. They've had three years to deliver these changes and they have not delivered. We will hear from those opposite about how important this is and how needed it is. Well, the question is: why didn't the Prime Minister, the Treasurer and the Minister for Communications act and bring this legislation on earlier?

For some time now, the world has been fundamentally underpinned by technology. For better or worse, an Australian now treats the mobile phone as an extension of themselves, so much so that your pocket will sometimes vibrate despite nothing being in there.

An Australian today will, according to one estimate, spend an average of nearly 17 years of their life looking at a screen. That accounts for work, play, education and socialising—absolutely everything that a human does. That dependence extends not just to the way we interact with our world but also to our behaviour and emotions, to a point where people feel as if they cannot live without that technology. As a collective, Australia, like the rest of the world, has that same dependence.

Countries grind to a complete halt without their technological infrastructure and assets. When the internet is going slow or goes down completely, it can ruin businesses. It can cut Aussies off from essential services and prevent them from contacting their loved ones, as we found out in November 2023. That outage alone was estimated to cost customers and the wider nation approximately $2 billion or more in economic activity.

On an individual level, that one outage meant that 228 calls to 000 couldn't be connected. It meant that 228 instances of an Aussie trying to get emergency assistance couldn't be done. That outage lasted just 12 hours and affected just one national network—in that case, the Optus network.

For all of that technology, as the linchpin of the Australian public at home, work and everywhere, and as the fuel that drives the Australian economy—and on top of that our sovereign capability—and ensures our security, it is reliant on the telecommunications sector to operate it. An Australian at work, making calls, sending e-mails or whatever it is, is totally dependent on a carrier like Telstra or Optus to get that work done.

Aussies are also totally dependent on telcos to get in contact with others, to receive and pay their bills and to access essential services. So it's clear that Australia's telcos have a huge role to play in people's lives and have a huge influence on the Australian way of life. But that influence means telcos must be held accountable by the Australians they serve.

Unfortunately, we have witnessed cases where carriers have been alleged by the ACCC to be doing the wrong thing and where the Aussies who depend on the telco's service have, instead, been a victim of them. For example, forking out for services they haven't asked for, perhaps not realising they are purchasing additional products. Worse still, in the particular instance I'm referencing, the Australians targeted were said to be financially vulnerable as well as those living with mental disabilities. While this matter is being followed up appropriately, and the telco in this case has acknowledged this issue, consumers are being exploited by the service they depend on. This cannot be allowed to happen.

That is exactly why the Labor government is coming in with this bill, because we are working to ensure that it does not happen again. The Telecommunications Amendment (Enhancing Consumer Safeguards) Bill 2025 achieves this in two ways. Firstly, it gives the government more teeth, through the Australian Communications and Media Authority, to take immediate action against telcos that are breaching their current obligations. Secondly, it enhances the penalty regime in a way that both introduces the correct measures when a telco does the wrong thing as well as incentivises an entity to prevent their conduct from getting to this point at all.

This bill is both reactive, in an effective, meaningful way to hold telcos to account as well as in a preventative one to ensure providers are aware of their obligations, how they should be met and the consequences for them when they are not. This is what a healthy telecommunications sector needs in a modern Australia, and I'm proud to be able to contribute to the bill.

The Labor government has already made significant progress towards enhancing our communications sector and, in particular, towards protecting consumers. This is exemplified in particular by ACMA's financial hardship industry standard, which was implemented in March 2024 in response to a direction from the Minister for Communications. The standard makes it mandatory for telcos to better support customers struggling to pay their phone and internet bills. This means telcos are now prioritising keeping customers connected, as they always should, when their customers are faced with financial hardship. It means requiring telcos to offer specific assistance to customers facing hardship, such as payment plans, to help keep them connected, and this standard provides ACMA with strong enforcement powers to make sure this is happening. As well as ensuring Aussies are getting the fair go they deserve, this is another way the Labor government is helping take pressure off families. That's especially so up north. The reality is that thousands of families in Spence have had that tough conversation with a telco provider that they are dependent on to find another way to pay the bill. Labor is making policy with those conversations directly in mind.

Labor has also directed ACMA to include a domestic, family and sexual violence industry standard to ensure those who are seeking support over the phone or online are able to do so in a safe, secure and reliable manner. Measures as part of this include minimum requirements for telco policies and staff training, prohibiting alleged perpetrators being connected to victims and tighter privacy rules. This standard also removes requirements for victims to tell their stories multiple times, and, going back to cost-of-living measures, it makes telcos recognise domestic and family violence as a potential cause of payment difficulties and what disconnection could mean for someone vulnerable. Consumers are being looked out for under the Albanese Labor government.

Schedule 1 establishes a carriage service provider registration scheme. This forces telcos, in particular retailers of telecommunications products, to become licensed before they sell their services. In turn, as a result of the licensing scheme, this increases the visibility of CSPs to both the public and the wider market. This means that telco operators whose services have are being sold can make sure their obligations are being met. It also means, because the market is more transparent with such a scheme, that ACMA has an extra leg up to better regulate it and enforce both obligations and penalties. This puts the conduct of telco retailers and, by extension, providers straight out into the open to be scrutinised and regulated appropriately to make sure consumers are getting a fair deal.

Schedule 2 makes the industry codes directly enforceable. Currently, when a telco has breached their obligations to their customers, as set out under industry codes, a slow two-step process follows. First, ACMA must issue a direction to comply to offending telcos, no matter how urgent or significant the breach is, and, second, they can only take further action if the noncompliance continues. Before this bill, it's was if telcos could do the wrong thing once and not get penalised if it occurred again. This bill fixes that. Under the new legislation, if a telco does the wrong thing, ACMA can now take enforcement action the moment a telco does the wrong thing, rather than wait for further noncompliance. Telcos are powerful, and, if that power is being misused, it must stop the moment it is detected, to protect consumers. That's what this bill does.

This may seem obvious, but telcos are highly profitable organisations. This means that penalties for breaches of the industry codes and standards should match the wealth of the telco to provide an adequate deterrent. That's exactly what this bill does. It increases the maximum general civil penalty for such breaches from $250,000 to $9.9 million. The bill also modernises the penalty framework as a whole, effectively allowing for penalties to be scaled beyond the $9.9 million mark based on the wealth gained from the misconduct committed. For example, if a telco was found to have done the wrong thing and gained $15 million from its conduct, this legislation allows for penalties to go higher in order to account for that profit, as it should. In the same way consumers are deterred from doing the wrong thing every day via the law, telcos need adequate punishments, should they do the wrong thing, in order to stop consumers being taken for a ride.

Schedule 4 complements the previous one, by allowing the minister to increase any infringement notice penalty ACMA can issue for breaches of telecommunications rules. Again, this is a modern bill for a modern industry, ensuring deterrents can be scaled appropriately and allowing for greater reactivity based on the circumstances of a breach.

The Telecommunications Consumer Protection Code, from which penalties are enforced, is actively being reviewed right now, again as part of getting industry standard up to speed under this government. The revised code will include improvements to important areas, such as responsible selling practices, and has been developed in partnership between the regulator, ACMA, and industry, through the Communications Alliance. This review is currently ongoing, with public consultation having closed on 28 February. That stakeholder engagement is also another facet of the bill, as this legislation has strong support from key stakeholders in the telecommunications sector, including the Australian Communications Consumer Action Network, Consumer Action Law Centre, the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman, the Australian Communications and Media Authority and the Communications Alliance.

Just to recap, consumer-centric protections for telecommunications customers are two-pronged—it strengthens ACMA, to give it teeth, increases deterrents on telcos. On the first end, ACMA will have powers to take direct and immediate enforcement action against telcos who have breached their obligations to customers. It's a departure from the current two-step process. Right now, ACMA must issue the first direction to comply to offending telcos, no matter how significant the breach, and only take further action if noncompliance continues. Now, ACMA can do it straightaway.

The second prong is that it increases the general penalty for those breaches from $250,000 to nearly $10 million. It also allows room for penalties to be based on the value of the benefit obtained from the effective offending conduct—as in a $20 billion benefit from an offence can be punished higher to the scale of the rorting. It aligns to other sectors, creating a uniform high standard of consumer relations, introducing a registration scheme for providers, to offer more transparency and accountability for customers. An example of what this is combating can be found in the form of Optus, which the ACCC alleged committed unconscionable conduct, breaking Australian consumer law. Optus are alleged to have sold hundreds of telecommunications goods and services that consumers did not want or need. Even worse, many of the consumers cited were experiencing vulnerability, financially and personally, and other disadvantages, such as living with a mental disability or limited cognitive capacity. Optus apologised and claimed to remedy the situation and take disciplinary action against staff. The Australian Communications Consumer Action Network, ACCAN, wanted more and asked for direct regulation of the industry, hence this bill.

In closing, this is a much-needed modernisation of consumer protections in this country. As I've pointed out, this is a welcome enhancement to ACMA's capabilities and the penalty framework they can enforce in order to ensure telcos are deterred from doing the wrong thing. It also incentivises these companies to educate themselves about their obligations and to conduct themselves appropriately. This is significant in itself.

I want to finish by talking a little bit about what this bill means on a community level and what it means for families and households. I'm sure many of us in this place can attest to one of the people we represent coming into our offices and rightfully raising concerns about how difficult it can be to navigate the internal process of a telco. Especially for older or more vulnerable consumers, this can be an absolute maze of terms, conditions and phone calls. Again, just going back to the dependence Aussies have on these companies, that conversation is urgent. It's an experience that leaves an Australian wondering what their next phone bill is going to look like or if they're going to be able to use their phone tomorrow. That anxiety thousands of Australians in my community can relate to, especially when faced with a higher cost of living. That is what this legislation looks to address. This is a bill which, through appropriately holding telcos to account, gives certainty to the consumer that a provider or retailer will act in their interest. It's people-centric policy, something that has become a trademark of the legislation passed in this place over the last three years, and long may it continue.

Before I close, I want to say to every single constituent in my electorate of Spence and beyond, for that matter, that, if you are having difficulties with your telecommunication provider, if you've got issues with reception or if you are struggling with paying your bills and you don't know who to reach out to, a great first place to reach out to is your local federal member. We are here to help you. I encourage you to, please, pick up the phone, come into my office and sit down, and we'll do everything we can to get you on the right track. I commend this bill to the House.

Mobile phone coverage is absolutely vital in regional and rural Victoria—in particular, in the seat of Wannon. That is why I was so proud to be a member of a government, a coalition government, that put in place the Mobile Black Spot funding. We put that in place in 2014. Since then, it has delivered nearly 40 new mobile phone towers in the electorate of Wannon. We have received more than our fair share as a result of that coalition program, and it wouldn't be in place if it weren't for a coalition government. I remember taking Paul Fletcher, the then minister for telecommunications, up the Victoria Valley and impressing upon him the need for us to get improved mobile phone coverage. That in part helped us to get that fund in place and to deliver nearly 40 new mobile base stations in Wannon.

That has been a fantastic achievement. Does it mean we rest on our laurels? No, it doesn't. It means we continue to keep going. But what do we need to make sure that we can keep providing improved mobile phone access in Wannon, right across Victoria and right across regional and rural Australia? You need a coalition government, because guess what this government, the Albanese Labor government, has done. They've decided in the budget not to have any more Mobile Black Spot Program after the year 2027-28. That is simply not good enough, and we won't stand for it, because we know that we need to keep delivering improved mobile phone reception into the electorate of Wannon and right across rural and regional Australia.

As a matter of fact, what this government has done is make the situation worse, because, through the sheer incompetence of switching off the 3G network, they've actually reduced the coverage rather than improved it. That is why I was so proud to be a member of a coalition government that put the Mobile Black Spot Program in place to start with and saw it deliver, through the advocacy of local community groups and local towns in my electorate, nearly 40 new mobile base stations. I want to make sure it continues.

Let me give you one example of why we have to make sure it continues. Recently, I was at the Simpson Speedway. The Simpson Speedway puts on the best sprint-car entertainment that you will see, and guess how they do it. It is all volunteers. They put on about 11 meetings a year. Do you know how they run them? They just put out the call for volunteers, and 110 to 120 volunteers just turn up and put on the event. So you've got people there in their utes and in their tractors. They'll be pushing the cars and getting them going. When there's a smash, as occasionally there is, the tractors will be making sure they're picking up the cars and getting them off the track safely. You've got the wonderful volunteers in the cafeteria. Deputy Speaker Vasta, you'll love this, and I'm sure the member opposite will love this too: the fries in the cafeteria at Simpson—it is all volunteer run—are the best chips in the Southern Hemisphere. That's how they advertise them—

Hot chips!

Hot chips! I can tell you that I had some when I was there and they're the best in the Southern Hemisphere. There are secret spices in there. It's all done, because it's all volunteers.

This is a wonderful event that they put on in the speedway 11, sometimes 12, times a year—all volunteer run. I want to make sure they've got proper mobile phone coverage there. Since I've been there, I've spoken to Telstra and pointed out to them these wonderful community events where thousands of people come along. They need to make sure that they have proper mobile phone coverage. We need to make sure we've got our Mobile Black Spot Program to be able to deliver that.

I say that with a tiny bit of self-interest. The member for Riverina will love this. This coming Sunday, I'm actually going in a sprint car. I'll be going round the track in a sprint car.

Before or after the election is called? We don't want a by-election!

I must admit my knuckles are a little bit white.

No, Assistant Minister Thistlethwaite, I am not driving! I will be in the back with a very experienced driver, doing this for charity. It is a wonderful charity—the Gillin Boys Foundation. They do wonderful work. I am happy to support them, but I'm already getting a little bit nervous about it.

Back to the point, I'd be a little less nervous if I knew that we had proper mobile phone coverage at the Simpson Speedway. I'm going to continue to work with Telstra to make sure that that becomes a reality, but the fact that we don't have the mobile black spot funding continuing beyond 2027-28 is a great shame because that program has really delivered for regional and rural Victoria.

I'll give you another example. There is a wonderful country town in my electorate—Hawkesdale. It's got a wonderful P-12 school. It's a hub for the surrounding farmers. We need to make sure that it has proper mobile phone coverage because it wasn't so long ago that there were devastating fires that threatened that town. One of the key things about fires—as we saw with the fires in the Grampians that threatened Pomonal, Halls Gap, Willaura,Glenthompson and other communities over Christmas and the new year—is that we need to make sure that we've got proper mobile phone coverage. We need to make sure that we can get that for Hawkesdale, and the Mobile Black Spot Program will help deliver it.

We will ensure that black spot funding continues because we understand how important it is for places like the Simpson Speedway and Hawkesdale. There are many other examples of where we need to keep rolling out that black spot funding right across the electorate of Wannon. We want to make sure that, ultimately, we've got the mobile telecommunications services that the cities enjoy at the moment. That's why the coalition put in place that mobile black spot funding. It's funny that others take credit for how many mobile phone towers they put in their electorates, but none of it would have happened if it weren't for a coalition government.

The Telecommunications Amendment (Enhancing Consumer Safeguards) Bill creates a register of carriage service providers, enables the direct enforcement of an industry development code, increases the maximum penalty amount from $250,000 to $10 million and amends the existing two-step process for the application of penalty amounts for infringement notices. It's a bill which enjoys support across the parliament. Obviously, doing more to increase transparency to make sure that, where there are abuses, we can act upon them is something that everyone wants to see in this place. Anything which enhances consumer safeguards and does so in a way that is sensible and doesn't put a huge red-tape burden in place is obviously something that we would support.

One thing we don't support—I'll end on this note—is a cut to the Mobile Black Spot Program. I say to those opposite, seriously, for regional and rural Victoria, especially with the debacle of the 3G network being turned off in the way that it was: we need that program, and we need it back. It's sad that it wasn't in the budget.

I rise today to speak on the Telecommunications Amendment (Enhancing Consumer Safeguards) Bill 2025. This bill really does build on our commitment to enhancing connectivity and the experience of all Australians by placing them at the centre of the telecommunications industry, recognising that these are essential services that providers deliver. We want a telco industry that works for Australians, ensuring that we have the best consumer safeguards in place to protect our interests. It's why we're introducing a universal outdoor mobile obligation, requiring telcos to provide access to mobile, voice and SMS almost everywhere across the country, and this will have huge benefits for regional and remote communities, particularly during emergencies and disasters.

I note the former speaker spoke about mobile phone towers in black spot areas, but it would be great if those opposite came on board and supported a universal outdoor mobile obligation. It doesn't cure all our problems, but it absolutely means that telcos have to get serious about the technologies they provide across our country.

We want to ensure that there is a strong, clear recourse if telcos do the wrong thing as well. There have been a number of high-profile incidents in the telco sector in recent years. I'm sure everyone remembers the 14-hour Optus outage, which impacted 10 million Optus customers and prevented more than 2,100 calls to 000 being connected with emergency services. Further, the latest data from the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman shows that the number of complaints increased by 13 per cent between October and December last year compared to the previous quarter. And that is why earlier this year the Minister for Communications introduced this legislation to parliament—to further improve protections for the majority of us: we, the telco consumers. It recognises how critical telco services are for everyone—in particular, for those in vulnerable circumstances, people living in our regions, First Nations Australians, those who rely upon connectivity to work from home or to run a small business.

This bill will boost the enforcement powers and penalties available to ACMA so that it is an empowered and effective regulator. It will also ensure that appropriate incentive structures are in place to drive better behaviour by telcos. These proposed changes will simplify the current two-step process and enable ACMA to take direct and immediate enforcement action against telecommunications providers that have breached their obligations to customers under industry codes.

The bill also provides for strong determent to telcos, which increases penalties for providers who are in breach from $250,000 to around $10 million. The value will be different depending on the offending conduct. But this penalty framework will bring the telecommunications sector in line with energy, banking and the Australian consumer law and create greater incentives to abide by those industry codes. Nobody wants an industry that sees penalties as simply the cost of doing business.

This bill will increase the transparency of providers operating in the market, especially telecommunications retailers, through the establishment of a carrier service provider registration scheme. In all, the legislation will provide ACMA with the tools it needs to protect consumers and hold companies to account if they do the wrong thing. It is another way that the Albanese government is putting consumers at the centre of the telco industry, recognising the importance of quality telecommunications services for all Australians, and it builds on other work that we have done to improve connectivity and reliability across our network.

Since coming to government, we have focused on improving connectivity for all Australians, regardless of postcode, because we know that connectivity is no longer a nice-to-have; it is an absolute necessity in the day and age in which we live. Programs like the Mobile Black Spot Program and the Mobile Network Hardening Program are seeing expanding mobile coverage, more resilience and better capacity across our network.

In Eden-Monaro, we are investing more than $8½ million towards 13 mobile base stations, delivering improved coverage across our region. And this is in addition to 27 projects being supported across Eden-Monaro under rounds 2 and 3 of the Mobile Network Hardening Program to keep telecommunications online for longer during disasters. In our term, we've invested an initial $2.4 billion and we committed an additional $3 billion earlier this year to expand access to full-fibre NBN for 2.1 million premises across the nation, which includes almost a million in our regions. In my own electorate of Eden-Monaro, this investment has meant that 37,500 premises and businesses can now access full fibre capable of delivering faster, more reliable speeds, with an extra 3,000 premises set to receive upgrades thanks to this additional $3 billion investment.

When we came to government, entire postcodes were still stuck on the former government's copper network, impacting the ability to run small businesses, to work from home and to access essential online services. Fibre can deliver speeds 18 times faster than the average copper connection and it is less likely to drop out or to degrade. With the completion of the Albanese government's $480 million upgrade to NBN Co's fixed wireless and satellite services, over 14,500 households and businesses in Eden-Monaro are benefiting from faster internet and increased data. The fixed wireless upgrades have already delivered increased download speeds to households from around 48 megabytes per second in 2022 to over 100 megabytes per second today. Regional communities like my own deserve affordable and reliable services just like you'd expect anywhere else in the country. This is exactly what our investments are supporting.

In addition to fixed wireless upgrades, our investments have also improved NBN's Sky Muster satellite service, which provides much-needed connectivity options for more than 200,000 households and businesses in regional and remote Australia. Thanks to the Albanese government, customers now have unlimited data through NBN Co's Sky Muster Plus premium package, providing download speeds of up to 100 megabytes per second.

We know how important NBN is to drive productivity, particularly for regional Australians who work from home, for our small businesses and to access telehealth and so much more. It's for this reason that, under the Albanese government, the NBN is not for sale. But those opposite might sell it off to the highest bidder. Labor built the NBN, just like we built Medicare, superannuation and the NDIS, and it is only Labor that you can trust to deliver better connectivity for all Australians. It's an essential part of keeping connected—having reliable affordable services for all of our telcos. You need reliable connectivity to run small businesses, to work from home or, when you are at a point of crisis and need to arrange support. When things go wrong, telcos have an obligation to support you and, if they don't, we are ensuring that there are consequences for them. This is what this bill will support, and this is why I'm so incredibly happy to support this fabulous bill.

The Member for Eden-Monaro mentioned the NDIS. I might remind her that, yes, it was something that Labor built, but unfortunately Labor didn't put one red cent towards it. It's a bit similar to telecommunications, mobile phone communications particularly. Labor never, until this term of government, put a single cent towards that vital service, and yet, when their colour-coded spreadsheet came out for the round they were responsible for, it was all red. They criticised our colour-coded spreadsheets. At least ours had a few different colours. There's was just all one colour—red!

A bit like the budget forecasts.

A bit like the budget, Member for Nicholls—all red.

Indeed, mobile phone coverage, as the minister for regional development has just pointed out, is vital. She mentioned the $8.5 million towards 13 mobile phone towers in Eden-Monaro. I hope some of those are in the areas which I am hopefully going to succeed her in, because some of the areas which she is responsible for—the Yass Valley and Snowy Valleys local government areas—are coming into the Riverina electorate. I certainly hope that some of those mobile towers are in the Riverina in those two LGAs. Let me tell you, as far as mobile phone communications are concerned, parts of those LGAs have certainly missed out, because their service is very patchy.

I had a meeting there recently, at Ardlethan on 25 February. I met with community members of Ardlethan and surrounds to discuss mobile connectivity. I was pleased that regional general manager Chris Taylor, who looks after southern New South Wales and the ACT for Telstra, group executive Shaolin Sehgal and network engineering executive Ashley Hunter were there to listen to the concerns of locals. I know the state member for Cootamundra, Steph Cooke, was there. Coolamon mayor David McCann OAM and the general manager of that shire, Tony Donoghue, were at the roundtable. They know full well of the hardships that people face when they don't have the right mobile phone communications.

I know in the years we were in office, 2013 through to 2022, we funded 1,400 mobile phone towers, of which 1,100 were actually constructed in our time in office. It made a huge difference. It's not just about getting the data and getting the convenience of modern living. It's far more important than that. Our farmers these days drive on GPS operated headers; their tractors are all very much geared to almost driving themselves. But if they are up in the top paddock or, indeed, a paddock right next to their house, and they don't have the right communications, they can miss out on spot prices on grain or spot prices on livestock. It can cost them tens of thousands of dollars. I'm certainly not exaggerating. I spoke to one Ardlethan farmer who said it cost him $11,000 because he wasn't in the right place at the right time and couldn't pick up a signal. It was just like the flick of a finger. He lost out on that deal. By the time he got to his house the price had disappeared. There have been a number of concerns in the Ardlethan area that Telstra is actively addressing.

I mentioned the importance of ensuring reception during heavily attended Farrer league football and netball games at the Ardlethan sportsground. It's a huge attraction for the town. They play their games in conjunction with the ground at Ariah Park. The Northern Jets, a good football and netball club, need mobile phone communications if somebody gets injured, either on the netball court or the football field. They need to be able to call an ambulance. The nearest one is at Narrandera. The rub here is that Narrandera is about to have some of its ambulance services taken away by the cruel Labor state government because, apparently, they don't have enough call-outs. I know Steph Cooke is putting out a petition about this and the pathology services at Cootamundra, which are going to be centralised in Young. It beggars belief that Narrandera will be left without some of the ambulance services the people rely upon and which are certainly needed, particularly if you get incidents and accidents around the area. If you haven't got mobile phone coverage, you haven't got too much at all.

Several residents mentioned medical dramas which have occurred in the district and the difficulty in getting urgent attention with a limited mobile service. I know that there was one particularly incident, not that long ago, where somebody had to climb up the silo and put their phone high up in the air so that they could get a signal. In today's day and age that's simply not good enough. Why should country people put up with such second-rate services. Telstra has a helpline for concerns regarding mobile connectivity, 1800990853, and I'd urge people to pencil that number down and use it if they are worried about their mobile connectivity.

The Telecommunications Amendment (Enhancing Consumer Safeguards) Bill 2025 is important, as we heard from coalition speakers and, indeed, those from the government. I know that the call-out has been done recently for mobile phone black spots, and, let me tell you, I have submitted quite a number. I might read the list into Hansard so that people in my electorate know exactly where I'm coming from in regard to supporting them and their efforts to get better mobile coverage.

These locations are: Ardlethan to Barellan, Ardlethan to Kamarah, Barellan to Weethalle, Bectric, Murrulebale, Methul, Moombooldool, Galong to Binalong, between Wagga and Junee, Illabo, Junee Shire, Junee itself, Lockhart, Milbrulong, Mimosa, Pleasant Hills, Ladysmith to Tarcutta, Mount Adrah, Tarcutta, Borambola, Coolamon to Temora, Sebastopol to Temora, Temora to Ariah Park, Temora to Methul, Berry Jerry, Coolamon to Collingullie, Currawarna, Harefield to Bomen, Junee to Eurongilly, Ladysmith, Lockhart to Wagga Wagga, west of The Rock, The Rock to Fargunyah, The Rock to Wagga Wagga, indeed Wagga Wagga to Galore, Wagga Wagga to Tootool and Wallacetown. It's sort of like I've Been Everywhere, Man!

But they are areas where people do need mobile phone connectivity. People from those fine areas have taken part in a survey that I put out there, including in Forbes, Grenfell, Ungarie, Weethalle and around West Wyalong. Indeed, they do need better mobile phone connectivity. You know what theme was central to all of those areas? They're farmers. They do an outstanding job growing the food and fibre that this nation needs and that we sell overseas as well. If they're going to be able to compete in world markets and get the best price, they need to be able to have mobile phone connectivity. I still remember going out to Murringo, near Young. There were a number of women running small, bespoke, unique little businesses on the back of mobile phone coverage that was scratchy at best. They were so pleased that we were providing a mobile phone tower for that area. It was quite incredible. It has—dare I say—brought them into the 21st century. They're wonderful people, and they should get the very best of services.

This bill establishes a carriage service provider registration scheme to increase visibility of providers operating in the market and enables the Australian Communications and Media Authority to stop providers which pose an unacceptable risk to consumers. As the member for Spence outlined in his contribution, there are penalties for those providers not doing the best thing by their customers and consumers, and, to that end, I think that's good. I agree with him wholeheartedly. During the sale of Telstra, I know that, back on 15 September 2005, my predecessor, Kay Hull, crossed the floor because she was concerned that the universal service obligations by Telstra would not be met.

Communications is a huge thing. It's a huge thing whether you're in the cities or the suburbs, but it becomes a matter of life and death in regional and remote Australia. It becomes a matter of life and death because, if you can't get a call through, you could very easily lose your life in those vital seconds, minutes and even hours, whether it's an accident on the road or a snake bite. Rural medicine has that uniqueness about it that requires prompt attention and prompt response, and if you don't have the right telecommunications, you could easily lose a loved one.

It is estimated that there are around 1,500 carriage service providers operating in Australia. However, there is no comprehensive list. That's a bit mystifying. This hampers ACMA's efforts to ensure providers are educated about their obligations and that there is targeted enforcement and compliance. This is so, so important. Establishing a registration scheme will increase visibility of the market, streamline complaints and compliance processes and create better overall market accountability. We need to ensure that we do our best for small businesses. I know that, under the previous coalition government, we had the instant asset write-off as a COVID measure. We had that as an unlimited amount of money. We'd increased it and upped it and increased it and upped it, to the point where we actually just made it unlimited and small businesses were able to go out and buy, dare I say, even telecommunications equipment. They were able to buy whatever they could to make sure that their businesses not only survived the pandemic but, indeed, thrived. The money that we spent on JobKeeper and the money that we invested—not wasted but invested—into the economy not only saved lives and livelihoods but kept the doors of business open.

I'm sad to say that that instant asset write-off disappeared in last night's budget, which was handed down by the member for Rankin, the Treasurer, at that dispatch box opposite. I'm sad to say that Australian businesses were left high and dry. I'm sad to see 29,000 businesses go to the wall in this term of government, and that's because it has been a bad government. It has been a bad government for small business, and small business is the engine room of our Australian economy. It employs five million Australians, but it comprises 97.2 per cent of business activity in Australia—it is done by those small businesses.

Dare I say, they will be pleased with this legislation. It's one thing that they can guarantee. Certainly, what they can also guarantee is that a Dutton-Littleproud Liberal-National government will certainly have their back when it comes to mobile phone service and telecommunications. We won't just produce mobile phone tower maps, which are just red. We will not just provide mobile phone funding for Labor electorates. We will be fair and we will be equitable, as we were between 2013 and 2022, when we were in government. We'd inherited a government that had done and spent absolutely nothing on mobile phone activity. I remember when I was Deputy Prime Minister I used to get calls and heckles from, particularly, the member for McEwen. His electorate benefited from mobile phone towers, and, dare I say, he had come from a government, the Gillard-Rudd government, which had done absolutely nothing in that regard, as far as putting money towards mobile phone towers went.

ACMA is going to play an important role in policing this legislation, and I certainly wish that organisation well. You look at the breaches that they've issued in the last 12 months, and it's a sorry list. But at least this legislation is going to amend the existing two-step process for the application of penalty amounts for infringement notices. At least there are going to be real penalties for those providers, those CSPs, who do the wrong thing, as there should be. I look forward to the next round of black spot funding. I don't hold any hope, however, in this government. What we need to do is get Australia back on track and re-elect a coalition government.

I also rise to speak in favour of the Telecommunications Amendment (Enhancing Consumer Safeguards) Bill 2025, which will give effect to a number of significant reforms to boost the enforcement powers and penalties available to the Australian Communications and Media Authority, or ACMA, and complement a host of other initiatives the government is taking to better protect consumers.

I acknowledge earlier speakers in this debate, including the member for Eden-Monaro, who well understands the importance of this bill. Before going to the content of the bill under consideration, I'll set the scene or background for why I and this government believe that getting these policy settings right is important for the people of Bean and Australians generally. I'd also like to put on the record my commendation of the work of the Minister for Communications on this bill and the associated activities to protect consumers in this space.

For many people in my electorate of Bean and right across Australia, staying connected is an essential part of everyday life. It's why the allied work ensuring that 40,000 homes in Bean are upgraded to fibre to the premises is so critical. In fact, much of the connectivity disquiet for consumers right across Bean has often been linked to unhappiness about the experience with fibre to the node. Within four years, up to 95 per cent of the electorate of Bean will be able to experience giga-ready speeds rather than speeds around 25 to 28 megabytes per minute.

The government, of which I'm proudly a member, understands how critical telco services are for everyone, whether you're a regional member, whether you're a city member, whether you have external territories like Norfolk Island in your electorate or otherwise. It's particularly important for consumers facing vulnerable circumstances and those who rely upon connectivity to support their families and businesses and provide service to their communities.

As MPs, we're reminded every day of the centrality of staying connected through telecommunications. One example is the way people communicate with us through social media and the internet generally. When we speak with constituents or when we visit them in their homes, we hear that for so many residents being connected is essential to their work, businesses, health, family and so many facets of modern life—whether they be in Woden, Tharwa, Uriarra or the Molonglo Valley.

Accordingly, I want to see—and I know this government wants to ensure—that the telco industry is working for Australians, that it has the best consumer safeguards in place to protect their interest and that there is a strong, clear recourse if telcos do the wrong thing. The bottom line is telco services should enrich people's lives, not cause inconvenience, frustration or harm.

Whilst telcos are essential to modern life, we know that the cost of telco services and the treatment of consumers are becoming increasingly important to people. Many Australians, including many in my electorate of Bean, are experiencing significant cost-of-living pressures, and this includes being able to afford critical communication services like mobile and internet services. In addition, there have also been regular high-profile incidents in the telco sector, including significant service outages and claims of irresponsible selling practices across the country.

Today, the House is considering this bill, which is designed to better equip the regulator, ACMA, with the tools and powers it needs to protect telco consumers and hold companies to account if they do the wrong thing. These new measures will help to ensure that the ACMA is an empowered and effective regulator and that appropriate incentive structures are in place to drive better behaviour by telcos. Nobody wants an industry that sees penalties as the cost of doing business. The proposed changes will enable the ACMA to take direct and immediate enforcement action against telecommunications providers that have breached their obligations to customers under industry codes. This will remove the current two-step process whereby the ACMA must first issue a direction to comply to offending telcos, no matter how significant the breach, and only take further action if non-compliance continues. The changes will allow the ACMA to take quick and appropriate action in responses to breaches to immediately address consumer harm and holds telcos to account.

The bill will also significantly increase the maximum general penalty for breaches of industry codes and standards under the Telecommunications Act from $250,000 to approximately $10 million. Further changes will allow penalties for codes, standards and determinations to be based on the value of the benefit obtained from the offending conduct or the turnover of the relevant provider, allowing for penalties greater than $10 million in certain circumstances. This penalty framework will incentivise industry compliance and better aligns with those in other relevant sectors, like energy and banking, and under the Australian Consumer Law. To ensure that the ACMA has a range of effective enforcement tools at its disposal, an additional change will expand and clarify the government's ability to increase infringement notice penalty amounts that the ACMA can issue for all applicable breaches, including consumer protection laws.

The bill will also increase visibility of providers operating in the market, especially telecommunications retailers, through the establishment of a carrier service provider, or CSP, registration scheme. This will allow for more effective regulation of CSPs, including by empowering the ACMA to stop a CSP operating where they've been found to pose an unacceptable risk to consumers or they've caused significant consumer harm.

The significant reforms included in this bill will better equip the ACMA with the tools and powers it needs to protect telco consumers and hold those providers to account. They provide a powerful deterrent. They incentivise telcos to educate themselves about their obligations to consumers and to abide by those obligations, boosting compliance and improving the functioning and fairness of the telecommunications sector. The introduction of this bill is just another way the government is putting consumers at the centre of the telco industry, recognising the importance of quality telecommunications services for all Australians. The changes to the bill are complemented by other important measures the government has been taking in this space that will be of benefit to consumers. These extra measures include implementing new rules around support provided to consumers experiencing financial hardship and, more recently, directing the ACMA to create rules regarding support for consumers experiencing domestic, sexual and family violence.

In response to a direction by the minister, the ACMA developed a financial hardship standard that came into effect on 29 March 2024. This makes it mandatory for telcos to better support customers struggling to pay their phone and internet bills. Practical improvements include prioritising keeping customers connected, greater promotion of financial hardship assistance and requiring telcos to offer specific assistance such as payment plans. The standard replaces the rules of financial hardship contained in the Telecommunications Consumer Protections Code and provides the ACMA with strong enforcement powers to ensure telcos are following through on their obligations. These new rules will mean telcos have to do all they can to keep customers connected if they are experiencing financial hardship, with disconnection being the last resort. These are practical and commonsense solutions. This is just one of the many ways the Albanese government is supporting families with cost-of-living pressures. They are measures that meet the challenges of many Australians, including residents of my electorate of Bean, and I commend the minister's actions in relation to financial hardship.

In October 2024, the minister directed the ACMA to develop a new industry standard to ensure telcos better support customers experiencing domestic, family and sexual violence. Telecommunication services need to be a safe, secure and reliable avenue for victim-survivors to access information, conduct critical safety planning and seek the support they need to leave a violent situation, as well as remain connected with family members, friends and important social support networks. Examples of new measures include minimum requirements for policies and staff training with compliance reporting; prohibiting alleged perpetrator involvement in discussions with the victim-survivor; obligations relating to the privacy, safety and security of accounts; removing the requirements for victim-survivors to provide evidence or tell their story multiple times; and requirements for telcos to recognise domestic and family violence as a potential cause of payment difficulties and to consider the impact of any service suspension or disconnection.

Key advocacy groups support these changes. Carol Bennett, the CEO of the Australian Communications Consumer Action Network, said:

These reforms will promote increased accountability, transparency and compliance within the telecommunications industry and contribute towards improving diminishing consumer trust in telcos.

Luke Coleman, the CEO of the Communications Alliance, said:

The alliance has consistently called for stronger enforcement powers for the ACMA, and we welcome this announcement to enhance consumer protections in the telecoms industry.

The changes in this bill before the House, complemented by the other measures I've outlined, demonstrate that the Albanese government is committed to putting Australian consumers at the heart of the telecommunications industry. We want to ensure that all Australians have access to reliable, high-quality and affordable telecommunications services supported by strong regulatory and consumer safeguards framework.

I commend this bill to the House.

If you're worried about the cost-of-living crisis, you're not alone. If you're worried about how you or your kids might be able to afford a home, you are not alone. If you think that, in a wealthy country like ours, everyone should be able to afford the basics, you are not alone. And, if you think it's wrong that one in three big corporations pays no tax—$0 tax—you are not alone.

This budget was a chance to tackle this cost-of-living crisis, but it's been wasted. We want more people to have access to world-class health care; we could have made it free to see the GP now. We want to wipe student debt; we could have passed the government's plan to wipe 20 per cent off the top of student debt now. And we want to include dental in Medicare; we could have done that right now, too. There's so much we could achieve if Labor was prepared to use its numbers and work with the Greens to get outcomes now. But, instead, Labor has delivered a budget that hands four times more in tax handouts to billionaires than it does to low-income earners, and, instead, they slashed billions from the NDIS, left people on income support living below the poverty line and delivered nothing for renters.

It's only because of the Greens' pressure that Labor has put forward a plan to make it free to see a GP and to wipe student debt in part in the first place. Greens' pressure pushed Labor to help make it free to see the GP. The Greens' pressure on Labor pushed them to wipe 20 per cent off student debt. And Greens' pressure on Labor will eventually get them to include dental in Medicare. But, instead of helping now, the government's tiny tax tweak only sees someone get 73c a day, and they have to wait 15 months for that—73c a day in 15 months time, not now. That won't even cover one cup of coffee per week, and it won't help you when your rent has already gone up by hundreds of dollars.

Our time here in parliament is precious; we need to use it wisely. We need to understand that people vote for us and send us here to get things done—to deliver and to actually tackle the problems that people face in their lives. And the biggest problem that many people are facing right now is the soaring cost of living. But this week, instead of making it free to go and see the GP, protecting the environment or wiping student debt, Labor and Liberals have rammed through laws to gut environment protections to protect the profits of a multinational corporation that is putting the existence of threatened species at risk. Labor could act now but it's holding out on people. The problem is, when people see governments failing to act, the likes of Trump and Dutton seize on it. And we know that Dutton will try and bring that Trump-style politics here. We know that he will make things worse. If Labor wants to keep him out, the government should act now.

It is crystal clear after this week that we can't keep voting for the same two parties and expecting a different result. Big corporations have made billions in profits, and billionaires have accumulated obscene wealth, thanks to the policies of Labor and the Liberals. We need to make them pay their fair share. One in three big corporations pay no tax. If we make billionaires and big corporations pay their fair share of tax, we can reduce the cost of living and help people now. We shouldn't have to wait until after the election to help people tackle the cost of living.

But, after the election, there will be a minority government, and, with a minority government, we can keep Dutton out and get Labor to act. We will work for genuinely affordable housing to get—

Order! The member for Melbourne will refer to the Leader of the Opposition by his title.

We will work for genuinely affordable housing, to get mental and dental health care into Medicare and to fully wipe student debt. And we will tax the excessive profits of the big corporations and the obscene wealth of billionaires to pay for it. It is clearer than ever before that we can't keep voting for the same two parties and expecting a different result. If you want action and you want it now, vote for it.

This budget provides responsible cost-of-living relief for working families in my community, while building a strong economy for everyone in Blair. The budget delivers new help with cost-of-living relief, including more tax cuts for every taxpayer, more energy bill relief for every household and small business, more bulk-billing to help Australians to see a GP for free, even cheaper medicines, more cuts to HECS debts, historic funding for schools and more help to get Australians into a home of their own. As part of this budget, all 80,000 taxpayers in Blair will receive a new tax cut of up to $268 in 2026-27 and up to $536 in 2027-28. Combined with Labor's first run of tax cuts, the average benefit for taxpayers in my electorate will be almost $2,500 by 2027-28. In great news, every household in Blair will receive an extra $150 in help for their power bills, along with eligible small businesses, building on previous rounds of energy bill relief. Locals will save, from the government's reduction of the maximum general copayment for medicines, $25 per prescription under the Pharmaceuticals Benefits Scheme from 1 January 2026. This means that more than 42,000 cheaper scripts are expected to be dispensed on average each year in Blair, saving residents more than $1.5 million.

Further to this, our record $8.5 billion investment in Medicare is expected to see an additional 117,700 bulk-billed visits and a boost to fully bulk-billing GP practices in Blair to around 35, around four times the current nine practices. This will save locals hundreds of dollars a year, depending on how often they visit their GP. For example, a young family with two parents in their 30s and two children under five years old could save from $236 to $296 a year. On top of this, our Ipswich Medicare urgent care clinic is providing bulk-billed care for Blair constituents closer to home when they need it. I'm proud to have opened this clinic in 2023, which has been a huge success, with more than 12,500 visits in the first year alone. It is helping to take the pressure of the Ipswich general hospital emergency department.

When it comes to student debt, 23,000 people in Blair with an outstanding HECS debt will receive an average reduction of $5,357 on their loans. I'm pleased to say this budget is providing vital support to housing affordability. The government's expanded Help to Buy program will help allocate money to the states on a per capita basis with a minimum of 8,200 places estimated to be available to Queensland over the life of the scheme, and I would expect a number of these places will be allocated to my electorate. The government has already helped locals buy their own homes with more than 4,200 guarantees issued to Ipswich homebuyers under the government's expanded Home Guarantee Scheme between May 2022 and March 2025, one of the highest take-ups across the country.

In more good news this week, the Albanese government signed a $2.8 billion school funding agreement with the Queensland government. The Better and Fairer Schools Agreement will lift the federal government's contribution from 20 per cent up to 25 per cent of the school resource standards by 2034 for public schools in Queensland, including in Blair, which is a fantastic outcome for local schoolkids. Critically, as part of the fastest-growing region in the country, this budget will deliver vital transport and community infrastructure. To that end, the government has locked in $20 million in funding for the Brisbane Valley Highway upgrades in the Sommerset, bringing the Australian government's total commitment to $40 million.

Also, we are supporting local multicultural communities with a $20 million investment in African-Australian communities. With the member for Oxley, I was there when that funding was announced, which includes $4 million for the Queensland African Communities Council's very successful African village project, which includes the African youth centre in Redbank Plains in Ipswich in the electorate of Oxley, very close to the electorate of Blair.

This year people in my electorate of Blair will face a clear choice: a choice between Labor's plan to build Australia's future or the opposition leader's promised cut to the things that Australians rely upon. That is the choice for my constituents: build with Labor or cut with the LNP.

It's wonderful to have the opportunity to rise to speak on this adjournment on the day after the budget was handed down by Treasurer Jim Chalmers. How do Australians feel today—the day after this wonderful Jim Chalmers budget? Well, I can tell you how they feel. They feel just as broke as they felt yesterday. That is the truth of it, because Treasurer Jim Chalmers did not charm us. He's a doctor, but he's not a doctor of economics; he is a doctor of spin. So what we saw was lots of slick lines. There was a sprinkling of cash. But, honest to goodness, this was not what Australians were looking for. The Treasurer aspires to greatness. We know that he's studied Paul Keating, one of the greatest Labor figures of our time. But this Treasurer is Keating-lite. There is nothing of substance to offer the Australian people beyond a sprinkling of cash—70c a day in 12 months time.

We were so shocked by this pathetic attempt to try to buy votes that we almost lost sight of the fact that we have now nudged $1 trillion of national debt. This Treasurer and this Albanese Labor government have completely lost control of the finances of the nation. That means that the household budget now hurts even more. These tax cuts, as they have been described, are nothing more than a cruel hoax. I stand outside shopping centres in my electorate in places like Labrador, Pacific Pines and Coomera. At each of these locations in recent weeks, people were gravely concerned about the cost of groceries. Food has gone up by 13 per cent, insurance is up by 19 per cent and electricity is up by 32 per cent, and yet what did we see last night from this amazing Treasurer? We saw $150 off your electricity bill. That's not touching the sides because the reality of this cost-of-living crisis that every Australian family is facing is that, if you are a mortgage holder, you are $50,000 worth off than when Labor came to office.

And so, tomorrow night, the Leader of the Opposition will speak from the dispatch box. He will give his budget reply speech, and I think it's something that Australians should tune in to. He will outline a pathway to prosperity and a pathway to a secure nation, economically and in terms of our national security credentials. It doesn't have to be like this, under this terrible Albanese Labor government. We know that we can't afford another three years of Labor. We simply must get Australia back on track.

We know that there are so many sectors that are under attack by this Labor government. What was exposed today and laid bear in question time was that small businesses under this government are going to continue to suffer. If it weren't enough to put up their power prices and to destroy their businesses with industrial relations frameworks that are completely unworkable, what we have now seen is that an instant asset write-off that they quite simply could have claimed in a very simple ATO transaction has now been reduced to $1,000. What the coalition will do is support small and family businesses by providing a $30,000 instant asset write-off, and we will make that permanent. That is just one of the things that we will do to help restore prosperity in our economy. We must get Australia back on track with a coalition government.

As everyone in this place will know, I have stood up countless times over the past 18 months to share some of the difficult days that my community, the Jewish community of Australia, have faced. But today I don't want to mention the bad things. I want to talk about positive things, the things that make me proud and the people who make our community wonderful.

Macnamara is beautifully diverse, and one part of our history that people may not know is that Melbourne is home to Yiddish culture, Yiddish theatre and a vibrant Jewish life. Australia became home to the largest per capita percentage of Holocaust survivors after the war, many of whom spoke mame lushen, the mother tongue of Yiddish. But, before World War II, Melbourne also had the highest Jewish population in Australia. The community was proud.

The year 1909 marked the beginning of Yiddish theatre in Melbourne, and in 1911 the Kadimah library and cultural centre was opened as a home for Yiddish theatre, art and music. After World War II and the decades that followed, Melbourne became home to top Yiddish actors and artists dedicated to re-creating the Jewish world they left behind in Europe. But it wasn't just theatre. St Kilda was home to cake shops filled with kugelhopfs and rugelach which were opened in the 1930s. In the 1950s, Sholem Aleichem College opened up, and it is today one of the only secular Yiddish-speaking schools in the world.

In Europe in the late 19th century the Jewish labour bund, a union movement, was established, and the Melbourne bund is one of the few that still exist in the world today, including its youth organisation, Skif. It is, I believe, the only Skif left in the world. The Kadimah library and cultural centre is still around, and it has supported Yiddish literature, language, theatre and music in Melbourne for over a century.

I wasn't planning on mentioning this, but, just in the last few moments, I got news that one of the Holocaust survivors in Melbourne, an amazing woman by the name of Cesia Goldberg, passed away this afternoon. Her husband, Abram, is 100 years old, and Cesia, I believe, was 95. She passed away peacefully today. I want to send my condolences and my best wishes to Helen and Charlie and the entire Goldberg family. Cesia was only a small person, but she had a very big heart.

I grew up knowing Cesia and Abram. They are truly remarkable people. They came fleeing the Holocaust. They fled the concentration camps to be here in Australia and helped set up this vibrant Yiddish and Jewish life that I was speaking about before. Cesia used to run the Wednesday club at the Kadimah, which was a group of people that came to the Kadimah for community, gatherings and food, and Cesia was the driving force behind it. She will be remembered as one of the finest, one of the kindest, one of the bubbliest and one of the most wonderful people that we have in our community that help make the Jewish community in my electorate so wonderful. I again pass on my best wishes to the entire Goldberg family and to Abram, who I know will be devastated by the death of his beautiful wife, Cesia, who was with him for, I believe, 70 years or more.

I stood in the Kadimah in Elsternwick only a couple of weeks ago with the Deputy Prime Minister. We were celebrating the In One Voice Festival. It is a festival that is all about celebrating Jewish music, culture, food and art. It was a wonderful gathering. There was rain, but it didn't dampen anyone's spirits. Community groups were on display, and thousands of people came to experience the festival. And that's what we want in Australia. We want people to be able to feel proud, to feel open to express themselves and to express their culture, and to have a rich and vibrant life in our wonderful community, especially, for me, in my home in Macnamara.

I've also been involved in a project which is all about the future of Jewish life and what project we can pass on to the next generation. The one that I'm working on, which I'm very proud of, is the Jewish Arts Quarter. The state government of Victoria have already contributed significant amounts to it. This is an idea and a concept that will bring together the Jewish Museum, the Kadimah and a number of other Jewish institutions right next to the Melbourne Holocaust Museum in Elsternwick and hopefully be a place where people can come and experience Jewish life and Jewish culture, learn about the history and learn about all the things that make our community so vibrant.

With that, I again give my condolences to the Goldberg family. Cesia was a truly wonderful person.

My constituents, particularly older constituents, often talk to me about government no longer governing with long-term vision or for nation-building projects. Last night's budget was one of the worst examples of a 'sugar hit' budget in living memory. By sugar hit, I mean small, meaningless examples of instant gratification rather than long-term health of our country. Labor are focused solely on the next five weeks, not the next five years and certainly not the next 50 years. They continue to ignore the regions, instead pouring their focus into marginal seats in metropolitan suburbs around the country. We've heard the saying, 'NSW does not stand for Newcastle, Sydney and Western Sydney.' The Nationals in government are the only champion of the regions and what we actually need right now.

In the past three years, we've seen nothing but cuts to funding streams that the Nationals introduced to protect regional interests and to ensure their growth—projects like the Building Better Regions Fund, which was unceremoniously axed and replaced with a program that promised less than one-tenth of the coalition's funding. I meet with my mayors every month, and I've heard from every single one of them, from the councils, that, during the last three years, their applications for funding have again been rejected. Projects that I'm talking about include the Bellingen Shire Council's Sewering Coastal Villages project, which would not only maintain the current system and ensure that it meets the EPA and environmental standards but set the shire on a course to be able to build new homes that our region desperately needs. Without sewer, you can't build it. It's as simple as that. Similarly, applications for the Valla Urban Growth Area in the Nambucca Valley were again rejected despite funding setting up the shire to be able to build new homes. This funding could have opened up up to 7,700 lots. That would make a world of difference for my electorate and those people living there to get a roof over their heads. There was the recent rejection of ShoreTrack's application, which would have enabled their amazing youth training program to continue for another two years. This inspirational community minded organisation has a 93 per cent success rate of training youth who have disengaged with traditional schooling and who are at risk. You have to ask, 'How could a program aimed at setting troubled youth up for a prosperous future not be considered valuable by this government?' Our communities are rife with youth crime and desperately need more gold standards like ShoreTrack.

Essentially, every one of Labor's funding promises around housing, sustainability and safer communities has been solely aimed at their own metropolitan seats. This budget solidifies the fact no-one will be left behind—that is, of course, if you don't live in the regions. The Stronger Communities Programme, the Local Roads and Community Infrastructure Program, the Growing Regions Program and the Regional Precincts and Partnership Program are all critical to building community infrastructure in regional Australia, and there has been absolutely no acknowledgement to this. Instead of recognising all of this and reducing red tape, stripping away barriers to growth and providing the right incentives for small business to thrive, Labor have doubled down on their administrative and input-cost pain. This is not only pushing already fragile businesses to the brink of closure; it is ensuring that costs continue to be passed on to the consumer and adding to inflation. It's time to cut the waste, cut the tokenism and focus on getting the budget and our country back on track.

Tonight, I want to highlight the ongoing commitment the Albanese Labor government has made to our communities in McEwen. For too long, under successive LNP governments, our communities were starved of funding. This meant our country roads fell to ruin, making travel across the electorate slow at best, treacherous at worst. Under those opposite, the state of Victoria only received less than eight per cent of the national infrastructure funding, leaving fast-growing areas like ours ignored. This Labor government, from our very first budget to the one delivered last night, shows that it knows where Victoria is and is here to help. Only a federal Labor government is delivering for our communities and is set on building a stronger, more resilient Australia so that every Australian has a fair go.

As we saw last night, this Labor government is standing up and building a stronger Australia. Under the Albanese Labor government, the average Aussie will be able to keep more of the money they earn. Every worker will receive a tax cut. I have fought for this publicly and behind closed doors, and I'm very happy to see it delivered for our community. Additional energy bill relief will be rolled out to every household and small business in our towns and in the suburbs. Only a Labor government will invest to protect Medicare. We are delivering more bulk-billed GP visits, 50 more Medicare urgent care clinics, bringing the total to 137 nationwide, including one in Diamond Creek. We're cutting student debt. We are helping more people into a home of our own.

The budget is about people. The economy is turning a corner with lower inflation, rising wages and low unemployment. We have achieved all of this the Australian way, by looking after each other and working together. The budget builds on the ongoing commitment of our government to the communities of McEwen. The Liberals and Nationals, who believed that roads could be fixed by press releases, have never put their money where their mouths are. Labor has been committed to delivering for our community.

Earlier this week, I had the pleasure of welcoming the Prime Minister and the minister for infrastructure out to Kalkallo to announce some pretty significant news. As part of two Labor governments $1.2 billion road blitz package, the Prime Minister announced a huge $125 million investment for an upgrade to the Donnybrook Road and Mitchell Street intersection, delivering extra lanes, a fully signalised intersection, a new bridge over Kalkallo Creek and barriers for pedestrian safety. This investment follows on from our $7 million investment rail plan for the northern suburbs, with things like extending lines, electrification to Wallan and new stations including Beveridge. This will make sure that communities can get to work, school or home faster and safer than before. Only in this last month we announced $45 million to upgrade old Sydney Road Beveridge to Mickleham under the new suburban roads blitz, fully sealing Old Sydney Road from Camerons Lane Beveridge south to Mickleham, providing alternative access other than to the Hume Freeway. It is a direct investment into our community, giving desperately needed alternative routes for locals, not just for the Hume.

Of course the Albanese Labor government is the first federal government to invest in the Yan Yean stage 2 road under the $437 million suburban roads funding package. Our community has waited far too long for this essential piece of road to be fixed. Now, through us, it is time to get it done. With the preferred contractor being announced this week, we look forward to get seeing this new project getting under way quickly.

Our government promised to put $90 million towards the Watson Street and Diamond interchange for the Hume. This was a project that the Liberals and Nationals have refused to commit to at every single election I have been to. Like the rest of the community, I feel a sense of urgency to get this done and get shovels in the ground ASAP to see the benefit of this massive investment. As I said, only Labor committed to and funded to see this done. All this scratches the surface of what the Albanese Labor government has invested into local roads, with more than a billion dollars invested into McEwen roads under this government to make them safer and to make travel times quicker, which is a real difference to what the Liberal government has ever done for our communities.

I challenge people: tell me, what did you get under 10 years of Liberal government? They spent nothing and they did nothing. I've made sure all our communities in McEwen actually see the funding we need, whether it be Diamond Creek, Darraweit Guim, Wallan, Beveridge, Mernda, Doreen, Kalkallo and across the Macedon Ranges. The choice at this election is clear. Only an Albanese Labor government will invest in our community and it is the only federal Labor government that will get the job done.

House adjourned at 20:00

I rise to amplify the concerns of Kooyong constituents about the government's failure to protect our marine environment and endangered species. Yesterday, in the most cynical of ploys, the government slammed through an outrageously bad piece of legislation to protect the Tasmanian salmon farming industry. The industry is an animal welfare nightmare, but it has been given a personal carve-out by the Prime Minister. The only transparency here is the PM's transparent attempt to save Labor seats in Tasmania.

We've known for years about the environmental damage and the animal welfare breaches of the Tasmanian salmon industry. Salmon farms cause harmful algal blooms, which suffocate fish. Antibiotics and other chemicals leach into the surrounding waters and harm other aquatic species. On multiple occasions, including one this year, overstocking or bacterial infections in salmon farms in the Macquarie Harbour have caused the deaths of millions of fish. Tasmanians haven't been able to swim at local beaches without bumping into stinking, rotten fish carcasses and blobs of fish oil. It's disgusting. No salmon company meets RSPCA standards.

Tasmanian waters are home to several critically endangered species including the maugean skate, which has only one home in the wild. That ancient species has outlasted the dinosaurs, but it's not going to outlast Anthony Albanese. Three foreign owned businesses control the Tasmanian salmon industry. The entire industry makes up less than one per cent of Tasmanian jobs; seven in 10 Tasmanians want it gone. The minister for the environment promised zero extinctions under this government. She has been sidelined by a prime minister hell-bent on shoring up his electoral chances in a marginal electorate—a prime minister who has already shelved the EPA and EPBC overhauls to placate the resources sector and the Labor state government in WA. The Labor government has been backed up on this shameful legislation by an opposition which has indicated that it will utterly dismantle environmental protections if it's elected. There's something terribly wrong with our major parties and their increasing blatancy in demonstrating that any lip-service that they pay to environmental protections or climate action is based only on their political calculations.

In 2022, the people of Kooyong voted for climate and for the environment. In 2025, they are seeing that our only hope for effective action on the environment and on climate is through a parliament in which the major parties have to answer to communities like ours on the issues which matter to us.

When our kids twist an ankle during their weekend footy match or break a finger playing netball, they shouldn't have to sit in pain for hours in a busy emergency department waiting room. When we cut our finger while making dinner or go down with a virus, spending hours waiting to see a doctor in the hospital ER is exhausting and, quite frankly, infuriating. We all know our emergency rooms are clogged up, placing our wonderful nurses and doctors under more pressure. That's why the Albanese Labor government is opening more Medicare urgent care clinics.

Our walk-in Medicare urgent care clinics are taking the pressure off our hospital emergency departments, and they're also providing free medical care for people when they need it. Parents and families swear by them, with one-third of presenting patients being under the age of 15. I'm proud to be part of an Albanese Labor government that is listening to my community on the New South Wales South Coast by ensuring that locals have access to the medical care they need. More than 12,000 patients have used the Medicare urgent care clinic at Batemans Bay since the doors opened in December 2023. I know it will give my community peace of mind to know that under a re-elected Albanese Labor government the Batemans Bay clinic will be open 18 hours a day—the longest operating hours of any clinic in the country. That's free urgent care for urgent but non-life-threatening conditions, available from 6 am until midnight every day. All they will need is their Medicare card, not a credit card. I'm absolutely thrilled that, after lobbing for a second urgent care clinic on the South Coast, Labor will also deliver a federally funded Medicare urgent care clinic in Nowra. The Nowra clinic will be open seven days for extended hours, and will take pressure off the very busy Shoalhaven Hospital ED, which saw more than 23,000 non-urgent and semi-urgent presentations in 2023-24.

The Liberals labelled our urgent care clinics as 'wasteful spending', but tell that to the people of Nowra, who are desperate for this service. Tell the more than 12,000 people in Batemans Bay that have avoided the ED queue. If the Liberals get their way, they will close Medicare urgent care clinics, forcing sick and injured Australians back into hospital waiting rooms. The Liberals had nine years to open Medicare urgent care clinics, and they never opened one. Medicare urgent care clinics are an Albanese government initiative, because we believe in Medicare and in free, fully bulk-billed urgent care. You can't trust the Liberals with Medicare, and you can't trust the Liberals to keep urgent care clinics open.

We had a budget last night, and I am reminded of Maggie Thatcher's famous words:

The trouble with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money.

It's quite clear that this government has run out of other people's money, otherwise why would we be having a $27 billion deficit this year?

A division having been called in the House of Representatives—

Sitting suspended from 09:36 to 09:46

There is $42 billion next year, $35 billion the year after, then $37 billion and $36 billion—in fact, by 2029, the Australian government will owe $1,233,000,000,000. I didn't have a stutter then; it's a thousand, thousand million dollars. In this budget, they're throwing money around like drunken sailors, buying votes from every squeaky wheel in the pack. There's an extension to the electricity rebate. The Treasurer himself said that electricity prices are coming down. Well, if they're coming down, why on earth do we have to subsidise them?

A $5 tax cut in 15 months time will go a long way! This is in a time when, over the last three years, we've had an eight per cent fall in living standards in Australia, which is by far the greatest fall in the OECD. I saw a graph the other day, and the next country down that line has had just over a two per cent fall in living standards. Australia has had a 10 per cent fall. Instructively, Greece tops the bill with an almost 10 per cent increase in living standards, because they were forced to take tough measures with their budget some years ago during the financial crisis. They're reaping the dividends today.

It will be good for students to have their HECS debts lowered, but that's $16 billion and it's off budget. The principle of an off-budget expenditure is that a government has an asset to sell. What are they going to sell—their students?

I'm pleased to see money in the budget for the Whyalla steelmaking works, but it's off budget. The government are giving a company money, but the government has nothing to sell. It should not be off budget. This is smoke and mirrors. I'll remind you of the housing future fund. The government borrowed $10 billion and put it in the bank. It reaps the interest and somehow thinks that's creating wealth.

Across Australia, we've lost businesses which are struggling. We've lost the $20,000 instant tax write-off. When I look at country areas, there is nothing for the childcare deserts. There are three days of subsidised child care for all Australians except for where you don't have a childcare centre, which is around 40 per cent of my electorate. There is nothing for the Local Roads and Community Infrastructure Program or the Stronger Regions Fund. But there is something: I was wrong last week when I said there are 37,000 new public servants in Canberra; there are 41,000.

I was so pleased to visit two fantastic services in my electorate a couple of weeks ago: Tribal Warrior and Youth Off The Streets. I heard from the workers at both Youth Off The Streets and Tribal Warrior about the wonderful work they're doing and about the additional support that they've received recently from our federal government.

As many would know, Youth Off The Streets was founded by Father Chris Riley in the early 1990s. Father Chris Riley did amazing work, working with young people that many others had given up on and making sure that those young people felt love and support and had a pathway to permanent housing, education and work. Youth Off The Streets has been a sanctuary of support and hope for generations of young people. I met the social workers who are right now helping to connect young people to housing, education, mental health services and support to help them get off drugs. In particular, were talking about vaping and what a problem it has become for many young people. The young individuals, who without this support would have fallen through the cracks, are now stepping forward with renewed confidence and determination. We're investing in these young people. Youth Off The Streets was very pleased to receive just under a million dollars in the most recent funding round, which was part of a $28.3 million funding round to 35 organisations across Australia to support at-risk youth through the Youth Empowerment Program announced by my colleague Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus this month.

The other program, Tribal Warrior, is an organisation that I'm very familiar with. I've worked with it over many years, and I really have to pay tribute to Uncle Shane Phillips and the team at Tribal Warrior in Redfern. It is an organisation committed to cultural preservation and youth empowerment. They are working so well with the next generation of young people, particularly in Redfern. Shane Phillips is a community leader who has done so much good work in our local community. I'm so very pleased to say that Tribal Warrior will receive a million dollars from the Albanese government to continue the excellent work it does. It's the first time that this organisation has received federal funding. I want to say that one of the amazing things that Tribal Warrior has done is work with young people. They pick them up early in the morning and take them to the gym, to the National Centre of Indigenous Excellence. They do exercises with them, boxing and other exercises, and make sure they have breakfast and get to school. I'm so proud of the work they do.

A special shout out—there was an international day for social workers last week—to the social workers who work at Youth Off The Streets and in so many organisations across my electorate: thank you.

We South Australians all waited with bated breath last night to see what would be committed in the budget to invest in our state, and I congratulate the member for Spence in the chamber for what he achieved, because 100 per cent of the infrastructure funding for the state of South Australia announced the budget was in his electorate. It was $125 million, a little less than the $7.2 billion that Queensland got for the Bruce Highway. Regrettably, it's a sad reflection on South Australia's regard under this federal Labor government. To have $125 million in new infrastructure funding for South Australia is absolutely devastating given the opportunity that was presented in last night's budget to invest in the Greater Adelaide Freight Bypass to get heavy trucks off streets like Portrush Road in my electorate. We can now see from the budget papers in the infrastructure statements that there is one project for South Australia referenced and another that seems to be out of existing funds, which is no doubt a very worthy project for the Port Augusta wharf redevelopment of $12 million.

What is going on when South Australia only gets $125 million out of $17.1 billion? There is $17.1 billion of new expenditure, and $125 million of it is going to the state of South Australia. This is nowhere near—even if you concede, which I would never would, that we should get only our per capita allocation in new spending. We have 11 per cent of the nation's roads running through South Australia, and we heard last night that we were getting $125 million out of $17.1 billion. It's bitterly disappointing for the people of Sturt, with no commitments in our electorate whatsoever. As I said, there is only one electorate in the whole state getting new money allocated to a project, according to the budget papers. This is confirmation of what the people of South Australia, particularly the people of Sturt, regrettably already knew about this government's commitment to infrastructure spending in South Australia.

We need to build the Greater Adelaide Freight Bypass. What we now know is that, under Labor, it won't happen. Their budget is for the next four years—no money towards that project whatsoever. We in the Liberal Party have been fighting to get funding that we put into the budget restored to build the Truro Bypass as part of the Greater Adelaide Freight Bypass. Labor ripped that money away in their infrastructure review, and it's never been seen or talked about since. It is disgraceful that the people of the eastern suburbs of Adelaide, and also those in other electorates like Boothby, Mayo and Adelaide, are all affected by this heavy freight rumbling through our suburban streets. If you're on Highway 1 and you're taking freight from Melbourne to Perth, it shouldn't be going through suburban Adelaide. This government has shown that their vision for our future is more congestion through the streets of Adelaide.

I had the pleasure of attending the 10th anniversary of the Huntlee Academy. Huntlee Academy is a not-for-profit established in 2014 to provide work, skills and higher-level career opportunities for local disadvantaged people, including Indigenous Australians, youth, the long-term unemployed, mature-age workers and people with a disability. Their employment training and upskilling programs give locals who need a hand up the opportunity to gain licences and certifications. They're giving locals the opportunity to change the course of their lives and a chance to get the skills and qualifications that they need to set them up for the future.

Huntlee Academy has invested over $140,000 in training and offers basic competencies, from operating power tools and plant and equipment competencies to the provision of licences and tickets, including drivers licence; forklift, excavator, bobcat, skid-steer, underground locating and chemical application certification; and working at heights, health and safety, first aid and CPR.

They also offer full qualifications, including cert III in horticulture and cert II in construction pathways. This year, the inaugural cohort of 14 employees, ranging from 16 to 59 years of age, will earn nationally recognised qualifications in their chosen fields.

I want to give a special mention to the individuals who graduated with a certificate III in horticulture. For some, this remarkable journey began back in 2022, and it's an amazing achievement to have completed this course. Their deep knowledge and practical skills in this field will undoubtedly serve them well as they embark on a promising career in landscaping, nursery management, parks and gardens and beyond. These skills and qualifications that they can take with them their whole lives will open up doors for these graduates to enter careers and live the lives of their choosing. Congratulations to Tasmine Tomkins, Chelsea Wild, Zaine Gleeson, Brody Ede, Graham Barrett and Jye Klarnett.

I also want to recognise and congratulate those who graduated with a certificate II in construction pathways. These individuals have demonstrated exceptional aptitude, laying a solid foundation for successful careers in the ever-growing construction industry. They also stepped out into the professional world armed with the knowledge, skills and hands-on experience gained during their time at Huntlee Academy. I have no doubt that each of these graduates will make significant contributions in their fields. Congratulations to Ashton Harding, Barry Anderson, Rylee Norris, Brody Connelly-Smith, Caelan Evans, Taylor Ormsby, Mathew King and JD White.

Congratulations, and thank you, to the Huntlee Academy. The work you do is truly life changing for these individuals, and you form such an important part of the community. I look forward to working with you in the future, and thank you for all you do. Cheers.

The Lindfield Cricket Club and the Lindfield Rugby Club—and the junior rugby club—are very important institutions in the electorate of Bradfield, and both of them play at the oval at the Lindfield Soldiers Memorial Park on the corner of Tryon Road and Eastern Arterial Road. The clubhouse there, which is shared by the two clubs, was constructed in 1960, and I have to tell you, it's a little bit tired. It needs some improvement. It needs much better facilities for girls and women. There's been a dramatic increase, a very pleasing increase, in the number of girls and women playing both cricket and rugby, but the facilities are not up to the needs of the current club members.

The two clubs have done a lot of work to raise money to fund an upgrade. Just last Friday, I was very pleased to be with Gisele Kapterian, our hardworking Liberal candidate for Bradfield, along with Greg Cook, the president of the Linfield Cricket Club; Ben Dibden, who leads on special projects for the Lindfield Junior Rugby Club; and a number of others, to visit the clubhouse and the oval to announce that, if a Dutton government is elected, we would commit $1.5 million towards the redevelopment of the clubhouse. This is a very significant announcement.

The Ku-ring-gai Netball Association is another very important sporting institution in the electorate of Bradfield. There are some 11 clubs and over 5,000 members. They do such a great job making this wonderful sport accessible to every girl who wants to play, and there is a particular focus on attracting more girls of Chinese background and many other backgrounds because Bradfield is a highly multicultural electorate. There's a lot of work underway on plans to upgrade the facilities at the Canoon Road netball courts in South Turramurra, and just recently I was there with Gisele Kapterian, our hardworking Liberal candidate for Bradfield. Gisele was there to announce that, if a Dutton government were elected, we would commit $1 million towards 50 per cent of the cost of the upgrade of the courts and the facilities. There would be a new canteen and a redeveloped amenities block. There would be five courts that would be redeveloped for multisport use. It was great to be there with the President of the Ku-ring-gai Netball Association, Rod Jackson; the patron, Brenda Williams OAM, who's been such a stalwart; and so many others. It's great to see Gisele Kapterian, the hardworking Liberal candidate for Bradfield, getting around, identifying community needs and offering clear plans from a Dutton government. If a Dutton Liberal government is elected, there will be funding towards Lindfield District Cricket Club, Lindfield Rugby Club and Ku-ring-gai Netball Association, and Gisele Kapterian is working hard to deliver on that.

Over the past several months, my team and I have been leading a campaign for another Medicare urgent care clinic for Robertson on the Central Coast. My team and I have door-knocked and phone-called thousands of constituents in Robertson, asking for their support, and, over the course of our campaign, we managed to record over 3,500 signatures and had powerful conversations about healthcare services right across our region. I'm pleased to update the chamber here today and advise that, following our campaign, we have announced that our government will deliver additional Medicare urgent care clinics right across Australia and on the Central Coast. Those are additional Medicare urgent care clinics on top of the already 87 clinics that we have delivered during our term of government. On the Central Coast, we have been successful in our advocacy for another Medicare urgent care clinic.

Now, the federal Labor government has announced that our community will receive another clinic in the northern end of our electorate, servicing suburbs like Erina, Green Point, Terrigal, Kincumber, Avoca, Wamberal and Springfield. This is a phenomenal outcome for our community and will ensure that more people in our community will be able to see a bulk-billed doctor for urgent healthcare matters. This clinic will complement our existing clinics in Umina Beach and Lake Haven, which were 2022 federal election commitments which have been delivered. The Peninsula Medicare Urgent Care Clinic, located at 297 West Street, Umina Beach, opened to our community in November 2023 and since then has seen over 14,000 patients, all bulk-billed. These outstanding clinics are helping to take the pressure off our hospital emergency departments and assist Australians with the cost of living.

As an emergency doctor, I know how important access to health care is for people on the Central Coast, and that's why I'm thrilled that, as part of our suite of healthcare policies, we will also invest an additional $8.5 billion into Medicare to ensure that more Australians can see a GP, can see a doctor, for free. More Australians on the Central Coast will have more access to bulk-billed GP visits if the federal Labor government is elected this year, with additional bulk-billed consults and a boost to the number of fully bulk-billing GP practices in the region.

When it comes to Medicare, when it comes to the PBS, when it comes to our urgent care centre network, only the Australian Labor Party, only our Labor movement, can be trusted to protect and can be trusted to strengthen our healthcare services right across this country.

Festivals and markets are an important part of our community in Casey. They are run by community groups and volunteers who put in so much time and effort to support those in our community. It was wonderful to attend the Millgrove Market recently, with its great local produce and local stallholders, and I want to thank the volunteers at MRAG, including Maureen, Kate, Pieter and the whole team, for their work in making sure that market continues to support local businesses.

Despite the rain, it was fantastic to join great community events in Mooroolbark for the Celebrate Mooroolbark festival, which is a celebration of everything that is great about Mooroolbark. Thank you to the whole committee that plan the festival, putting so much time and effort into making sure it's a success, particularly Renae, the chairperson.

The Wandin North Harvest Market at Wandin North Primary School is a staple in our community. It's wonderful to be there every year to see the kids having fun. I think they were happy with the rain—the parents not so much. But, again, it's a fundraiser for the school to make sure they can get the support they need. Thanks to Megan, who is the key organiser, along with the other parents and volunteers, and also to Paul Bailey, the principal, and all the teachers for your work. Congratulations on another successful event.

The Montrose community event last weekend was an opportunity to celebrate the opening of the Montrose intersection moving from a roundabout to traffic lights so traffic can flow. It has been a tough 12 months for all the traders. It was a chance to support them, and I urge everyone to support local, particularly those Montrose traders who have had a tough 12 months. I enjoyed catching up with the Montrose Men's Shed, the Montrose fire brigade, the Montrose Township Group, the Community Bank Mt Evelyn and many local traders.

This weekend, we have more important celebrations. We are celebrating 100 years since the hills village changed its name from South Sassafras to Kallista, meaning 'most beautiful'. In 1925 there was a gala event, a ribbon-cutting ceremony, games for kids and a celebration that went late into the night. This Saturday, the Kallista Village centenary committee will be holding a community-wide event to mark the occasion, with live music, old games, a family bush dance and so much more. Well done to Miki and the team at Kallista Village on your work. I look forward to joining you all on Saturday.

On Sunday, I'm looking forward to meeting the Easter bunny at the Cire Easter market in Chirnside Park. It's a great family event. There'll be a free scavenger hunt for the kids, food trucks, coffee, local produce and treats. I'll also be attending the community heroes market in Lilydale. For the first time the Victoria Road Primary School and Chirnside Park Preschool are having a joint fete. It's a celebration that will bring together local students, parents, teachers and the wider community to support the school and celebrate our community spirit, and I'm looking forward to attending and talking to the kids and to the volunteers.

Community events really are the heart of our community. They give us a chance to come together, to celebrate and to network. Thank you to all those volunteers for the work that you do.

Hawke is one of the fastest growing communities in this country. That growth brings enormous opportunity, but it also brings pressure on infrastructure, on services and on the people who call our suburbs home. That's why the Albanese Labor government is stepping up to meet that challenge. People want roads that work, health care they can rely on and opportunities close to home. Since being elected in 2022, that's exactly what I've been focused on delivering for our community.

When it comes to health care, we're making sure that no-one in Hawke is left behind. Sunbury was one of the first communities in the country to receive a Medicare urgent care clinic, and it's already treated over 20,000 patients. This clinic provides fully bulk-billed walk-in care for non-life-threatening conditions, easing pressure on local hospitals. In Melton, the urgent care centre there has been operating since mid last year, delivering the same high-quality, accessible care to families all across our region. And we're going further, with the biggest investment in Medicare since it was created. The Albanese Labor government is investing $8½ billion to strengthen Medicare, including by tripling the bulk-billing incentive. That tripled incentive already supports children, pensioners and concession card holders, and from 1 November it will expand to cover all Australians, making it easier for everyone to see a doctor without cost getting in the way.

We're also fixing the roads that locals rely on. After years of it being ignored by the former Liberal government, we're investing a billion dollars to upgrade the Western Freeway between Melton and Caroline Springs. That means more lanes, wider overpasses and new interchanges, delivering faster, safer travel for the 86,000 people who use it daily.

In Bacchus Marsh, with $25 million in federal funding, we're helping to deliver a long-awaited indoor pool. It will support learn-to-swim programs, rehabilitation and healthy lifestyles for people of all ages and abilities. In education, we're bringing opportunities closer to home. A new suburban university study hub is coming to Melton, giving students access to campus-style facilities and support without the long commute. And, with $15 million for the Cobblebank Community Services Hub, we're backing a six-storey centre to deliver health, family and employment services in one accessible location.

While we're delivering services and infrastructure, we're also making sure people can keep more of what they earn. Labor's tax cuts mean that every taxpayer will benefit. An average household with two full-time workers will save an additional $536 in 2026-27 and over $1,000 each year from 2027-28 on top of the tax cuts that were already delivered. That's real cost-of-living relief going straight into the pockets of working families. (Time expired)

In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members' constituency statements has concluded.

I'd like to echo the Prime Minister's and opposition leader's fine words yesterday to offer my heartfelt condolences to the loved ones of the Hon. Dr Rosemary Crowley AO, a former senator and minister from the great state of South Australia—an incredible contributor to our country, both in those roles and beyond, and an absolute champion for women in SA and across the country. Dr Crowley's impact in this regard cannot be understated.

As the first Labor woman from South Australia to enter federal parliament, her achievements, passion and sheer determination to make a difference are felt to this day. In fact you can see it right across this building, through Australia's first female-majority government. I'm privileged to be able to work with and learn from the incredible women I share these corridors with every time I step foot in Canberra. I'm just as honoured to do the same back home, alongside my state colleagues Minister Zoe Bettison MP and Rhiannon Pearce MP, who represent my constituents in Adelaide in their respective seats of Ramsay and King.

That progress can be traced straight back to the trail blazed by Dr Crowley. The significance of her life and work cannot be understated. And it was not without challenges. I think Senator Penny Wong put it best—that, when doors were put up in front of her just because of who she was, she continued to beat them down, over and over again. It's not good enough that Dr Crowley was confronted with barriers based on gender, regardless of when she entered this place. But she pushed on to do what was right. She called out gender discrimination, not just in politics but in the media as well as sport, and, as a direct result of the perseverance of her and other trailblazing women, our country knows better. Australia is a better place because of it.

She also made a huge mark on the Labor Party and, by extension, the policies Australia wholeheartedly embraces today. As a doctor, Rosemary Crowley knew the importance of accessible health care, and, through her activism and unwavering commitment to that objective, both in this building and across her life, she helped shape the universal healthcare system we cherish today.

Now, the seat of Spence is aptly named after Catherine Helen Spence, a leading suffragist from the 1800s who was the first female candidate to stand for the Federal Convention held in Adelaide; unfortunately, she was unsuccessful in that election. The reason why I raise this is that it was because of people like Catherine Helen Spence doing that hard work to pave the way for women to even contemplate the idea of entering politics that we have ended up with fantastic representatives like Dr Rosemary Crowley, who subsequently encouraged a new generation of female politicians to chase their dreams. There are many that I am very lucky to call colleagues in this place who we probably have Dr Crowley to thank for. I can think of a couple of people back in my home state, like the fantastic Emily Bourke MLC, who I had the good fortune of being at a dinner with recently where she made mention of this; it was an International Women's Day dinner at the Central District Football Club. It was because of her perseverance to pursue a career in politics that Emily followed her passion in standing for the legislative council.

This is important because we need to have strong women in leadership roles around the country for young girls to aspire to be. On the weekend just gone, I was out doorknocking with my very good friend Senator Marielle Smith. With us was 14-year-old Vanessa who is a fantastic student at St Columba College and an aspiring politician who came out doorknocking with us for the very first time. It is because of strong women in political leadership roles that opportunities are provided to our youngest girls to be the best version of themselves—that's what Dr Crowley's legacy is. It makes a lasting impact on the political discourse in this country. It has helped make this government better, because we have got a majority of women in our government, which is something that I'm extremely proud to be a part of.

I know that the decisions we've been delivering over the last three years are so much better for the contribution of the women in our parliament. We are extremely lucky to be in this position. We are, and should be, extremely thankful for the exceptional service that Dr Crowley gave to this place but also, importantly, to the great state of South Australia. On her passing, Australia lost an incredible contributor to this place, an incredible woman in her own right. May Dr Rosemary Crowley rest in peace.

I thank the member for Spence for his contribution to this condolence motion. We had the opportunity to share some of the parliament's thoughts with the family yesterday when the Prime Minister spoke to this motion. It gives me real pleasure to be able to stand and make a modest contribution myself, because Senator Rosemary Crowley was indeed an extraordinary Australian, a real trailblazer in our nation's political landscape and a very fierce advocate for women's rights. She was somebody who, within the Labor movement, inspired me from her very early steps towards ensuring that women's rights were on the national agenda and up for public debate.

Senator Crowley was a woman of many firsts. In 1983, when she was elected, she was the first South Australian woman to be elected to the Australian parliament. She was the first woman from South Australia to serve as a minister. Her contributions as Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women and later as Minister for Family Services in the Keating government have had a profound and lasting impact on the lives of Australian women and families. I'll come to her legacy in a moment, but it's pretty astounding to think what it might have been like to be a woman in the Australian parliament in 1983. Obviously, this was the parliament sitting in Old Parliament House, where we know they didn't even have toilets built for women. There were very few women; we were a very rare, precious commodity in the '83 environment.

I know that Rosemary would be so proud of a Labor government today having a majority of women for the first time in Australia's history since 1901 when Federation formed. We sit in a parliament where, on the government benches, it is a majority of women. I suspect that was unimaginable—maybe not unimaginable for Rosemary; she always had a big vision—or would have seemed like a very long way away in 1983. Her legacy is not just in the policies that she helped shape but also in the doors that she opened up for women in politics. She understood that breaking barriers was not enough; it was about creating lasting change and ensuring that women had both the support and the structures that they needed to succeed and, importantly, sustain those positive changes over time. She appreciated, as do many of us who've come afterwards, the need to be forever vigilant about those important changes that have been made—never taking that for granted and to be always willing to stand up and be counted in this place, in the other house and, indeed, everywhere that women play, work and have a say.

The other point I want to touch on here is the very pivotal role that Rosemary Crowley played in the establishment of EMILY's List Australia. I've often spoken of EMILY's List's history in this House. Since its founding in 1996, EMILY's List has now supported over 600 women in their political journeys, with more than 320 being elected to parliaments across Australia. The increasing representation of progressive women in our political institutions is testament to the vision that Rosemary Cowley helped bring to life. Without her foresight and sheer determination, the landscape for women in Australian politics would look very different today.

Beyond politics, Rosemary was a tireless advocate for women's rights. She worked to improve access to child care, support working families and strengthen all of those policies that went to empowering women both economically and socially. She understood that gender equality required real, substantive action. She dedicated her career to making that action happen. I stand here today as one of the national co-chairs of EMILY's List Australia, deeply grateful—indeed deeply indebted—to the work that Rosemary not only began but really nurtured for the decades to come. That is such a deep, personal commitment. I really thank her family and everybody who enabled her to be shared and do all that hard work on behalf of so many women that she would not have even known that were coming behind her—those generations of Labor women coming through.

Her vision, her leadership and her commitment to justice have shaped the paths of so many Labor women who followed in her footsteps. I—indeed all of us who sit in this House today—have a lot to be very grateful for in Senator Crowley's work. Today we mourn her passing, but we also celebrate her immense contributions to our nation. The Labor Party is stronger because of Rosemary Crowley, Australian politics is more inclusive because of Rosemary Crowley and the fight for gender equality remains front and centre of Labor's agenda because of Rosemary Crowley. Vale, Rosemary. Your work lives on in the generations of women you have empowered and inspired. Thank you.

Today I rise to pay tribute and to offer my condolences in this place for the late Senator, the Hon. Rosemary Crowley AO. Dr Crowley is survived by her three sons—Stephen, Vincent and Diarmuid—and two grandchildren—Ella and Leo. It was a great privilege to attend the memorial service just last Saturday for Dr Crowley. In saying that, I did, with profound sadness, enjoy listening to the stories told about Rosemary, particularly by or on behalf of her children. It was a tribute to what a great mum she was, and I really want to acknowledge that.

Senator Rosemary Crowley was the first female Labor senator from my home state of South Australia. She was a fierce advocate for affirmative action and for our Labor caucus to be 50 per cent women—a goal that has now been achieved in the Albanese Labor government and in South Australia's Malinauskas government. I know Rosemary Crowley would have been very proud of this.

My first memory of Rosemary Crowley wasn't of her as a person but of the inside of her office, because she opened up her office for young Labor volunteers working hard on election campaigns. She would come in and give us a bit of encouragement, late at night, sometimes. In those days you had to stand over a photocopier to print the fliers you were going to distribute. My connection with Rosemary went for much longer than that. Even after she had left politics, she was regularly providing support to me in many different ways, most recently attending my fundraisers. That was the commitment she had. You only hope when you leave this place and leave office that you will continue to encourage and inspire others, and that is certainly what Rosemary did for me.

Rosemary Anne Willis—later Crowley—was born in Melbourne in 1938, the second of six children. Her Roman Catholic upbringing and her primary and secondary education instilled a passion for social justice and a vocation for community service. Rosemary later completed a medical degree at the University of Melbourne before undertaking a residency as a medical officer at St Vincent's Hospital. She later worked as a pathologist at the Royal Children's Hospital in Melbourne. On return to Australia from Berkeley, California, in 1969 Dr Crowley joined the Australian Labor Party and experienced the excitement of the Whitlam government in 1972 and the subsequent disappointment of the 1975 dismissal. Rosemary then contested the seat of Mitcham in the South Australian parliament in 1977 and 1979, before being elected as fifth on this Senate ticket in the 1983 double-dissolution.

In her maiden speech in the Senate on 4 May 1983, Senator Crowley spoke of her campaign theme, 'Bread and Roses', a song with origins in the Industrial Workers of the World songbook. She shared these words to capture what she wished to offer in her contributions to politics, adding 'The quality of people's lives is very much part of what "bread and roses" means.' In her speech and throughout her time as a senator, Rosemary sought to improve the quality of life for people by improving education and support for people in the community to manage their own lives without fear of discrimination, and by being involved in decisions that impacted them through the Hawke government programs of consolidation and care.

Senator Crowley was subsequently re-elected in the eighties and nineties, and in 1993 was appointed by Prime Minister Keating as Minister for Family Services and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women. I think this was very fitting because, as many previous speakers have said, her fierce advocacy for women's right to be in the parliament cannot be understated. Through her 19 years in the Senate, Rosemary was the only female Labor senator from South Australia. It was her putting her hand up and, as we heard at her memorial, the subsequent preselection battle that really inspired so many other women to put their hands up. She really did pave the way within the party to put one's hand up for preselection.

At the memorial it was really lovely to hear former senator Chris Schacht talk about the way she did this. She did this in a way where she called everyone, left no stone unturned, but forthrightly put forward the contributions she could make to the Senate, and she was preselected. I have to say that, in doing so and through her subsequent career in the Senate, she really demonstrated that the preselectors absolutely got it right. Not only her legacy and her contribution—whether it was advocacy for Medicare or her advocacy for needs based childcare—but her advocacy for women really did pave the way in the South Australian branch of the Labor Party for people like myself to put their hand up for public office.

There are now three female Labor senators from South Australia, and the Labor Party continues to preselect and elect women not just in your marginal seats but in safe seats, in very winnable seats, so that women can take up their rightful place. Rosemary understood that, if we are going to get policies that serve families and serve women in this place, then we need to have women at the table, and she paved that way for so many women. For me, her personal support well after she left politics was really appreciated. As I said, she turned up to fundraisers. You wonder if you have to do that after you leave this place, but she continued to turn up to my fundraisers and continued to support me in my role as the member for Kingston, and I would be very appreciative. She was an inspiration to me and many others. I look to her as a real trailblazer within the Labor Party and within the South Australian branch of the Labor Party. To be quite frank, without people like Rosemary Crowley I wouldn't be in this parliament today. Vale Rosemary Crowley.

I too rise to speak on the motion on the Hon. Dr Rosemary Crowley. Like the member for Kingston, I too attended the state memorial service in South Australia, together with the member for Makin, the premier and many others that were there to celebrate Rosemary's life and to hear of her achievements and her trailblazing political story, as we've heard from other speakers here today. When you think of Rosemary Crowley, it's an extraordinary story to break through that barrier, that blokey culture, that existed back then not just up here in Parliament House but within the Labor Party itself. If you think back to those years—where she continuously pushed for affirmative action and continuously pushed for women to have a greater say in this great historical political party of the Australian Labor Party—and think of where we are today, as the member for Kingston eloquently put it, with 50 per cent women in our caucus and the same with our state Labor Party in South Australia, it's due to women like Rosemary Crowley and the role that she played in the early eighties to ensure that this came to fruition and became a reality.

We heard stories on Saturday of her political career and how she actually campaigned within the party to achieve this against a wall of that blokey culture which existed back then. Rosemary was an extraordinary person. As we heard, she did medicine in Melbourne and then moved to Adelaide. She was really politicised when she came back from the US, especially when the Fraser government came into power. She had advocated for better health services through Medibank at the time that that was abolished. Even though she wasn't a member of parliament in that period, she campaigned for its reintroduction through her medical contacts and the forums that she had as a medical practitioner to ensure that Medicare came back. We know that Rosemary played a massive role in issues involving women's health and issues that involved health itself.

Of course, Rosemary was elected. It was a continuous campaign for her to get elected. We heard on Saturday from Chris Schacht, a former senator and minister from the Hawke-Keating era, about how she campaigned to get that preselection, and she left no stone unturned at a time when, being a woman, it wouldn't have been as easy to get preselection. Some of the comments and remarks she was getting from some of that blokey culture back then were things like, 'We will support whoever is the best candidate,' which we know was an excuse back then to not preselect women, but she left no stone unturned. She telephoned every delegate, every union and every member of every branch until the ballot and was successfully preselected for the Senate ticket to contest the Senate election.

I considered Rosemary a friend and a supporter. In fact, she attended the federal electorate council meetings right up until she moved to Melbourne and would still raise issues regarding health. She would still raise issues about strengthening Medicare and ensuring that people had access to public health. I think she would be proud of the announcements that have been made in the last few weeks by this Labor government. We are in the position that we're in today because of the foundations that people like Rosemary Crowley laid back down in the eighties. As I said, she was a great supporter of mine. When I was first preselected in 1998 for the seat of Hindmarsh, which was considered an unwinnable seat at the time with a 8.9 per cent margin, there wasn't a lot of support or help around the place, as people were focused on the most marginal seats, but Rosemary called me and said: 'Is there anything I can do? I know that you've got good contacts in the electorate. I know that you're committed.' She basically helped as much as she could and continued to support me right up until we actually won the seat in 2004. I owe a lot to Rosemary for her support, her guidance and for believing in me at a time when—not that other people didn't believe in me—there were other more pressing seats to focus on. I, too, may not be here, like the member for Kingston, if it wasn't for the support of people like Rosemary.

Our condolences go out to her family, and we pay tribute to everything that she has contributed to the Labor movement, to the women's movement and to health in Australia. Our condolences go to her children, her family, and her grandchildren. Vale Rosemary Crowley.

I rise today to offer my deepest condolences and to honour the life of a truly remarkable woman, former senator Rosemary Crowley. Rosemary was a trailblazer, a dedicated advocate for women's rights and a tireless champion for justice and equality. Her passing marks the end of an era, but her legacy continues to inspire us all, including myself and, I'm sure, many generations to come.

Rosemary was born in Melbourne on 30 July 1938, which was a tumultuous period to spend some of your most pivotal early years. Like me, Rosemary was from a large Catholic family; hers had six children. Her mother, Monica, kept a busy home humming, while her father, Everard Willis, worked as an accountant. Rosemary's Roman Catholic upbringing and education at Kilmaire Brigidine Convent in Hawthorn instilled a passion for social justice and a vocation for community service within her. She was a bright young girl in a period that did not value girls' education. Despite this, she obtained a Commonwealth scholarship to complete a medical degree at the University of Melbourne.

In her early years, Rosemary worked as a resident medical officer and as a pathologist. In 1964 Rosemary married James Raymond Crowley, and they moved to Berkeley, California. During this period, Berkeley was a hub of political activism, from the civil rights movement to the anti Vietnam War movement and the beginnings of the women's movement. I imagine being witness to it all left a deep impression on Rosemary. In 1969 Rosemary and James returned to Australia, this time to Adelaide, where she lived with their three sons, Stephen, Vincent and Diarmuid. In Adelaide Rosemary worked at children's hospitals as a parent education counsellor, as a lecturer on childbirth and as a foundation member of the South Australian Mental Health Review Tribunal.

Rosemary's experience at Berkeley was matched with a period of significant political and social movement in Australia. Notably for Rosemary, it was the election, leadership and then dismissal by the Crown of Gough Whitlam, one of our most momentous and progressive leaders. It was during this period that Rosemary joined the Australian Labor Party. By 1983 Rosemary was on the Labor ballot and won a spot in the Senate for South Australia. I very much enjoyed hearing my previous colleagues' recollections of how she gained success in that endeavour. She was one of the first two female Labor senators for South Australia. Her election to the Senate was not just a personal achievement but a powerful statement in a time when women's voices in politics were still very much the exception rather than the rule.

From the outset, Rosemary carried with her a fierce determination to make sure that women's perspectives were not just heard but acted upon, particularly when it came to health care and social welfare. Rosemary's prior experience in health care and community care deeply influenced her time in parliament. In reflection on her political put career, she said: 'My medical work was very much highlighting ill health that no individual doctor could solve. There was a lot of ill health, unemployment, lack of transport, and politics seemed the arena where decisions could be made to try to solve these problems.'

Like Rosemary, I worked in health care and as a nurse for two decades. I saw how class and poverty were strongly interlinked with poorer health outcomes. Rosemary's passion for fighting the implications of class on health is something that's always inspired and resonated with me. I have tried to carry on this fight throughout my time in parliament and as the Assistant Minister for Health and Aged Care and the Assistant Minister for Indigenous Health.

In her own time in this building, Rosemary served as Minister for Family Services from 1993 to 1996. During this time, she fought relentlessly to improve the lives of Australian families, particularly women and children. Her contributions were not just about policy and politics; they were about people—something that we all should endeavour towards. She knew that true leadership required empathy, understanding and a commitment to uplifting those who were most vulnerable. As a Senator in the Hawke-Keating governments, she helped deliver instrumental changes to family payments, maternity allowances, disability support programs, carers' pensions, student assistance and youth training allowances. These initiatives have poured whole generations out of poverty, supported the first person in the family to go to university and enabled women, people with disability and pensioners to live with dignity. I think what many women empathise with is that you cannot have self-determination or autonomy without financial freedom. This is an understanding that is exemplified when you have more female voices in the room.

It was not only her policy achievements that made Rosemary such an extraordinary leader. Rosemary was one of the founding members of EMILY's List Australia, an organisation that has been instrumental in promoting progressive women's voices in our parliaments. Her work with EMILY's List was not just about getting women elected. It was about making sure that women's issues were front and centre in our political debates and decision-making. EMILY's List is the reason abortion is legal across Australia. It's the reason we have paid parental leave and the reason we've had our first female prime minister, Julia Gillard. With EMILY's List, Rosemary played a key role in the Australian Labor Party's historic adoption of affirmative action measures in 1994. She was integral in the push for the party's commitment to having women preselected for 35 per cent of winnable seats by 2002. This was a bold, ambitious target at the time, and Rosemary was one of the most passionate advocates for seeing it realised. I believe this target is part of the reason that I am speaking with you today.

Rosemary's work laid the foundation for the incredible progress we've seen within the Labor Party over the past few decades with regard to women. Very proudly, I can say that we're now the first party in Australia to achieve a majority female government, with women making up over 50 per cent of our parliamentary caucus. This is not just a symbolic achievement. It has real, tangible impacts on the way we govern and the issues we prioritise. Rosemary's legacy can be seen in so many of the decisions we make today.

Just recently the Albanese government announced a historic women's health package: an investment of over half a billion dollars to improve healthcare access and outcomes for women across the nation. From funding for endometriosis and pelvic pain treatment to more affordable reproductive and menopause medications, this package will change the lives of countless women. We believe no-one should miss out on health care because of the size of their wallet or because of their sex. This is a core value and focus not just for me but now for the whole Labor Party. Once again I say that, if you have more women in the room, your priorities change.

I'm incredibly proud to be part of a Labor Party that now better reflects the diversity of our society and that actively works to promote women's leadership, but I acknowledge that we still have a long way to go for accurate representation, including of people from diverse cultural backgrounds, those from the LGBTIQA+ community and people with a disability. EMILY's List has stood as an example for newer movements within Labor, including Rainbow Labor, multicultural Labor networks and Labor disability action networks. I can't wait to see what they achieve.

Rosemary has changed Labor and Australia for the better forever. But, beyond her achievements, I think it's also important to remember that Rosemary was more than just her career discography. Above all, she was a deeply compassionate and generous person. She mentored many women, offering them her wisdom, her guidance and her friendship. She was someone who genuinely cared about people, their stories, their struggles and their successes. To her family, friends, colleagues and all those whose lives she touched I offer my heartfelt condolences. It's difficult to lose someone of such importance, but we can take comfort in the knowledge that her legacy will continue to shape our nation for the better. Rosemary Crowley's name will be remembered not only as a pioneer in Australian politics but also as a powerful force for change. Her legacy is embedded in the very fabric of our party, in the policies we champion and in the progress we continue to fight for every day. May she rest in peace knowing that her work was not in vain but has made great change. Rosemary, we honour you, we thank you and we promise to carry your vision forward.

Often it is not until a person is no longer with us and we then reflect back on their life that we appreciate how truly important their life was and the impact that they have made on the lives of so many others. Such was the case with Dr Rosemary Crowley, who left an extraordinary legacy when she passed away on 1 March.

Dr Crowley was a senator for South Australia between 1983 and 2002. She was, indeed, the 371st senator to come to this place and the 68th from South Australia. But, more importantly, she was the first woman Labor senator to come to this place and the first woman Labor senator to serve in the ministry. Interestingly, as others have already noted, throughout all of her time here, she was the only Labor woman senator in this place. It must have been a very different era in terms of the proceedings of this place, when you had so few women in both the Senate and the House of Representatives, for a woman to be a part of the parliament of Australia. Yet Rosemary did that and did that with an incredible amount of determination.

Perhaps her determination arose from her upbringing, which others have spoken about, and the fact that, throughout her own personal career, she served not only as a medical practitioner but as a tutor at Flinders Medical Centre, a lecturer in childbirth at the Mothers' and Babies' Health Association, a member of the mental health review tribunal from 1979 to 1983 and so on. Those kinds of roles, particularly when you're dealing with families, certainly shape the person that you become.

Interestingly, she came to this place after having to put up her own fight, which others have already spoken about. But as someone who can remember the 1980s in South Australia—and Rosemary was a member of the centre-left faction, which, at the time, had considerable influence—I can recall many of what I would call the 'internal factional fights' about who was going to get here, and I can well understand the comments made by Senator Chris Schacht, one of the speakers at the state memorial service that was held last Saturday in Adelaide, when he spoke about the challenges she faced in coming to this place.

When she came to this place, and even after, she went on to serve in many different roles that, in fact, are way too lengthy for me to list here. As I look at them, there are two full pages of different roles in which she served throughout her life, which just highlight two things: the level of interests she had as a person in this place and also the work determination that she pursued once she got here. She took the view that she was here, and that she was here to make a difference, and that's what drove her. She didn't waste her time here; she actually used it effectively from the day she got here.

When I listened to the many comments from both her family members and other personal friends, including Chris Schacht, who himself is a former senator, and Barbara Weise, who served as a member of the Legislative Council in South Australia and who herself was also a trailblazer—and we also heard from Kathryn Harby Williams, who is a legend in her own right because of her netball career—it was clear that Rosemary's influence extended so far throughout the community. It was an influence that others have spoken about, particularly in terms of pursuing what we refer to as 'women's issues'—issues that, at the time when she came to this place, were not even on the agenda, yet she put them on the agenda, against considerable resistance. In doing so, just with that dogged determination, she ultimately ensured that the matters that she was raising were noted by this parliament and by the Labor Party itself, and ultimately she won the day on most of the issues she would raise.

I thought that the memorial service was incredibly interesting, in that we not only heard from her family members; we heard about a woman who, apart from her public life, was an incredible mother as well. You could just sense in the comments made by both her son and her grandchildren that she was someone who valued her family as much as she valued everything else in life.

But she was also—and I have to say this surprised me a little, because I knew Rosemary. I didn't know her well, but I met her on several occasions and I certainly came to the view very early on that she was a formidable person, someone that you needed to take seriously because she was—how can I say it?—a very strong person in pushing the views she had. But she was a person who also loved life in every sense of the word. It seems to me that I don't know too many people—when you look at the list of things that she did in her life, in terms of her fitness interest, her love for the environment, her love for music et cetera, it just seems that she loved life in every sense of the word.

But she also was a person who knew that things had to change. One of the things that I certainly appreciated was the fact that, when she was elected to this place, one of the first thing she did was go to Pine Gap to support the women at Pine Gap who were protesting against the arms race and the establishment of Pine Gap up there. This, in the day, was probably not something that you might've thought others would do, but Rosemary did it because she believed in it. Again, in my view, it just highlighted the character of the person.

I thought the memorial service on Saturday was very fitting, and I say that as I reflect back on her achievements and life, which is something that, before Saturday, I perhaps might not have even given a thought to. But after listening to the different speakers, it became clear it was very deserved. But I think it also inspired other people.

I have to say that, at the memorial service, which Senate leader Penny Wong MCed, Penny gave a very personal and wonderful tribute to Dr Rosemary Crowley. I thought Penny's comments about Rosemary were wonderful in terms of highlighting the respect that Penny had for her and the influence that Rosemary had on Penny herself, who, as we all know, has now become a leader in her own right. But it was fitting when we also heard from all of the others. When you put it all together, you realise that she was someone who deserved all of the accolades that have been said about her.

When she retired from this place, she didn't retire from her pursuit of the matters that were important to her. The Rann government in South Australia appointed her to several roles, where she continued to work to make changes in family matters, health care and social justice more broadly. In fact, it was really the social justice and environmental areas where I think most of her work was focused.

I'm glad I was able to get to the memorial service on Saturday. It was so well done and such a fitting tribute to a person who made so much difference to the lives of so many people but, even more so, so much difference to the direction that this country has taken as a result of her being there. My condolences to each and every one of her family members and close friends, who, I know, will miss her dearly. I thank her for the contribution she made to Australia both in the time that she was in the Senate and throughout her life more broadly.

Thank you so much to the member for Makin for those lovely words about the former senator Rosemary Crowley.

I'm rising today to honour the life and legacy of the late Dr Rosemary Crowley AO, a trailblazer in Australian politics and a dedicated advocate for social justice, for women's rights and for the welfare of children. Rosemary was a woman of fierce intelligence, deep compassion and an unshakeable commitment to making Australia a better, fairer, kinder place.

Like so many women of her time, she had a thirst for social justice that was first awakened when she was a student of the nuns in Melbourne at the Kilmaire Brigidine Convent. A brilliant student, she became a doctor and moved with her then husband to Berkeley, California, from 1965 to 1969. What an amazing time to be in Berkeley California! Rosemary Crowley came back with a burning desire to be more involved in politics in Australia.

When she returned to Australia, she joined Whitlam's Labor Party and was particularly interested in the antinuclear and peace movements at that time, as well as, of course, the women's movement. Within the ranks of the Australian Labor Party she had an extraordinary career and made an enormous difference. As a senator from South Australia from 1983 to 2002, Rosemary was one of the first women to serve in the federal parliamentary Labor Party, and she was, of course, the first female Labor minister from South Australia.

Her work in government left an indelible mark, particularly in the areas of women's rights, child care, nuclear disarmament, health care and sport. She also led the government investigation into women, sport and media, which resulted in the creation of the women's sports unit within the Sports Commission, Canberra.

As Minister for Family Services and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women in the Keating government, Rosemary championed policies that improved the lives of Australian women and their families. She was instrumental in shaping early childhood education and childcare policies, understanding that the access of children to quality early learning was of benefit for those children. Of course, it supported their families and their working parents, but it also gave children the very best possible start in life. She was a tireless advocate for women's rights, always pushing for greater equality, better workplace conditions and stronger protections against discrimination and protections against violence.

Beyond her ministerial work, Rosemary Crowley was a very important mentor and inspiration to many women in politics, including me. I first knew Rosemary Crowley when I worked on the Senate side for Senator Bruce Childs. Rosemary Crowley and Bruce were very good friends, and I saw a lot of Rosemary Crowley in those years. She was enormously encouraging to me and to my involvement in politics at that time, and I was fortunate enough to serve with her. She left the Senate and in 2002; I was elected in 1998. So, as well as knowing her when I worked for Senator Childs, I was a caucus colleague of Rosemary Crowley for those years.

She was a terrific mentor and support to me and to many, many others, including through her support of EMILY's List. She knew how difficult it could be to navigate the halls of power as a woman, and she was always generous with her wisdom, encouragement and support. She led with both strength and warmth, providing a great example and showing that good policy and good politics come from listening, from understanding and from acting with integrity.

I was friends with her loyal staffer Susanne Legena. I contacted Susanne earlier this week to ask her to share some of her favourite memories as one of Rosemary's former staff. She said:

Rosemary had a wicked, sometimes bawdy sense of humour, was a yoga enthusiast and maintained friendships and care for people from both sides of the chamber. Her office was decorated with the work of women artists including a life-sized sculpture of a woman with a hat that sat proudly in the entrance to her office and scared more than one visitor or Parliamentary staffer.

I know that Susanne and Rosemary Crowley's staff will be thinking of her in the weeks following her death and remembering with fondness many of Rosemary's quirks and characteristics, including, as Susanne mentioned, quite a bawdy sense of humour. I think people who didn't know Rosemary Crowley well would have seen her as a senator, as a former doctor and as a very well put together and very nice lady. When you got to know Rosemary, there was a real sense of mischief under that and a sense of humour that I sometimes found shocking and surprising.

After leaving parliament, Rosemary Crowley continued to serve her community, particularly through her work with children's charities and advocacy groups. Her dedication to the welfare of Australian children never wavered, and she remained a champion for equity in education, healthcare and social services long after she left the formal political stage.

Rosemary Crowley was a fighter for fairness. She believed in a society that uplifts the vulnerable, supports working families and gives women an equal place at every table. Her legacy will live on in the policies she helped shape, in the lives she improved and in the countless women she inspired to step up and lead.

I think it's fitting that, during her first speech in May 1983, she used the suffragette phrase 'bread and roses' which inspired the song, 'Bread and Roses', which she also quoted on more than one occasion. This phrase symbolised her belief that Labor could help ensure people had access to the basics but also access to life's joys and pleasures. She said in her first speech:

To me the rose is a symbol of strength, of beauty and of passion. It is the symbol of the Socialist International. It represents vigour, depth, power and justice and it has its thorns as well as its flower. It says that what it represents must not be trivialised. One of the roles in our society which is constantly trivialised is mothering. To me mothering is very much about strength and passion, and about thorns as well as flowers.

As a mother of three children and a grandmother, Rosemary Crowley was a reminder to many women considering a career in politics, including me, that you don't have to choose between being a parent and being an active participant in politics. For that as well I think my generation of female politicians owes Rosemary Crowley its thanks. To Rosemary's family, friends and colleagues, on behalf of the Australian Labor Party and indeed on behalf of our parliament, I offer my deepest condolences. May she rest in peace knowing that her work has made this country a better place.

I rise to pay tribute to the Hon. Dr Rosemary Anne Crowley AO, and in doing so also acknowledge the participation in the parliament, the longevity and the work that the member for Sydney has done as well as former Liberal New South Wales senator Marise Payne. We need trailblazers in this place, and we need women to be able to absolutely champion their causes for social justice.

I've always admired anyone who, before parliament, has worked in the area of mental health, and Rosemary did just that. She was an original member of the South Australian Mental Health Review Tribunal. She was also very much an active voice for women's sport. I'm sure she would have been very proud in recent years of just how far women's sport has come in this country, with the rise of the Matildas and the fact that Australian Rules football is now the fastest growing sport in this nation. She was, as I say, a trailblazer. Certainly I pay tribute to her work and to her pioneering efforts. I also very much pay my condolences to her family and to the overall Labor family. May she rest in peace.

I understand it is the wish of honourable members to signify at this stage their respect and sympathy by rising in their places, and I ask all present to do so.

Honourable members having stood in their places—

I thank the Federation Chamber.

by leave—I move:

That further proceedings be conducted in the House.

Question agreed to.

It's commonly said that the Brisbane River is a river with a city problem. If you actually have a look at where the cities and towns in South-East Queensland are established, they're on the main rivers. We don't call the places in and around Brisbane the Lockyer Valley and the Brisbane Valley for nothing. There are rivers and creeks that lead into Brisbane River that cause enormous damage. They've become part of emergency management folklore—things like the Lockyer Creek, Bundamba Creek, Bremer River et cetera.

South-East Queensland has had massive floods over the years. The photos from places like Ipswich and Brisbane show that the impact in 1893was enormous. The water levels from 1893 would mean that, in my office in Riverlink Shopping Centre, in the old Tarpaulin Building, we'd be sort of swimming on level 1. As a kid, in 1974 Cyclone Wanda came in from the north and crossed near Maryborough. On 25 January 1974 floods came up from the south and smashed South-East Queensland.

I mention Cyclone Wanda because Cyclone Alfred came in about 50 years later. In South-East Queensland places like Brisbane, the Gold Coast, the Sunshine Coast and Ipswich were a lot smaller in those days. Nearly one in six people in the country are living in South-East Queensland, so it's a lot more densely populated. We don't normally get cyclones in South-East Queensland, but the impact and the aftermath of that one were very untimely, when you consider the fact that we are still dealing with the aftermath of the 2022 floods. We're now dealing with the aftermath and the flood impact and the cyclonic impact of Cyclone Alfred in South-East Queensland.

In my electorate, Blair, when I was a kid in 1974, in my parents' house the water was eight feet over the roof. I've had to deal with, as a federal MP, floods—in descending order of devastation—in 2011, 2022, 2013 and now 2025. We've got nearly 1,300 homes and businesses and cars where there are insurance claims, according the Insurance Council of Australia, in my electorate.

There's the damage to roads, bridges, parks, footpaths and community infrastructure. The federal government and the state government are going to have to work very hard with local councils, like Ipswich, Somerset and Brisbane, to repair that.

But it's also the damage to and the impact on people's lives—the devastation. I know of and have met people who've been flooded in flood after flood after flood—the ones I've referred to before. They're people in my home city of Ipswich, where I was born and raised and have lived all my life and raised a family and worked. They're in places like Bergins Hill Road and Videroni Street and Lindsay Street. They were flooded again, and I met people as I doorknocked those areas.

I want to pay tribute to the many people who've helped them. I want to pay tribute to the Salvation Army at Bundamba; to the Malayali friends, as they call themselves; and to the various associations around Ipswich. They provided great support—for example, to one particular family, who were seeking refugee status in Australia, on Bergins Hill Road. These are people who have been living in these communities.

I mentioned Bundamba. That's where I went to high school, at Bundamba State Secondary College, so I know the area well. There are other people who are still looking for assistance to have their homes resumed, voluntarily, by the local council, so that they can be in a situation where there are no floods in the future.

I want to pay tribute to the Ipswich SES. I was pleased to put on a barbecue and provide food for them, as they were working during the floods and in the aftermath of the floods. The SES—the State Emergency Service—is a magnificent organisation. It's a volunteer organisation. They give help and assistance, in terms of staging, logistics, coordination, planning, warning people and evacuating people. We also had intrastate people, from the Townsville SES, come down, and interstate people from South Australia and elsewhere, and from local areas, like Marburg, Rosewood, Esk and Goodna and others—SES volunteers—come down and help around Ipswich as well. They just did a mighty job, as did the rural fire brigades, the police, the emergency management, the local hospitals—particularly Ipswich Hospital—as well.

The damage is going to be about $1.1 billion, or more. I think it will be more, as time goes by. We saw businesses inundated around West Ipswich and Bundamba and places like that.

There's the Ipswich Men's Shed. I was pleased to provide them a morning tea after they'd cleaned up. I want to thank Terry Carter and the whole crew down there. The Ipswich Men's Shed is the biggest Men's Shed in the whole region. I thank them for what they do. They really provide friendship and fellowship and great assistance in terms of mental health as well.

The Ipswich Knights Football Club's football fields and fencing et cetera were badly damaged. It was great to deal with people like Troy Beahan from the club and to provide volunteer assistance to help them clean up on a Saturday.

For the Blackstone United Dragons Football Club, I want to thank Rod's Towing in particular, for the relocation of the equipment container. It's just simply a massive equipment container. It was put back in its proper place. It had damaged the football fields, the goal posts, the fencing and a whole range of things.

It goes to show: you just can't go in floodwaters. As they say: if it's flooded, forget it. It's too dangerous. The force of the floodwaters makes a huge impact.

The floodwaters nearly got into Ipswich basketball's stadium again. Poor Toni Calwell, the president, was stuck on her farm and couldn't get back; fortunately, she and her family were safe.

I also want to thank the councils in Ipswich, in Brisbane and particularly in Somerset for the work they did and the emergency management—the leadership shown by mayors, councillors and CEOs, as well as the work of council staff. The council staff do a fantastic job. They're multi-talented. We don't pay them enough. We really don't. The way they get in, help and volunteer in the work they do with the places of refuge and evacuation. I was pleased with the $6 million we're providing for Ipswich Showgrounds—that's the main evacuation centre and place of refuge. That was again open, and people went to it. The school in Lowood was used by the Somerset Regional Council.

The coordination and help between all levels of government was phenomenal. I also want to thank the Minister for Emergency Management, Jenny McAllister. Her office and the way she communicated in a bipartisan way to everyone were fantastic. I can't talk enough about how important NEMA is in terms of evacuation, coordination and recovery. I know that there's people still doing it tough in my community, and we have provided assistance. I would urge anyone in Ipswich, Somerset and the Karana Downs region to reach out. We have the Australian government disaster recovery payments available if you've been flooded and suffered major damage to your home or your assets. It's $1,000 for adults and $400 for children. Of course we have the DRFA, the Disaster Recovery Funding Arrangements, and that funding is available as well. I'd urge anyone who's been flooded and affected by that to reach out to my office on 0732015300. I urge anyone to look at help. There are a lot of people in our local community who are doing a lot of good work.

Just because they weren't inundated and the water didn't come into their home or their unit—and I've met many people who've had that happen—there are people who've had food spoilage, power outage and wind damage and rain damage from the cyclone, with water ingress particularly entering through roofs, doors and windows. That's impacted them, and that's why there are claims. I'd urge the insurance companies to listen to those recommendations of the House of Representatives inquiry chaired by the member for Fraser's report, Flood failure to future fairness. Act on that. I want there to be no absence of future fairness in the way the insurance companies deal with our local area. I want to thank everyone, and we've pulled hard together. My office is there. I'm here to help anyone that's been affected.

I rise in support of the Sunshine Coast locals that have endured the clean-up and the difficulties as a result of ex-Tropical Cyclone Alfred, which made landfall on 8 March 2025. I've recently moved to the Sunshine Coast hinterland from the coast, in the beautiful town of Mooloolah. On 8 March, Mooloolah received 462 millimetres in 24 hours. That was Mooloolah and Diamond Valley. That's the annual rainfall of Melbourne in 24 hours. I described it as like living under a fire hose for 24 hours. We were okay in our place, for anybody who's asking, but some people weren't. In the town next door to us in Eudlo, they got flooded in. Eudlo has neither town water nor sewerage. There were parts of Eudlo that were really badly affected, but people couldn't get into Eudlo because Eudlo was cut off at the worst of the flooding. When I went there the very next day, what I saw was really quite heartbreaking. There were a number of businesses that had been flooded. There were homes that were flooded and, because there is no town water or sewerage, they had septic tanks that popped out of the ground, spilling and leaking raw sewage into people's homes. It wasn't just a matter of flood waters racing through people's homes; it was sewage as well. That's tough. I door-knocked all of the homes that had been impacted. Thankfully, I was able to muster a team of volunteers that helped me help people in Eudlo to clean up, and I want to give them a shout-out. I hope I don't forget their names. There were Sam Elms, Deb Taylor, Pat Cleary, Cameron Radatz—and there was a gentleman that I hadn't met before whose name I can't remember, but he helped take stuff to the rubbish in his ute. You know who you are. I'm sorry I don't remember your name. But it was that community spirit that brought people together to help the people of Eudlo.

I want to send a big shout-out to Neal Heinrich from Chilli Bins. On Monday 8 March, I rang Neal and said: 'Mate, we've got a real problem. People have had floodwater going through their homes. We're going to need to get a lot rubbish out of those homes.' He donated skip bins. The streets of Eudlo were lined with skip bins. They've now all or just about all been taken. Anybody thinking about throwing anything in there: if you're not from Eudlo, please don't. I do want to make a shout-out because he took a nanosecond—I think before I even finished my sentence. Neal said: 'Yep. When do you want me? How can I help?' Neal from Chilli Bins: thank you so much for your generosity. It was really quite amazing.

I want to send a shout-out to the mayor, Rosanna Natoli, for her leadership during the flooding and the weather event. I was able to speak to the mayor and secure free green waste disposal and rubbish disposal for the people from Chilli Bins and all the Sunshine Coast residents to be able to take their green waste and, in particular, flood waste from Eudlo to the tip free of charge. Thank you, Mayor, for your leadership and your assistance in that regard.

It wasn't just Eudlo that was impacted, though; it was also the town of Palmwoods. Its cricket club and soccer club went under. The cricket ground was five feet underwater. It effectively destroyed their cricket nets. That happened on the Monday. I went to the cricket ground on the Sunday, and they were playing cricket. I could not believe it. The ground was five feet underwater on Monday, and on Saturday and Sunday they were playing cricket. To the grounds staff at Palmwoods Cricket Club: you guys are legends, you're amazing and I take my hat off to you. To the soccer club that was also damaged—all of the so-called floodproof fencing, which we know wasn't quite floodproof—we'll work with you to rebuild that. Hopefully, we'll be able to get some disaster management funding for that replacement.

I had the privilege of working closely with Ann Leahy, the state disaster management minister, who was terrific, but I also want to send a shout-out to the federal disaster management minister, Senator Jenny McAllister. I phoned Jenny in the lead-up to the disaster and talked to her about what we were looking at happening. I spoke to her several times afterwards and I encouraged her—in fact, I wrote a submission to her—to list Eudlo, Palmwoods and Nambour as a flood affected area to get people that emergency assistance. Jenny, you were quite remarkable. Politics was put to the side immediately, and that's as it should be. Thank you for your really good work. I do also want to send a shout-out because I, along with thousands of other Sunshine Coast locals, sandbagged for days because we thought that the coast was going to get hit. As it turns out, we got 462 millimetres in the hinterland, and the coast got about 30 millimetres. That's Mother Nature. The community of the Sunshine Coast really hooked in, and we all sandbagged together, preparing for the worst but hoping for the best, and we're thankful.

I do want to take this opportunity to highlight to the country the issue of the Bribie Island breakthrough. In January 2022, as a result of Tropical Cyclone Seth, Bribie Island was broken through from the Pacific Ocean into the Pumicestone Passage. For more than 3,000 years Bribie Island has protected areas like Golden Beach from storm inundation, but, as a result of that storm inundation from Tropical Cyclone Seth in 2022, the people of Golden Beach, Pelican Waters and southern Caloundra were staring down the barrel of oblivion. I'm not overstating it. Without the protection of Bribie Island, they were faced with a significant risk of storm surge. Thankfully, it didn't hit. We dodged a bullet. We, as a collective, need to ensure that we do whatever we can to restore Bribie Island to ensure that the people who live in Golden Beach, Pelican Waters and Caloundra South are not impacted by future storms. We know a cyclone impacts this area every four years.

I was really pleased to see that on Monday the state member for Caloundra, Kendall Morton, and the Crisafulli government announced a study to be done as to what we can do to ameliorate these risks so that people don't have the sword of Damocles hanging over their heads for years and years to come. I want to acknowledge the great work of Jen Kettleton-Butler and the Pumicestone Passage Catchment Management Body, who held a community meeting on Monday night. More than 620 Sunshine Coast locals attended this meeting to show support. All three tiers of government need to act—and we need to act now, or as soon as we get the results of this study—to see what we can do to ensure that people's homes, businesses and livelihoods are protected. I will do whatever I can whilst I am in this place to ensure that, if the federal government is called upon to provide financial assistance, we do that. I make that commitment that I'll do whatever I can to help.

I have a few things to say about natural disasters today, and I begin by acknowledging the devastation to Queensland and—

A division having been called in the House of Representatives—

Sitting suspended from 11 : 28 to 11 : 44

I have a few things to say about natural disasters today, and I begin by acknowledging the devastation to Queensland and New South Wales by what was severe Tropical Cyclone Alfred, which claimed at least one life and caused serious injuries, including a road collision involving Australian Defence Force personnel during the height of the storm. The storm was remarkable because it hit the heavily populated South-East Queensland area, which is not unprecedented but has not happened for a very long time.

What my constituents in Mallee have also found remarkable is that what was meant to be called Cyclone Anthony—for reasons that may be uncontroversial, or maybe they are—to avoid embarrassment to the Prime Minister, was renamed Cyclone Alfred. That change has raised the eyebrows of quite a few of my constituents. Had it been Cyclone Peter, would the name have changed? We will never know.

My concern today is about the federal emergency management arrangements for regional Australians. Despite a royal commission on these matters, we seem to still have inconsistencies in how regional Australians are treated depending on the type of disaster and the state they live in. That is why, as the member for Mallee in north-west Victoria, ravaged by bushfires over the Christmas New Year's period in the Grampians and across the Little Desert region, I can say my constituents are also raising their eyebrows or even expressing their unhappiness—and I think that's putting it mildly—that they are not getting the same treatment as those in Queensland. Bushfires in the Grampians region began in December 2024, resulting in a period of evacuation and closure of towns to tourists. But category D funding, under the combined federal-state disaster recovery funding arrangements, was not announced until 11 March—almost three months later.

Before I go into detail, let me put on record my appreciation to the Minister for Emergency Management, who made herself available during the Grampians and Little Desert bushfires and worked constructively with me on many of the matters I am raising today. The Allan Victorian Labor government has been utterly incompetent in its handling of communities affected by bushfires like Halls Gap in my electorate. Disaster recovery funding arrangements—or DRFA for short—require a premier or chief minister to write to the prime minister seeking DRFA support. When flooding hit Townsville earlier this year, Queensland Premier David Crisafulli was very quick in seeking DRFA support and got it within weeks. Despite my repeated public calls and letters to the premier and Prime Minister about the Grampians fires, it took three months for equivalent DRFA funding to come their way—and I say 'equivalent' loosely. For Grampians communities, particularly Halls Gap, who lost their peak tourism season and in some cases one-third of their annual income, the critical question has been about financial support for lost income.

If time permits, I will return to the topic of insurance, but businesses have been unable to afford or secure business interruption insurance in the event of fire. Hence, they have turned to the DRFA. I was disappointed that ABC Central Victoria threw the question at me, 'Shouldn't those businesses just pay for it themselves rather than insurance for lost income?' It illustrates how disconnected the ABC has become from regional Australia. Fire insurance is not that easy to come by. Insurance companies run a mile from risk even though that is their job. Flood-affected Townsville businesses are eligible for concessional loans of up to $250,000 and concessional loans to support recovery and rebuilding to cover, among other things, loss of income and continuity of operations. Essential working capital loans are also available up to $100,000 to help businesses cover costs like salaries, wages, creditors, rents and rates. I don't know how much of that is a state government initiative and how much is DRFA, but it is the outcome that matters—and the inconsistencies. I'll come to what the Albanese government has offered Grampians businesses in a moment, but remember those figures of $250,000 in concessional loans for Townsville flood affected businesses and $100,000 in working capital loans. For those affected by Cyclone Alfred, the same disaster assistance loans of $250,000 and essential working capital loans of up to $100,000 are available. So in Queensland, under the LNP, there is the same outcome for flood affected businesses that lost income or are in hardship due to natural disaster.

What has the Albanese government offered Halls Gap, Grampians and western Victoria fire affected businesses? It has offered a business bushfire recovery grant of—wait for it—$5,000. That's it. There is also a business recovery advisory service that they're apparently spending somewhere in the vicinity of $20 million on. Who knows how that will operate? There are no $250,000 low-interest disaster assistance loans or $100,000 essential capital working loans. Why not? Under the former coalition government in 2020 we provided Victorian bushfire concessional loans of up to $500,000 to those who had, among other things, a significant loss of income due to bushfires that started on the 21 November 2019. Did Premier Allen in this instance simply not ask for that kind of support from the Prime Minister? We will never know. Plainly, the support is not the same for Victorians faced by bushfire as opposed to Queenslanders faced with flood and cyclone. Either all disasters are equal, or some disasters are more equal than others, or all Australians are equal but some are more equal than others. How can you read it any other way? All I'm asking for today is a fair go for all Australians affected by natural disasters.

I want to go back to insurance. Insurance costs for some Halls Gap businesses have almost quadrupled since the Pomonal fires in February 2024, with one business paying $55,000 for public liability insurance, which even then does not cover external fire and does not provide business interruption insurance. There are 120 businesses—or there were—that simply cannot get insurance in Halls Gap even though there is no instance in history where fire has struck the Halls Gap township itself. I am working continuously with locals, the insurance industry and my coalition colleagues to look at solutions to this emerging wicked problem. Under the Albanese Labor government, insurance costs across the nation have risen by 35 per cent. These fires, combined with the impact on global reinsurance markets of recent wildfires in Los Angeles, may push up insurance premiums further and make policies even less accessible.

Insurance pricing requires accurate data regarding risks and mitigation strategies undertaken at the local level, but in Victoria there is no transparency around the performance of Forest Fire Management Victoria and other responsible agencies against mitigation targets—no transparency. There is market failure in bushfire insurance for Halls Gap. As in other areas of public policy, market failure activates potential government intervention. The Australian Reinsurance Pool Corporation was expanded in 2022 by the former coalition government to provide insurance for insurers of cyclone risk in northern Australia without the profit margin of the private market and with a risk guarantee provided by the government. While it's early days, there are signs the pool is starting to address its aims. It is time to look at this model in other Australian contexts.

Spending in Halls Gap has dropped by 63 per cent since fires began compared to the same period last year. At the one-month mark, $13 million in business earnings had been lost. Can you imagine the desperation of those businesses? As the fires have persisted, an estimated $8 million further has been lost. The Grampians typically attract between 1.3 million and 1.7 million visitors annually; however cancellations are now extending through to May 2025, and the projections of loss in that region are between $34 million and $103 million over the year. The sustainability of small businesses in the Grampians is my focus, and I plan to keep fighting for it.

I take this opportunity to rise to speak in relation to Tropical Cyclone Alfred, and then ex-Tropical Cyclone Alfred as it continued to cause devastation across the Gold Coast. Firstly, I think it's worthwhile mentioning that I really think this was one of the best prepared-for disasters that we have faced in the Gold Coast region. I put that squarely down to the leadership of Premier David Crisafulli and his team, who took a genuinely fresh approach to the way that they communicated the need to prepare.

A division having been called in the House of Representatives—

Sitting suspended from 11:55 to 12:07

I was just saying how wonderful our Premier of Queensland was particularly in the lead-up to this natural disaster, Tropical Cyclone Alfred. There was a noticeable change in tone and language. I think that the confidence that the premier gave to the people of Queensland really resonated, and they acted and followed his leadership. I'm very fortunate that the premier is also a local member within my electorate, and we were able to go and visit some businesses in Paradise Point just to see how their preparations were going. Everyone was being very earnest in what they were doing to prepare.

With the next layer down, I've got to say that the work by the Gold Coast Disaster and Emergency Management Centre was absolutely outstanding. For the majority of the time, Councillor Donna Gates, who's the deputy mayor at the moment, was acting mayor and was chairing the disaster coordination. She did an absolutely outstanding job during that period of time. When Mayor Tate returned from leave he then took over that role. Councillor Gates; CEO Tim Baker; the Gold Coast Disaster and Emergency Management Centre manager, Mark Ryan; and local recovery coordinator, Cath Drinkwater, all did an absolutely stellar job. I was fortunate enough to visit the disaster management centre with the Leader of the Opposition, Peter Dutton, and also my colleague the member for Moncrieff and see the operations in full swing. For those of you who are familiar with the way that disaster preparedness, recovery and response activities are, you can ramp up from virtually no staff in that building to hundreds of people working in a coordinated and very effective way in a quick period of time. To see the level of activity, the level of energy and the way that the teams were going about doing their work was extremely impressive.

I also want to give a shout out to the Energex workers and the first responders: the police, the ambulance and the SES. They all played an enormously importantly role in responding to this event and in the recovery that followed. As I walked around the disaster management centre, I was fortunate enough to see many of my old council friends there, because the council staff are effectively the backbone of what goes on, including our planners and engineers. For example, I saw Trish Apps, who was there in the deputy role; Jeremy Wagner; and Alisha Swain, who's one of the senior managers, all doing their bit to contribute to the way that this disaster was prepared for and responded to.

I went out to the car park and bumped into some of the work crews who'd been out all night for many nights in a row, putting out road closure signs, cutting down debris and trees and making roads and pathways safe. To those guys and girls who were out there with chainsaws, signs and sandbags in the rain, thank you for what you do, because that makes an enormous amount of difference to the way that all of our residents feel as these events unfold.

We were very fortunate, because the impact probably wasn't as severe as what was expected. But that's not to say we weren't impacted. We were still struck by major flooding and erosion. We had days and days of loss of power, loss of internet, loss of mobile phone services and, of course, school closures. For many people in my electorate, this was only just over a year after a very nasty tornado ripped through on Christmas Day. To be quite honest, this was all too much, too soon for many of my residents—but we got there. We got there together. People got through the power outages. They got through the school closures. We went for days where there was no milk and bread on the supermarket shelves.

I must say thank you to my dear friends, Sam and Greg, who are our neighbours, who split a generator across the dividing fence between our two properties. That is the kind of thing that got everyone through this time around. People took the preparation very earnestly, and I think that paid off.

We shouldn't lose sight of the impact that this event had on many of our schools and our schoolchildren. I visited, for example, Biggera Waters State School for a cleanup working bee. Kylie, the principal, and her team were doing a wonderful job to get the kids back to school as soon as they could.

Later in the week, I went to Woongoolba State School, which is one of the oldest schools on the Gold Coast, formed in 1878. It's a small school, but they had pushed so hard to try and get back to normal in the cane lands, where we had water across many roads. Jacobs Well village was still without power for a couple of days, at that point. To the principal, Michael, thank you for efforts and leadership, because that means a lot to our local community out in your part of the world. To all of the people in our community, thank you for preparing so well and for being so good about it.

We've seen vision across our country and probably across the world in relation to the erosion on our beaches. I was fortunate enough to visit the beach last weekend. It looks bad, but we will get through that as well. It has been scarped along the beaches previously, from other weather events. We can get that back to being the beautiful, pristine Gold Coast beach that we're famous for. But they're still usable. Credit to the Gold Coast city council, who were able to get those beaches open—most of them on the following weekend—for some sort of safe use by the public.

That work will continue for many months, but I know the objective is that those beaches be back to tiptop condition in time for the Easter school holidays. We look forward to welcoming many people from around Australia to our neck of the woods.

Finally, I wanted to mention that Queensland is an incredible state with an incredibly diverse range of events. Right now, there is a huge amount of water lying across parts of inland Queensland and up north. I think the rain will continue to fall for a few days to come, and the flooding will likely worsen. To those people affected by current events, all of us Queenslanders are with you. We've seen that when these things happen, whether it be cyclones in North Queensland, flooding in Townsville or rain events on the Gold Coast, we are able to all band together to make sure our communities are looked after as best they can be. To those impacted by the current events further north, we're thinking of you, and, if you need anything, we're here to help.

I'm so proud of the way that our community responded to Tropical Cyclone Alfred and ex-Tropical Cyclone Alfred. As the cyclone was bearing down on Brisbane and the community started to face what could be the severe consequences of a cyclone making landfall in Brisbane, we put a big callout for volunteers across our community to help, at first with the sandbagging and knocking on doors to let people know that their houses may well be at risk of flooding. Frankly, the response was overwhelming in its positivity. Hundreds of people signed up in the course of just a few days, which allowed us and my colleagues, Elizabeth Watson-Brown and Stephen Bates, to coordinate one of the biggest volunteer efforts I've been involved in, mobilising hundreds of volunteers across our electorates—at first, just to pack and deliver sandbags. In fact, when the community volunteers got there, the lines for those sandbag operations were sometimes four or five hours long. We got them down to 30 or 40 minutes, and that's thanks to the incredible response from our communities across the Brisbane metropolitan region.

We met a lot of incredible people along the way. People who had lined up for four hours to pick-up sandbags for themselves had, by the time they got to the front of the line, decided to stay for another three or four hours to help pack sandbags for other people. A disability support worker, who was technically on leave, waited four hours in line to pick up a bunch of sandbags for all of the disabled people she was supporting and then drove around to drop them off across the electorate.

I could spend this entire time covering the incredible stories from our community, but what also became clear over the course of this crisis, as we moved from sandbagging to dropping off food to members of our local community who were particularly vulnerable and in the clean-up afterwards—hauling flood damaged furniture onto the street and taking green waste to the tip for the people who otherwise couldn't do it—is that, time and again, when these climate crises hit, the people most acutely affected are those that are most vulnerable, those who are already struggling in our society.

Three stories stand out for me to illustrate how dire the consequences are going to be for the most vulnerable in our society unless we do something serious about climate change—not just do something serious about climate change but also start to take the impacts of climate change seriously and spend real money and resources on mitigation and protecting our most vulnerable.

One person I spoke to was a single mum with a kid who was six years old, and that kid is disabled. She was already homeless and sleeping in a friend's room. That room flooded as a result of the cyclone, and she had nowhere else to go.

In another case, one of our amazing volunteers, Will, was knocking on people's doors to see if anybody needed help, when he encountered a completely overwhelmed single mum with three kids who couldn't afford to go to the supermarket, not least because her local one was closed. She was at the brink of tears, and all that her kids wanted was Macca's. I will shout out to Will, because out of his own money he went and grabbed Macca's for that entire family, and it was a lovely interaction. But, by pure chance, we knocked on her door. She could have been left completely overwhelmed and alone.

Finally, there was a disability support pensioner who had spent most of her income on rent. When we were asked to stockpile enough food to last three days, she realised she didn't have enough money to buy enough food for one night, so we ended up dropping off a food hamper for her, but, again, there are a lot of people that would have fallen through the cracks. Time and again it is our most vulnerable in our society that are impacted. This feels particularly unjust because the major driver for so-called natural disasters like this are the coal and gas corporations who continue to make billions of dollars in profit and do not suffer any of the consequences of the climate crisis that they're causing.

We know for a fact that one of the major impacts of climate change in Australia is going to see serious damaging events like Cyclone Alfred move further south. The Coral Sea temperatures where Cyclone Alfred formed in January and February were at record highs. The temperature that you need for a cyclone to sustain itself is more than 26.5 degrees and for one of the first time is ever those with a sea temperatures off the coast of Brisbane. We know for a fact that scientists say that, as a result of climate change, cyclones are going to be more intense, they are going to come further south, they are going to move slower, they are going to hold more energy and they are going to dump more rain. We know for a fact that warming temperatures are going to see the atmosphere hold more moisture and dump more rain when we have these events, just like Queensland may well be facing again as we speak. Again, the consequences are borne by the most vulnerable working people in this country while coal and gas billionaires and big corporations make off like bandits.

It bears repeating again and again and again: Australia is the second-largest exporter of fossil fuels in the world. In this budget there are $50 billion of tax handouts for fossil fuels. Coal and gas corporations often get away with paying $0 in tax and this government has approved over 30 new coal and gas projects, directly contributing to the climate crisis that is going to make things like Cyclone Alfred more frequent and more common. What will it take, genuinely, for this government and both sides of politics to wake up to the fact that Australia will be one of the harshly hit when it comes to climate disasters and climate change and global warming? It is being driven by the refusal from both sides of politics to face up to the fact that it is coal and gas driving this crisis, it is coal and gas profiting off it, it is coal and gas donating to the major political parties and it is coal and gas that seems to run the policy of both major parties when it comes to climate change.

It's 2025 and here we are again—can you believe it? I realised, to my horror, last year that it was exactly 50 years since I started uni in 1974. That was certainly a big year for Brisbane and for me personally. I started studying at University of Queensland that year. The Brisbane River had flooded the week before we were meant to start university. It was the first huge Brisbane River flood that I witnessed in my lifetime and I remember it like it was yesterday. I remember just how devastating that flood was for all of Brisbane but especially for my electorate of Ryan. It was truly devastating, and the memory lingers.

Those memories have lingered a long time, and little did I know then that, as devastated and exhausted as we were, we would need to experience that over and over again—three more times so far in my life. There have been four devastating floods in my lifetime, and it is exhausting. In 1974, much of the UQ campus went under, and in every riverfront suburb people shovelled out the mud, threw out their furniture and possessions, and started the heartbreaking process of cleaning up, repairing and rebuilding. We architecture students were dispatched—this was our first project in architecture—with clipboards to record housing type, construction materials, flood depth and observable physical damage. I went straight to an area in my electorate called Fig Tree Pocket to smell the mud, to talk to people and to see the terrible damage. What we registered, beyond the physical damage, was the personal damage, the loss and the heartbreak that such catastrophic climate events can week. It was devastating and it has stayed with me. It produces PTSD every time we have reports that we might have another climate disaster event coming, every time that rain starts pouring down. I'm not only one in Brisbane who experiences that. In '74 it wasn't the last time that we smelt that Brisbane River mud and saw the devastation.

This deep appreciation of the power of nature and the importance of climate on life in Brisbane has really been one of the drivers for me in my previous career and in this new one. Fifty-one years ago, in the face of unprecedented disaster, neighbours became friends and worked together to weather the storm. We know that, unfortunately, that '74 flood was just the beginning. That was the year of the first big Brisbane flood in generations, and there have been too many since: in 2011, when I was looking after my aged parents; in 2022; and now, just weeks ago, in 2025. Each of these floods brings their own challenges. The 2022 flood was during that election year, and now, in another election year, we have just experienced another devastating climate event. It's not a natural disaster. It should be considered an extremely unnatural disaster.

We're tired. We're over it. We have to rally each time something like this happens, and it's the community that has to carry the burden of it. We knew 51 years ago that climate change was making floods worse. We knew it. What will it take for politicians to get it? How many more times will they show up for a press conference as the floodwaters recede, patting people on the back like they're in it with us. That is just a slap in the face. That is offensive—shaking broken people's hands with their right hand, while taking fossil fuel donations with the left. It's outrageous—fitting in an SES visit between corporate lunches and new gas approvals. How many times will we have to pick up the pieces again before this government stops supporting coal and gas? We've had it.

While the major party turns up the heat time and again, the community has to pull together to help each other. This year, again, that amazing and marvellous community spirit, borne out of the of the adversity of '74 and continuing unbroken, helped weather those storms. My amazing team and I helped thousands of people in Ryan. We all pulled together, as did all of my Greens colleagues in the various adjoining seats across Brisbane. We all pulled together and helped wherever we could. We must keep working together as a community for a better future—not just cleaning up the mess, but actually striving to stop these messes happening.

Let me tell you what actually happened during Cyclone Alfred. While both the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister were at fundraisers in Sydney, we were on the ground in the community. I'm so incredibly grateful for everyone who helped out down at the Toowong temporary sandbagging depot. My colleague from Brisbane was there. We were able to mobilise many Greens volunteers down there for the whole time that that sandbagging depot was open. They weren't just there for the photo-op. Their efforts, and the efforts of other volunteers from the community, reduced the wait time from several hours down to around 30 minutes, because we got organised there. Many of those volunteers there were doing 10- or 12-hour shifts, multiple days on end. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of people in Brisbane who got sandbags thanks to the efforts of those volunteers. We also coordinated deliveries of sandbags to those who couldn't otherwise get them.

I was really struck by the story of one man who lives along Moggill Creek, and who was flooded in 2022. He left his property in Brisbane a few days before the cyclone was predicted to hit—and we had more warning this time—resigned to the fact that his property would inevitably be flooded again. But he heard that our volunteers were able to get sandbags to him, so he came back to Brisbane to place them around his property and protect the entrances to his house.

There are countless other stories like that. My office alone responded to about 100 call-out requests. Some of them are still happening. We're helping with the clean-up to this day. That simply would not have been possible if the community hadn't mobilised so well during this time. There were incredible shows of solidarity as well. One example is of a woman who came back, after celebrating Iftar with her family, to give all of the volunteers sandbagging at Toowong homemade fried rice to thank them. People were so grateful. A group 30 people from a nearby apartment block came and sandbagged together. Apparently one of the residents asked if anyone wanted to help out over the apartment intercom. Someone had a ute, so they came down and filled up three loads for their neighbours. It was this amazing community spirit that was brought out in this disaster.

This is climate change. We are living it. The science is clear: climate change is causing warmer oceans, which in turn, means more frequent high-intensity rain events, more frequent floods, and it means more intense cyclones that are fuelled by warmer waters, as my colleague from Griffith just outlined. These weather events are directly fuelled by the major parties approving more coal and gas mines that will continue to warm our planet and our oceans. That is a disaster, and we need to deal with that disaster right now.

I want to start by saying, from the bottom of my heart, thank you to the people in Brisbane for their help preparing and recovering from Cyclone Alfred. In the wake of heavy wind and flooding, I want to extend my deepest gratitude to every individual and volunteer organisation that stepped up. The resilience, community spirit and unwavering dedication were truly inspiring.

In the two weeks that followed the heavy wind and rain, here's some of what we were able to achieve through my electorate office: we had 158 volunteers, 223 volunteer shifts and 892 volunteer hours. We moved eight tonnes of green waste clear from gardens, driveways and verges. Four-hundred meals were served to residents in power affected suburbs, and dozens of personal drop-offs of care packages for residents with mobility issues were made as well. As always, I want to give a heartfelt thank you to all of our emergency responders: the SES, Queensland fire and emergency services, paramedics and frontline workers, who all worked tirelessly to keep the community safe. Finally, to every Brisbane resident who followed the safety advice, checked in on loved ones and showed resilience in the face of adversity—thank you. Your courage and unity reminds everyone that together we can overcome anything. Unfortunately, these extreme weather events are only going to become much more common.

The climate crisis is something we are already feeling; 2024 was the hottest year in recorded history and the hottest for Australia's oceans. Month after month, we're in a world that is hotter, wetter and more turbulent, with extreme weather events happening more and more frequently and with frighteningly more intensity. Tropical cyclones have long been a reality for many in Australia and the Pacific, but climate change is making them more intense and destructive, and they're moving further south. As our climate rapidly changes, the waters off Australia's east coast are becoming exceptionally warm, providing the perfect conditions for stronger winds, heavy rainfall and larger storms. These cyclones now intensify faster, reach higher wind speeds and produce greater rainfall. They can also maintain their strength for longer and move more slowly, increasing the devastation in affected areas. With sea levels now 20 centimetres higher due to the continued burning of fossil fuels, storm surges and coastal flooding are becoming even more dangerous. According to the Climate Council, over a 24-hour period between 9 March and 10 March, Brisbane received a record-breaking 230 millimetres of rainfall, while lower Springbrook in South East Queensland recorded a staggering 814 millimetres between 3 March and 9 March—that is 80 per cent of Brisbane's average annual rainfall.

As ocean temperatures continue to rise, scientists are warning us that cyclones will track further south along the east coast, threatening densely populated areas that are unprepared for this kind of extreme weather. Most homes and infrastructure in Brisbane are simply not designed to withstand cyclonic conditions. Australians are already experiencing more extreme fire conditions, longer and more intense heatwaves and heavier rainfall-driven flooding due to pollution from coal, oil and gas which is driving climate change.

The financial toll continues to mount with insurance costs skyrocketing. There are homes in my electorate that are already entirely uninsurable. Australians are now paying $30 billion more for insurance than they were just a decade ago—that's more than double the rate of inflation. Families, renters and retirees shouldn't have to pay skyrocketing insurance premiums for a climate crisis that they did not cause. The filthy rich coal and gas companies caused the climate crisis, and they should pick up the tab. In yesterday's budget, far from making fossil fuel companies pay anywhere near their fair share, the government has handed over $56 billion in subsidies to them. Meanwhile, the Albanese government has continued to approve new coal and gas projects since coming to power. This will make the climate crisis worse, make these disasters more frequent and make insurance more expensive. The shameful watering down of environment laws rammed through the House yesterday may well pave the way for even more coal and gas projects.

We need a government that puts the environment and climate before the entitlement of the fossil fuel industry. Our communities are sick of cleaning up again and again from the impacts of climate change while governments don't do enough to combat one of the greatest crises of our time. The only way we will see real action on climate change is with a minority parliament with the Greens in the balance of power.

That was a frightening last thought from the member for Brisbane—the Greens with the balance of power in a minority Labor government. I couldn't think of anything worse as a nightmare scenario than that being the case when we return from the federal election, apart from the fear that my community felt during the effects of Cyclone Alfred.

I've never felt closer to my community than during the storm when so many sent me text messages and photos of the erosion along the beachfront in the electorate of Moncrieff and beyond. As we know, Cyclone Alfred severely impacted the Gold Coast across all three electorates of McPherson, Moncrieff and Fadden to the north, with 130,000 homes and businesses losing power, including my own. I was in a situation where I was at home, alone. My partner was elsewhere and couldn't get home on a flight. It was quite harrowing with the wind, the rain and the noise that could be heard from the inside of homes. Of course, I felt for all Gold Coasters who then went without power, and very many of them—again, including me—were faced with a situation where there was no power for some time. Some Gold Coasters were without power for five days or more. I was only without power for about 36 hours. The work involved in preparing your home and working through the impacts of the cyclone as you're inside your home—stuffing the windows and doors with towels and, in the aftermath, cleaning all of that up—but also losing the contents of your refrigerator or freezer impacts your family in this cost-of-living crisis that we're having at the moment. They've lost that and, of course, are going through applying for payments and making insurance claims at the moment.

On the Gold Coast we had damage to infrastructure and to beaches. Whilst Cyclone Alfred hovered off the coast, he took our patience, but he also took our beaches. Southport Surf Life Saving Club in Main Beach was particularly impacted. We lost about 6.4 million tonnes of sand, which is the equivalent of 320,000 semitrailer loads. Some of the surf conditions were quite incredible, with a record-breaking 12.3-metre swell that was recorded off Main Beach. Residents across the coast felt at risk from those storm surges at very high tide, and we were very grateful that our rock wall was not penetrated during the storms. There was about two months worth of rainfall in 24 hours. The city informed me that there were 800 trees down across the city and some 2,000 jobs that were required and logged to fix that and get trees off the road, the paths and the powerlines to restore power. I thank all the emergency workers and also those that work for the City of Gold Coast for their continuing work which is being undertaken today. We do see the best come out in people at the worst times, and I want to thank my neighbours for sandbagging the front of my place while I was helping others in the community with serving our people and sandbagging their houses. I came home to a house that looked a bit safer than when I left, so I was very grateful for that.

I did convene a Moncrieff community cabinet before the storms to speak with faith leaders and not-for-profit community organisations across my electorate so that we could help the city with a list of resources that we could put forward that they could use in terms of meeting rooms, community halls and those sorts of things as additional resources for the city. I want to thank my community cabinet for coming together before the storms and again after the storms. I convened a meeting after the storms so that we could discuss how we could improve, the medium- to long-term recovery of our community and how we could best help with food security and other measures.

I want to praise the City of Gold Coast for the preparation and the recovery work, and I also want to assure Australians that the beach recovery is well underway. In fact, it's changing daily, and our city's mayor has outlined that by Easter we'll absolutely be ready for our tourists to return to our pristine beaches and, of course, our theme parks and tourism attractions, which are so very important to jobs and to hospitality businesses and tourism businesses on the Gold Coast.

We have a 'love Gold Coast' campaign that the city has launched. Spend $50 and get $50 to use across accommodation, experiences and dining providers. I also want to commend Premier Crisafulli for his very strong messaging. His clear and concise communication left no doubt—particularly for schools, for example, about when they were closing and when they were able to reopen—how the state was helping volunteers and the SES. It was so very important that that messaging was clear, and that was the clear message that I got back from schools in the following days when I was visiting schools and welcoming students back to school.

I also want to thank the Leader of the Opposition for coming to the Gold Coast and meeting with the member for Fadden and with some local councillors, including the Mayor, Tom Tate, and Deputy Mayor, Donna Gates, at the disaster management centre. I want to thank them for their time and thank him for his time on the Gold Coast and for coming to visit us and interacting with all those people who were working at the disaster centre.

It's been a difficult time for many Gold Coasters, and we're still recovering. Our economy is also suffering, so, if you're a Gold Coaster, I encourage you to stay at home at Easter. I certainly will be staying at home and enjoying the benefits of being a Gold Coast resident, with our fantastic dining offers and our tourism experiences—everything from jet skis, boats and sailing to the surf clubs along the beach. I've certainly got nine of those in the electorate of Moncrieff, and they really need your support at this time so that they can get back on their feet and continue the work that they do of saving lives on our beaches.

To the faith leaders and those not-for-profit organisations in Moncrieff and the wider Gold Coast, thank you for what you do every day to help those families who are struggling, particularly right now with food security, paying their electricity bills and paying their mortgages whilst trying to recover from the adverse effects of Cyclone Alfred, which are far and wide across the Gold Coast.

I will just finish by saying that if you need any extra support and you're not sure where to turn, please feel free to contact my office. My team will put you in touch with someone who can help you directly on the ground. If you need some volunteers to help you clean something up or to move some furniture—whatever it is that you need done as a result of the impact of Cyclone Alfred—please reach out to us and we will help you in any way that we can.

This is a fantastic opportunity to put on the record my thanks to so many in my community who were able to respond to Tropical Cyclone Alfred. Of all the things that I anticipated I would have to deal with as the federal MP for my area, a tropical cyclone in South-East Queensland certainly wasn't one of them. We saw flooding, we saw strong winds, we saw trees coming down, we saw massive blackouts, and mobile blackouts as well, across our community, and we saw multiple homes damaged and lots of business disruption.

I want to start by thanking those who went above and beyond during this crisis. I want to thank Redland City Council's disaster management team—particularly Mike Tate, who leads that team in ensuring a well-coordinated response. I had the opportunity to visit their disaster management centre during the course of the disaster. It was a well-oiled machine, and Mike does a wonderful job there. I want to thank our local Redlands SES units, which were, of course, busy clearing away all those fallen trees, allowing our Energex workers to restore power. I thank them as well for the wonderful job that they did. So many countless outages occurred over the course of that Friday and Saturday, and they were working around the clock to restore those.

Of course, there were the added challenges in my electorate of dealing with those issues on our bay islands and the challenge of getting out there. Those bay islands were cut off for many days over the course of the cyclone. I want to thank the SeaLink, the Amity Trader and the Stradbroke Flyer Gold Cats staff for the work that they did of keeping those boats operating till the last minute to ensure that supplies and emergency response could occur. I want to thank our Queensland police officers for the work they did alerting people to the danger and also doing those critical welfare checks on people afterwards; all our frontline health workers, including the nurses who assisted with the delivery of twin babies at Dunwich right at the heart of the cyclone; and Queensland Ambulance Service paramedics. I particularly want to thank the Australian Army 7th Brigade personnel who came out and assisted the Energex crews with their clean-up efforts. It was terrific to have their support, including one young private who was actually born and raised in the Redlands.

Council's volunteer community champions have acted as an extension of their disaster management arm. They are all volunteers and do a terrific job, particularly out on our islands. I want to thank local church groups who offered shelter, support and recovery assistance, the Rock Christian Church in Capalaba in particular. They were acting effectively as an evacuation centre at a time when council's evacuation centre had to be evacuated due to a tree falling on it. Redlands Community Centre champions support services and other services. They were a lifeline for many not just during the lead-up to the disaster but also in the recovery efforts. The crews of the Marine Rescue Queensland units at Dunwich, at Raby Bay, at Victoria point and at Redland Bay were providing all sorts of support and moving supplies back and forth after the commercial operations had ceased. I want to thank Queensland Fire Department volunteers and I want to thank Andrew Johnson and his team at the Bureau of Meteorology as well. The fact that they were able to pick this thing when it was way out in the sea and the fact that it was going to come back gave us lots of warning. Andrew was a true professional in his efforts to keep MPs updated over the course of that week. I also want to thank the National Emergency Management Agency staff for coordinating the resources and the response efforts of the federal government.

There are many others I want to thank, but I want to thank Minister McAllister as well. She made a terrific effort and was more than happy to take my calls at all hours and provide my community with the support that it needs. I want to thank my state colleagues Rebecca Young, Amanda Stoker, Russell Field and all of the councillors within the Redlands City Council area for the efforts that they put in. It was a phenomenal effort from all in response to quite an unusual situation.

While we've got a few moments, I wanted to touch on some of the lessons that I think policymakers should be taking away from this situation. I think we need more funding for island resilience. I'm pleased that disaster recovery and hardship support has been made available, but immediate relief isn't going to be enough. We need a long-term plan, especially for our island communities, which were amongst the hardest hit. They've got growing populations. They need stronger infrastructure. They need disaster mitigation work, and my LNP state colleagues and I will be pushing for a Redlands community recovery fund and business recovery grants to support those out on the islands.

We cannot allow makeshift housing to continue. Cyclone Alfred exposed the dangers of makeshift housing on our islands. We cannot allow people living in uninsurable, unsafe dwellings on public land in flood-prone areas like we have seen on North Stradbroke Island. Many of those homes lack basic services and are constantly at risk of disaster. A long-term solution is needed—one that ensures safe, legal and affordable housing for all residents. We also need to sort out the national messaging system. Unfortunately, we had a situation where Redlands City Council had to issue a take-shelter warning many hours before they actually wanted to. I think the fact that this new system hasn't been up and running and isn't expected to be up and running until 2027 means we need to fast-track that as much as possible.

The other lesson I think needs to be taken away by policymakers is the need for more hardening, more resilience and more backup for our telecommunications infrastructure. After Alfred, mobile networks failed across the Redlands, cutting off emergency communications when people needed it most. I've been working to improve mobile infrastructure over the course of my term, but reliable mobile coverage isn't just a luxury anymore; it's now a lifeline. I will work with the telcos—I've had some of the telcos in my office already today—and talk about what we can do and what the government's response should be to ensure that this doesn't happen again.

Finally, I think we need to keep an eye out for insurance price gouging. The fact is that cyclone risk has been built into insurance premiums in South-East Queensland for a long period of time. Many of the businesses on the islands have told me in the past about their excessive premiums due to the fact that cyclone risk has been considered. I will be asking the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority to monitor insurers and ensure Queenslanders aren't burdened with unjustifiable increases in response to this disaster.

In closing, can I thank everyone who was involved. I thank the community for all the preparation that they did in the lead-up to that week. I think that the work we did saved lives, saved property and ensured that we didn't have the significant disaster that we were anticipating earlier in the week. Thank you.

I want to start off by saying a huge thank you to the many organisations and individuals who went above and beyond in assisting the local communities impacted by ex-Tropical Cyclone Alfred. It was the best of Australians that we saw, with so many communities rallying and services—more often than not, volunteers—coming to the aid and support of so many communities to ensure there was that level of preparedness to try to mitigate the likely severe impact of the cyclone.

It was really interesting to see the role the Bureau of Meteorology played in providing that early warning and ongoing information. Of course, no-one controls nature and it has a mind of its own, so the additional time provided through that early warning process allowed for greater preparation for so many of those communities. This highlights the importance of having that visibility, that satellite capability and that information to be able to predict when these events hit.

Unfortunately, as has been established by experts, many predicted patterns are changing as our environment is changing and warming. While cyclones are predicted to be less frequent, they are predicted to be much more severe when they hit, as a result of fast-warming water temperatures, which means we have supercharged amounts of humidity in the atmosphere. This makes for much greater downpours of rain and also weather events that will hit with a severity that puts at risk the safety of communities and would devastate them economically.

The aftermath of ex-Tropical Cyclone Alfred is telling. When you look at the budget recently delivered by the government, it took centre stage. It has to be part of our economic planning for the future. In the aftermath—this is for one event that unravelled over the course of about a week, but the cleanup will go on for much longer—we saw more than 300,000 homes losing power. There were some 644 properties with flood damage, including 112 with severe damage. Of those, 97 had been affected by flooding in 2022 and had not even been repaired yet.

The idea that these are individual events that will happen from time to time is simply not the reality anymore. We know these events come successively. They batter communities. They overwhelm capacity to respond. They will overwhelm the very well-meaning volunteer workforce that comes to the aid of communities. We need to move beyond that capacity. We have to put in place more security and preparedness for these communities. The infrastructure damage is estimated to be in the hundreds of millions. The aftermath of ex-Tropical Cyclone Alfred underscores Australia's vulnerability as a continent to extreme weather events. I think that in the same week that we were talking about ex-Tropical Cyclone Alfred we had other parts of Australia grappling with flooding and other parts grappling with bushfires. The reality is that we are incredibly exposed as a continent to these changing events. We're feeling the impacts of our warming climate, and, without interventions, communities will continue to suffer.

Whilst it's incredibly important that we continue to mitigate, we cannot keep making this problem worse, so we must act in terms of the mitigation piece and be ambitious on our emissions reduction. We must build in adaptation and resilience at the same time. Communities and individual households should not be left holding the bag for a national and global failure of policy over the last 20 or 30 years. That adaptation-and-resilience-building piece must become a priority. Sadly, the most recent budget completely failed to address those needs.

We need to take action now to keep our communities safe today and into the future. These are really big challenges. Whilst there will be a lot of focus—and rightly so—on the insurance industry, to make sure that those with premiums are able to fully get the benefit of having paid for so many years, the reality is that one in five Australians surveyed are underinsured or uninsured. That means that, when these events strike, quite a significant proportion of people in our communities stand to lose up to 75 per cent of all the net worth that they have accumulated during their working lives, because too often it is heavily focused in the family home. A recent Australia Institute report found that one in five homeowners are underinsured or not insured. That equals some $2 trillion worth of properties at risk, as the bulk of the Australian population lives within 50 kilometres of our coastline.

So I think it becomes an economic imperative for anyone wanting to form government to have a focus on building that resilience. We see the price of climate change risk costed in insurance premiums. That is a really telling industry, because insurance companies price risk on a yearly basis. So every year that change is happening—whatever you want to believe as to the causes, or whether you want to believe that we have an impact on it or not—those companies look at the financial model, they cost risk and they build it into that model. So, whether you want to believe it or not, you are paying for it; whether you are directly impacted or not, you are paying for it. This is how the model works. It exposes a huge issue in economic management for Australia. We have to look at that and deal with it, and bring everyone to the table to solve it.

There must, of course, always be scrutiny of insurers to make sure there is no price-gouging and that there is compliance and quick processing. But the reality is that, as other jurisdictions and countries have found, insurers will choose to vacate a market if the risk becomes simply too high, or they will choose to just not insure for certain risks. In the wake of the LA fires, we're finding that a huge proportion of people impacted there in fact had only very recently found themselves to no longer have insurance. That leaves a huge problem, when so much damage is caused.

So it's a really high-stakes road map, and ex-Cyclone Alfred highlights the urgent need for immediate action to keep communities safe against climate change. I have called for a national framework for adaptation, which means legislating an independent climate-change risk assessment every five years to identify and address significant climate risks, because every community will have different needs. Some communities will need coolrooms and opportunities to escape heat; others will need to deal with drought, flooding, coastal erosion or bushfires. The risks are different in different communities, and we must have a national plan to address that. Obviously, going hand-in-hand with that, we must also legislate for the government of the day to have a national adaptation plan, outlining strategies, policies and proposals to mitigate the identified risks, complete with an implementation timeframe and monitoring indicators. This caring about communities can't just be left to whoever is in government, because it is the marginal seats that they care about.

There has to be a properly managed plan for that adaptation and resilience-building. Of course, it will cost—and that's why I'm calling for sustainable funding, with a $10 billion climate resilience fund, to secure that safety for our communities and to assist local government in doing the kinds of infrastructure changes that will build their resilience. That can be fully funded through the budget, by redistributing priorities so that, rather than continuing to do cream on top for mining companies through fossil fuel credits, we actually start to redirect funds to households and to local governments, so that they can be safe and lower their insurance premiums.

This plan is a comprehensive plan that I have put to both sides of politics who want to form government, because we know we can't leave householders holding the bag. Currently, they are paying for incredible increases in insurance premiums. Premiums have risen by 32 per cent since 2022 alone. This is an unsustainable trajectory.

We also can't leave local governments alone to deal with this problem. They are on the front line. When things fall apart or when events strike, it is local governments that have to deal with them. So we must put in place the capacity for local governments to build that resilience. And it can't be left to local residents to pay for it through council rates to local government. It is simply unacceptable that state governments are transferring onto our local governments a lot of these emergency-response fees and costs. And, ultimately, it is the individual residents who are paying for them.

We know the economic savings. There is a resilience dividend. For every $1 invested in resilience building, we save $11 on disaster recovery. In the most recent budget, it was estimated that the cost of ex-Cyclone Alfred would rise to $13.8 billion. We can do so much better if we start building adaptation and resilience.

The time being 1 pm, the Federation Chamber is now suspended.

Sitting suspended from 13:00 to 15:59

At the outset, I want to acknowledge the tragedy that was ex-Tropical Cyclone Alfred. It did take a life. We should also acknowledge those soldiers, those brave troops, who were injured when two trucks rolled over near Tregeagle near Lismore, and certainly we thank the people who helped out at the crash site. Twelve or 13 Australian Defence Force personnel, who were injured after their military vehicles tipped over in flood-affected northern New South Wales, were released from hospital the day after. But 32 soldiers, 16 per vehicle, were assisting the community in the aftermath of ex-Tropical Cyclone Alfred when that crash occurred.

I don't know how many, if any, or if maybe all of them, were trained at 1st Recruit Training Battalion Kapooka, Blamey Barracks, Wagga Wagga, but I know the precision with which they are trained. The current Commandant at 1RTB is Colonel Gerard Kearns. I often say that the person who fills that role has the most important job in the Australian Army, because they are training the best of the best. Whether they are on peacekeeping missions, going into combat for and on behalf of our nation and others besides, or whether they're doing the sort of work that these soldiers were embarking upon and going to, it is vital work for our nation. We pay tribute to them. We hope there are no long-lasting effects from the injuries sustained in that accident.

I know the New South Wales police confirmed the two ADF trucks had not collided, and investigations continue. One vehicle had left the roadway and rolled several times into a paddock; the second vehicle tipped on its side in an attempt to avoid the first vehicle—those were the early suggestions from the investigations and inquiries.

But, needless to say, those soldiers were on their way to do a job. Those soldiers were on their way to help out. Our soldiers are always there, at the ready—prepared, as they are at Wagga Wagga—to do what they can for our nation. The emergency services personnel are always outstanding when these natural disasters occur. Previous speakers on this motion have mentioned the preparedness of the Crisafulli government, because they did put measures in place to batten down the hatches and to do what they needed to do to lessen the impact and the damage.

Now, we were fortunate that the early reports of this cyclone were not realised and that the damage caused, while significant, was not as widespread as early suggestions would have had it, and that, in Queensland and northern New South Wales, while they certainly did not escape unscathed, the actual damage wasn't as bad as first feared. That said, I know that there will be pressure now on insurers. I know that the clean-up continues. I know that, as previous speakers have also mentioned, many people these days are underinsured or uninsured. The government can't always be there to make up the shortfall when these sorts of crises occur, and it would be in people's best interests to ensure not only that they are insured but also that their home and contents insurance is of an adequate level so that, if something of this nature does occur, they are properly and sufficiently covered.

I also note that many speakers have commended the federal Minister for Emergency Management, Senator Jenny McAllister. I, too, have had a lot of contact with Senator McAllister in her capacity as minister in that important portfolio area. I too can inform the House that those discussions were above politics and were very professional, and she was there when I needed her. We've had some quite severe storms go through the Riverina this summer just passed. One, which hit Wagga Wagga, Downside and Cowra on 15 January, caused quite some damage, including the Downside Hall being almost totally demolished. Unfortunately, it had been recently refurbished, so all of the work in that regard was almost for naught, some locals would argue. But, thankfully the member for Cootamundra, who is also the shadow minister for crown lands, and the state government have seen fit to get the repairs underway. I commend them all for that.

To that end, I thank the Minister for Emergency Services in the state parliament, Jihad Dib, for also reaching out, as Senator McAllister did, on a weekend and at night—whatever was required—which I really think is very professional of him and of her. It's the least you do expect, but it's still that you are able to pass on to your constituents that ministers are on the job.

I'd like to thank Senator Perin Davey and Gurmesh Singh PM, the shadow ministers for emergency services in both the federal and New South Wales parliaments, for the work they did to also ensure there were people like assessors on the ground, making sure they were doing what they do, that insurers were on notice and, of course, helping out any in which way they could.

Speaking of insurers, the CEO of the Insurance Council of Australian, Andrew Hall of Cowra, has also been very much at the forefront whenever I've called. This is important, because insurers and insurance companies often come under fire when these sorts of things happen. But, I have to say, our discussions have been fruitful. Let's hope that insurers do the right thing.

I'm sad to say the property of Andrew Roberts, Glenrock, on Marrar South Road, was severely hit. The house lost its roof and he wasn't allowed to go back to his property because of fears around electrical wiring et cetera. The house absolutely looked like a cyclone had ripped through it, and some might argue that one had. He is right on the boundary of the Coolamon shire and Wagga Wagga City Council local government areas and, because he is just on the wrong side of the boundary, so to speak, he cannot claim any of the disaster assistance relief or any emergency services payments et cetera. Cyclones and storms don't discriminate; they don't follow boundary lines, and he's been left high and dry.

I'd also like to mention the Hilltops local government area that was hard hit on 10 February, when a hailstorm whipped through Harden-Murrumburrah, the twin towns on the south-west slopes. Again, the ministers came to the fore. I'd like to commend Rose Hamilton. She works at the Harden bowling club. She's been the licensee there for a dozen years. Despite suffering extensive damage at her residence on Whitton Lane in Harden, she was there mopping up and cleaning up the bowling club. Fair dinkum, if you saw this bowlo—the ceiling was totally missing. The hail that hit in that wide, yet very concentrated area, did so much damage. It looked like a snowstorm had completely blanketed the area, when that devastation occurred on that fateful afternoon. Thankfully, no-one was badly hurt or, indeed, worse.

Again, the State Emergency Service personnel were very, very quick to act. We see the best of Australians in the worst of times. I note that federal and state authorities very quickly stumped up a recovery centre for those townships at the Harden Country Club and were very active and quick to respond, as you would expect them to be.

Tropical Cyclone Alfred came down the coast, as we know, and certainly affected my area just an hour or so south of Brisbane where the eye of the storm was. I want to go through a bit of a sequence of events there. I'll also get on to what this did and what the event that we had in 2022 in my region triggered, some of the consequences of that and where we're still at with that.

The big difference for us with this tropical cyclone that was moving down the coast was that, unlike the event we had in 2022, we had a lot of warning. We were talking about this for four or five days, waiting for this to maybe occur. I know the member for Flynn, here from Central Queensland, is probably thinking, 'What were you worried about?' You have these things all the time, but tropical cyclones aren't that common in our area. For them to come down that far south is unusual. They happen about every 20 or 30 years, and some of the ones that have come down have caused quite severe havoc, so we were very, very concerned about it.

A lot of work went into preparing for it. The great thing is that we were preparing for the worst, but we were certainly hoping and praying for the best. As to the type of work we had done, we had the SES; we had Scott Tanner, who started to lead the recovery or the first responders for this event; Brendan Moon from NEMA arrived. A lot of politicians arrived from both state and federal governments. Everyone was actioning everything they could and getting prepared for what may or may not happen.

The good news was that, when the event hit, although there was certainly a fair bit of rain—on my property I probably had about 400 or 500 millimetres over four or five days—we had breaks in between that which meant that the water could get away and the flooding wasn't severe. There was still major flooding. All rivers got to their major levels or categorisations, but certainly the water got away and there wasn't as much severe damage as there could have been.

To give you some perspective on this, in the 2022 event—and I'll talk about Lismore at this stage—the flood was forecast to come through at 11½ metres when everyone went to bed, and it came through at 14½ metres. And that changed at two in the morning when everyone was asleep. Three metres of extra water was a lot of water and it was two metres higher than we had ever seen. That's why a lot of people were in danger and a lot of people were at risk of drowning through that event. This event that we just had was 9½ metres. So 9½ metres versus 14½ metres is a big difference. It's why the event certainly didn't cause the carnage that it could have.

I want to now talk about the 2022 event, what this event did and what it triggered and where we're still at with this in relation to disasters. What happened after the 2022 event was that we had two choices to make. Get your head around this: we had thousands of homes that were flooded—not a hundred, not a few hundred, but thousands of homes. In many thousands of them the water came up to the gutter, and people had to scramble out of their homes. Remember: water had never reached these levels before. We've had floods. As the member for Flynn would know, when you live with these things you know what to do, you know what to expect and you have plans. Everyone had their flood plan. Everything was built for a flood of around 12 to 12½ metres. Houses had been lifted. People had flood plans for their businesses. They had mezzanine levels in a business or they took cars or trucks or whatever to levels above the 12 to 12½ metres. Everyone did that in 2022—and everyone did that in this event too—but what happened was the water went two metres higher, which meant that people were sleeping in their beds when water started coming in at two in the morning and they were in danger. They couldn't get out of their houses. They couldn't go anywhere except to scramble to their roofs, which was dangerous. You had old people having to do this. You had children having to do this. You had people swimming underwater, literally, to get out of their house and then to get on top of it. You had pets. You had all sorts of stuff. To this day, it's quite a miracle for me and my community that only four or five people, very sadly, drowned, but one of them died before that night. The fact that only four people died was very sad but still a miracle.

Post that event, the community had a big decision to make. It was like, 'We now have to look at 14½ metres as the level that this can happen at.' The town is built for 12½ metres. There is a levy that is only built for 10½ metres that does some protection for the CBD. There are a lot of industrial estates. With all due respect, in my mind Lismore is a bit too big to fail and a bit too big to move. So a decision had to be made—what were we going to do? There were two choices. It's not rocket science. You either move everyone or you mitigate. What do I mean by mitigate? You do something that means the next flood will be lower because of the work that you've done than it otherwise would be.

A very poor decision was made three years ago. A decision was made by the NRRC, a state corporation, to move everyone. What did that mean? They identified 2,000 homes that they thought were endangered and needed moving. Three years on, if we are lucky, maybe half of those homes will get moved. What does that mean? If this tropical cyclone had been another event similar to what we had, people wouldn't have been any safer. The ridiculousness of it—this might make you, Deputy Speaker, cranky as it makes me—is that nearly a billion dollars has been spent to identify these houses, and they're going to buy back about half. It will be co-funded by the state and federal governments. You may well say, 'What does that achieve if you are moving only half of the houses?' and I would say: 'That's a very good question. It's not as much as that money should be doing.'

Another joke about this is the way this was designed to run. Work it out. If your sell your house as a buyback—they're buying back the houses for around $600,000—guess what? That doesn't stop you from buying a house that someone who can't wait for the buyback is selling on the private market for, say, $300,000. So you can buy back a house for $300,000 and have $300,000 left over to renovate it, because you want to stay there because your kids go to the school up the road and you work down the road. I don't blame people for doing that, but it's obviously a huge flaw in the scheme. I know a number of people who've done that. They sold on the flood plain and bought back on the flood plain and had a bit of money left over to renovate the house. What has that achieved for people's safety? Nothing.

Three years on, we have a situation where the CBD isn't more protected. A lot of people have had to go back into their businesses in the CBD and in the industrial estates. They've spent a lot of their own money to do that, and they did it because, in some cases, they had nothing else they could do. This is their business; this is their livelihood, and they've had to reinvest. But nothing has happened yet that has made their business safer in the CBD or in any of the industrial estates, and a lot of the people in those 2,000 homes will not get an offer for a buyback either. So we have a real dog's breakfast of a situation. This event triggered what a dog's breakfast it is, because not much has really happened to make a lot of people safer.

My community has been traumatised by this. I think we have collective PTSD, because this was the biggest disaster in Australia's history. The biggest disaster in Australia's history was what this region went through. All that got triggered—kids get triggered when it rains heavily. A lot of business owners and a lot of personal friends of mine were almost in cathartic positions on their beds on Saturday, terrified about what this event might have been.

Anyway, there is a solution to this, and I encourage people in charge of the state entities here and the state government, which will have to request this. When in government federally, we commissioned through the CSIRO a flood mitigation hydrology report about what the options are here. Basically, without going into where and how this would happen, the options are that you can hold back water, and, if you hold back water for a couple of days, you can let the water get away or then let it go so the flood is lower that it otherwise would be.

I think a metre to two metres off a flood would make our community safe and give it a future. People would invest in confidence. I'm told that taking a metre to two metres off a flood would cost about $2 billion. Before you go, 'Oh my God, $2 billion,' let me remind you and this chamber that that 2022 event was a $15 billion event. The federal and state governments spent all the money on disaster recovery, not on prevention. A metre and a half would cost $2 billion and mean that Lismore, the wider Northern Rivers region and the whole Richmond and Wilson catchments—so you're talking about places like Kyogle, Casino, Ballina and all the villages—would be part of this, making this region safer. That's what we have to start talking about.

At the moment we have a dog's breakfast of a situation. We're spending a billion dollars for a marginal return. It's why some of these people have moved on, and good luck to them. Mitigation is the only long-term solution for our region.

It gives me great pleasure to stand to speak on the Interim report for the inquiry into nuclear power generation in Australia. I want to start out by acknowledging our chair, the fantastic member for Hunter. He did an exceptional job on this, and all credit is to him. I also wanted to acknowledge the member for Fairfax as our deputy chair, along with a few of my other colleagues. I want to acknowledge the member for Gippsland, the member for Swan, the member for Fraser, the member for Moreton, the member for Kooyong and the member for Cook. The contributions by everybody on the committee was exceptional. It's been a subject matter that's provoked a lot of different feelings across the spectrum within the chamber, so I think the level of respect that was afforded to every single member on that committee should be commended. That doesn't happen without good leadership, which came from both the chair, the member for Hunter, and the deputy chair, the member for Fairfax.

There are a couple of other people I do need to thank. The secretariat, Kate Portus, and her fantastic team, including Kimberlee, Ash, Cathy and Antonia. Without those people from the secretariat team, we can't do the work that we do. They make sure that we get to the locations we need to, make sure that we have people turn up to do the inquiry itself and to answer the questions of the committee. Thank you to all of you. We also were aptly supported by companies from Callide and Tarong power stations, who gave us very in-depth tours of both of their facilities. Thank you very much for your hospitality. Thank you very much for the explanation. For me personally, I've never had the opportunity to tour through a coal-fired power station. It was a big eye-opener for me and gave me a much better insight into the topic of power generation that we were looking at.

To my very good friend over here, the member for Flynn, we were able to go up to Mount Murchison and spend the afternoon with the wonderful Hazel Jensen, and his office helped put on a very country orientated afternoon tea, which was very much appreciated. It took me back to my childhood growing up on the farm. The hospitality that was afforded to us was the best we had on our entire trip around the country, doing this inquiry. To the member for Flynn, thank you very much for your warm hospitality up in your neck of the woods.

This inquiry is probably some of the most important work that I've been afforded the opportunity to do in my short time in this place. When you're jumping headfirst into a subject matter that's as big as nuclear power generation, there's a lot to take in. At the end of the day, there's a couple of pinch points that really started to show through—consistent themes that raised considerable questions for myself.

A division having been called in the House of Representatives—

Sitting suspended from 16:24 to 16:34

Ultimately, what this inquiry has found is this is nothing more than nuclear nonsense. Pursuing a nuclear power future is going to be a costlier process that takes more time than we can afford. This is about building an alternative power generation industry that is estimated to cost around $600 billion. This is not an investment being made by private industry; this is an investment that the Australian taxpayer is being asked to foot to deliver on—it's nuclear nonsense. It is a very big worry. I want to step through a few different parts of what the inquiry uncovered along the way. I'm going to start off with social license, and I think this is probably one of the most important places for us to start. The reason I say that is that this has the possibility of blowing out the delivery of any future nuclear power generation in this country by significantly large timeframes. Clare Savage from the Australian Energy Regulator said that, with social licence where it currently stands, she would estimate eight to 10 years or thereabout to deliver the legislative requirements to enable the pursuit of nuclear power generation in this country. That's been refuted by the other side, but the problem you have with that is that, when you've got organisations like Liberals Against Nuclear, you know you have a problem with social licence, the very linchpin that is probably going to see your policy either sink or swim. That's not something that you can dismiss. It's not something that you can dismiss from my personal experience, having seen what happened around nuclear-waste storage facilities in South Australia. Social licence wasn't obtained, and it sank the pursuit of a nuclear waste storage facility out in the mid-north. It gets much harder when you have your own party faithful, your rank and file, starting up a group called Liberals Against Nuclear, because that's not, as some people would put it, just the 'crazy left'. That's your side of the equation adding their voice to what is a real concern for people in this country.

The inquiry also talked about cost, and there are a couple of components to cost: the upfront cost but also the potential cost blowouts. When we look at examples across the world, there are instances where the cost blowout is absolutely astronomical. You have the Hinkley Point C project, which has blown out now to around $92 billion for a single nuclear reactor, which is just mind-blowing. It really is mind-blowing. That is just one example of a cost blowout. The Vogtle nuclear power station is seven years late and $17 billion over budget. The list goes on and on and on. The other problem with that is the fact that there is this pursuit of small modular reactors in South Australia; actually, it's the only type of reactor that's been slated for South Australia. The problem with small modular reactors, as my good friend from Western Australia will attest, is that they don't exist commercially off the shelf anywhere in the Western World, which makes it really difficult to comprehend how we are going to establish a nuclear power generation industry in South Australia if we're pursuing a technology that doesn't exist. This is the type of fantasy-land place that we are currently sitting in. It's just not comprehensible. I just can't get my head around where we currently are at.

On top of this, not only are we pursuing technology that's not currently commercially available around the world, but there's this fake promise that it's going to deliver hundreds, if not thousands, of jobs. This does not mean that it's a straightforward transition for coal workers coming out of their existing coal-fired power stations straight into what has not yet been built: a nuclear power station. This will require retraining, and it does run with the problem that there is a huge time delay between an announcement to pursue nuclear power generation in this country and delivery of a nuclear reactor in this country. The first nuclear reactor will take around 15 to 20 years to deliver—we're talking the 2040s. Most of our coal-fired power stations are due to close in the early 2030s. That is a huge time lag between closure and a new station coming online. This enquiry has found that it is not feasible to pursue nuclear power generation in Australia.

I rise to make a contribution in respect to the interim report into nuclear power generation in Australia, particularly from the point of view of my electorate of Flynn, in Central Queensland, where there has been a proposal to possibly build a nuclear facility at the Callide Power Station near Biloela.

The whole energy debate is obviously front and centre. It is very topical. There are many different points of view. It is a rather polarising debate, with those that support traditional power generation, coal and gas, versus the renewable energy industry, wind turbines, solar panels, batteries, pumped hydro and so forth; and other alternative energy sources, such as the production of green hydrogen et cetera.

One of the biggest tragedies to me in this whole energy debate is that nearly 25 years ago there was a decision made in Parliament House to put a moratorium on nuclear energy in Australia. What that has led to is a whole generation of people in our education system who have not pursued the science and everything that is involved in respect to anything nuclear. That has put Australia in a very difficult position right now. We know that we have signed up to the AUKUS program, to have nuclear submarines here. We will have to train people to manage, to build and to operate. We will have to come up with the technologies to deal with the waste, the maintenance and everything in regard to having nuclear submarines. Having made that decision as Australians—our government has committed some $4 billion to Rolls-Royce to develop the nuclear reactors that will go in those submarine boats—doesn't it make practical, common sense to include industrial and domestic nuclear power? To me it does.

These arguments that are very exaggerated in respect to having nuclear energy are very topical and, as I said, very polarising. There are over 400 nuclear reactors around the world providing clean, efficient and reliable power to many industrialised countries. Many of those industrialised countries are revamping their nuclear systems and reinvesting in nuclear systems. For Australia to shut itself out from that possibility is, to me, a tragedy for future generations of Australians. We should be having sensible and logical debates about our energy future.

Here in Australia we do have a nuclear reactor, at Lucas Heights. It has been there since 1960 or thereabouts. It is recognised as a gold standard medical nuclear facility. There are scientists—and the medical profession in general—who go to Sydney, to Lucas heights, to pursue their profession, to perform studies in respect to medical nuclear technology. All of the waste that has been produced at Lucas Heights is stored onsite, and has been since it was started. There is an argument that, come 2030, Lucas Heights will run low on storage, and that is why the previous government developed a proposal to build a nuclear waste site at Kimba in South Australia, but that has now been vetoed. The point is that we've already got this technology. We're already dealing with it. We've already signed up to the AUKUS agreement with the possibility of having nuclear-powered submarines. Why can't we have this logical debate in respect of nuclear energy and let the experts make these decisions and feed into these conversations instead of to-ing and fro-ing with politicians such as me who really know nothing about it. We're only scratching the surface.

The former speaker talked about social licence. Up in Central Queensland, where I come from, as I said, there's a proposal by the coalition to build a facility there should we become the government. I have held many forums—a dozen, in fact—on this very subject, and, of all 3,000 people who responded to us, 68 per cent of them were in favour of pursuing nuclear technology. It's pretty much a must-have where I come from. The Flynn electorate in Central Queensland is one of the big economic engine rooms in Australia. We have the coal industry, the alumina industry and the coal-loading terminal at Gladstone, which is the world's fourth-largest coal-loading terminal. There is the gas industry, heavy industry of all sorts, the railways and all of that sort of thing. It needs a constant, reliable source of energy. People up there know you cannot run the alumina smelter and the two refineries there on wind turbines and solar panels; it simply won't work. You cannot run the electric train system to the Central Queensland coalmines, which deliver 70 million tonnes of coal to the Port of Gladstone, on wind turbines and solar panels. It's illogical even to suggest that you can. You need a system of batteries and pumped Hydro—an enormous investment—to make it even feasible to work.

This is another argument that has come up in this report: cost. What does it all cost? I know we're only coming up with ballpark figures, and the coalition has engaged Frontier Economic to do their estimations on it. They've come up with a figure of approximately $330 billion, and that's expensive. I recognise that. But so is renewable energy. Again, Frontier Economics came up with a figure of over $600 billion for renewables. I would argue that it's going to be a lot more than that, and I'll tell you why that is. In my electorate again, we are having these enormous wind turbines been built. I'm dealing with over eight proposals in my electorate alone. We know from facts that are there now—Lotus Creek, for example, is a $1.3 billion project for 46 turbines. If you do the math there, that's $28 million a turbine. I've done a lot of work with Steven Nowakowski mapping all of these turbines right around Australia. There are some 21,000 of them that we have identified and we have mapped. If you do some ballpark figures on that, use a nominal figures of $20 million per turbine and multiply that by 20,000 turbines, you're talking $400 billion dollars, and that's just for the wind turbines. When you start adding in the transmission lines, the pumped hydro, all of the network charges and everything that's got to happen to make it work—Princeton University in America and the University of Melbourne's estimation of $1.5 trillion by 2030, in my humble opinion, is more like the ballpark.

If we ask the government how much renewable energy will cost us, they won't tell us. They don't have a figure. I find it quite appalling to saddle Australians to these enormous projects, particularly when they've got issues like the Capacity Investment Scheme, where Australians will be asked to underwrite the power generation of these projects even if they don't produce any power. That's quite a ridiculous notion.

Nuclear energy, as I said, is widely accepted where I come from. I understand there is angst amongst communities everywhere. Everybody uses these silly little memes of three-eyed fish and so forth. What nonsense! What absolute nonsense! As I said, there are over 400 nuclear facilities around the world, providing the cleanest and most reliable power to the biggest industrial nations on the planet. We, as Australians, should be having sensible debates about what our future holds and how we are going to provide reliable and affordable energy for our consumers that has longevity attached to it.

It is my pleasure to have the opportunity to speak on this committee inquiry report. As a member of the committee, I saw this as a really important inquiry. An interesting observation is that there is some talent in the coalition, and there are some ideas. Sometimes there are big ideas, but big ideas don't necessarily mean good ideas. This is an example of not just a not-good idea but a terrible idea.

It is great to have the opportunity to reflect on the interim findings and share some insights with the chamber today. As the only engineer in the Labor Party caucus, I was naturally excited to participate in this work. The expertise has served me well through my time in this place and especially in this inquiry. It's not just because I've worked in steel capped boots in the mines but also because I've had the opportunity to work in decarbonisation for over 12 years. Looking at the energy transition, electricity grids and future energy needs have been my bread and butter for over 12 years. That insight has brought some skills and expertise to this inquiry. As an engineer, I believe in evidence based decision-making, and this report provides that evidence.

Over the course of this inquiry, the committee held 19 public hearings right across the country. We heard from a wide range of voices, from global nuclear experts to Australian scientists, engineers and energy and climate change specialists. We listened closely to our federal agencies responsible for Australia's existing nuclear activities. I think it's also important to say that, yes; we do have a current nuclear industry. The nuclear industry plays a really important role in our health sector. The medical isotopes that are produced by Lucas Heights are lifesaving across the country. I'm going to say that I think that the Australian public is smart enough to understand that, but when we're talking about nuclear power generation, this is a very different proposition. We also heard directly from First Nations communities, environmental organisations and everyday Australians. All raised serious concerns about the trust, transparency and social license for nuclear power energy.

The interim report makes one thing abundantly clear. Peter Dutton—whoops, sorry!—the opposition leader's nuclear fantasy is indeed a nuclear nightmare. It doesn't stack up. It won't be on time or on cost, not even on the proportion that it will contribute to the electricity grid, and it's simply not appropriate for Australia. This inquiry asked two questions: can nuclear be rolled out fast enough, and can it compete on cost? The answer, based on the evidence from the real experts, is clear. It's a resounding no. Can it be compatible with the future electricity grid? We should have an idea on what this can do, and, when we asked if it could be rolled out fast enough and compete on cost, the truth is it cannot, and so I think that we should throw it in the trash can.

Even if we lifted the ban and started right now, we wouldn't see a single nuclear power station until the 2040s—that's nearly two decades away. That's too late to hit our climate targets and too late to support coal workers and communities going through the transition. It's not just about timing; it's also about cost. Nuclear is the most expensive form of electricity. It is expensive to run. Let's be truthful about this policy. This policy really is about kicking the can down the road on climate change action. Let's be honest, because Australia has no commercial nuclear experience, and we're told to expect a 100 per cent premium on build costs. That's right: double the price. Who's going to pay for that? Is this a commercial idea? No. The proposal is for taxpayers to pay for this—me, my electorate, all of Australia. If we are talking about dollar figures, we're talking about $600 billion—that's a lot of coin. If we consider the budget that we delivered last night, that was $785 billion. So when you look at this one expensive idea, it is, honestly, off the charts.

Also, let's get real about workers. The future is clean, fast and affordable. It's funny: there's a really great book written by a guy called Charles Duhigg called Smarter, Faster, Better, and I can't help but think that this idea is dumber, slower, crapper. Renewables are powering homes already. The biggest form of electricity growth that we have seen in Australia has been rooftop solar. People are enjoying seeing the democratisation of their electricity. What we are seeing is that renewables are delivering jobs and delivering investment, and it's honestly cheaper because—guess what. We don't pay when the sun is shining and when the wind is blowing. What I will say is that we do need to make sure that we have firming opportunities for our electricity grid as well, so gas has a role to play in the meantime. We also have batteries, and there will be solutions like pumped hydro. We have the technology. We have the know-how. We have the workforce. We don't need another distraction; what we need is action. This report makes it clear: nuclear is not the answer. Australia can't afford to waste more time or money chasing a nuclear nightmare. Let's focus on what works and what will actually deliver cleaner, cheaper energy for all Australians.

I also want to thank the entire committee for all of the work that they did and the member for Hunter for his leadership as the chair on this inquiry. It was great to have the opportunity to spend time in Collie, which is in south-west WA. This is a country town that has been a coalmining town and a coal-fired power station town. They have done an important job of providing electricity for the state. But we saw the state government announce that we would be closing down a coal-fired power station. They did that because they knew that that was the right thing to do to ensure that we reduce the greenhouse gas emissions of our grid. What that also did was provide certainty to our workers. So what the WA state government is in the process of doing is investing in amazing industries to have a look at the way that we can create a just transition for those workers. I think that that's what coal workers want. This nuclear fantasy will not deliver jobs by the time this coal-fired power station closes down. It is not practical; it's not going to deliver real solutions.

The other thing that I wanted to talk about is what goods of the future looks like. What we're seeing is people looking at what is the most cost competitive form of energy for electricity grids. First is solar panels, and second is wind. It's cheap, and this is what we are seeing commercial businesses invest in. As we look at the grid changing, this idea of base load is actually, again, a fallacy. When people talk about the switching of coal-fired power stations to nuclear power stations, it's wrong. That's something that we don't need any more. It takes too long to ramp up the coal-fired power station and too long to ramp it down. The truth is that nuclear power stations do not have that ability and they are not compatible with the cheapest form of electricity which exists here in Australia. It's interesting because Australia has such an exciting opportunity to be a part of the clean energy revolution across the world, and that will be through renewable energy. We have an opportunity to see our electricity prices reduced, and we will do that through renewables. Nuclear power is not going to be the solution for Australia or Western Australia. We need to make sure that we invest in what's smart. We need to do things that are evidence-based. Through all of the time I have worked as an engineer in decarbonisation, this has never been an idea that the big companies have talked about, and I worked for the big ASX 200 companies on St Georges Terrace for more than a decade. I see this as the opposite of the book Smarter faster better: dumber, slower, crapper, bad idea, nuclear nightmare. Let's not vote this in.

I'm pleased that the chair of this committee has joined us in the chamber. He won't like what I'm going to say, but I'm disappointed with the negativity and with the committee comments—that is, the majority of the committee, which was made up entirely of government members—in the interim report. It is curious and depressing how government members form a different view to the rest of the G20 nations. I was just listening to the member for Swan speaking about community license, and it would come as a disappointment to her just how much the community is accepting the view—particularly young Australians—that we need to find a different way to net zero because the pathway we are on is costing us business, wealth and investment all around Australia.

The government's net zero by 2025 plan, with impossibly shorter-term targets, target that destination with a renewables-only pathway. Quite frankly, only zealots believe this is close to possible without an alternative to coal baseload generation. The world is choosing nuclear in the mix.

Let me go to the South Australian experience. I'm a South Australian. We're very lucky in this parliament—as I've said on many occasions—that we've had South Australia on this electricity pathway for some time. They are the canary in the coalmine. South Australia has a 75 per cent renewable network, and we should say: 'Wahey! That's a really good outcome!' It is better than the next mainland state in Australia by double. South Australia has doubled the amount of renewable electricity put into the grid from the next state. But it's not the only thing we excel at; we have a 50 per cent higher retail price then the next state. The price of electricity is 50 per cent higher in South Australia than it is in New South Wales, and Victoria has a very similar rate. It's like that old saying: 'South Australia is the driest state on the driest continent.' In this particular case, South Australia has the highest electricity price in a country that has some of the highest electricity prices in the world. No wonder our businesses and our industries are struggling.

As a matter of proof on this, I use my own build. I'm very happy to do so. I went back recently and pulled out some accounts from just after the election of the Albanese government—from July 2022. My electricity was 28 cents per kilowatt hour. My latest bill is 42! I don't know what the member for Hunter is like with his maths, but I can tell you that's a 50 per cent increase. It's 50 per cent higher now than it was three years ago, and it's bound to get worse, because Victoria is shutting down its coal-fired power stations—it may not be, actually; it's looking for an extension on Loy Yang at the moment—and that's where South Australia is getting it backup from. When the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine—we've heard it all before—that's where South Australia gets its power from. There is an investment in batteries around at the moment, but we know, and this is an important thing for people to understand, that the cost of renewable energy is in the firming. When you begin the journey of firming, it is cheap. It costs virtually nothing. Going from zero to a position of 20 per cent renewable—you just plug into the power station. The coal-fired power station comes in, the gas comes in, and they back it up. It doesn't cost anything. When you get to 50, it starts to hurt.

It was the lowering of cost when energy was abundant that closed down the coal-fired power station in Port Augusta. A power station that used to be able to sell energy at a profit all of the time became a power station that could sell energy at a profit only some of the time. In fact, that place could run at a profit for fewer than 70 days a year, but it had to operate all the time. In the end, it became a liability. They closed it down, and the price of our power spiked in South Australia quite dramatically. It has not come down since. My bill that I was telling you about has had a 50 per cent increase in the last three years. I was at a fish processor in Port Lincoln quite recently, and they shared their electricity bills with me. Despite the fact they'd covered the roof with solar panels, they'd had more than a 50 per cent increase. They use bucketloads of electricity because they have giant freezers there to chill and freeze the fish. I haven't spoken to them, but I bet they're very excited about the $150 rebate that came through the budget yesterday! They'd be even less excited, even marginally, about the scrapping of the instant asset tax write-offs.

The problem with renewables is this cost of firming. When this committee was established, I criticised it's narrow scope in a speech. It was then, and it remains, a lynch mob—a platform for antinuclear zealots that was always intended to find the government's renewable-only policies were the best pathway, despite clear evidence from many people in the inquiry. I haven't had the opportunity to read every page yet, but I can certainly find evidence of disputing opinion. One of the sections in this report calls for social licence, and the committee went to every site that the coalition has nominated as a possible site for nuclear generation. I think the member for Hunter would've been disappointed with the protest crowd at Port Augusta when he got there. They weren't exactly manning the barricades out there with their placards, were they? There were a couple of people who were opposed who gave evidence; I can report that they were left over from an earlier nuclear war about the siting of the National Radioactive Waste Management Facility, where one of the sites suggested was the Flinders Ranges. Despite the fact that they live nowhere near Port Augusta, they came down for the hearing on that particular issue. It shows the government's complete fear of anything that looks like nuclear.

We had a community in Australia—Kimba, my hometown—that had stuck its hand up to host the National Radioactive Waste Management Facility and was keen to do so, with more than 62 per cent of the population in favour of it. It had been through both houses of the parliament, and then, when an Indigenous organisation raised an objection—an objection that would, in fact, have been easily overruled—the government ran for cover. Here we are now, three years later—

and we still have no answer for where the waste—

from Lucas Heights is going to go when that facility is full. ARPANSA has warned that it will be full in some sections by 2029. This government has no plan.

That decision was made when you were in government.

I will take the interjection, because when we were in government we tried to get this beyond judicial review, but those in the Labor Party and those on the crossbenches of the Senate who knew not what they were talking about refused that position.

It's worth noting, member for Moreton, that the department contacted this Indigenous group 180 times to inform them of what was going on and could get no response. They then went to court and said, 'We haven't been consulted.' How pathetic—

Mr Perrett interjecting—

It was your opposition that did not allow it to pass through the Senate as we intended.

Port Augusta has been visited by the member for Fairfax. I met with the representatives of the Port Augusta Council and residents on a number of occasions. Will Shackel bought the Nuclear for Australia travelling roadshow to Port Augusta, and the panel of experts included 2023 Miss America Grace Stanke. She was very warmly received. That panel was very warmly received. Last year, I sent out a flier. I told the people of Port Augusta that as part of the coalition's plans there would be an industrial precinct that would be able to access electricity directly from the power station—not going through the transmission grid and upping the price by more than 50 per cent—the cheapest, cleanest and most reliable form of electricity available in Australia.

There would be a flocking of industrial invest into any community that hosted these facilities. With all that information, no wonder we're getting a good result in Port Augusta. When I put out this flyer, I didn't get much response, I have to say. It went to every citizen in Port Augusta, and I rang up a mate to make sure that Australia Post had done the right thing. I said, 'Did you get a flyer from me in the post?' He said, 'Yeah, yeah, the nuclear thing?' I said: 'Yeah. What do you reckon? I haven't had any negative feedback.' He said: 'No. That's because everyone I know reckons it's a bloody good idea and you should get on with it.' That sums it up, I think. Government policies are strangling Australian industry at the moment. We need a change. (Time expired)

Do you remember learning in primary school how unique our island continent is? I remember being taught that the Great Barrier Reef is the longest reef in the world and it can be seen from outer space. I'm not sure if that's true but I remember hearing about that—it's a big thing in Queensland—and that we were the smallest continent, filled with animals not found anywhere else. One fact I particularly remember is that Australia is the driest inhabited continent in the world. It's not the driest but is the driest inhabited continent. Antarctica is actually drier.

Growing up in Saint George, out in western Queensland, this fact wasn't too hard to imagine. We went for long periods without rain. In fact, 70 per cent of Australia is classified as either arid or semiarid. In the arid zone, there is an average rainfall of 250 millimetres or less. This fact is particularly pertinent now, given the coalition's nuclear fantasy. The nuclear plan of the honourable opposition leader, Mr Dutton, is fanciful in numerous ways, as was detailed by Mr Repacholi in his speech this morning. But, there are so many other things.

We know it's fanciful because of the cost, the timeframe, the risk, the legal barriers and the lack of social licence. That's has been covered by many of the other speakers so far. I'm going to particularly talk about the fact that the LNP's nuclear pipedream involves generating nuclear energy on the driest inhabited continent on earth, and I'm particularly going to talk about Queensland.

We know that water plays a crucial role in the generation of nuclear power.

An honourable member interjecting—

Most people know that water plays a crucial role. Put simply, by Associate Professor Obbard from the University of New South Wales, Nuclear Innovation Centre, 'The job of water is to somehow pump all the heat out of the reactor and do something useful with it to make electricity.'

I'm sure the member for Fairfax, when he came up with this wonderful plan that he took to his leader, did something as simple as googling those words 'nuclear power water'. That's what I did. In fact, I did it today, and this is what came up: 'Nuclear power plants require significant amounts of water for cooling, primarily to condense steam back into water after it has powered turbines but also to cool the reactor core. While the water is used extensively, it is not consumed but rather recycled and is used in a closed-loop system.' They typically use 13 billion to 24 billion litres per year or about 35 million to 65 million litres per day.

To put that in context, as someone that used to be on the Olympic Games committee, an Olympic-sized swimming pool is about 2.5 million litres. So the nuclear reactors use 14 to 26 Olympic-sized swimming pools of water per day. That water will not be used for farming. We know that the two proposed sites for nuclear power plants in Queensland—I went there with chair of the committee—are the coal-fired power stations at Callide and Tarong.

I had visited Tarong many years before, when I was a mines adviser in the Queensland state government. Callide currently has an allocation of 20,000 megalitres a year from the Callide Dam. It's estimated that a nuclear power plant would require at least double this amount and maybe even more. It's similar story at Tarong, which will require an additional 55 per cent more water than the current coal-fired power station uses. The dams that both power stations draw their water from also supply drinking water to little towns like Gladstone, Kingaroy and Biloela. These dams have another vital use. They supply water for irrigation for agriculture and the replenishment of aquifers in these areas.

I know that there is one member from the National Party present in the chamber. I do note that the member for Fairfax sits here in the Liberal Party room; he doesn't sit in the National Party room. I also know a little bit of political history, and when I was growing up in the bush, I was represented in my town by a party called the Country Party. The Country Party looked after farmers, and they were also made up of farmers. They were never the Liberal lapdogs. The Country Party in Queensland stood up for themselves and they stood up for farmers in particular. The old Country Party would never abandon the bush. They would never screw over farmers in pursuit of a nuclear fantasy around Callide and Tarong to appease their inner-city liberals. The MP for Fairfax talked about regional economic hubs. I listened to what he had to say. There's no place for farmers. They're giving up on the bush.

The coalition's plan rests on the assumption that there is water available in the first place. The Callide Dam is currently at 16.5 per cent capacity. It's fed by Awoonga Dam, which is currently under 50 per cent capacity. This is no surprise when you consider that since 1964, which isn't that long ago, the Banana shire LGA, which contains Callide, has had 11 periods of drought as declared by the Queensland government. The Queensland government started recording drought declaration status in 1964, and the records show that in the same timeframe the area encompassing Tarong has had 12 periods of declared drought. Why would you choose the areas that have been drought declared basically every other year and say, 'Let's put a water-intensive nuclear power station there.' It's unbelievable.

This has obviously been designed by a Liberal, and not by a National who understands farmers and the bush. I'd certainly like to know what the LNP's backup plans are for Callide and Tarong when the dams dry up and more droughts are declared, as they invariably will be. For the townsfolk that want water to drink—bad luck. For the townsfolk who want to have a shower or a bath—bad luck. For local farmers that have a business that's hooked in to these water supplies—bad luck. However, like so much of the honourable opposition leader's nuclear plans, the backups are unspecified, uncertain and murky. No responsible government would gamble Australian taxpayer money—and such vast sums of it—on such an unreliable prospect. I didn't go to all of the other sites, but my understanding is that several of them have water constraints as well, as the chair can attest to—even the deputy chair can attest to that as well if he has been listening.

Although I'm sure the LNP would rather that we didn't, we also need to talk about the risk of a nuclear accident—vast quantities of water could be required to avoid a reactor meltdown. As the director of the Queensland Conservation Council states:

There simply is not enough water available in the proposed locations to run nuclear facilities, and no plan for where to store irradiated water required for heat reduction in the case of an emergency.

We heard great evidence from the people of Biloela and the people that came to the Nanango hearings. I understand from the people in the committee that there was great awareness and people all throughout Australia were prepared to engage with the idea. When the House Select Committee on Nuclear Energy published the interim report of their inquiry, we'd heard testimony over 19 days of public hearings across the country, including in each of the regions where the coalition plans to build nuclear power plants. The inquiry also considered more than 850 written submissions, and found:

The impact of nuclear power generation on Australia's water supplies has been inadequately considered by the Coalition in its proposal.

Meanwhile, the Albanese Labor government is getting on with harnessing the natural resources we are blessed with to generate renewable energy. During droughts—guess what—the sun shines more, and during droughts, the wind can still blow. That's the beauty of it! We've approved 77 renewable energy projects which will generate enough power for 10 million Australian homes. That's 15 gigawatts more than the Dutton plan will deliver in 20 or 30 years for $600 billion. The opposition leader's Commonwealth nuclear public servants haven't been hired yet. I don't think anybody needs to start working on their CVs right at the moment. This is not a science driven solution; it is a political wedge. Private capital won't touch it with a bargepole. Private capital knows that it would be better off putting it on race 7 at Eagle Farm rather than backing this fantasy.

So, while the Coalition exists in fantasy land, Labor is implementing a strong and responsible plan for Australia's current and future energy needs right now. Labor is working with the coal-fired power stations, working with the gas-fired power stations and working with renewable energy projects to make sure that we've got a manufacturing sector right now, not some fantasy that'll come along in 40 years. Labor is working with these people right now to ensure that we have a manufacturing sector and also that we look after the farmers in the bush and make sure their water supplies are secured. I might be from the bush and representing the city now, but I understand how to look after farmers; the Nationals seem to have forgotten that.

I acknowledge, as I follow on from the member for Moreton, that that was possibly his last contribution in this place. He is just about quoted out; another couple of days. That probably isn't going to be one of your best contributions, unfortunately. I don't think it will age well.

To the chair of the committee, the member for Hunter, I thank you for bringing the committee to Collie, in my electorate. It was good to give the people of Collie, and certainly some experts that appeared before the committee, the opportunity to have some input into the findings of the committee. Having looked at the evidence and looked at what was received, I find it difficult to see how the committee arrived at its conclusion, but it is the privilege of the chair to direct the secretariat to produce the report at the end of the day. My good friend the member for Cook, who has only been in this place a little bit over 12 months, said during his contribution this morning that he came in here naively thinking that these committees were about going out, gathering evidence, considering that evidence in an unbiased and balanced way and then coming out with a conclusion that is supported by the evidence and in the best interests of the nation. But he was sadly disillusioned by the way that things panned out. I think back to my own experiences. I'm the Deputy Chair of the Standing Committee on Agriculture. In the middle of last year we had a report that was delivered that certainly wasn't backed up by the evidence that the committee heard over the period of its work.

I return to the issue at hand, which is the potential for nuclear energy in this country and how it might solve some of the issues that we're confronting, which include some of the highest energy costs in the world, which are up to three times higher than equivalent jurisdictions. The Labor Party has never revealed the true cost of its renewables only plan through to 2050, and not even the market operator could advise the House Select Committee on Nuclear Energy of the total system cost of the renewables only plan, but we do see the cost to businesses and households soaring, with an up to $1,300 increase in the last three years alone, and, as I said, the highest energy costs of any similar jurisdiction in the world.

No evidence was presented to the inquiry to challenge the Frontier Economics report, which put a price tag of $642 billion on the Labor Party's plan, and that's before factoring in the billions more for transmission lines, land acquisition and storage. Of course, the $642 billion—for those people from Western Australia who may watch this video—didn't include Western Australia; that's the eastern market grid. Western Australia, with the South West Interconnected System, is separate from that. In November last year it was quite revealing on ABC's Country Hour when a Jai Thomas, the coordinator of energy for a WA government initiative called Powering WA, estimated that the level of investment required for the WA system would be—and this is a direct quote—in the order of $200 billion over the next 20 to 25 years. That's just for the WA system, so that's on top of the eastern market over here.

In comparison, the total system cost of the coalition's plan to transform the entire National Electricity Market through to 2050, including nuclear energy, is $331 billion. This includes transmission lines, renewables, gas and nuclear. The nuclear part of the equation is around $120 billion, with nuclear making up 38 per cent of a balanced energy mix. Labor's 100 per cent renewables-only plan, by comparison, is 44 per cent more expensive and does not provide any firming baseload power for when the sun does not shine and the wind doesn't blow.

The nuclear energy committee visited Collie, the site for a proposed small modular reactor, in my electorate. I thank all those who took the time to make a submission or give evidence to the committee. Collie has long been the energy capital of Western Australia, with several coal-fired power plants delivering reliable electricity to large parts of Western Australia through the comprehensive transmission network which radiates out of Collie. Collie also produces the electricity for the nearby Worsley Alumina refinery, which supports over 2,000 jobs. The good people of Collie and surrounds have a high degree of energy literacy. If they haven't worked in the coalmines or in the power plants, they've have been involved in other industries dependent on the reliable energy produced in Collie and are most accustomed to wages commensurate with their skills. They're all concerned about their employment, particularly given that the WA state government plans to close down the coalmines and the Muja power plant in 2029.

I know the Labor Party think they're on a political winner here, but we did see in the Queensland election that they gave up on trying to run the scare campaign after a few weeks. In the recent WA election—which, I'll be the first to admit, wasn't great for the WA Liberal Party—it was very revealing that in the seat of Collie-Preston, which is a Labor town and a union town, there was a 19 per cent two-party preferred swing against Jodie Hanns, who led the scare campaign on behalf of Labor in WA. The member for Perth popped up with the odd cameo performance, but it's mainly been the member for Collie-Preston running the scare campaign. The swing against the sitting member on the primary vote was 20 per cent. I'm just not that sure that this is the political winner, particularly in the town of Collie, that people think it is.

It was 22.9 per cent.

Sorry? Do you want to quote the numbers to me?

I was looking at the results. You only got 22.9 per cent.

What's the two-party preferred swing? It's 20 per cent. We have a preferential voting system, in case you hadn't noticed. You might notice come election day.

The interest in nuclear energy is not just confined to my electorate to Collie. In fact, in the town of Kalgoorlie, which is at the end of a 600-kilometre transmission line which has regularly had power blackouts—in February 2024 the power was out for up to a week for some residents there—they are crying out for a nuclear power plant.

Was it transmission issues?

Yes, it was transmission issues.

It was transmission issues, so it was nothing to do with the power plant.

But, if you have a power plant in Kalgoorlie, then you don't have the transmission issues. You can send it back down the line, Dan.

Am I able to speak here?

Yes.

When the Leader of the Opposition came to Diggers and Dealers in Kalgoorlie in August last year to meet with mining industry people, as we drove into town, there was a banner on one of the main intersections on Hammond Street. The banner said 'Kalgoorlie-Boulder welcomes Peter Dutton and welcomes nuclear energy'. There are towns out there and there are people across my electorate who welcome nuclear energy because they can see the benefits of it. But it's not only that; in the seat of O'Connor, we've got three uranium deposits—Australia does mine uranium; we export it to the rest of the world—that are waiting to be exploited. One of them, Deep Yellow's Mulga Rock, is permitted and ready to go. They are in the process of preparing that mine for operation. So we will see uranium being mined in O'Connor. It'll be trucked through Kalgoorlie and then through to South Australia, where it will be exported out of the Port of Adelaide, which is already accredited. We export a significant amount of uranium out of Adelaide.

An honourable member interjecting—

That's right. So we mine uranium and we export it. But not only that; we have an extraordinary storage site in the electorate of O'Connor at Sandy Ridge, which is about halfway between Coolgardie and Southern Cross. It's one of the most geologically stable parts of the planet's surface. It is fully permanent. It is permanent to accept low-level nuclear waste. There was the planned site in South Australia at Kimba which fell over, but the site at Sandy Ridge is permanent to take low-level nuclear waste and is ready to go.

I'd just like to pay tribute to the work of the member for Hunter in chairing this nuclear energy inquiry—yet another inquiry into the viability of nuclear energy in Australia. I think the member for Hunter did an extraordinary job on a very tight schedule. We do travel a lot, and it was a pretty hectic schedule, going all around the country, listening to plenty of submissions, hearing from a lot of experts and delivering what I believe to be a really robust interim report, which is absolutely crystal clear. Its findings say this: nuclear energy is too slow, it's too expensive and it's too risky. If the findings weren't in before, they're in now. The facts are here. The expert advice is consistent.

Australians deserve honesty, not a half-baked nuclear fantasy conjured up to distract from a decade of climate inaction by the Liberals and Nationals. Their policy proposal for nuclear is not a serious policy proposal, and, because of that, the Liberals and Nationals are not serious political parties. Their nuclear policy is a dangerous delaying tactic. It's a Trojan Horse for extending the life of coal-fired power stations. And it's a plan that would raise power bills, not lower them.

The chair of the committee, the member for Hunter, summed it up best. He said it could be well into the 2040s before we might see nuclear energy generated in Australia—well into the 2040s. That's 15 years from now, at a minimum. And that's if everything goes right, which, we know, with nuclear, it rarely does. Just ask the UK, where Hinkley Point C is now nearly a decade overdue and 20 billion pounds over budget, or the US, where Georgia's Vogtle nuclear plant has doubled in cost and is seven years late.

This is a problem—a real problem—that those opposite do not acknowledge. Australia does not have the time to wait for nuclear power, because under the former coalition government, let's not forget, the operators of 24 coal-fired power plants announced their plants' closures. Ninety per cent of our coal-fired power is forecast to retire by 2035. That's just 10 years away. To make matters worse, during their 10 years in government they did next to nothing about this. They didn't introduce a nuclear plan when they were actually in government, and then they left us with four gigawatts less power in the system while only introducing one gigawatt of new power. That's a deficit of three gigawatts. With power exiting the system, with coal-fired power shutting in the next decade, we need new power in the system now, not in 20 years—the time we'd be waiting for their expensive and risky nuclear reactors.

In the interim, prices will go up. And what's going to happen with power in between? Are the lights going to go out? What's going to happen to manufacturing? What's going to happen to industry? Their plan is not just reckless; it's a fantasy.

Independent experts at the CSIRO and the Australian Energy Market Operator have made these facts plain and simple for us to read. Their latest GenCost report confirms that reliable renewables, firmed solar and wind, are the cheapest form of energy. They price it from $83 to $120 per megawatt hour by 2030. In contrast, the same report shows nuclear power, even the so-called small modular reactors, would cost up to $382 per megawatt hour to produce electricity. That's up to eight times more than renewables. Even if nuclear weren't prohibitively expensive, it still wouldn't work because nuclear power simply isn't compatible with renewables. It is inflexible, needs to run constantly, can't ramp up or down quickly and can't respond to fluctuations in solar or wind output. That makes it a poor fit for a modern grid that needs clean, variable sources of energy in it.

By contrast, firmed renewables backed by batteries, pumped hydro and flexible gas can respond in real time. They are adaptable and scalable, and they are already being built. We heard the minister for the environment say the other day that in our term of government we've added 15 gigawatts of renewable energy generation into the grid, which is more than the Liberals plan for their seven nuclear reactors. We're doing it; it's happening right now. So trying to force nuclear into a renewables backed grid is like trying to jam a square peg into a round hole. It's inefficient, drives up system costs and makes it harder to deliver the flexible energy that Australians need.

Nuclear doesn't complement renewables; it competes with them, and it will destroy them. Every dollar spent on nuclear is a dollar taken away from proven technologies that are cheaper, faster, dispatchable and already working. That doesn't even factor in the enormous first-of-a-kind cost Australia would have to pay because we do not have a nuclear power industry here. We'd be spending $16 billion per reactor—money that would come straight from cuts, higher bills, increased taxes, or a combination of all of those things.

We've been here before. The same people who told us that climate change didn't matter are now saying that nuclear is the answer to it. The same people who delivered zero large-scale generation projects in nearly a decade now want us to trust them when they are in opposition with nuclear reactors. They didn't support renewables when they had the chance. They're not serious about climate action now, and their nuclear push is not about getting energy into the system in the short term. It's about an ideology; it's about delaying action, and it's about locking in fossil fuels for another generation. Don't take it from me; take it from the Leader of the Nationals who admitted on radio that their plan is to sweat out coal assets into nuclear. In other words, they want to run ageing coal power stations as long as possible—they are unreliable and breakdown; some are always out of action—and for us to cross our fingers because nuclear, they promise, will show up one day in two or three decades time. That's not a plan. That's a cover to extend the life of fossil fuels in our energy grid.

Renewable energy is the path forward to solving our energy challenges. It's not a theory or a hope. It's happening right now, delivering for households, businesses and communities across the country. It's not only the cheapest source of new power generation; it's also the quickest to dispatch. It's one of the safest to operate, and it's the most sustainable in reducing emissions. When backed by storage and gas, which we can turn on or off when we don't need it, this smart investment in the grid is capable of delivering reliable and resilient power across the country, particularly for our manufacturers.

This report shows that we don't need to gamble on this technology in 20 to 30 years time. We already have the tools to lower power bills, we have the tools to cut emissions, and we have the plan to get enough energy back into our system. Since we came to office in 2022, we've overseen a 25 per cent increase in renewable electricity generation in the national electricity market. It's helping to push down emissions, and, as AEMO have said many times, it's helping to put downward pressure on wholesale power prices. Emissions from the grid are now at record lows, and they will continue to go lower under Labor.

We're building the transmission we need through our Rewiring the Nation program. We're investing in batteries, both in grid-scale and in communities, just like in Bennelong at North Epping. Through our Capacity Investment Scheme, we are unlocking over 32 gigawatts of new, clean dispatchable energy. It's happening. Last year, there was 5.9 gigawatts of renewable energy generation, enough to power 1.7 million homes. We approved over 80 renewable energy projects, enough to power 10 million Australian homes. In New South Wales alone, we have backed six dispatchable energy projects, and in Victoria and South Australia investor interest has been so strong we've received 32 times more bids than we needed. Households are buying in on this, too, with more than three 330,000 rooftop solar installations in Australia last year. If it works on the small scale, it's going to work on a large scale as well, isn't it? The more we invest in this, the more returns our communities will get in lowering emissions and putting more of the cheapest form of new power in the grid.

Then you get into the fact that nuclear is illegal in many states—there is a huge impediment there—because it comes with baggage. There's the waste, the safety concerns and the distinct lack of social licence to do it. They never mentioned once in their 22 energy policies they would do nuclear; they're just doing it now because of their ideology. We reject it.

The coalition wants you to believe nuclear is a magic solution that will solve both our climate and our energy woes. Here's why they're wrong: nuclear is the most expensive form of energy generation. Renewables—wind and solar backed by storage—are the cheapest, followed by coal, then gas, then by pricy nuclear. This is according to the CSIRO, whose analysis does include the cost of transition infrastructure. Nuclear plants take decades to build. Construction of new plants is frequently delayed, such as in France, where their recent Flamanville 3 reactor came online after a 12-year delay and quadruple the amount of the initial cost estimate. That's a country with an already well-established nuclear industry. The UK's Hinkley Point C nuclear energy facility—mentioned by the previous member—is costing three times more than promised and running 14 years late. In the US, there's a seven-year delay and double the cost for the Vogtle unit 3 plant in Georgia. They have essentially stopped building new nuclear plants in the US because it's just not stacking up for the government or for private investors.

So, nuclear—when do we get it? The short answer is never. The Flamanville 3 station in France had a 12-year delay and quadruple the initial cost estimate. The UK's Hinkley Point C reactor had a 14-year delay and triple the cost. The Vogtle unit 3 plant in the US had a seven-year delay and double the cost. These are all countries with an existing nuclear industry. The Leader of the Opposition reckons we'll get nuclear by 2035 and that it will cost $331 billion. In the real world, however, where—hopefully—most of us reside and which it seems the LNP are increasingly detached from, nuclear in Australia will start hitting our grid only by sometime around 2050. And the cost? Triple the coalition's optimistic assessment up to $993 billion. In the real world this just ain't gonna happen. It's a pipedream.

But let's say, for the sake of argument, it goes ahead: we get nuclear by 2050, while in the intervening period we will have screwed up our chance to transition to 100 per cent renewables because their plan involves delaying renewables construction and relying on ageing, expensive coal and gas in the interim. Even if we did get it, it would be six per cent of our energy needs and, as the most expensive form of energy, drive up our power bill enormously. In the real-world scenario, this just never happens. Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition knows this and is just wanting to play politics with our energy transition. The best case scenario is that in 25 years we have six per cent of our energy covered by an incredibly expensive energy source, and we've completely turbocharged climate change in the meantime.

Nuclear sounds too good to be true, right? That's because it is. Nuclear is not only not as reliable as it has been touted to be by those trying to sell us this pup but is also not immune to the effects of climate change. Nuclear reactors rely on water to cool them, meaning they're vulnerable to droughts and even water that is simply too hot to cool the reactor, as they experienced in France. Coastal reactors are vulnerable to—get this; it sounds crazy—swarms of jellyfish clogging up their intake pipes because the acidification of the oceans due to climate change has turbocharged the jellyfish numbers. This has caused plant shutdowns across the globe, from Scotland to Japan to California.

Perhaps most importantly, the coalition's plan in the intervening decades before they could theoretically get nuclear going is to delay renewables and keep us reliant on ageing, expensive coal and gas infrastructure that's cooking our planet.

I rise to say a few words about some of the comments made about this report. I gather there was a lot of work done, but I don't agree with all the conclusions. I just want to repeat a few reality checks. A lot of people are concerned about the cost, the delay in building them overseas, that it's not the answer, that it's a stalking horse to keep coal and gas in the system, that it uses way too much water and that renewable energy is very affordable and cheap. I just want to place some corrections on that.

First of all, the states of Victoria, New South Wales and Queensland are already relying on coal and gas, and they are subsidising the power stations to stay in. It's not a secret plan of the coalition; it's just a reality that 60 per cent of the energy in Queensland, Victoria and New South Wales—roughly; if you follow the AEMO live generation, it's still 60 to 65 per cent—comes from coal. You can install all the gigawatts that the former member for Bennelong talked about, but the fact of the matter is they are all low capacity, randomly generating and often generate nothing or next to nothing. Capacity factor is how often an installed capacity actually generates. Everyone thinks Australia is so sunny and we'll have heaps of solar power. There is light for half the day, so it's at least 50 per cent. But actually, averaged over a year, it's 24 per cent. When it's light in the early morning, it's not generating, although it's light. In the dusk it's not, because the sun is not going straight onto the solar panels. When it's cloudy, it stops. When it's raining, it stops. When you have wet weeks and months, it stops. So you can install as much as you like and, because Australia is part of a world that has a north-south axis for the biggest part of the national electricity market and because of our native weather patterns, all these renewable generators are highly correlated. That means they all generate at the same time and they generally, over vast distances, stop at the same time, and overinstalling them doesn't mean that you will get something that's available 24 per cent of the time on average. If you build four times as much, you won't get 100 per cent of the time; it just means more and more installed capacity all stops at the one time.

The second thing is, 'All it needs is a lot of firming, and we are firming.' Well, that's what the New South Wales government is paying the power stations for. Firming is a euphemism for what you turn to when renewables are not generating. At the moment, the New South Wales Labor government is subsidising power stations to stay there because the market rules have sent them broke. They are old plants designed to get up to steam and spin a generator, which then generates electricity. They're not designed to ramp up or ramp down. Some of the new nuclear plants can do that handsomely. The BWRX-300 that Canada is building can ramp from 45 per cent up to 95 per cent because the neutronics in these modern plants is great. You can go from 45 per cent up to 95 per cent. But back-up is expensive because it is generally a low-capacity-factor utilisation. If you're having gas on standby and it sits there and it's only firing up when there's a shortage, it makes it a really inefficient gas power plant. It's the same for coal, pumped hydro and batteries. They are very expensive.

Why are people's electricity bills going up and up even though they've got rooftop solar? There are plenty of businesses that have got rooftop solar and batteries, yet their bills are still going up. That is because in your bill stack, what makes up your bill, the electricity is the minority part. That's the wholesale cost of electricity. It is low compared to the network costs, the poles and wires and all the synchronous condensers that you have to add to the system that utilise energy but don't generate energy. All the new poles and wires, the massive expansion—all these extra bits and pieces on a renewables based grid—are what makes it expensive. Sure, they're cheap. But they're only cheap 24 per cent of the time. By giving them a red-carpet ride onto the grid, they can do that because the market allows them to. They're not responsible for the other 75 per cent of the time.

They also get other payments than what they get paid for their electricity. If you're a coal plant, unless you're selling electricity, you get diddly squat. You don't get paid anything. It's the same for gas. It's the same for countries overseas. You can bid in the market, but you only get paid for your electricity except if you're renewable. You can get a contract for difference, so your risk is reduced. You can get Capacity Investment Scheme payments to get your facility up and built. You get the grid from the whole public that pays in their bill. You can get the grid built for you even though you're not near where the load is needed. When we had a sensible, engineering based system, you had your load near where the generation was happening, and you had your fuel next to the load.

Basically, firming is expensive. Putting electricity into batteries, into a pumped hydro from direct current into alternating current, sending it through the wires, then putting it into a battery energy storage system, then taking it out, then inverting it back into AC and then getting it to your house uses oodles of the energy you've just generated. In an alternating current generated system, it's AC to AC to your house. You can transmit alternating current hundreds of miles without much consumption of the electricity.

These guys called Tesla—remember him?—George Westinghouse and Thomas Edison had battles about this in the 1880s and 1890s. One guy was building a DC system, and the other decided: 'No; this is crazy. You're losing all your energy.' They had to build a direct-current power station every two or three blocks in Chicago and New York because they couldn't transmit it. Tesla came along and developed how to make alternating current. It's pretty easy. You have copper wires intersecting the electromagnetic field of a magnet, and—hey presto!—electrons come out the end of it. How do you get a big 150-tonne magnet to spin around at 50 hertz a second? You boil water to produce steam, which spins a turbine that then spins the generator. Hey presto; that's what you've got.

That's what you get in nuclear. They are big. The Minister for Climate Change and Energy said, 'The member for Lyne has talked about nuclear; it's just a big kettle.' Actually, a coal plant is just a big kettle. A closed-cycle gas plant has a gas energy source which spins a turbine. But then it has a side channel that boils water so that you've got two bites of the energy to make more.

So, ladies and gentlemen, the idea that you have a cheap system based on renewables is quite fallacious. It is not a cheap system. It's cheap when you've got it, but, for the rest of the time, it makes the system unsustainable. The International Energy Agency has written about this forever—or since this renewable transition was proposed. They said, 'Up to 10 per cent, it doesn't cost you much; it's just money for jam.' You stick a wind tower up and—hey presto!—you get a bit of extra electricity. It's the same with a solar panel. But, once you get into the double figures, all the integration costs, all the extra poles and wires, all the bits and pieces, all the inverters, all the batteries and all the pumped hydro just sends you broke. Now—hey presto!—that's what happened in Germany. They have thousands of wind towers and they are about to start up their nuclear plants, because, if you have big baseload providers that can work with the existing renewables, then—hey presto!—you don't have to rely on Russia; you can just rely on yourself. And Germany has worked that out the hard way.

An honourable member: And you can't get gas anymore.

Yes—and you can't get gas. So you need a constant—

An honourable member interjecting—

But we can get uranium and we can run a plant for three years, so a lot of the stuff is very—

The member's has expired. Thank you.

Debate adjourned.

Federation Chamber adjourned at 17:56