COMMITTEES

Selection Committee; Report

On behalf of the Speaker, I present report No. 3 of the Selection Committee, relating to the consideration of committee and delegation business and private members' business on Monday 27 October 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, 7 October 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, 7 October 2025, and determined the order of precedence and times on Monday, 27 October 2025, as follows:

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

COMMITTEE AND DELEGATION BUSINESS

Presentation and statements

1 AUSTRALIAN PARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION

Report of the Parliamentary Delegation to the Forty-fifth General Assembly of the ASEAN Inter-Parliamentary Assembly (AIPA) Vientiane, Lao People's Democratic Republic.

The Committee determined that statements on the report may be made all statements to conclude by 10.20.

Speech time limits

Mr Georganas 5 minutes.

Mr Birrell 5 minutes.

[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 2 x 5 mins]

PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS

Notices

1 MR LEESER: To present a Bill for an Act to amend the Crimes Act 1914, and for related purposes. (Crimes Amendment (Mandatory Minimum Sentences for Child Sexual Abuse) Bill 2025)

(Notice given 7 October 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 DR M RYAN: To present A Bill for an Act to establish a scheme to promote and enhance transparency, integrity and honesty in dealings between lobbyists and Government representatives, and for related purposes. (Lobbying (Improving Government Honesty and Trust) Bill 2025)

(Notice given 7 October 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.

Orders of the day

1 REPEAL NET ZERO BILL 2025 (Mr Joyce): Second reading—Resumption of debate (from 1 September 2025).

Time allotted 20 minutes.

Speech time limits

All 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.

Notices — continued

3 MS J RYAN: To move:

That this House:

(1) acknowledges the Government's commitment to strengthen Medicare, including $8.5 billion to deliver an additional 18 million bulk billed general practitioner (GP) visits each year, hundreds of nursing scholarships and thousands more doctors in the largest GP training program ever;

(2) notes:

(a) this measure has already seen practices around Australia become fully bulk billed, with nine out of ten GP visits expected to be bulk billed by 2030 and around 4,800 fully bulk billed practices, which is triple the current number; and

(b) that while the Government is expanding access to bulk billing by expanding the bulk billing incentive, by contrast the Leader of the Opposition, as the Minister for Health:

(i) never increased Medicare rebates, the only health minister in Australian history to do so;

(ii) doubled-down on the then Government's $50 billion cut to hospitals; and

(iii) continued the fight for the then Leader of the Opposition's GP tax; and

(3) further acknowledges that only the current Government will strengthen Medicare.

(Notice given 7 October 2025.)

Time allotted 20 minutes.

Speech time limits

Ms J Ryan 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 at a later hour.

4 MR KATTER: To move:

That this House:

(1) acknowledges that:

(a) the Australian banana industry:

(i) is worth $1.3 billion to the Australian economy and is the dominant employer in northern Australia; and

(ii) represents more than 540 growers and employs over 15,000 people;

(b) Australia, being a continent which until the 1800s had no farming, remains free of many of the world's most devasting vegetation diseases, including Moko, Black Sigatoka, and Banana Freckle, however, these diseases are found throughout plantations in the Philippines causing widespread crop losses and often producing a flawed, largely inedible product;

(c) these diseases will destroy Australia's banana industry and seriously damage our virgin, natural wonderland and threaten other food production activities;

(d) the US Department of Labor, the Centre for Trade Union and Human Rights (CTUHR), and the Ecumenical Institute for Labor Education and Research (EILER) have all found significant instances of poor work conditions in banana plantations across the Philippines, including widespread child labour;

(e) the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry is currently considering an application to import bananas from the Philippines, and has advised that it will only consider the risk of disease; and

(f) bad enough in itself, the application does not consider the need for imports, the disparity in environmental conditions, chemical usage, wages and the various other factors that fail to make free trade, fair trade; and

(2) calls on the Government to take immediate and decisive action to protect Australia's banana industry by ensuring that the:

(a) application to import bananas from the Philippines be rejected, due to:

(i) unacceptable biosecurity risks that will create real danger to not only Australia's banana industry but also to Australia's virgin nature wonderland as Philippine banana imports will be the vector of a myriad of diseases including Black Sigatoka, Moko Disease and Banana Freckle;

(ii) economic impact of decimating Australia's $1.3 billion banana industry, specifically considering the huge social and economic impact on communities where bananas are grown;

(iii) devastating environmental impacts of bananas grown in the Philippines that have vastly different chemical and pesticide usage and lower overall environmental standards;

(iv) the difference in cost of production including wages and working conditions, for example, the average wage of $50 per week in the Philippines verses $1,153.30 per week in Australia; and

(v) significant evidence of child labour throughout Philippine banana plantations, as reported by the US Department of Labor, CTUHR and EILER, with studies indicating that 22.5 per cent of households in banana growing regions have a child working in banana plantations;

(b) Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry immediately reject the import application as there is no overriding need nor demand for the imported product; and

(c) Government immediately introduce legislation that acknowledges our other international obligations including, but not restricted to, slavery, child labour and other unfair working conditions and wages, and environmental impacts including pesticide and chemical usage.

(Notice given 7 October 2025.)

Time allotted 15 minutes.

Speech time limits

Mr Katter 5 minutes.

Other Members 5 minutes each.

[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 3 x 5 mins]

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

5 MR VIOLI: To move:

That this House:

(1) notes that:

(a) the Government's spending will reach its highest level outside of recession since 1986;

(b) since the Government came to office, it has added $100 billion to the national debt, set to breach $1 trillion this financial year and $1.2 trillion by the time of the next election;

(c) the Government's new decisions since coming to office total a shocking $22 billion, and had the Government shown any fiscal discipline to find savings to fund the new commitments, the Government would be delivering a healthy surplus today;

(d) we are spending $50,000 on interest every minute, which is money that cannot be spent on essential services;

(e) the persistence in inflation has pushed out the prospect of further interest rate relief with markets now expecting it may be 'one and done', that is, for interest rates to remain at around 3.25 per cent indefinitely, little more than one rate cut lower than the current level; and

(f) millions of Australian mortgage holders will have repayments on the average mortgage set to remain at $1,700 higher per month indefinitely under this Government than under the previous Government; and

(2) calls on the Government to reintroduce the quantifiable fiscal rules that every recent government of either political persuasion has adopted, and to heed the calls of leading economists like former Treasury Secretary Ken Henry, and former Reserve Bank of Australia Governor Phillip Lowe, as well as leading international organisations like the International Monetary Fund to introduce such rules.

(Notice given 7 October 2025.)

Time allotted 25 minutes.

Speech time limits

Mr Violi 5 minutes.

Other Members 5 minutes each.

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

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

The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue at a later hour.

Items for Federation Chamber (11 am to 1.30 pm)

PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS

Notices

1 DR HAINES: To move:

That this House:

(1) recognises that:

(a) 28 per cent of the Australian population live outside major cities;

(b) people living in rural and remote areas have higher rates of hospitalisations, deaths and injury and also have poorer access to, and use of, primary health care services, than people living in major cities, yet investment in regional and rural health is falling behind leaving regional communities with outdated facilities, insufficient training places and healthcare students struggling to train locally; and

(c) the lack of open, competitive and needs-based hospital infrastructure funds means regional and rural hospitals have no transparent, competitive Commonwealth funding pathways to build critical infrastructure to deliver health services for the growing border population into the future;

(2) notes that premiers are calling for increased funding from the federal government for hospitals, including specifically for infrastructure; and

(3) calls on the Government to establish a $2 billion Building Regional and Rural Hospitals Fund to provide competitive and needs-based investment for new buildings, equipment and planning, so health services in regional, rural and remote areas classified as MM2 and higher can apply for hospital infrastructure funding to meet the needs of their communities now and into the future.

(Notice given 7 October 2025.)

Time allotted 15 minutes.

Speech time limits

Dr Haines 5 minutes.

Other Members 5 minutes each.

[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 3 x 5 mins]

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

2 MR BURNS: To move:

That this House:

(1) acknowledges the Government's commitment to help first home buyers realise their dream of ownership by:

(a) bring forward the launch of the 5 per cent deposits scheme for all first home buyers to 1 October 2025, instead of next year;

(b) expanding the 5 per cent deposits scheme with unlimited places and increased property price caps;

(c) guaranteeing a portion of a first home buyer's home loan through the 5 per cent deposits scheme, so they can purchase with a lower deposit and avoid lenders' mortgage insurance; and

(d) offering eligible single parent families with a saved 2 per cent deposit access to the Family Home Guarantee; and

(2) notes that one hundred and eighty thousand Australians have already been helped into home ownership through the Government's housing policies.

(Notice given 7 October 2025.)

Time allotted 30 minutes.

Speech time limits

Mr Burns 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.

3 MR CHESTER: To move:

That this House:

(1) acknowledges that:

(a) some of Australia's leading forest scientists have acknowledged we have the knowledge, practical skills and regulatory framework to sustainably mange our native forests, including for timber harvesting on small, carefully targeted areas;

(b) we have a world-class and sustainable native hardwood timber industry in Australia which delivers social, economic, cultural and environmental benefits for our nation;

(c) timber industry workers provide invaluable skills and practical support to their communities during times of natural disasters, particularly bushfires;

(d) banning native timber harvesting in Australia will result in more imported timber products, often sourced from countries with poorer environmental protocols; and

(e) a sustainable native hardwood timber industry is part of the answer to reducing Australia's carbon emissions as timber products sequester carbon in our floorboards, furniture and other timber products;

(2) notes that the Victorian and New South Wales state governments have made illogical decisions to ban native hardwood timber harvesting which is based on political science, not environmental science; and

(3) urges the Government to:

(a) recognise the sovereign capability to maintain a sustainable native hardwood timber industry is an issue of national importance because of the impact on house prices, supply chain considerations, carbon sequestration, biodiversity and community safety;

(b) support a taxpayer-funded public information campaign to explain the importance of the native hardwood timber industry and dispel the myths perpetuated by environmental activists; and

(Notice given 7 October 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 MS LAWRENCE: To move:

That this House:

(1) acknowledges the Government's will make available an initial $12 billion towards the Henderson Defence Precinct to deliver continuous naval shipbuilding and an AUKUS presence in Western Australia, meaning:

(a) record investments across shipbuilding and in AUKUS in the west;

(b) support for approximately 10,000 direct jobs over the next two decades;

(d) certainty for industry that will partner on the construction of infrastructure and facilities; and

(2) notes that the Government continues to increase defence spending to record levels to deliver the capabilities Australia needs through measures like:

(a) the arrival of the first two of 29 Apache attack helicopters;

(b) $1.7 billion for a new fleet of autonomous maritime vehicles including Ghost Shark for the navy;

(d) boosting Australia's long-range strike capability with the Precision Strike Missiles and $2.12 billion in additional stocks of advanced medium-range missiles to strengthen Australia's air defence and aerial strike capability; and

(e) $1.3 billion investment over the next ten years in counter-drone capabilities and technologies.

(Notice given 7 October 2025.)

Time allotted 20 minutes.

Speech time limits

Ms Lawrence 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.

5 MR BUCHHOLZ: To move:

That this House:

(1) notes:

(a) the National Centre for Vocational Education Research advises that there are 320,830 active apprentices and trainees in training, representing a drop of 107,320 apprentices and trainees in training compared to when the Opposition was last in office;

(b) that new data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics released in September 2025 shows Australia's building approvals are collapsing, with total dwelling approvals down by 8.2 per cent and private sector apartment approvals down by 22 per cent; and

(c) the critical link between the collapse in apprentice and trainee numbers and the shortage of skilled workers needed to address Australia's growing housing crisis, with fewer tradespeople available to build the homes Australians desperately need;

(2) recognises that the housing crisis is being compounded by this failure in skills and training, leading to higher costs, longer delays, and fewer Australians able to achieve the dream of home ownership;

(3) condemns the Government for failing to ensure an adequate pipeline of skilled workers to meet Australia's needs, and for overseeing a collapse in both apprentice numbers and housing approvals at a time when the nation can least afford it; and

(4) calls on the Government to take immediate and urgent action to:

(a) rebuild apprentice and trainee numbers across the economy, particularly in construction and housing trades;

(b) work with industry and employers to support real pathways into skills and training; and

(c) develop a credible strategy to ensure Australia has the skilled workforce required to meet current and future housing demand.

(Notice given 7 October 2025.)

Time allotted 30 minutes.

Speech time limits

Mr Buchholz 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.

Orders of the day

MEDICARE: Resumption of debate on the motion of Ms J Ryan—That this House:

(2) notes:

(b) that while the Government is expanding access to bulk billing by expanding the bulk billing incentive, by contrast the Leader of the Opposition, as the Minister for Health:

(i) never increased Medicare rebates, the only health minister in Australian history to do so;

(ii) doubled-down on the then Government's $50 billion cut to hospitals; and

(iii) continued the fight for the then Leader of the Opposition's GP tax; and

(3) further acknowledges that only the current Government will strengthen Medicare.

(Notice given 7 October 2025.)

Time allotted 25 minutes.

Speech time limits

All Members 5 minutes each.

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

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

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 — continued

GOVERNMENT SPENDING: Resumption of debate on the motion of Mr Violi—That this House:

(1) notes that:

(a) the Government's spending will reach its highest level outside of recession since 1986;

(b) since the Government came to office, it has added $100 billion to the national debt, set to breach $1 trillion this financial year and $1.2 trillion by the time of the next election;

(d) we are spending $50,000 on interest every minute, which is money that cannot be spent on essential services;

(Notice given 7 October 2025.)

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 MS BRISKEY: To move:

That this House:

(1) acknowledges the enormous changes that artificial intelligence (AI) will create for Australia and Australians;

(2) welcomes the Government's commitment to ensuring that AI:

(a) contributes positively to a Future Made in Australia;

(b) delivers benefits to all Australians, not just a small number of individuals and businesses; and

(3) recognises the work being led by the Government to ensure that Australians are ready to take advantage of AI, including, more than:

(a) $47 million for the Next Generation Graduate program;

(b) one million free 'introduction to AI' scholarships delivered from TAFE NSW to give Australians the fundamental skills to adopt and use AI; and

(c) $17 million to create four AI Adopt Centres, which are supporting businesses across the country to use responsible AI enabled services to enhance their businesses.

(Notice given 7 October 2025.)

Time allotted 20 minutes.

Speech time limits

Ms Briskey 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.

7 DR WEBSTER: To move:

That this House:

(1) notes that:

(a) a Royal Automobile Club of Victoria 'My Country Road' survey in July 2024 of over 7,000 Victorians saw 64 per cent of respondents identify potholes and poor road conditions as their top safety issue, up from 46 per cent in 2021;

(b) a National Transport Research Organisation survey found 91 per cent of Victoria's 8,400 kilometre road network is rated poor or very poor;

(c) the Audit Office of New South Wales identified in November 2024 that in the last available reporting year the estimated total replacement cost of council road assets across New South Wales was around $102 billion but in the same year local councils reported collective road asset maintenance expenditure of around $1 billion;

(d) according to the Australian Local Government Association (ALGA), local roads make up 77 per cent of Australia's road network by length, with 678,000 kilometres managed by local governments, only 39 per cent of which are sealed roads;

(e) ALGA president Matt Burnett described the former Government's $3.25 billion Local Roads and Community Infrastructure (LRCI) program as a 'game-changer', adding that 'reinstating the LRCI Program will support every council, and more importantly, provide tangible benefits to every Australian community'.

(f) former ALGA president Linda Scott said in 2023 'making the LRCI permanent would be an investment in Australia's future productivity';

(g) Local Government Association of South Australia CEO Clinton Jury said the LRCI program 'made a significant, positive impact on our neighbourhoods by uplifting our regional roads—making them safer for everyone'; and

(h) despite the very strong endorsements of LRCI and the road maintenance burden on local governments across regional Australia, the Government axed LRCI with final payments due this financial year and have not provided an alternative to make our roads safer and improve regional productivity; and

(2) calls upon the Government to outline how it will fund local roads to improve road safety and productivity for regional Australians.

(Notice given 28 August 2025.)

Time allotted 40 minutes.

Speech time limits

Dr Webster 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.

8 MS COFFEY: To move:

That this House:

(1) notes the:

(a) Government has accepted the Climate Change Authority's independent advice and has set Australia's climate change target at a range of between 62 to 70 per cent on 2005 emissions;

(b) release of the National Climate Risk Assessment, which found that no Australian community will be immune from climate risks that will be cascading, compounding and concurrent; and

(c) release of the Department of the Treasury's modelling on 18 September, which found Australia's ambitious and achievable plan to reduce emissions will support continued economic growth, higher living standards and employment, including resulting 2.3 million more people being employed by 2035, and Australia's economy being up to $2 trillion worse off cumulatively by 2050 compared to a disorderly transition scenario;

(2) recognises the Government is delivering on its promises which Australians voted for to act on climate change, upgrade our energy system and seize the economic opportunity before our nation; and

(3) calls on the Opposition to leave the climate wars in the past, solve its internal divisions and join the rest of the Parliament in taking meaningful action on climate change.

(Notice given 7 October 2025.)

Time allotted 40 minutes.

Speech time limits

Ms Coffey 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.

9 MS STANLEY: To move:

That this House:

(1) notes that:

(a) October is Pregnancy and Infant Loss Awareness Month and that Wednesday, 15 October 2025 marks Pregnancy and Infant Loss Remembrance Day; and

(b) this day acknowledges the shared loss experienced by parents, friends, and healthcare workers of babies lost through miscarriage, stillbirth, neonatal death;

(2) acknowledges:

(a) that there is a significant impact on families who have lost a baby;

(b) that every year 110,000 Australians experience a miscarriage, more than 2,000 experience stillbirth, and almost 700 lose a baby within the first 28 days;

(d) all families who have experienced loss, either recently or over time; and

(3) commends the Government for providing more than $40 million to organisations to support women and families following stillbirth, neonatal death or miscarriage.

(Notice given 28 August 2025.)

Time allotted 25 minutes.

Speech time limits

Ms Stanley 5 minutes.

Other Members 5 minutes each.

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

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

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

8 October 2025

BILLS

Home Affairs Legislation Amendment (2025 Measures No. 2) Bill 2025; Second Reading

Home Affairs Legislation Amendment (2025 Measures No. 2) Bill 2025

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The Home Affairs Legislation Amendment (2025 Measures No. 2) Bill 2025 amends the Migration Act and Citizenship Act to clarify provisions relating to personal identifiers, and particularly requirements in relation to facial images, to ensure they align with international standards and current biometric technologies and practices.

The bill also amends the Citizenship Act to address certain residency barriers to Australian citizenship for persons who are seeking to engage in a specified activity that is of benefit to Australia, and who need to be an Australian citizen in order to engage in that activity.

Personal Identifiers

The collection of biometric facial images assists the department to mitigate identity fraud, and national security and community safety risks.

They enable the department to identify individuals who have committed serious crimes in Australia or in partner countries, and prevent the return of certain individuals who have previously been refused a visa, placed in immigration detention, or removed or deported from Australia.

The collection and use of facial images also support efforts to prevent identity fraud in visa and citizenship application processes, and mitigate the risk of human trafficking.

Facial images are also an important part of efficient and secure immigration clearance at the Australian border.

Biometric facial images are used by SmartGates to automate immigration clearance at our major international airports. Approximately 70 per cent of travellers are currently immigration cleared by SmartGates. This supports the Australian Border Force to manage increasing numbers of travellers entering Australia without the need for significant increases in ABF officers. The security benefits and efficiency of biometric facial images enable Border Force to focus the efforts of its officers on identifying persons of interest, protecting the Australian community and enabling legitimate travel and trade.

The last major changes to the department's collection of biometrics were made by the Migration Amendment (Strengthening Biometrics Integrity) Bill 2015. Since then, the international standards have evolved and biometric technologies facial images have advanced.

The amendments in schedule 1 to this bill will modernise and clarify the provisions of the Migration Act and Citizen Act that enable the collection of facial images. The amendments will ensure the department collects only what is required for biometric matching purposes. This includes clarifying the collection of facial images by authorised systems such as SmartGates or through an online application.

The amendments in schedule 1 will ensure the department has express authority to collect and verify facial images whether that image is of a face, face and neck or face and shoulders—in line with international facial image standards and practices in current biometric technology.

Modernising terms and definitions in the legislation for facial images, and bringing them into line with agreed international standards—instead of using outdated terminology—provides greater certainty for the Australian government and individuals going forward regarding the capability that underpins the integrity of the migration system.

Schedule 1 to the bill clarifies what constitutes a facial image. It also introduces provisions that clarify how a person's photograph or facial image is provided to a SmartGate or the minister under the act. These amendments will ensure that the department has clear legislative authority to collect what is required for biometric matching purposes, with flexibility reflected in the legislation to align upon the technologies.

The provisions also expressly allow for a SmartGate or the department to derive a photograph or other image of a person's face, in circumstances where more of their body is captured. For example, if a person presents to a SmartGate, and the original image includes their upper body. Importantly, the amendments in schedule 1 do not expand on the current collection of facial images or existing powers to collect them—the amendments simply clarify what constitutes a facial image.

The collection and use of facial images is a longstanding feature of Australia's immigration and border management processes and systems. The amendments in schedule 1 therefore also validate past actions taken by the department in relation to facial images collected under the Migration Act and Citizenship Act as in force at the relevant time. This is a commonsense amendment, to make clear that an image of a face and neck (that didn't also include the person's shoulders) is appropriately a personal identifier for the purposes of the legislation. The amendments are clarifying amendments and will not result in any penalties or disadvantage to those who have previously provided facial images.

Special residence requirements for citizenship

The bill also the Citizenship Act to amend the minister's personal, discretionary power to determine that a person meets special residence under section 22A of the act.

The amendments in schedule 2 to the bill will address residency barriers to Australian citizenship for persons who are engaging in an activity of benefit to Australia, and who are seeking to become an Australian citizen, but whose overseas absences relating to this activity impact their ability to meet the current general, special or alternative residence requirements.

The amendments will provide the minister with the discretion, under the minister's personal power, to determine that an applicant for Australian citizenship meets the special residency requirement under section 22A of the Citizenship Act, without needing to be satisfied they have been present in Australia for at least 180 days during the period of two years immediately before the day they make their application.

Currently under section 22A(1A) of the act, the minister has a personal, non-compellable power under the special residence requirement in relation to specific activities, where the minister considers that the person engaging in a specified activity would be of benefit to Australia.

These activities are specified in a disallowable legislative instrument made for the purposes of the provision—and include a range of sporting competitions, including the Olympics, Paralympics, international tennis or cricket matches.

However, in some cases, current provisions have failed to provide for the increased overseas training requirements associated with certain sports.

This is resulting in a significant missed opportunity for Australia to harness the significant contributions a person could make in terms of:

The amendments in Schedule 2 will address this by allowing the minister to exercise the minister's personal power to determine that an applicant for Australian citizenship meets the special residence requirement without needing to be present in Australia for at least 180 days during the period of two years immediately before they made an application.

The bill also makes a related amendment to remove the requirement that the applicant provides an undertaking that they will be present in Australia for a total of at least 180 days during the two-year period after acquiring Australian citizenship.

To continue to reinforce the importance of presence in Australia as a way of understanding the Australian way of life and the commitment made through the citizenship pledge, the applicant will still be required to provide an undertaking they will be ordinarily resident in Australia for two years immediately after they became an Australian citizen. The bill also makes consequential amendments of other provisions of the act, including associated revocation provisions, to reflect the changes to the undertaking.

Any applicant who applies under the special residence requirements will also continue to be required to meet all other relevant legislative requirements under the Citizenship Act to be approved to become an Australian citizen, including:

This legislation will ensure there is appropriate flexibility for applicants for Australian citizenship to participate in, for example, overseas training that may be required as part of their specified activity, while still spending sufficient time in Australia to understand the nature of Australian citizenship and the Australian way of life, and to call Australia home.

I commend this bill to the chamber.

Debate adjourned.

Regulatory Reform Omnibus Bill 2025; Second Reading

Regulatory Reform Omnibus Bill 2025

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Today, I am proud to introduce the Regulatory Reform Omnibus Bill 2025.

This is another important step in implementing our government's agenda to make our economy more dynamic, resilient and productive.

Better regulation was a key focus of the Economic Reform Roundtable we convened earlier this year and a key focus of our second term economic agenda.

Better regulation that helps Australians get faster and more streamlined access to the essential services they need and deserve.

Better regulation that gets more investment flowing more efficiently and effectively right across our economy.

And better regulation which boosts productivity, to help create more jobs and grow wages for working Australians.

This bill is about better regulation, cutting compliance costs and cutting red tape.

One of the outcomes from the roundtable was fast-tracking its introduction.

Today, we are delivering on that commitment.

It's another step in the substantial regulatory agenda we have been pushing forward with pace since the roundtable.

We've made a lot of progress since those three days around the cabinet table.

From working through 400 ideas to reduce regulatory burden from 38 Commonwealth regulators—

To tasking the Council of Financial Regulators to de-clutter and improve regulation in the financial sector, with a priority focus on streamlining and harmonising data collection—

And officially opening our Investor Front Door to make it quicker and easier for investors to back big projects that create jobs and opportunities for Australians.

But we recognise there's still more to do.

That's why we'll also alter statements of expectations for Commonwealth regulators, to emphasise the reduction of red tape and a better balance between outcomes and risk.

As well as conduct deep dives for priority sectors to streamline regulation.

The number of measures and government agencies that will be reformed by this bill is emblematic of how widely we are looking across government to improve regulation.

There are 60 measures in this legislation alone.

It amends 28 acts and repeals another two.

And it will directly affect and improve the operations of 13 government agencies.

These changes will make a meaningful improvement to how Australians and businesses work with these agencies.

More than this, it will also improve existing regulations to ensure they are fit for purpose and serving the needs of Australians.

This bill does four key things.

First, it will help Services Australia shift towards a 'tell-us-once' approach to how it delivers services.

That means Australians won't have to put in their details every time they access a different government service that they need.

Repeatedly asking for the same information only adds stress and delays access to vital services that people rely on and deserve.

As an example, once this bill is passed, we can make changes so when Australians update their Centrelink bank details, Medicare gets them as well.

This will help people claim their unpaid Medicare benefits, which are estimated to total $270 million owed to almost a million Australians.

We know it will take time to make this 'tell-us-once' shift, but this bill is a critical step forward.

Secondly, the bill will reduce red tape to improve access to government services.

One meaningful change the bill makes is doubling the amount of time that patients have to access imaging services when they get a referral from a healthcare provider.

At the moment, when life gets in the way and patients can't access an imaging service, they need to go back to a GP to get the same referral again.

We're changing this.

Thirdly, the bill will help reduce the regulatory burden on Australians and on industry.

One change here will be bringing some legislated document requirements up to date with the digital economy.

For example, a marriage celebrant is currently required to look at physical documents before a couple can tie the knot.

This bill will allow secure, suitable digital options to be introduced as well.

It will also enable regulators to communicate better and share more information when it comes to things like offshore gas projects.

And fourth, the bill will help increase government efficiency and improve productivity.

By giving the Minister for Climate Change and Energy additional flexibility to respond to temporary critical fuel shortages so companies can tap into their fuel stocks if they need to—

By making NBN's mapping data available for public use by other businesses and industry—

And making it easier to buy smarter appliances that use energy when electricity is cheapest, like hot water systems that heat water for your evening shower while the sun is still shining.

I wanted to take the opportunity to pay tribute to my colleague and friend Senator Katy Gallagher, Minister for Finance, Women, the Public Service and Government Services.

She has been the driving force behind this bill, she has done so much work to make this bill a reality and I'm proud to be introducing it to the House today on her behalf and on behalf of our colleagues.

I thank her for all of her work in bringing together contributions from right across government into this legislation.

Regulation should be there to protect Australians and empower them, not weigh them down.

The bill is about making sure the rules of our economy are working for Australians, not holding them back.

So Australians who need help from Medicare can spend more time in front of a doctor, and less time resharing their information.

And so we can boost productivity to help create more jobs and lift living standards for working Australians in all corners of this country.

We do understand there is more work to be done.

But this bill is another step forward in making sure regulation supports growth, not hinders it.

Regulation that meets the opportunities and challenges of a global economy which is churning and changing.

Full details of the measures are contained in the explanatory memorandum.

I thank and commend this bill to the House.

Debate adjourned.

Criminal Code Amendment (State Sponsors of Terrorism) Bill 2025; Second Reading

Criminal Code Amendment (State Sponsors of Terrorism) Bill 2025

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The Albanese government's top priority is to keep our community safe from those who seek to do us harm.

On 26 August, the Prime Minister delivered a sobering announcement that Australia is not immune from the actions of malicious foreign actors who seek to undermine our safety, security and social cohesion through state sponsored terrorism.

Informed by the expert assessments of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, the government announced that Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps had directed at least two antisemitic attacks on Australian soil—deliberately seeking to stoke division and undermine the very values all Australians hold dear.

These attacks were extraordinary.

They were abhorrent.

They have absolutely no place in a modern, multicultural and multifaith country like Australia.

These two state sponsored attacks targeting Jewish Australians on Australian soil represent a turning point in our experience of terrorism.

And, while these attacks may have been targeted to one part of our community, they were attacks on our sovereignty and our collective way of life.

These were attacks against all Australians.

The evolving threats against Australia must not go unchallenged.

This parliament must respond to them swiftly and unequivocally, unified in our shared understanding that protecting Australians and Australia must be an issue above politics.

The terrorism threat

Terrorism is unlike any other crime in its ability to impact our community.

It is deliberately targeted to undermine the values we hold dear, intimidate the public, and tear at our social fabric.

The threat of terrorism has shaped our national security landscape, global interactions, and our collective sense of safety.

That threat continues to evolve, including as a result of the rise of international terrorist organisations and the ease at which hateful ideologies can be disseminated online.

State sponsored terrorist acts in Australia add a frightening new complexity to this landscape.

But it is one which we must stand against resolutely—as we have with the challenges that have come before.

Our national security frameworks for responding to terrorism are strong and have served us well to date. However—in recognition that terrorism has generally not been the purview of state actors—it has long been understood that the existing listing framework does not apply to a body politic.

In response to these recent developments, the law must continue to adapt.

The Criminal Code Amendment (State Sponsors of Terrorism) Bill 2025, which I introduce today, does exactly that.

The bill

The bill amends the Criminal Code to introduce a new part 5.3A to provide a framework to list foreign state entities as state sponsors of terrorism and respond to state sponsored terrorist acts.

Responding to the actions of state sponsors of terrorism presents unique security challenges and foreign policy considerations, and therefore requires a framework which is specifically designed, including appropriate safeguards on its operation.

The government has taken the necessary time to get this framework right, working constructively across portfolios and across jurisdictions to establish a robust scheme that is appropriately balanced and targeted.

The bill will allow a foreign state entity to be listed as a state sponsor of terrorism where they have directly or indirectly engaged in, or otherwise supported or advocated for, the doing of terrorist acts targeted at Australia.

The consideration of the listing of particular entities under this framework sits separately to the parliament's consideration of this bill and will be appropriately considered by the responsible minister following passage.

This new framework is supported by the introduction of a range of criminal offences, mirroring those that exist for terrorism and in relation to terrorist organisations currently.

These new offences will criminalise engaging in, and making preparations for, a state terrorist act targeting Australia, as well as state sponsors of terrorism providing support to non-state actors that engage in terrorism targeting Australia.

New offences will also be introduced which criminalise certain interactions with state sponsors of terrorism, including being a member of those entities, and providing them support or training.

These offences will be accompanied by appropriate defences and safeguards, recognising that—given their function as an entity of a state—there may be legitimate circumstances where an individual has no option but to engage with a listed entity.

The bill will also make consequential amendments across the statute book to ensure that state-sponsored terrorism is treated in a consistent manner to other terrorist acts.

Critically, law enforcement and intelligence agencies will be provided with the same powers to respond to, and prevent, state-sponsored terrorism as they currently have in relation to terrorism.

Noting that the extension of these powers are subject to an intergovernmental agreement between the Commonwealth and the states and territories, I want to acknowledge the constructive engagement between all levels of government since the Prime Minister's announcement in late August.

This is the federation working at its best to keep Australians safe.

I thank both my counterparts and comparable departments and agencies within state and territory jurisdictions for their engagement with the Attorney-General's Department in the formulation of this bill.

Conclusion

As our security environment changes, it is incumbent on the parliament to respond to new and emerging threats in a firm yet measured manner.

This bill achieves that balance.

The bill will strengthen Australia's counter-terrorism framework, creating an environment in which it is more difficult, more risky, and more costly for malicious foreign actors to seek to cause Australia and our community harm.

It is a warning for any foreign state who seeks to intimidate or coerce us through violence.

In introducing and seeking passage of this bill, the government is standing with all Australians against hatred, violence and division, and I urge the entire parliament to do the same.

I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned.

Commonwealth Parole Board Bill 2025; Second Reading

Commonwealth Parole Board Bill 2025

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Introduction

Australians rightly expect that the release of offenders from custody into the community will be managed as safely as possible.

That is why the Australian government is establishing an independent Commonwealth Parole Board—because decisions about whether convicted federal offenders are released into the community on parole and the conditions under which they are released should be made by law enforcement and other community safety experts, not by politicians.

The Commonwealth Parole Board will bring together experts from a range of professions and experience, including law, law enforcement, corrective services, victims-of-crime advocates, psychologists and other community safety experts. The board of experts will replace the Attorney-General as the decision-maker on whether to release federal offenders on parole.

The highest priority for the Commonwealth Parole Board will be community safety. This important reform will strengthen the Australian public's trust and confidence in the federal parole system by ensuring that parole decisions are made by experts who are best placed to make robust assessments of risk when considering the protection of the community.

We know parole can keep the community safer.

It means that mandatory controls and mandatory supervision are in place for an offender in the community, which otherwise might not be available at the end of someone's sentence. Supervision on parole also allows for early detection of reoffending if it does occur. Those on parole are subject to strict supervision conditions which are informed by the advice of corrective services and law enforcement agencies.

Now is the right time to establish a Commonwealth Parole Board.

There are approximately 1,200 federal offenders currently serving sentences across every state and territory in Australia—which is more than the prison populations of the ACT and Tasmania combined.

The number of federal parole decisions has been rising every year. In 2024-25 there were over 530 federal parole or parole related decisions. This number has increased from 463 in 2023 to 2024 and has been increasing at a rate of 5 to 15 percent per year.

Currently, the Attorney-General and delegates within the Attorney-General's Department are responsible for making decisions about the release of federal offenders on parole.

Historically, this arrangement has been fit for purpose, due to the small numbers of federal offenders and nature of the cohort, which has traditionally comprised offences against the Commonwealth, such as social services fraud.

The makeup and complexity of the federal offender cohort has changed over time. This cohort now includes increasing numbers of offenders who pose a direct risk to community safety, such as terrorists and child sex offenders.

That is why the government is establishing an independent Commonwealth Parole Board. This will ensure that decisions about the release and management of federal offenders are made by people who have the appropriate skills and experience to make the decisions about an offender's prospects of rehabilitation and reintegration into the community, and ultimately the risks they pose to community safety.

There is overwhelming and widespread stakeholder support for an independent Parole Board. The board responds to and aligns with recommendations of the Australian Law Reform Commission, the Law Council of Australia and National Legal Aid. It is also welcomed by victims support groups and legal advocacy organisations.

The reform also brings the federal parole system into step with best practice approaches in the states and territories, as well as Canada, New Zealand and the United Kingdom, who all have statutory parole authorities independent from government.

The Commonwealth Parole Board Bill

This Commonwealth Parole Board Bill will establish a Commonwealth Parole Board as a secondary statutory structure in the Attorney-General's portfolio. The members of the board will be independent statutory office holders.

The bill sets out the objectives of the Commonwealth Parole Board, which are to:

The parole framework and the management of federal offenders will remain largely the same as they currently are in the Crimes Act. The main change is to replace the Attorney-General with the board as the decision-maker for parole. The purpose of parole will continue to be the rehabilitation and reintegration of federal offenders, and the protection of the community.

The board will retain discretion to consider all information that is known and relevant to a decision. The board, and its staff, will have appropriate information sharing powers to enable them to request and use relevant information to support their decision-making.

The board will also make all parole decisions, including in relation to terrorism offenders. The bill will not change the statutory prohibition against parole for terrorist offenders. There is a very high threshold that must be met for a terrorism offender to be granted parole, and parole can only be granted if there are exceptional circumstances justifying the release. That won't change.

Establishment of the Commonwealth Parole Board

The bill sets out the membership of the board which will consist of a chair, deputy chair and at least three sessional members.

All members of the board will be appointed by the Governor-General for up to five-year terms, on the recommendation of the Attorney-General. When making these recommendations, the Attorney-General must ensure that members of the board have the appropriate qualifications, experience or knowledge to make decisions about a federal offender's prospects of rehabilitation and reintegration and the risks they pose to community safety.

At least one of the chair or deputy chair must have significant legal experience, to ensure they have the legal skills and expertise required to ensure that the broad discretion conferred on the board is exercised consistently with the framework in Part 1B of the Crimes Act and in accordance with procedural fairness.

When recommending appointments to the board, the Attorney-General must also ensure that the board possesses an appropriate mix of qualifications, experience and knowledge and reflects, as closely as possible, the composition of the Australian community at large. Many parts of the Australian community have different experiences of the criminal justice system, either as victims or offenders. It is important that the board's membership includes individuals who have a diverse range of skills, expertise, lived experience and knowledge of the needs of people, and groups of people, significantly affected by the board's decisions. This includes, but is not limited to, expertise in law enforcement, the criminal justice system, the effective reintegration of offenders, community issues such as substance abuse or mental health issues and the impact of offences on victims.

Transparency and oversight

To reinforce the board's independence, the bill explicitly states that the board is not subject to direction from anyone in performing or exercising its functions or powers. The independence of the board is to ensure decisions made under this bill are not subject to any real or perceived influence from the government or any other persons.

The bill ensures that only the Governor-General can terminate members of the board, and only for serious matters including misbehaviour, incapacity, bankruptcy and extended unexplained absence. This further enshrines the independence of board members and limits political interference in their tenure.

To further support the transparency, accountability and independence of the board's functions, the chair will be required to develop an annual report, to be tabled in parliament, on the board's performance and its functions.

The bill also provides for a legislative review to commence three years after the board's commencement. The review will consider whether the parole framework is fit for purpose and review the composition, operation and decision-making processes of the board. The review will ensure that the board can continue to make decisions in an efficient and effective manner and ensure the new board can address any unforeseen issues that may arise.

Conclusion

The bill reflects the Australian government's commitment to strengthening standards of integrity across all public institutions and will support greater public confidence within the broader criminal justice system. It delivers on a commitment made prior to the 2025 election by the former attorney-general, the Hon. Mark Dreyfus KC MP, and I would like to acknowledge his work in bringing this important reform forward.

Parole is a key part of the criminal justice system, and it is well documented that the supervision of offenders in the community under strict controls minimises reoffending.

This important criminal justice reform will make the community safer by ensuring that parole decisions are made by independent experts who are best placed to make the robust assessments of risk required to protect the community. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned.

Commonwealth Parole Board (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2025; Second Reading

Commonwealth Parole Board (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2025

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Introduction

The Commonwealth Parole Board (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2025 makes consequential amendments to part 1B of the Crimes Act 1914, to support the establishment and functions of the Commonwealth Parole Board.

This bill replaces the Attorney-General as the decision-maker for federal offenders, and other detainees, within part 1B of the Crimes Act.

The consequential amendments will ensure the board has the key decision-making powers to function effectively and efficiently. This includes the power to make, refuse to make, or amend parole orders for federal offenders, and to deal with other relevant decisions, including release on licence orders, breaches and revocation of parole or licence orders, overseas travel requests, and the ability to amend orders in certain circumstances.

Many of the arrangements for the board that are dealt with in the bill would generally apply to the board in the way they currently apply to the Attorney-General.

The bill does, however, make some key changes to parole decision-making to align with best-practice approaches in states and territories and internationally. These amendments provide the board with flexibility to ensure that decisions are made effectively and efficiently, while still retaining statutory protections and timeframes for people to be considered for parole.

Currently, the Crimes Act requires the decision-maker to consider an offender for parole before the end of the non-parole period set by the court and reconsider an offender within every 12 months after any refusal of parole. There is currently no discretion available for a decision-maker to defer a parole decision for any reason.

This can have the perverse effect of delaying or preventing rehabilitation or reintegration outcomes for offenders.

For example, currently a decision-maker may be required to make a decision where the offender would otherwise be recommended for parole but suitable accommodation is not yet finalised.

Or a decision-maker may require further information to support a decision but cannot obtain that information ahead of the statutory consideration date and be required to make the decision on insufficient information.

There are also circumstances where there are clear factors for a refusal that will take longer than 12 months for an offender to address, such as sex offender treatment programs that take up to 18 months to complete. However, due to the 12 month statutory reconsideration date, a decision-maker is required to reconsider that offender for parole before they've had a chance to complete their treatment.

To address these issues, part 1B of the Crimes Act will be amended to provide the board with discretion to:

These amendments will provide the board the necessary discretion to manage statutory deadlines. This flexibility will ensure procedural fairness is afforded to federal defenders during the decision-making process. This includes providing the offender the opportunity to address factors or provide further information that, without this new discretion, may have resulted in a refusal decision on their application.

These changes to the existing parole framework strike the balance between providing the board with the flexibility to manage parole consideration timeframes effectively and efficiently while maintaining the statutory protection of regular parole reconsiderations for offenders.

The bill also includes transitional provisions to ensure the transfer of parole decision-making functions from the Attorney-General to the new Commonwealth Parole Board occurs seamlessly and does not impact the operations of state and territory corrective services or law enforcement agencies. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned.

Excise Tariff Amendment (Draught Beer) Bill 2025; Second Reading

Excise Tariff Amendment (Draught Beer) Bill 2025

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Australians have always known how to come together—around the kitchen table for a cuppa, over a snag at your mate's birthday barbecue or cheering from the sidelines at the kids' Saturday netball game.

This bill delivers another reason for Australians to come together.

This bill delivers on the government's commitment in the 2025-26 budget to freeze the indexation on draught beer excise for two years.

This bill is a win for beer drinkers, brewers and every pub, club and hospitality business across the country.

I want to put on the public record that, as Assistant Treasurer, I see it as a key part of my role to support liquid markets.

For many Australians, the local pub isn't just a place to have a drink.

It's where the community meets.

It's where people unwind after a week of hard work, where mates catch up, where you celebrate your team's win.

It's where tourists get their first real taste of the real Australia—and learn that we don't drink Fosters and there's much better beer on tap from top-notch local brewers.

Keeping those places strong matters. They employ hundreds of thousands of people and play a big part in local life.

This pause is about giving pubs, clubs and breweries a bit more certainty—delivering around $100 million of support.

Under longstanding arrangements, beer excise is indexed twice a year—every February and August. Those increases are automatic, and keep taxes in line with CPI.

This legislation pauses those biannual increases for draught beer from 1 August 2025 through to 31 July 2027.

The excise will then resume indexation from that paused rate in August 2027.

It's a moderate and targeted measure, but one with real impact.

It builds on the broader tax relief we announced earlier this year for Australia's brewers, distillers and winemakers that are not only central to our culture and way of life, but also to jobs, innovation and exports.

Currently all eligible brewers, distillers and winemakers can get a tax remission under the scheme up to a cap of $350,000.

The government is also increasing these caps to $400,000 per financial year from 1 July 2026, under legislation we have recently consulted on.

From Burnie's whisky to Burdekin rum, from Brisbane beer to Barossa shiraz—producers right across the country will benefit.

These measures are practical, targeted support that makes a real difference in the lives of pub owners and pub goers alike.

And I look forward to visiting pubs in as many electorates as possible so that I can carry out the important task of post-legislative implementation assessments.

The measure in this bill was previously moved as Excise Tariff Proposal (No. 1) 2025 on 24 July 2025. Consistent with normal parliamentary practice, the excise tariff proposal now requires incorporation in the Excise Tariff Act.

This bill is complemented by the Customs Tariff Amendment (Draught Beer) Bill 2025.

This bill makes the same changes to Australia's excise laws.

Full details of the measure are contained in the explanatory memorandum.

Debate adjourned.

Customs Tariff Amendment (Draught Beer) Bill 2025; Second Reading

Customs Tariff Amendment (Draught Beer) Bill 2025

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The government is delivering on its 2025-26 budget commitment to freeze the indexation on draught beer excise for two years.

The measure in this bill was previously moved as Customs Tariff Proposal (No. 1) 2025 on 24 July 2025.

Consistent with normal parliamentary practice, the customs tariff proposal now requires incorporation in the Customs Tariff Act.

This bill is complemented by the Excise Tariff Amendment (Draught Beer) Bill 2025.

Full details of the measure are contained in the explanatory memorandum.

Debate adjourned.

Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence) Bill 2025; Second Reading

Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence) Bill 2025

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Today I rise in support of the Albanese Labor government's Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence) Bill 2025, which will establish a parliamentary joint committee on Defence. This bill ensures that departments entrusted with extraordinary powers are subject to extraordinary accountability. In a time of evolving security threats, it has never been more important to maintain rigorous, independent oversight of our defence community.

The bill delivers on recommendations that were set out and made by the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade to establish a committee which is purely focused on Defence. Recommendations tabled by the JCFADT uncovered existing parliamentary oversight and accountability measures for Defence to be inadequate in balancing accountability, transparency and national security considerations. This bill seeks to amend these issues and give Australians greater trust in parliamentary oversight functions.

By amending the Defence Act, this bill seeks to create a committee which will oversee the Australian Defence Force, the Department of Defence, the Department of Veterans' Affairs, and key Defence portfolio agencies, including the Australian Submarine Agency, Defence Housing Australia and the Australian War Memorial.

In terms of functions, the committee will be able to

The PJCD will be able to receive and consider classified information in carrying out its oversight functions. This will ensure it has the information needed to conduct effective scrutiny of Defence and its portfolio agencies, thereby strengthening government decision-making on defence and strategic policy.

Importantly, the bill establishes appropriate safeguards that balance the government's commitment to greater public accountability and transparency for Defence, and the necessary protection of information provided to the PJCD to ensure Australia's national security and that of our international partners is protected.

The PJCD can receive referrals on matters from ministers and either house of parliament and may also undertake its own-initiative inquiries relevant to its oversight functions.

In recognition of the significance of establishing a royal commission, the PJCD will be responsible for monitoring and reviewing, on an ongoing basis, the Australian government's response to the findings of any royal commission inquiries relating to Defence.

To ensure the independent regulators in the Defence portfolio are able to fulfil their statutory functions, the PJCD will also consider the operations, resources, independence and performance of the Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force and the Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Regulator.

The functions of the new committee will not extend to matters that fall within the jurisdiction of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. This includes oversight. It will remain the responsibility of the PJCIS to have oversight of the Australian Signals Directorate, the Australian Geospatial-Intelligence Organisation and the Defence Intelligence Organisation, which will continue to report to the PJCIS.

It will supersede, however, and enhance the Defence related functions currently undertaken by the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade. That's the subcommittee that exists in that larger committee.

The existing arrangements for Defence oversight by the Senate Standing Committees on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, including the examination of legislation and of the Defence budget through the Senate estimates process, will remain unchanged.

Similarly, the establishment of the PJCD does not prohibit other committees, such as the statutory Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, from examining Defence matters as part of its functions.

The new committee will complement these existing arrangements by providing additional oversight of Defence matters that require consideration in a classified setting.

In terms of the constitution of the committee, as with the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, the Prime Minister, in consultation with the Leader of the Opposition, will appoint up to 13 members to the new committee.

This includes no more than seven government members and six non-government members from both houses of parliament.

The arrangements for information handling are modelled on those that apply to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security.

Committee proceedings will be conducted in a private and appropriately secure setting, unless the minister has authorised public hearings, with the exception of the PJCD's consideration of the annual reports of Defence agencies.

The new committee will be able to request and receive classified information and briefings in order to perform its functions. For certain categories of protected information—for example, specific information about highly sensitive military capabilities, tactics, techniques or procedures—the minister would need to authorise the production of the information to the committee.

The minister would also need to authorise any subsequent disclosure by the PJCD of that information, including in reports to the parliament.

If necessary, to prevent a witness from disclosing operationally sensitive or other protected information, the minister can issue a certificate to prevent the provision of such evidence or documents.

Given the safeguards in place to support the provision of information to the PJCD, these powers are not intended for routine use. Rather, they are reserved for rare circumstances where disclosure of highly sensitive information could cause significant harm.

The bill establishes a range of criminal offences to deter members of the PJCD, their staff, committee staff, and any other individuals who receive protected information in connection with the performance of the committee's functions from disclosing or publishing information without specific authorisation from the relevant minister.

It also includes offences designed to protect witnesses who are requested to provide evidence or documents to the PJCD.

These offences and penalties in the bill are reasonable, necessary, and proportionate, ensuring the PJCD can access the information required to exercise effective oversight of the Defence portfolio, while maintaining the confidentiality and security of that information.

The strong legal safeguards in place are designed to uphold the integrity of the PJCD's work and ensure that all participants are subject to clear obligations and serious consequences for any breach.

Australians know that the Albanese Labor government is delivering when it comes to our national security and defence.

That's why we have made the biggest peacetime increase in defence spending in Australia's history, providing what is now an additional $70 billion for defence capability.

And, every time we get up and make another announcement, that number only grows. We are constantly looking at what our needs are based on the strategic landscape we face and how we may resource these needs effectively.

In one term, we have announced $12 billion toward Henderson to deliver continuous naval shipbuilding in Western Australia and make AUKUS a reality.

That's going to support 10,000 direct jobs over the next two decades as well as provide opportunities for businesses across the state.

We're investing $4.5 billion for key defence upgrades, including $2 billion for air base upgrades across the Northern Territory, Queensland and Cocos Islands; $1 billion to upgrade land and joint estate capabilities; and $750 million for critical infrastructure upgrades and facilities works at RAAF Base Townsville.

I was just up there recently as we welcomed the new Apache helicopters and the infrastructure that we're building to make that a success.

There is $600 million for the maritime bases, including HMAS Coonawarraand HMAS Cairns, and $200 million to fast-track what are existing programs.

We're also investing in a new era for defence capabilities, which includes the introduction of the Australian Army's new Apache helicopters, a sovereign autonomous undersea capabilities through the Ghost Shark program and the delivery of a larger and more lethal surface combatant fleet with the selection of the upgraded Japanese Mogami class frigates.

Our government, the Albanese government, will continue to increase defence spending to record levels to deliver the capabilities that Australia needs.

These investments are part of the government's commitment to building our sovereign defence industry and supporting a future made in Australia.

That's why I'm standing here today in support of this bill—because we will always follow through with our commitments.

From my experiences during my time as Chair of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security—I have colleagues here who were on that committee—we understand the importance of parliamentary oversight.

Even as members of the executive, it is important that the parliament and parliamentarians have the ability to do the oversight, conduct the inquiries and do the work necessary to ensure we have transparency and accountability.

The PJCIS provides an important forum for vigorous debate, analysis and engagement, with topics on critical national security issues which can be considered.

I'm very cognisant of the important role the intelligence and security committee has played in doing the necessary work in an atmosphere that is conducive to the national interest rather than partisan political pointscoring.

The intelligence and security committee provides a platform for MPs across Australia to make informed recommendations on classified issues without being a member of the executive government.

Similarly, the new defence committee will allow MPs to express their views on these issues integral to the national security of our country.

The ability to platform these views of our citizens on critical issues is the cornerstone of our democratic society, and, the better informed our parliamentarians are on defence, the better it is for the public debate.

The PJCD that we seek to create not only replicates the integral core principles of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security but is world's best practice for parliamentary oversight and accountability on defence.

In conclusion, our government is acting on the longstanding recommendations of the JFADT to establish a defence committee. Our government's primary commitment is to keeping Australians safe.

Our strategic environment becomes inevitably more volatile and complex—we know that—and Australia needs enduring infrastructure ingrained within our parliament to ensure all of our departments and agencies are complying with the rule of law.

This bill strikes the right balance between safeguarding our national security and upholding the democratic principles that define us.

With this legislation we reinforce the message that strong security must go hand-in-hand with strong oversight, and Labor proudly stands behind that principle today.

I would hope that those opposite seek to support this bill, as they similarly did when it was first introduced in our last term of parliament before it was knocked back. I hope they will provide that support given the non-partisan or bipartisan commitment that we have to our national interests and our national security.

The Leader of the Opposition is quoted as wanting to do things differently this term. I hope that's the case. I hope there is a collaborative, bipartisan approach that they will take into the debate on this bill and that it will translate into support for this important bill—one that is critical to the national security oversight and transparency mechanisms of this parliament, and one that should be above partisan politics and petty pointscoring. Those opposite, I would hope, should take the opportunity to be acting in the best interests of Australia's security, because this bill actually improves both transparency and accountability.

The safeguards we are proposing around the operation of this new committee mirror those of the intelligence security committee. It has had support from the opposition in the past. I want to see that support again today.

I commend this bill to the House.

Debate adjourned.

COMMITTEES

Public Works Joint Committee; Reference

I move:

That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Attorney-General's Department—Proposed fit-out of existing leased premises at 3-5 National Circuit, Barton, Australian Capital Territory.

The Attorney-General's Department is proposing to fit out existing leased premises at 3-5 National Circuit, Barton, ACT to enable the department to consolidate from three buildings into one in Canberra. The scope of works includes a new reception area, shared meeting facilities, demolition of existing modular and fixed built form on the work floors, construction of new enclose spaces and workstations, new staff amenities including kitchens and breakout spaces and the reconfiguration or replacement of building services.

The estimated total cost of the works is $39.93 million dollars excluding GST. The works must be referred to, considered by and reported on to both houses of the parliament by the public works committee before work may commence.

Subject to parliamentary approval, the works are expected to commence in June 2026 for completion in December 2027. I commend the motion to the house.

Question agreed to.

MOTIONS

Telecommunications

I move:

That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Member for Lindsay moving the following motion immediately:

(1) a select committee, to be known as the House Select Committee on the Triple Zero Ecosystem, be appointed to inquire into and report on the health of the triple zero ecosystem;

(2) the committee consist of eight members: five Members to be nominated by the Government Whip, and three Members to be nominated by the Opposition Whip or by any crossbench Member;

(3) every nomination of a member be notified in writing to the Speaker of the House of Representatives;

(4) the committee may proceed to the dispatch of business notwithstanding that not all members have been duly nominated and appointed and notwithstanding any vacancy;

(5) the members of the committee hold office as a select committee until presentation of the committee's final report or until the House of Representatives is dissolved or expires by effluxion of time, whichever is the earlier;

(6) the committee present its final report no later than 8 December 2025;

(7) the committee elect a Government member as its chair;

(8) the committee elect a non-Government member as its deputy chair to act as chair of the committee at any time when the chair is not present at a meeting of the committee;

(9) at any time when the chair and deputy chair are not present at a meeting of the committee, the members present shall elect another member to act as chair at that meeting;

(10) in the event of an equally divided vote, the chair, or the deputy chair when acting as chair, have a casting vote;

(11) three members of the committee constitute a quorum of the committee;

(12) the committee have power to appoint subcommittees, consisting of three or more of its members, and to refer to any subcommittee any matter which the committee is empowered to examine;

(13) the committee appoint the chair of each subcommittee who shall have a casting vote only;

(14) two members of a subcommittee constitute the quorum of that subcommittee;

(15) members of the committee who are not members of a subcommittee may participate in the proceedings of that subcommittee but shall not vote, move any motion or be counted for the purpose of a quorum;

(16) the committee or any subcommittee have power to:

(a) call for witnesses to attend and for documents to be produced;

(b) conduct proceedings at any place it sees fit;

(d) report from time to time; and

(e) adjourn from time to time and to sit during any adjournment of the House of Representatives; and

(17) the provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders.

This should be an uncontroversial motion, so I will be relatively brief. Standing and sessional orders must be suspended so that this House can have a vote on whether to establish a parliamentary inquiry into the triple 0 ecosystem. It's as simple as this: do we, as members representing our communities across Australia, which is on the cusp of bushfire season, want more scrutiny of this vital emergency service, or less? If we do, the committee's work can start today and this House can work together to ensure all Australians can have confidence in triple 0. If not, members voting must be prepared to explain why they don't support robust oversight of this vital life-saving service by our nation's parliament.

The opposition have been consistent. We have repeatedly called for a thorough investigation into the health of our nation's emergency call service. In light of the gross and tragic mismanagement of the Minister for Communications and the recent Optus network outages, this is a necessity. A formal parliamentary inquiry has special powers, which no other inquiry currently underway has. It can compel witnesses; it can hear evidence in private sessions and travel across the country to hear directly from Australians. It is not a tick-and-flick exercise either. The work and findings of a parliamentary inquiry are fulsome and frank. These are essential qualities, which the other inquiries kicked off by the minister and the telcos may not be.

I envisage that the object of this motion, a select House committee, would be able to hear directly, for example, from affected emergency service personnel and telecommunications experts. This may be inconvenient for the government, but, as they have sought to put the blame for the tragic outages solely on Optus, I would have thought they would welcome some additional scrutiny and transparency.

In view of the Minister for Communications being new to the job, the opposition is working in the national interest. We allowed for the triple 0 custodian bill to be introduced yesterday without notice, and, despite the fact that it is against the conventions of this place, debate on this bill will resume later this morning. I pause here to say that we support this bill being wrapped up before the House rises tomorrow.

It's our job as parliamentarians to do the hard work, to get across our briefs and to not go missing in action when the going gets tough. Our communities expect us, given the shocking triple 0 outages, to apply the blowtorch to the entire system, and that's exactly what this motion tries to do. I call on those opposite, especially the Minister for Communications, to join with the opposition in a bipartisan way, and in the national interest, to support this motion for the establishment of a parliamentary inquiry into the triple 0 ecosystem.

Is there a seconder for this motion?

I second the motion. Bushfire season is upon us in regional Australia, and the indications are that it could be a bad one, so reliable connectivity to triple 0 is absolutely critical to saving lives in the bush. That is why the haste in clearing up this minister's mess is so important and why a select committee on the triple 0 ecosystem is absolutely warranted. Given the second Optus triple 0 failure on Labor's watch, nothing could be more important than this House turning its mind to how we can save lives this summer and beyond, particularly in regional Australia. The composition of this proposed House select committee is fair and representative and has a quick timeframe of under two months to deliver findings.

It is well and good for the Minister for Communications to claim she has called the telco heads in for a good talking to. I have spoken with some of them recently as well, as has my colleague the shadow minister for communications. This travesty is so critical. We need transparency. With the minister flailing and calling herself a new minister five months in, saving Australians' lives warrants full House engagement and transparency on what is happening with our triple 0 service. Regional Australians need reassurance. After a very poor run of performance from this minister and from the Albanese Labor government on its treatment of regional Australians, this House needs to give those in the bush the certainty that triple 0 will be there to save their lives. Under Labor, we have seen tick-and-flick meaningless so-called consultation when federal and state Labor government have in mind precisely what it intends to do, which is centralisation and withdrawal of essential services from the bush.

The best way to rebuild trust in the triple 0 system and, indeed, in this government is to have this inquiry. I wrote about the triple 0 system in my local newspapers in Mallee, and it's my duty as member for Mallee and as shadow minister to reassure my constituents that they can have confidence in calling triple 0. Amid the debate about Optus triple 0 failures, we've had to be very careful to ensure Australians will call triple 0 and be confident that it will work. That is the reason for this select committee and what it is all about—rebuilding trust in arguably the most trusted service in Australia. Without triple 0, you don't get an ambulance. In all likelihood, particularly in the bush, you will die. Without triple 0, you don't get a firefighter or firefighting support. It's highly likely you'll die or suffer catastrophic injuries. Our job in opposition is to hold this government to account, and four lives have been lost—four! This government has allowed Optus to undermine confidence in our triple 0 system, and we need to rebuild confidence right here with this select committee.

Let me add my gratitude to our emergency services personnel. Nothing in this debate is a slight on their dedication and hard work, and I want to send a particular shout-out to our emergency services volunteers, volunteer firefighters and ambulance service members. In my home state of Victoria, the Allan Labor government has undermined confidence and support in volunteer firefighting through their so-called emergency services and volunteers fund levy. It is a tax grab. Volunteer firefighters are already shocked that transmission lines and wind turbines are being proposed through their farming land, exposing them to greater fire risk. Now they are being taxed for the inconvenience by yet another Labor government that is hungry for tax revenue. Labor desperately needs to rebuild confidence and support in emergency services, and this select committee is how we get there.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Mary Aldred David Batt Angie Bell Sam Birrell Nicolette Boele Colin Boyce Scott Buchholz Cameron Caldwell Jamie Chaffey Kate Chaney Darren Chester Andrew Gee Helen Haines Andrew Hastie Alex George Hawke Barnaby Thomas Gerard Joyce Simon Kennedy Michelle Landry Dai Le Michael McCormack Melissa McIntosh Zoe McKenzie Llew O'Brien Tony Pasin Alison Penfold Henry Pike Melissa Price Leon Rebello Monique Ryan Sophie Scamps Rebekha Sharkie Ben Small Allegra Spender Zali Steggall Dan Tehan Phillip Thompson Tom Venning Aaron Violi Andrew Wallace Elizabeth Watson-Brown Anne Webster Andrew Wilkie Andrew Willcox Rick Wilson Tim Wilson Jason Peter Wood Terry Young Basem Abdo Anne Aly Ash Ambihaipahar Jodie Belyea Jo Briskey Mr Tony Stephen Burke Matt Burnell Josh Burns Mark Christopher Butler Alison Byrnes Julie-Ann Campbell Jim Chalmers Andrew Charlton Lisa Chesters Jason Dean Clare Sharon Claydon Claire Clutterham Renee Coffey Emma Comer Pat Conroy Kara Cook Trish Cook Mary Doyle Mark Alfred Dreyfus Justine Elliot Mike Freelander Tom French Carina Garland Steve Georganas Andrew Giles Patrick Gorman Luke Gosling Matt Gregg Julian Hill Rowan Holzberger Ed Husic Madonna Jarrett Alice Jordan-Baird Ged Kearney Matt Keogh Peter Khalil Ms Catherine Fiona King Madeleine King Tania Lawrence Jerome Laxale Andrew Leigh Sam Lim Zaneta Mascarenhas Kristy McBain Emma McBride Louise Miller-Frost Rob Mitchell David Moncrieff Daniel Mulino Shayne Kenneth Neumann Gabriel Ng Clare O'Neil Fiona Phillips Tanya Joan Plibersek Sam Rae Gordon Reid Dan Repacholi Amanda Louise Rishworth Tracey Roberts Michelle Rowland Joanne Ryan Marion Scrymgour Sally Sitou David Smith Matt Smith Zhi Soon Anne Stanley Jess Teesdale Susan Templeman Kate Thwaites Anne Urquhart Tim Watts Anika Wells Josh Wilson Sarah Witty Tony Zappia

COMMITTEES

National Anti-Corruption Commission Joint Committee; Report

by leave—I present the following reports of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the National Anti-Corruption Commission of the 47th Parliament: Examination of the Inspector of the National Anti-Corruption Commission annual report 2023-24 and Examination of the National Anti-Corruption Commission annual report 2023-24.

Reports made parliamentary papers in accordance with standing order 39(e).

by leave—These two reports from the 47th Parliament represent a significant body of work by the former committee, particularly under the stewardship of the former chair, Senator Karen Grogan. I want to thank the committee for that work. It is a committee that plays an important role in oversight and supporting Australians' confidence in the commission's work. I look forward to continuing this important work as the Chair of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the National Anti-Corruption Commission in this parliament.

BILLS

Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Triple Zero Custodian and Emergency Calling Powers) Bill 2025; Second Reading

Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Triple Zero Custodian and Emergency Calling Powers) Bill 2025

I rise today to speak on the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Triple Zero Custodian and Emergency Calling Powers) Bill 2025. What a disgraceful display of behaviour by those opposite, refusing to have scrutiny in this parliament when it comes to the triple 0 network and allowing all those Australians who have experienced triple 0 outages, our emergency services personnel to have their say, or to have light shone onto the disasters that have been happening in the triple 0 network—the crisis of the triple 0 network.

We are here today discussing this because we have a rushed piece of legislation. It's policy on the run in its worst form. This legislation is far from perfect. If it had been moved to 18 months ago—even 12 months ago—would it have stopped the September outage, when four lives were lost? We haven't even had time, because it came to us with less than 24 hours notice to stress test or scenario test it. Those scenario tests will now have to happen in real life, and with that come extraordinary risk as to whether the legislation will actually work.

We are only debating this today because of the catastrophic Optus outage that happened on 18 September this year. This was no ordinary outage. This outage went on for around 13 hours. It was completely undetected. People in South Australia, Western Australia and the Northern Territory were unable to call triple 0 in their greatest time of need. There were warning signs that this was going to happen, but those were ignored. There were customer complaints to the Optus call centre from people who couldn't connect to triple 0, yet none of these raised an immediate red flag. It astounds me that anyone who calls their telco provider saying they can't get through to triple 0 is not taken seriously. It is completely unacceptable.

From the information we have right now, more than 600 calls failed to connect with emergency services during that 13-hour outage. But we don't know if that is all. We don't know with any certainty how many more there might be. Tragically, as I said, four people lost their lives. Their families and their friends are mourning the loss of their loved ones. This is not politics; this is real life. People have died. And it breaks all of our hearts here. I cannot emphasise enough how absolutely and unequivocally unacceptable this outage was, and the way it was handled by everyone involved is a disgrace. Optus has failed Australians. They have failed in not detecting this abhorrent error in their systems, which denied Australians in emergency situations connection to help—help that we promise will be there in people's greatest time of need. This is a service which the minister yesterday agreed is the most critical service in our telecommunications system. Optus also failed to tell Australians what was going on for more than 32 hours after this catastrophic failure of their network. They have failed to be open and transparent about what actually went wrong.

On Saturday 19 September, the CEO of Optus, Stephen Rue, promised he would provide daily updates. He fronted of the media just three more times—then radio silence. I have tried to secure a meeting with the CEO twice now—more radio silence. He did have time to meet with the minister yesterday and Senator Sarah Hanson-Young. I hope they had a nice cup of tea. Optus have said this was human error. What does this even mean? Did someone forget to flick a switch, plug something in or code something correctly in their systems upgrade? What was this error, and how can we ensure it doesn't happen again? It is everyone's guess right now, because no-one is talking—19 days on, we know a little more than we did on the evening of 19 September.

But Optus are not the only ones who have failed here. They are not the only ones whose systems are broken. The department of communications and the regulator, ACMA, have also failed. Exactly what did they do with the first notifications that came through on 18 September from Optus? Optus had to let them know by law. What on Earth did they do with the subsequent emails that Optus sent that provided updates on the outage? These are the questions that I have been asking for three weeks, yet the department and the regulator, ACMA, are unwilling to speak about it. That old adage that silence is the greatest admission of guilt has never been more true. Worse—the Albanese Labor government have been praying that this would just go away. In fact, the Minister for Communications has found plenty of time to go to New York and the AFL grand final in Melbourne and attend last week's NRL grand final in Sydney, just to name a few. We have the selfies to prove it. But she didn't have time to tell you, the people of Australia, who are dependent on triple 0 in your greatest time of need, what she is doing to protect you and to fix this broken triple 0 system.

Yesterday in question time, the Minister for Communications was asked to confirm that neither she nor her office was notified of the catastrophic outage that occurred on Thursday 18 September before the afternoon of 19 September when Optus advised the media. The minister stood here, right across from where I am now and said:

Yes; I can confirm we were not notified of the catastrophic outage until late afternoon on Friday 19 September.

Let me tell you where that story falls apart. On 25 September, David Swan from the Age newspaper published a story titled 'The emails that reveal how Optus downplayed the triple zero disaster'. In this article, Mr Swan cites two emails sent by Optus to the minister's staff at 2.45 pm and 2.52 pm on Thursday 18 September—a whole day prior to what the minister stood here yesterday in question time and told the Australian public was when she knew about it.

That can't be right, surely?

This is the question that the minister should be answering—it can't be right. These first alerts, although lacking in detail, said that services were down in South Australia and Western Australia and that welfare checks were being conducted. Calls to triple 0 had been impacted. The minister's office was notified directly by Optus. This was the first warning sign; it was ignored.

The minister has spoken strongly of the need to rebuild trust and confidence in the triple 0 network, so Australians can have faith that the service will work. Let me tell you, on behalf of the thousands of Australians who have contacted me about this, when every single player in this catastrophic event—Optus, ACMA as the regulator, the department of communications and the minister and her office—has failed to fess up about what they knew when, this is not rebuilding trust. Like rubbing salt in a wound, the minister has tasked ACMA as the regulator to investigate the outage. How on earth can ACMA investigate themselves? How on earth can ACMA investigate what went wrong when they are part of the failed process? What kind of alternate universe are you living in on that side of the House? We may have taken a walloping at the last election, but the arrogance of those on that side of the House is appalling. Wake up to yourselves. It's time to get off your backsides, out of cloud nine, and start delivering for the Australian people. They need to have reliability. They need to have security. They need to be able to call triple 0 in their greatest time of need.

According to the minister, the triple 0 custodian has been operational since March this year in her department—the very same department that got the alert email from Optus the day of the outage and did nothing with the email. What exactly has this person or persons been doing since March? Clearly not checking their emails from Optus about a triple 0 outage where four people have died. What astounds me most is that it's taken yet another absolute crisis with Optus to get this weak, lazy Albanese government off their backsides, and they still don't have a clue. If the role was established back in March, why wasn't it legislated then? If the role was fully operational back in March without legislative authority, why does it need it now? And how much are Australian taxpayers paying for this custodian who can't even check an email? This is nothing but a dog-and-pony show from this arrogant government, who think they can do whatever they want, whenever they want, and nothing is going to happen. Nothing to see here.

You failed to act back in 2023, but at least the former communications minister, now the Attorney-General, had the good sense to do an independent investigation. The current minister has refused to do this at every turn, and, like a broken record on repeat, the minister has continued to say that ACMA is the appropriate body—even though they're involved in the broken process and the failure to do the investigation. They are not the appropriate body. It is clear to everyone. They failed to alert the minister when the first warning bells were rung. Why is this not important? Why is the minister not holding them to account? ACMA and the minister's department have failed to brief. They have failed to update the minister on the Bean review recommendations and where they are at. The minister said on Saturday that 12 recommendations were completed. The minister said yesterday that 13 recommendations had been completed.

An honourable member: Another quick one!

Order! We can do without the echo, thanks.

Details matter here. Details do really matter. People's lives are at risk. You've got to be across your brief; you've got to get it together. With something this important, this is absolutely critical. So here we are. The bill is being rushed through parliament at 10 seconds to midnight because this government wants to appear like it is doing something.

The government's failure to act on the recommendations of the Bean review, which it accepted and agreed to in full 18 months ago, is lazy and shows disregard for our vital triple 0 network. This bill, at face value, does little more than add bureaucratic layers to an existing process that already has multiple failure points. I implore you to do a full review of the triple 0 ecosystem. I implore the minister to conduct that independent review. Find out the failure points, fix them and ensure that this system works. The minister cannot continue to patchwork quilt or apply bandaids to something that isn't working. Australians deserve more. They expect more. It is on the minister as the steward of the system to deliver that, and I won't stop. I won't back down. It might get annoying to some, but, when a system so important is broken, you need to do your job. You need to fix it.

I foreshadow that I will be moving detailed amendments to strengthen this bill, even though we have been given 24 hours notice, because, unlike those opposite, I want to properly fix and protect the triple zero network. Colleagues on this side have been doing all they can over those few hours to contribute to fixing the system, because we care. We care about Australians when they are in their greatest need. People are depending on us to get this right, so we will support this bill and I implore—I deeply, deeply mean it—the Albanese Labor government to support my amendments. We come across a little bit aggressive now, but it's because we care about Australians, and we're moving these amendments because we know they will strengthen this bill. Albert Einstein is reported to have said, 'The only thing more dangerous than ignorance is arrogance.' Don't let it blind your actions here. Do what is right and what will ensure that all Australians are safe and they can call triple 0 when they really need it.

I'm really disgusted to hear people suggest that this isn't something that Labor is taking seriously and that this government isn't doing everything it can to ensure that people can access triple 0 when they need it, from wherever they need it. I know it's tempting to play politics with something like this. I am particularly disgusted, though, when it is human lives that have been lost here in an awful, awful situation where Optus has failed. We will be holding Optus to account on its failures, and I would have thought any suggestion otherwise was beneath the member for Lindsay, but clearly not.

I've had to dial triple 0 on very few occasions, but when I have had to do it it has been with a real and urgent need. The first time was when my then one-year-old was in a car seat in the car, and I turned around to get him out of the car and he was limp and non-responsive. My brain just fried: 'What do I do here?' Obviously, dialling what we called 'triple O' back then but is much more commonly known as 'triple zero' now was my response. What an incredible service it was to have the operator talk me through what I should be doing with this absolutely non-responsive child, who, as it turned out, was having a febrile convulsion. The operator talked me through bathing him and cooling him in water while I was waiting for an ambulance. It was a horrible experience.

No-one who has ever called triple 0 will have done it for anything other than a really urgent and distressing situation, so we know how important this is. For most of us, the occasions when we do it are few but frightening. What the hundreds of people who tried to call 000 felt when Optus failed to allow their calls to connect would have been shock, and I've heard them describe it as shock, absolute disbelief and total fear that they weren't able to get through. That should never be the case, and that's why we are going to get to the bottom of what has happened here. But you can't just use this interim period to hypothesise and speculate about what it might have been. It was so devastating for the people involved and their families.

We know Optus have to be held accountable for the September outage and that they have to do better, and that's why ACMA, the communications watchdog, is investigating, so we all get the full facts of what happened. But, while we are waiting for the findings of that investigation, we've brought forward the introduction of this bill, the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Triple Zero Custodian and Emergency Calling Powers) Bill 2025, to immediately strengthen government oversight of the triple 0 ecosystem. The bill is about prevention. It's about preventing tragedies like the outage in September from being repeated, by enshrining the Triple Zero Custodian framework in law. The function has been administratively established within the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Communications, Sport and the Arts, but this now enshrines it in law, and it empowers ACMA with the tools that it needs to act swiftly.

The reforms improve coordination across the triple 0 ecosystem, and they give government the ability to step in decisively during outages. I think we have to be really clear, though, that Optus and all telecommunications providers already have obligations under Australian law to ensure they carry emergency services calls. That is already in law. The bill will strengthen the oversight that these obligations are being met.

One of the things that will come in is a requirement for the testing of procedures. The sorts of things that we're going to see here will be in that prevention phase, ensuring that it is more rigorous and that there is more confidence in the processes that are in place. The custodian will drive changes that will reduce the likelihood of these sorts of incidents in the future. They'll give government greater insight into the system, and I think it will go a long way to rebuilding public confidence in triple 0—although, as I say, we need to see, in addition, the outcome of the ACMA investigation into this latest occurrence.

Let's talk a bit about the statutory powers of this bill. It gives ACMA new statutory powers so they'll be able to issue binding directions to carriers, carriage service providers and emergency call persons. These directions may require information such as the cause and scale of outages, restoration plans, and policies and procedures affecting triple 0. The bill also empowers ACMA to mandate specific actions, like improving notification processes or sharing data with emergency service organisations. This would ensure that all relevant stakeholders are informed quickly when there is a problem and that responses are coordinated effectively.

There are also civil penalties that come into effect with this bill. The civil penalty regime supports ACMA's new powers. Telcos and other providers will face significant consequences if they fail to provide information or act as directed during an outage. The penalty framework underscores the seriousness of obligations under the bill and reinforces the government's commitment to protecting Australians by ensuring that triple 0 is reliable and resilient. That is, at the end of the day, our belief as to what this system has to offer—reliability and resilience.

We've been very focused on one particular aspect of triple 0 and the failure that occurred with the Optus outage. Periurban communities like mine in Macquarie are bushfire prone and flood prone and have long, lonely roads and sparse populations. Our communities highlight why that reliability is so important and why resilience is so important. So, when I look at this legislation, I see it in a context of a whole range of things that the Albanese government has been doing to increase reliability and resilience in really difficult situations, emergency situations. Triple 0 needs to work reliably when there is massive demand, such as in a bushfire or a flood. It needs to be accessible in quite remote areas.

Just recently, only 20 kilometres north of Wisemans Ferry, just outside Sydney, residents were unable to phone triple 0 at the site of a tragic double-fatality car crash, when a car went into the Macdonald River. As Macdonald Valley resident Siobhan Mahoney described, on reaching the scene of the accident, which occurred late at night, she couldn't get reception, so she had to drive and get help via wi-fi. These are her words:

We had to waste time trying to get a signal and then eventually I came home to where we have Starlink, and that's how I managed to get hold of emergency services.

When I think about our constituents—and I know the member for Indi would face similar challenges—in nonurban areas trying to access emergency support, there are many things that are part of solving that problem. This legislation is one piece of it, but there are others. Siobhan in the Macdonald Valley didn't need to imagine what goes through your mind when you can't connect to triple 0; she experienced it. I have heard many similar stories over the last decade, including on roads like Putty Road and Bells Line of Road. Everyone, no matter where you are in the 21st century, should be able reach triple 0 in this country. It should be a given. That's why I have been so focused on improving the telecommunications infrastructure in Macquarie and having better and more reliable connectivity.

In the wake of the Black Summer bushfires, there has been significant additional funding, and recommendations from the royal commission supported that. That's resulted in a hardening of infrastructure in the Blue Mountains and the Hawkesbury, and that's both mobile infrastructure and NBN infrastructure, both of which provide really essential communications. We've got improved power backup. There's better coverage, particularly based on the Albanese government investment in new towers in places like Macdonald Valley and Hawkesbury Heights. Very soon the Mount Tomah mobile tower will be switched on. This provides coverage on a really busy and key part of the Bells Line of Road, which is used by people coming from the central west through to Sydney as well as by local users.

There is still work to be done on Yellow Rock and a number of other sites, but these are improving. But there is so much more to do, and I think the crucial next step is the universal coverage obligation that we committed to during the election. The draft legislation is out for discussion. What it means is that outdoor coverage will be accessible almost anywhere Australians can see the sky. It will require mobile carriers to provide reasonable access to mobile voice and text outdoors almost everywhere in Australia. The reforms obviously are going to benefit peri-urban communities like mine but also more regional and remote communities, and it's expected that the changes will help add more than five million square kilometres of basic outdoor mobile text and voice coverage across Australia. The way it will happen is that operators are expected to use a combination of their existing services and emerging direct-to-device technology provided through the low-Earth-orbit satellites, the LEOsats, to expand that baseline outdoor mobile coverage. So, for those in my community who want to give feedback to that, there is an opportunity to do that by later this month.

This piece of legislation today is part of a suite of things that are so vital to communities like mine—peri-urban areas that can be some of the most disaster prone places but also have a high number of users of roads and accidents on well-used but not always best-maintained and highest-grade roads through quite sparsely populated areas. We do need to have a triple 0 custodian who can have the oversight on this aspect of it. No doubt, as we get this new technology happening, as new things come in, their remit will expand to ensure that, whatever the mode of communication, whether you're dialling triple 0 through a LEOsat, whether you're using your wi-fi through your NBN or whether you're using your mobile phone or your landline, you have the ability to connect to the services that you need most. I commend this bill to the House.

I rise today to speak on the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Triple Zero Custodian and Emergency Calling Powers) Bill 2025. The bill is welcome, but the circumstances in which it has been introduced are definitely not. This urgent bill responds to yet another catastrophic triple 0 Optus outage. In the past two weeks, Australians have experienced two serious Optus outages, leaving customers without coverage for hours at a time. Hundreds of calls failed to go through, and, tragically, at least three deaths have been linked to people unable to reach emergency services. No greater failure could be linked to any telecommunications company than that.

Australians should be confident that when they dial triple 0 the call will go through, but right now Australians can't hold that confidence. The Australian people are looking not only for answers but also for action. Ultimately it is the government's and the minister's responsibility to ensure that laws are applied to our telecommunications providers, and clearly the laws are failing in serious ways, and that is completely unacceptable. When one system fails, like Optus did here, your phone is meant to connect to another network. Now, we don't yet know why that didn't happen. This need for backup systems is also why roaming during emergencies is essential. If Optus goes down during a bushfire or because of an outage, Telstra or another carrier must be able to pick up the call, allowing people to access emergency information or, critically, make a life-saving triple 0 call. I'll return to this later.

Unfortunately, we've been here before. When ACMA, the Australian Communications and Media Authority, conducted an investigation into the nationwide Optus outage in 2023 it found that 2,145 people could not access triple 0 and that 369 welfare checks were not conducted. Optus paid penalties totalling more than $12 million, although I have to say—and I say this very strongly—that this is an absolutely insignificant amount of money for a multibillion-dollar corporation, and I would support any move to make that penalty much stronger.

Following the 2023 outage, the government appointed the former deputy chair of ACMA to conduct an inquiry into the outage, which resulted in 18 recommendations to address structural issues in the emergency call system, known as the Bean review. The review's key recommendations were to share real-time outage information across stakeholders and to establish a Triple Zero Custodian to set standards and compel cooperation. As we know, the government accepted all 18 recommendations in April 2024. But here we are, 18 months later, and several remain to be fully implemented.

Following the last absolutely unacceptable outage, the minister has moved to fast-track the establishment of the Triple Zero Custodian in the legislation that we have before us and to give ACMA new powers to hold the telcos to account. Of course I welcome this, and I welcome this bill, and I will support its passage through the House. But I criticise the government most strongly for its slow implementation of key outstanding Bean review recommendations.

This bill amends the Telecommunications (Consumer Protection and Service Standards) Act 1999 to establish a permanent Triple Zero Custodian within the government. The custodian will have powers to request that ACMA direct industry in relation to the emergency call system. The aim is to clearly establish the custodian as the end-to-end oversight body of the emergency call system. First, the bill gives ACMA powers to compel carriers, carriage service providers and emergency call system actors to disclose detailed information about an incident, including the cause of a failure, which services and regions are affected, restoration time frames and its communications to the public. If the custodian requests action, ACMA must issue direction within a set time frame and provide the information and analysis back to the custodian. These are binding directions, with civil penalties available for noncompliance.

Third, the bill sets out how information gathered under these powers can be used and shared. The custodian and ACMA can share relevant information with emergency services and with the National Emergency Management Agency—importantly—as well as with state authorities and others to help respond to outages or improve the system. And fourth, the bill requires ACMA to provide biannual reports to the minister on the actions it's taken in relation to emergency call systems and the Triple Zero Custodian. The bill will also enable the minister to launch a review into the effectiveness of the new custodian arrangements in two years time.

I support this bill because recent Optus outages have shown all Australians just how fragile our telecommunications systems can be and how quickly this fragility can put lives at risk when things go wrong. But let's be clear. This bill will help, but it won't fix this problem. Ensuring our telecommunications systems are resilient and futureproof will require much more action by this government, and I will be relentless in holding them to account for this, because, unfortunately, this fragility is something people in regional Australia know far too well. We already live with outages during storms, bushfires and floods. Communities in my electorate of Indi know exactly how dangerous it is to be cut off, whether it's for an hour, for a day or, in some circumstances, even for a week.

That's why I've been fighting for a more resilient system since I was first elected in 2019. People deserve confidence that, when disaster strikes, their phones will work, their call will get through and their community will stay connected. During an emergency, this is doubly true. While good communications can save lives, bad communications can cost lives. Unfortunately, Indi's heightened disaster risk means that communication outages are frequent. Indi is mountainous, heavily forested and prone to widespread and devastating bushfires. We were devastated both in the 2009 Black Saturday bushfires and again in the 2019-20 Black Summer bushfires. North-east Victoria is also susceptible to riverine and flash floods, with major river systems such as the Murray, the Goulburn, the King, the Ovens, the Broken and the Yea rivers traversing the electorate. In towns like Wangaratta, Yea and Benalla, floods are a fact of life.

During the Black Saturday and Black Summer bushfires, people's safety and survival often depended on whether a phone call got through to triple 0 or whether an emergency warning reached them in time, and this was true for Grant and Alice Stinear, who gave me significant evidence during the recent RTIRC review last year. They live in Buxton in the south of my electorate, and they credit their landline for saving their lives during the Black Saturday bushfires 15 years ago. When the mobile network had gone down, and with the fire fast approaching, it was through their landline that the call to evacuate got through. But today their landline has fallen completely into disrepair. They have little confidence their mobiles will work during a bushfire, and they told my office that, despite all the technological progress of the last decade, the Stinears are less confident than they were 15 years ago that a life-saving message will reach them when it's most needed. What a failure of government!

This is a widely felt sentiment in Indi. No matter where I go across the 29,000 square kilometres of my electorate, I hear loud and clear from the community that regional telecommunications are inadequate, particularly during emergencies. Recent outages like those caused by Optus only reinforce this belief. When outages do occur, backup generators and batteries aren't lasting long enough. It's why in the 2025 election I put forward a policy to require at least 24 hours of power backup for all mobile towers in high-risk areas. This is so important because, when mobile phone towers don't have sufficient power backup, entire towns become isolated. People can't contact emergency services, nor can they contact each other, and I will continue to call on the government to implement this policy. It's a no-brainer. It's been costed by the Parliamentary Budget Office at around $159 million to provide potentially life-saving upgrades to 3,200 high-risk sites. Get on and do it.

It's why I fought for communities in my electorate affected by the 3G shutdown who saw their connectivity go backwards. It's completely unacceptable. It's why I support the universal outdoor mobile obligation, which has the potential to make universal mobile access for Australians a reality. I've supported the government's trials of voice services through the low-Earth-orbit satellites, including tests at the alpine resort of Falls Creek in my electorate. It's why I'm pushing for further funding for projects that increase local communications resilience. Community energy nodes and public wi-fi projects are already benefiting towns such as Jamieson in my electorate, and additional funding for such initiatives will support life-saving communication and essential economic activity during prolonged outages. It's why I've been calling for temporary disaster roaming as a priority reform, and I'm not the only one. It was recommended by the Senate's 2023 Connecting the country report and by the ACCC's 2023 Regional Mobile Infrastructure Inquiry. The Bean review recommended that any temporary disaster roaming must be expanded even further to include outages such as those recently caused by Optus. How many inquiries—how many recommendations—before we get the action?

In my own 2024 submission to the Regional Telecommunications Review, I called for disaster roaming before the next severe fire season, which, at the time, was before the end of 2024. Well, here we are, about to walk into our next bushfire season with no sign of this reform. There has been no public update for two years. Fire season—I cannot emphasise this enough—is fast approaching, and it is completely unacceptable, because an emergency roaming system is commonsense. It is the solution of commonsense for remote, mountainous regions like Indi and for regional communities right across Australia. It would enable a phone to connect to any network during an emergency, no matter which telco you are with.

We know that temporary disaster roaming is possible. In the United States, the Mandatory Disaster Response Initiative requires carriers to let customers roam onto another network during declared disasters. Those powers were activated during Tropical Storm Debby and Hurricane Helene in the second half of 2024. This can be done. In Chile, the national automatic roaming system requires telcos to share their networks in remote regions so people can make calls and receive essential information no matter their provider. So why not Australia? In Canada, the government required telecommunications providers to sign an agreement that facilitates emergency roaming and mutual aid during disasters and major network outages. That's not Australia. Frankly, it is not acceptable that in Australia—in our country—in 2025, your choice of mobile provider determines whether you can access emergency information during a natural disaster.

Are we satisfied with this? I sure as heck am not satisfied with this. The VicEmergency app, for example, relies on a mobile data connection, and we must have access to it during a disaster. During a bushfire or storm, regional Australians need to be able to make a call through whatever network is available, not the one they're signed up to. Parents need to know a call will get through to their child if they're apart. When I asked the current Minister for Communications about this crucial reform this week in question time, we were told that simulation drills would occur in the coming weeks. Well, that's a welcome update, but there is no time left to stall, because, folks, this is not a drill. This is real. We have been stalling in this country for more than two years since these reviews. The government have been stalling. We need to get on with this. It can no longer be the case that you just choose your own adventure if you're a telco. The government must compel the telcos to deploy disaster roaming as soon as possible. My communities can't accept further delays and neither can I.

The bill before the House will improve the functioning of the emergency call system, and on that basis I welcome it. Australians do not have confidence in the triple 0 system, and this must change. It is unacceptable, and both the government and the telcos are responsible. The government must move quicker to implement the key recommendations of the Bean review, including temporary disaster roaming. Other countries have done it; we must do it too. We can't lag any more. I commend the member for Mallee for the amendments she's about to put before the House. I will be supporting them. We all need to step up here but no-one more than the telecommunications companies and this government. Stop making excuses, and stop making Australia some kind of exceptional circumstance and risking our lives.

I rise to speak in support of the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Triple Zero Custodian and Emergency Calling Powers) Bill 2025. This bill represents something simple yet profound: the guarantee that, when Australians dial triple 0, help is always within reach. It says that, in a country as advanced as ours, no person should ever hear silence at the other end of an emergency call. I commend the Minister for Communications, the Hon. Anika Wells MP, for her leadership in driving this reform.

This bill ensures Australians can rely on triple 0 in every community, including those I'm proud to represent in Moore. It establishes the office of the Triple Zero Custodian, an independent authority responsible for the integrity of our emergency call system. The custodian will oversee the service end to end, ensuring it works, carriers cooperate and accountability never falls through the cracks.

This reform is not theoretical. It comes directly from the lessons learned after the Optus outages of November 2023 and September 2025, events that left millions affected and some unable to reach triple 0. Those failures were unacceptable. They exposed a system with no single custodian, no unified command and no authority to coordinate carriers in real time. The Bean review, commissioned by this government, made it clear Australians deserve better. This bill delivers on what that review recommended—clarity, authority and accountability. It gives the ACMA new powers to direct industry participants when an emergency network is at risk. It allows lawful, rapid information sharing between carriers and government during crises, and it mandates transparency through annual reporting and ministerial oversight.

Together, these reforms will rebuild trust in one of the nation's most fundamental services, because, when you dial triple 0, you aren't calling a corporation; you are calling your community. You are calling the police officer, the paramedic or the firefighter, people who run towards danger while most of us run to safety. This bill gives them what they need most: a system that doesn't fail when seconds count. Those seconds can mean the difference between life and loss.

From Joondalup Health Campus to Hillarys Boat Harbour, our community depends on reliable communications to stay safe. Joondalup Police Station, Joondalup and Duncraig fire stations, St John and Joondalup depot rely on fast, accurate networks to coordinate responses. Our surf lifesaving clubs, Sorrento and Mullaloo, need to stay connected to emergency dispatchers. Our Whitfords volunteer sea rescue crew, operating from Hillarys and Ocean Reef, rely on uninterrupted contact with water police. Across Kingsley, Padbury, Craigie and Woodvale, families rest easier knowing that, if something goes wrong, triple 0 will answer.

This bill ensures that confidence is justified. It makes clear who is responsible when technology fails and ensures the right information reaches the right hands at the right moment. For too long, telecommunications law has lagged behind the technology it was meant to regulate. It never contemplated smartphones, Voice over Internet Protocol or cloud based routing across continents. This bill changes that, delivering accountability that has been missing for too long.

The custodian will coordinate between the ACMA, carriers and emergency call persons—Telstra and the National Relay Service—ensuring a single national view of performance and risk. They will hold industry to account and drive improvements before failure occurs. If a failure does occur, they will have the authority to act decisively and not wait for permission. That's the kind of reform Australians expect from a responsible government, from a Labor government.

This bill also strengthens the ACMA's powers to issue binding directions during emergencies. It allows the regulator to compel information quickly and direct carriers to restore services or implement workarounds without delay. In a crisis, every minute counts. We cannot afford bureaucratic ping-pong between regulators and providers. This bill ends that confusion. It puts the chain of command on paper and into practice. The custodian must report annually to the Minister for Communications and provide data for publication. Australians will know for the first time how the triple 0 system performs. Sunlight builds trust, and trust saves lives. Those opposite talk about transparency while using torches. We are hard-wiring the lights.

This bill is not just about technology; it's about people. When a nurse at Joondalup Health Campus calls for back-up, that's someone's family member whose life hangs in the balance. When a skipper off Ocean Reef issues a mayday, it's not statistics we are protecting; it's families. When members of the Wanneroo Joondalup SES coordinate through their radios, network reliability can determine whether homes stand or fall. It honours those who serve and the communities they protect. The right to access emergency services is fundamental. It gives real meaning to the right of life and health recognised under international law.

This bill ensures those rights are protected in practice, not just in principle. It ensures the infrastructure of our compassion, the ability to call for help, is fit for purpose. In Moore, we've seen how communication saved lives. When wild storms hit the suburbs from Kingsley to Ocean Reef, emergency calls and SES coordination made the difference between safety and disaster. Along our northern beaches, Whitfords Volunteer Sea Rescue and our lifesaving volunteers depend on those same links when lives are at risk offshore. This bill makes that connection stronger. It ensures that, even if one network fails, coordination does not. It ensures that information flows lawfully and rapidly between providers and oversight remains continuous, not only after the fact.

Some may ask whether these new powers will be used responsibly. The answer is yes. The bill includes strict limits on the custodian's power. ACMA oversight remains intact, and commercial confidentiality and privacy are protected under existing laws. This is targeted reform—precise, not heavy-handed. It is about coordination, not control. It has been developed through extensive consultation with industry, emergency services and state governments. That collaboration is a credit to Minister Wells and her department. They listened, learned and acted swiftly, turning the lessons of the Optus outage into lasting reforms.

Contrast that with the opposition's record. For nearly a decade, they oversaw a system where there were repeated warnings about fragile emergency communications, yet they delivered no structural reform to fix it. They presided over a system that relied on goodwill instead of good governance. When outages occurred, they ordered inquiries but never delivered legislative change. This government has done what they would not: create accountability, not just commentary. That is the difference between managing headlines and managing risk.

The people of Moore expect action, not excuses. They expect a government that invests in reliability and transparency. They know that, when a crisis hits, the only thing that matters is whether the call connects. This bill will ensure it will. In Joondalup and Currambine, families are connected through schools, workplaces and community sport. They need to know emergency services can find them fast. In Duncraig and Carine, where many residents are older Australians, uninterrupted access to triple zero is peace of mind. In Kingsley and Padbury, tradespeople on the road depend on mobile coverage to report accidents. Along the coast, in Sorrento, Marmion and Watermans Bay, surf lifesaving clubs coordinate with ambulances and police each summer. This bill supports all of them. It's as practical as a working phone line and as vital as a heartbeat.

This bill also sits within the broader agenda of national resilience. This government is investing in secure, modern infrastructure across energy, transport and communications. We are strengthening cybersecurity and emergency management capability and ensuring our laws reflect the interconnected world Australians now live in. The Triple Zero Custodian bill is part of that architecture—a quiet reform that will save lives precisely because most people will never notice it working. Reliability should be invisible. It should be expected. When systems fail, people notice. When they function flawlessly, society moves forward in safety.

I want to acknowledge extraordinary people who make the system work every day: the triple 0 operators, who stay calm under pressure; the dispatchers, who coordinate across multiple agencies in seconds; the first responders—police, firefighters, ambulance officers and Marine Rescue—who act on those calls; and the volunteers who drop everything to help strangers because that is what community means. They are the human face of this legislation. They deserve the certainty that, when someone needs them, the line will open, not fail. This bill honours their service.

At its heart, this bill affirms something deeply Australian—that in moments of crisis, we look after each other. That ethos underpins our emergency services, our social contract and democracy itself. Technology must serve that ethos, not undermine it. When we make our systems more reliable, we make our society more humane. That is the moral thread running through this legislation. As technology evolves—satellite networks, 5G, emergency apps—the custodian will ensure triple 0 evolves too. They will plan for continuity, redundancy and accessibility for people with disability or language barriers. That forward planning will prevent the next crisis rather than just reacting to it. It's what good governance looks like.

Emergency services are delivered locally but depend on national coordination. This bill reinforces that cooperation through structured communication and shared protocols. It builds unity of purpose between agencies that already work side-by-side under immense pressure. That is how we strengthen the federation in practice—through practical reform not rhetoric.

First responders in Moore don't ask for fanfare. They ask for systems that work, reliable networks, clear information and leadership that understands what is at stake. This bill delivers exactly that. It strengthens the communications backbone they depend on so they can focus on protecting lives and property. It says to every police officer, paramedic, firefighter and volunteer, 'We've got your back.' It says to every Australian, 'You will never be left without help because of a preventable communications failure.' That is government at its best.

Let me close with gratitude. To the minister, Anika Wells, thank you for your stewardship and determination. To the officials and experts who shaped this legislation, thank you for your diligence. To the first responders and volunteers in Moore, from Joondalup health campus to the firefighters at Joondalup and Duncraig fire stations, St John WA and the Marine Rescue crews, thank you for the lives you save. This bill is for you. It's for every Australian who dials triple 0 in fear and finds hope on the line. It's for every community that relies on the simple promise that help is always there.

This parliament has a duty to strengthen the systems that protect life. We cannot predict every emergency, but we can prepare for them. We cannot prevent every failure, but we can ensure that when failure comes the response is swift and coordinated. That is exactly what this bill achieves. It modernises our telecommunications safety net, provides clarity where confusion once reigned and turns the lessons of the past into safeguards for the future.

The strength of a society is measured not only in prosperity but in protection—how well it safeguards its people in their most vulnerable moments. This bill strengthens that protection and ensures that our emergency call service, a quiet miracle of modern governance, continues to serve every Australian every hour of every day. It ensures that when disaster strikes, the system holds. It ensures that trust in our institution is earned through performance, not assumption. And it reminds us that the work of government, at its best, is not loud; it's reliable. I commend this bill to the House.

It has sadly taken the tragic death of four Australians due to a second Optus triple 0 outage in September for this government to progress this legislation, the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Triple Zero Custodian and Emergency Calling Powers) Bill 2025, today. The Minister for Communications, Anika Wells, told the House yesterday that the Albanese government had implemented most of the Bean review recommendations. I ask the minister to inform the House on record when and by whom those recommendations were implemented. The minister told question time yesterday that the opposition was politicising this issue. When Australian lives are lost and when the Australian government has the regulatory responsibility and falls short of that responsibility, the opposition's job is to hold the government accountable.

Regrettably, under the Albanese Labor government, the mob on that side of the House are full of so much hubris. They don't believe in transparency and accountability; they're too busy enjoying the trappings of office. Such is this government's hubris that yesterday, in question time, the minister had a go at the opposition for not rubberstamping this bill—which they gave to the shadow minister less than 24 hours before. I mean, fancy the shadow minister wanting to consult with colleagues and take it to the party room! What happened to the kinder, friendlier, more transparent parliament? No; not when you've got such a cheer squad on the other side. Labor beats down on the opposition, puts democracy aside and just wants to have its own way. So let me tell you about the forgotten Australians—the collateral damage of this government's hubris.

Rural, regional and remote Australians live a long way from hospitals, police, firefighting and other emergency services, and, for many, a mobile phone is their sole phone service, particularly in remote Indigenous communities. One North Queensland resident explains they cannot make phone calls on their Telstra service—Telstra, not Optus—because it drops out for about 20 seconds every few seconds, even interrupting triple 0 calls. The intermittent signal came, believe it or not, after a system upgrade, but Telstra tells them they need more satellites in the air and maybe it will improve by 2030. That's encouraging! We tried to speak further with this lady from North Queensland this morning and, unsurprisingly, we could not get connection. That's the lived experience in regional Australia under the Albanese Labor government. This is a minister who justifies second-rate services for regional Australians.

A Mallee constituent contacted me and said that they have not been able to contact triple 0 on their Optus service. My office has since not been able to ring them back on their number because, strangely enough, it doesn't connect. Then there's Paula, who was playing golf in early August on the Mornington Peninsula when she experienced heart attack symptoms but could not reach triple 0 on her Optus-affiliate service. She got through to her daughter on Facebook Messenger, who then called the ambulance. Thankfully, Paula survived. At last check, Optus couldn't explain that outage. These are the lived experiences of regional Australians, whose communities have been hollowed out of health and other emergency services under Labor governments, both federal and state.

Regional Australians live a long way from an ambulance station, let alone a hospital and let alone a police station or firefighting services. These are regional Australians who take it upon themselves to look after themselves and to run, for instance, farm firefighting units because they know they are so far from help and they need to be self-reliant. They cannot contact triple 0 during an outage to report that a fire is moving in a certain direction or that they need help stopping an outbreak. How do motorists or Indigenous Australians report a car accident and the need for urgent assistance if triple 0 fails? This is why, as shadow minister for regional communications, I am proposing amendments to this bill to bring specific emphasis to rural, regional and remote Australians.

Enough is enough. Without specific emphasis and reporting on their needs, regional Australians will continue to lose their lives unnecessarily. Labor simply doesn't care about that. We have higher morbidity and mortality rates in regional Australia, and my observation as former shadow assistant minister for regional health is that Labor do not care one iota—nothing has changed in that space. Labor centralises health services. Labor undermines regional health services so that they have to be centralised. Labor guts regions of health professionals, through the DPA, that can save lives and turn regional health care around.

I therefore make no apology as the member for Mallee, proudly representing the Nationals, moving specific amendments and making a specific case for regional Australians. That's my job. That is our job—representing our electorates, our constituents. Let the government go ahead and gag and vote down amendments. It will simply reinforce yet again that the Albanese Labor government sees regional Australians as obstacles at best and invisible at worst.

This brings me to the Triple Zero Custodian. It was recommended by Richard Bean way back in March 2024, and the minister is moving legislation today. She couldn't tell the House yesterday what the custodian has been doing since it was created within the department, and this is where I come back to responsibility. First of all, nothing absolves the Albanese Labor government of its responsibility on triple 0 connectivity and on telecommunications more broadly. The minister in question time yesterday wanted to point the finger at Optus—it's all Optus's fault!—claiming we on this side of the House are letting Optus off the hook. Hardly!

What did former US president George W. Bush famously try to say? 'Fool me once—shame on you. Fool me twice—shame on me.' The Albanese Labor government are on their second time around on triple 0 outages. They had more than fair warning about Optus's shortcomings and, indeed, an independent report recommending the Triple Zero Custodian. Yet it took four tragedies and God knows how many more near misses for the government to come into this place implementing just one recommendation from the 18 in the Bean review.

The minister wants us to rubber-stamp this legislation this week, but is the Triple Zero Custodian the independent body the Bean review recommended? That's a very good question. Does it have sufficient independence from ministerial influence? Is there sufficient transparency and accountability for the Australian public to know what is going on? Does the custodian sits sufficiently outside the control of ACMA, the department and the minister? The recommendation said the custodian should have responsibility. However, we know that ultimately, in our Westminster system of government, responsibility sits squarely with the minister. Thus far, in the telecommunications portfolio, this minister has shown poor leadership in her responsibility.

I move:

That the question now be put.

A division having been called and the bells having been rung—

Before the doors are locked, I seek leave—everybody is supportive of this—to call the division off.

Leave granted; question agreed to.

Original question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Triple Zero Custodian and Emergency Calling Powers) Bill 2025; Consideration in Detail

Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Triple Zero Custodian and Emergency Calling Powers) Bill 2025

by leave—I move:

(1) Schedule 1, page 3 (before line 3), before the heading specifying Telecommunications (Consumer Protection and Service Standards) Act 1999, insert:

Security of Critical Infrastructure Act 2018

1A Section 5 (after paragraph (a) of the definition of critical telecommunications asset )

Insert:

(aa) a telecommunications network that is used to supply an emergency call service; or

(2) Schedule 1, page 3 (before line 3), before the heading specifying Telecommunications (Consumer Protection and Service Standards) Act 1999, insert:

Telecommunications Act 1997

1B After paragraph 570( 3)( ac)

Insert:

(ad) in the case of a contravention of subsection 151D(1) or (2) of the Telecommunications (Consumer Protection and Service Standards) Act 1999$20 million for each contravention; or

(3) Schedule 1, item 7, page 13 (after line 19), after section 151K, insert:

151KA Register of ECS outage events

(1) The Custodian must establish and keep a register of ECS outage events.

(2) The Custodian must include an ECS outage event in the register as soon as reasonably practicable after the Custodian reasonably believes that the ECS outage event has occurred, is occurring or will occur.

(3) The Custodian must make the information contained in the register available for public inspection on the internet.

(4) The regulations may make provision for and in relation to the keeping of the register.

(4) Schedule 1, item 7, page 16 (lines 11 and 12), omit "within 3 months after the end of each 6 month period", substitute "within 1 month after the end of each 3 month period".

(5) Schedule 1, item 7, page 16 (line 24), omit subsection 151Q(2), substitute:

(2) The ACMA must:

(a) provide a copy of the report to the Custodian; and

(b) publish the report.

I am asking for some detailed amendments to this bill to ensure that our triple 0 network is protected. I shared these amendments with the Minister for Communications's office last night and this morning in an act of good faith and in the hope that the government is serious about fixing the triple 0 system. I don't want to believe that we are here today debating this urgent bill as part of a political show so the government can look like it's doing something. I want them to actually do something. You cannot wallpaper over this catastrophic event. People have died. Australians' confidence in the triple 0 service has been rocked.

The first point in my amendment seeks to list our triple 0 network as critical infrastructure. This will ensure that the triple 0 service is enshrined as an infrastructure asset of national significance. Systems of national significance are Australia's most vital and critical infrastructure assets. They underpin our social and economic stability, defence and national security. At the moment, there are around 170 assets, across energy, communications, transport and financial services. People expect their lights to turn on, despite soaring energy prices. They expect to have running water and sewerage. They also expect to be able to pick up the phone and call triple 0 in their greatest time of need. We must ensure that the triple 0 network is protected for all Australians, wherever and whenever they need it. It doesn't matter if you are in the city or in the regions, and my colleague the member for Mallee has been pushing this point so well.

The second point in my amendment will increase the current penalty framework for a contravention of the act from $10 million to $20 million. Let's be clear: if a person is unable to call triple 0, that cannot be tolerated. We must have strong enough penalties to make people pay attention. If we end up back here, it's not just going to be $20 million. These penalties won't just double—$30 million a breach, $50 million a breach or $100 million. It doesn't matter—whatever it takes for people to take this seriously and for things to change, because it is serious business. How many more times do we need to address these abhorrent failures before it's fixed and before we have transparency and honesty when we have an outage?

Among the members of the other place right now, Senate estimates is happening, and they are legitimately talking about emails sent to the wrong email box and no-one opening emails after the outage. This is not a joke; this is actually what has happened. Own it. Fix it. Pick up the phone and make a call if you can't get through on an email. I have heard nothing but excuses from Optus, the department, ACMA—the regulator—and the minister. Australians are sick of excuses. They are sick of cover-ups. Own it.

I'm also seeking an amendment to the bill to ensure that for all outages there is transparency regarding the number of calls affected and the geographical areas impacted. Without this vital information, we cannot expect to know where the gaps are in the system so that they can be fixed. Australians are hyperaware right now. Following the second Optus outage, which impacted Dapto in New South Wales, Optus reported some of the calls were made by people checking whether the triple 0 network was working. They are lacking confidence in our most essential telecommunication service. Yesterday in question time, the minister was asked how many triple 0 outages there have been, and she couldn't answer this question. That's not good enough. We need to know. Australians have a right to know. If the minister wants to restore faith in the network, she needs to walk the walk and be transparent about what's going on.

Finally, schedule 1 of the bill states that ACMA, the regulator, will provide a report every six months, and they will take three months to prepare that report. Minister, given what has been going on in this country over the last few weeks, where people have died, six months is not good enough. This reporting must be more frequent and more rapid, and, most importantly, the public must have access to it. It has to be transparent. So we are asking for it to be every three months. Minister, we ask on behalf of Australians for you to take this seriously and take no chances with the health, safety and welfare of Australians. (Time expired)

Unfortunately, the shadow communications minister has made a choice, and these are the consequences of this choice. There have been discussions in good faith about these amendments. Those were being worked through. However, the choice of the opposition to move those amendments forward to an earlier time means that those discussions can't be finalised before this point where you're putting the question, so we oppose them.

The question is that the amendments be agreed to.

Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Triple Zero Custodian and Emergency Calling Powers) Bill 2025 Mary Aldred David Batt Angie Bell Sam Birrell Nicolette Boele Colin Boyce Scott Buchholz Cameron Caldwell Jamie Chaffey Kate Chaney Darren Chester Andrew Gee Helen Haines Andrew Hastie Alex George Hawke Barnaby Thomas Gerard Joyce Bob Carl Katter Simon Kennedy Michelle Landry Julian Leeser Michael McCormack Melissa McIntosh Tony Pasin Alison Penfold Henry Pike Melissa Price Leon Rebello Monique Ryan Sophie Scamps Rebekha Sharkie Ben Small Allegra Spender Zali Steggall Phillip Thompson Tom Venning Aaron Violi Andrew Wallace Elizabeth Watson-Brown Anne Webster Andrew Wilkie Andrew Willcox Rick Wilson Tim Wilson Jason Peter Wood Basem Abdo Anthony Norman Albanese Anne Aly Ash Ambihaipahar Jodie Belyea Chris Eyles Bowen Jo Briskey Mr Tony Stephen Burke Matt Burnell Josh Burns Mark Christopher Butler Alison Byrnes Julie-Ann Campbell Jim Chalmers Andrew Charlton Lisa Chesters Jason Dean Clare Sharon Claydon Claire Clutterham Renee Coffey Julie Maree Collins Emma Comer Pat Conroy Kara Cook Trish Cook Mary Doyle Mark Alfred Dreyfus Justine Elliot Mike Freelander Tom French Carina Garland Steve Georganas Andrew Giles Patrick Gorman Luke Gosling Matt Gregg Julian Hill Rowan Holzberger Ed Husic Madonna Jarrett Alice Jordan-Baird Ged Kearney Matt Keogh Peter Khalil Ms Catherine Fiona King Madeleine King Tania Lawrence Jerome Laxale Andrew Leigh Sam Lim Richard Donald Marles Zaneta Mascarenhas Kristy McBain Emma McBride Louise Miller-Frost Rob Mitchell David Moncrieff Daniel Mulino Shayne Kenneth Neumann Gabriel Ng Clare O'Neil Fiona Phillips Tanya Joan Plibersek Sam Rae Gordon Reid Dan Repacholi Amanda Louise Rishworth Tracey Roberts Michelle Rowland Joanne Ryan Marion Scrymgour Sally Sitou David Smith Matt Smith Zhi Soon Anne Stanley Jess Teesdale Susan Templeman Kate Thwaites Anne Urquhart Tim Watts Anika Wells Rebecca White Josh Wilson Sarah Witty Tony Zappia

by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2) as circulated in my name together:

(1) Schedule 1, item 7, page 5 (line 33), at the end of subsection 151A(2), add:

; (c) the deficiencies in connectivity in rural, regional and remote Australia that put Australians living there at risk from ECS outage events.

(2) Schedule 1, item 7, page 16 (after line 16), after paragraph 151Q(1)(b), insert:

(ba) the specific challenges and personal safety risks faced by Australians living in rural, regional and remote areas through poor connectivity to emergency call services;

Labor governs for select parts of capital cities and not for the regions. That's the concern I have. My constituents in Mallee see time and time again that Labor treats them as invisible or, at best, obstacles to be pushed out of the way. I'm proud to stand here representing Mallee but also representing all regional Australians as the first shadow minister for regional communications. These amendments bring specific focus to the Triple Zero Custodian to investigate and report on deficiencies in connectivity for rural, regional and remote Australians.

As it presently stands, we really don't know how many regional Australians have been affected by triple 0 outages, but our lived experience in the regions is that it happens a lot. Indeed, regional Australians who contact my office are concerned about their mobile service connectivity more generally. Shockingly, when they call triple 0, they cannot get through. Waiting until a fatality occurs in regional Australia is not only unacceptable, but it puts lives at risk and in my view is a basis for the minister to resign or be censured or sacked. That's Westminster accountability. That's the minister's job. The buck stops with her.

These amendments ensure that the Triple Zero Custodian is reporting to the government and the parliament on the specific connectivity issues that rural, regional and remote Australians are facing. The minister described herself as new, five months into the job. I've been shadow regional communications minister for less time, and I've already taken countless briefings. It's already clear to me that not only are the problems in regional Australia dire but they are also unique. We don't have the benefit of a second-option mobile service if one fails, and not everyone can afford the low-Earth-orbit satellite service workarounds to secure more reliable coverage.

Labor is content with regional Australians having second-rate services, and that puts lives at risk. In other words, Labor is happy to put regional Australian lives at risk. If those opposite disagree with that proposition, support my amendments today. If my amendments are not supported, what is this government telling regional Australians? That they cannot be bothered having specific expectations the Triple Zero Custodian will focus on the specific risks they face in the bush. Or will they say: 'Just trust us. We care about regional Australians. Their issues will be in the mix of the considerations'? Well, call me and my Nationals colleagues once bitten, twice shy—or, more likely, constantly neglected, always vigilant—because we see Labor ignore and disrespect regional Australians time and time again.

I make no apology for moving amendments to ensure special consideration of regional Australians who are treated like second-class citizens. When Labor-backed programs roll through our electorates, regional Australians are not consulted. The decision is already in the bag. It's faux consultation to tick the box. The justifiable bitterness and anger of regional Australians sits at Labor's feet. The Prime Minister deserved the reception he got in Ballarat at the Bush Summit. The buck stops with him and his government. He's happy to be preaching Labor virtues at the UK Labour conference while this controversy raged back home but pretends the actions of his ministers and fellow state Labor governments have nothing to do with him. The Prime Minister has the nerve to tell regional Australians, 'I won't BS people,' yet under his government there's bulldust as far as the eye can see—no transparency, no accountability, secrecy and demands that it's Labor's way or the highway. The hubris of those opposite knows no end, and the best way to indicate the government is taking the second triple 0 failure on their watch seriously, to tell regional Australians they matter to this government, is to support these amendments.

The minister and the Albanese government also need to move very quickly on updating the universal service obligation. The USO underpins emergency connectivity, yet the old voice based USO is no longer fit for purpose. The minister protested last week that she was new to the portfolio. I don't know if that means the previous minister, Minister Rowland, was doing nothing and handed nothing over to her to continue with or that the minister has had priorities other than ensuring life-saving connectivity in the bush. The universal outdoor mobile obligation, or UOMO, is a step in the right direction, and telcos are rolling out connectivity via satellite on newer telephone handsets. (Time expired)

The amendments moved by the member for Mallee are well intentioned, but they are unnecessary. The Albanese government is focused on the needs of regional Australians, and the Triple Zero Custodian, which has been established by the Albanese government and not any prior conservative government, will act accordingly.

The question is that the amendments be agreed to.

Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Triple Zero Custodian and Emergency Calling Powers) Bill 2025; Third Reading

Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Triple Zero Custodian and Emergency Calling Powers) Bill 2025

by leave—I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Treasury Laws Amendment (Strengthening Financial Systems and Other Measures) Bill 2025; Second Reading

Treasury Laws Amendment (Strengthening Financial Systems and Other Measures) Bill 2025

I rise to support and speak to this important piece of legislation, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Strengthening Financial Systems and Other Measures) Bill 2025. The work of good government often isn't about grabbing headlines. In fact, the most important work our government undertakes is quiet, practical and steady but nonetheless nation shaping. The work of good government is about delivering real results for Australians. It's the work of building a stronger, fairer Australia.

The bill we are debating today embodies just that. It's legislation that strengthens confidence in our markets, improves the way our regulators operate and supports the long-term growth of our economy. It is wide ranging, ambitious and forward looking. It covers corporate transparency, charity oversight, financial regulator reviews, energy market protections and support for small businesses through the extension of the instant asset write-off. On the surface these may appear as separate policy threads, but at its heart this legislation is bound by three principles: investment, transparency and accountability. These are not abstract concepts. They are the foundations that drive productivity, build public trust and will create a fairer, stronger Australia. They are the pillars upon which our economy rests and upon which communities thrive.

After a wasted decade under the previous government, a decade of drift, instability and economic neglect, it is refreshing to debate a bill that actually builds, rather than breaks down. Let's begin with corporate transparency. Trust is the foundation of any strong economy. Without it, our markets, institutions and investors are weakened and left exposed. When transparency fails, hidden ownership and undisclosed positions thrive and quiet power falls into the hands of those who operate in the shadows. It allows tax avoidance, corruption and manipulation to take root, threatening jobs, savings and public confidence.

But, as the saying goes, sunlight is the best disinfectant. If we want Australians to have confidence in our markets, if we want everyday investors, superannuation funds, journalists and academics to trust the system, we must know who really controls our companies. We must lift the veil on complex corporate structures and ensure that accountability is embedded into our economic framework. This is precisely what Labor governments do. We shine a light. We restore and build public trust. We ensure that the economy works for people, not the other way around.

Under our leadership, we have introduced world-leading, country-by-country reporting, requiring multinational companies to disclose where they make their profits and where they pay—or don't pay—their tax. We mandated that companies bidding for government contracts disclose the tax residency of their subsidiaries. These reforms weren't just bureaucratic exercises; they were about fairness, accountability and the integrity of our economy. This bill builds on that work. It strengthens corporate transparency, restores trust and ensures that the Australian economy is fair and accessible.

Compare this to the decade under the coalition, a decade where corporate tax avoidance was winked at, regulators were left toothless, and integrity and accountability weren't even on the radar. Nothing was done to prevent abuse or to ensure fairness. Under this government, integrity and accountability are well and truly back on the radar, because, when markets are fair and transparent, confidence grows and, when confidence grows, our economy grows. That growth reaches every worker, every household and every community across the nation.

But transparency isn't just about corporations. This bill also reforms the charity and not-for-profit sector, one of the largest employers in Australia, supporting over 1.4 million jobs and contributing more than $190 billion annually to our economy. Charities reach every corner of our nation, supporting those in need, promoting community and driving innovation in social services. A strong charity sector is vital for a strong Australia. It builds connection, trust and solidarity. It fills gaps, lifts people up and helps hold our country together in times of crisis. And yet, right now, public trust in charities is undermined by secrecy.

Currently, if a charity is under investigation for serious misconduct, the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission, ACNC, cannot confirm this publicly. This lack of transparency diminishes public confidence and undermines the work of the vast majority of charities that operate ethically and effectively. Australians who donate their hard-earned money deserve the confidence to know that it's being used for good. Volunteers deserve to know that the organisations they serve are honest and accountable. This bill backs in the thousands of Aussies who give their time and their money. It strengthens trust in the sector by allowing the ACNC to make limited disclosures where necessary to prevent harm and reassure the public, because trust matters.

And trust is not just a national concern; it's local. In my electorate of Maribyrnong we are so fortunate to have some extraordinary community organisations: Helping Hands in Airport West, the Caroline Chisholm Society in Essendon, local neighbourhood houses in Niddrie and Kensington, and countless other grassroots initiatives that knit our community together. These organisations rely on donations and volunteers and on public confidence. They cannot afford for a few bad actors to undermine their work.

This bill also contributes to the broader vision, doubling philanthropic giving by 2030, harmonising fundraising rules, expanding pathways to deductible gift recipient status and ensuring that the charity sector has a real voice through representation on the ACNC board. These are nation-building reforms, strengthening the very fabric of our society.

Contrast this with the coalition's decade, a period where charities were muzzled, advocates gagged and resources directed to culture wars rather than community building. This government, in contrast, backs charities, backs philanthropy and backs Australians—the millions who give their time, their money and their hearts to making our communities stronger. And 'stronger' is the key word when it comes to our financial regulators. For too long ASIC and APRA have been constrained by inadequate oversight and weakened by the previous government's neglect.

Schedule 3 shifts the Financial Regulator Assessment Authority to a five-year review cycle. This is sensible and practical. It allows regulators to implement meaningful reforms between assessments, ensuring the stability of our financial system while avoiding the churn of constant short-term audits. Regulation should be about steady, thoughtful governance, and that is what our government remains methodically focused on.

This Labor government is strengthening foundations, ensuring that regulators can protect consumers, investors and businesses alike. In contrast, the coalition lurches from one crisis to the next. It is reactive and unprepared. This bill restores strength and oversight where it was absent, providing stability, predictability and confidence in the institutions that Australians rely on.

Schedules 4 and 5 may seem minor, but they are essential. They correct drafting errors, close loopholes and align provisions across legislation. These may seem technical, even mundane, but the impact is profound. Consider, for example: ensuring that sustainability reports, whether mandatory or voluntary, carry limited liability protections, encouraging disclosure rather than discouraging it; streamlining deregistration processes so that businesses are not hampered by red tape; and clarifying import tax credits to ensure that businesses are not penalised unfairly or caught in double claims. These measures demonstrate thoughtful, effective governance. They remove obstacles to compliance, strengthen clarity, and ensure that laws operate as intended.

The previous government had 10 years to implement such reforms. They did not, because good governance was not their priority. But it is ours, which is why we're also focused on delivering for Australians fairness and protection in the energy market, especially as we transition to cleaner sources of power. This bill extends the consumer safeguards of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Prohibiting Energy Market Misconduct) Act until 2031. Independent reviews confirm that these safeguards are effective. They constrain misconduct, protect households and businesses, and ensure a level playing field.

I've spoken to families in Keilor East and small businesses in Ascot Vale, who want to know that they've got a government that is focused on helping them manage their needs and their energy costs, and that's exactly what we're doing. Whether it's energy bill relief or cheaper batteries so they can take advantage of more renewable energy in the market, these are all safeguards that this bill delivers. When it comes to cleaner, cheaper energy, this is what this government will remain steadfastly focused on.

Contrast that with those opposite, who had previously opposed the original legislation, who are against cheaper power through renewable initiatives, and who said no to relief for households and small businesses. When it comes energy, all those opposite can offer is division and delay, whereas we will continue to offer protection, fairness and a just transition to cheaper, cleaner energy. Every day that we're in this place we're backing households and small businesses. This bill includes a measure to help Australian small businesses invest, grow and prosper.

Schedule 7 extends the $20,000 instant asset write-off until 30 June 2026. This helps businesses with an annual turnover under $10 million improve cash flow and reduce compliance costs. Small businesses can continue to immediately deduct eligible assets costing less than $20,000. Whether that's a cafe in Moonee Ponds buying a new coffee machine or a tradesperson from Oak Park purchasing new tools, up to 4.1 million businesses nationwide, including more than 1.15 million in my home state of Victoria, can access this support. Small businesses are the backbone of our economy. They are the tradies, the handymen and the family-run shops, cafes and hairdressers that give character and vibrancy to our suburbs.

This instance write-off was first introduced by Labor because cash flow is everything for small businesses. Time-limited extensions like this balance practical support with responsible fiscal management and allow settings to adapt to economic conditions.

This measure complements other steps to support small businesses, including $900 million through the National Productivity Fund to cut red tape; $33.4 million to improve payment times and strengthen oversight; over $60 million to boost digital and cybersecurity capabilities; and broader support, like our two new tax cuts, $150 in energy relief for over a million businesses, cheaper home batteries and protections against unfair trading practices.

The Albanese government is backing Australia's small businesses to thrive, with practical measures that improve cash flow, lift productivity and build confidence because this is how good government supports growth and opportunity—with actions, not hollow slogans like those opposite.

To conclude, let us be absolutely clear about what this bill delivers. It strengthens corporate transparency and accountability, ensuring markets are fair and trustworthy. It maintains trust in charities, giving confidence to donors, volunteers and our communities. It improves governance of financial regulators, providing stability and thoughtful oversight. It tidies up our laws so they can work as intended, removing unnecessary obstacles and clarifying protections. It extends energy market safeguards, protecting households and businesses alike. And it gives a small businesses certainty and confidence, supporting investment growth and local economies.

In short, this bill builds, protects and delivers. It rejects another decade of drift, secrecy and neglect. It demonstrates a government that understands its responsibility to everyday Australians, to businesses, to charities and to families. For the people of Maribyrnong, and indeed all Australians, this bill represents the kind of government they deserve: fair, transparent, accountable and committed to building a better future—a government that delivers on its promises, strengthens institutions and safeguards the economy for all.

This is not abstract policy; this is practical, nation-shaping work—work that restores trust, drives growth and protects the values Australians hold dear. That is why I commend to build the House.

I rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Strengthening Financial Systems and Other Measures) Bill 2025 and, whilst not declining to give this bill a second reading, I move:

That all words after "House" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

(1) notes that the bill continues the practice of legislating the instant asset write-off measure annually, which creates uncertainty and discourages investment at a time when many small businesses are already struggling; and

(2) calls on the Government to do more to support small businesses, including:

(a) making the instant asset write-off permanent; and

(b) adopting a $20,000 tax-free threshold for small business operators with annual turnover of less than $10 million, as proposed by the member for Mackellar".

Let me start by saying that much of what's in this bill is sensible. It makes some important technical fixes and introduces a range of amendments across financial services, corporate regulation and taxation, including enhanced ownership disclosure for listed entities, implementing a recommendation of the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission legislation review and extending consumer protections in the energy market.

It also legislates the instant asset write-off for small businesses. But, once again, we see this important measure being extended for just one year. Once again, small businesses will be left in limbo, holding on, waiting to see if the government will renew the measure next year. This is not how we should be treating the backbone of our economy. It is beyond time that we gave small businesses the certainty they deserve.

As I said, the bulk of this bill is sensible and necessary. Schedule 1 is about corporate transparency. It enhances the rules around substantial holdings and beneficial ownership for listed entities, making it clearer who really owns and controls companies operating in Australia. It brings interests arriving from equity derivatives into the disclosure regime so that all types of interests are treated consistently. It also ensures that foreign registered entities listed on Australian markets meet the same disclosure standards as local companies. Importantly, it gives ASIC stronger powers to enforce compliance and increases penalties for misconduct, ultimately cracking down on hidden ownership and improving corporate accountability—something I strongly support and something that is broadly supported by major interest groups, including the Australasian Investor Relations Association, the Australian Council of Superannuation Investors, the MUFG Corporate Markets, Ownership Matters, Transparency International Australia and the Tax Justice Network Australia. People in Mackellar expect fairness and they expect transparency. They want to see government hold corporations to account, and this measure helps deliver that.

Scheduled 2 deals with the charities and not-for-profit sector. It gives the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission more power to disclose information about investigations and regulatory actions when it is in the public interest. This comes directly from the independent review of the ACNC, which recommended:

… The Commissioner be given a discretion to disclose information about regulatory activities (including investigations) when it is necessary to protect public trust and confidence in the sector.

Charities and not-for-profits do vital work in our communities. They support mental health, homelessness, education, the environment and so much more. Public confidence in their integrity is essential, and transparency is the foundation of that confidence.

Schedule 4 makes the technical amendments to the Scams Prevention Framework. These may be minor and technical amendments, but they matter. The people of Mackellar consistently tell me, loud and clear, that they are sick of scams. Whether it is credit card fraud, cybercrime and data breaches or transactions involving faulty products or impersonation fraud: it is hurting people and it is eroding trust. This bill clarifies the functions and powers of the Scams Prevention Framework general regulator, but let's be clear: the government's Scams Prevention Framework only goes part way. We need a whole-of-government crackdown on scams and a presumption of reimbursement as recommended by consumer advocates, including the Consumer Action Law Centre, Choice and the Australian Communications Consumer Action Network. Victims should not be further punished by having to wait months, and often years, for reimbursement, and I will keep pushing for this reimbursement model.

Schedule 5 is a set of machinery amendments. Schedule 6 extends the energy market misconduct provisions. In 2017, the ACCC was asked to conduct a detailed inquiry into the retail electricity market, looking at both supply and the competitiveness of pricing. This inquiry, the retail electricity pricing inquiry, or REPI, delivered its final report to the government in July 2018. It found that over the previous decade, average residential electricity bills had risen by more than 35 per cent in real terms.

The report identified a wide range of contributing factors and put forward 56 recommendations, aimed at bringing down prices and restoring consumer confidence. In addition to implementing many of those recommendations, the government introduced the Treasury Laws Amendment (Prohibiting Energy Market Misconduct) Act in 2019. It was designed to address some of the causes of sharply increasing electricity prices in the decade to 2017.

With key provisions due to sunset shortly, it's reasonable for the government to extend these provisions for another five years following the review by the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water into how they have impacted market efficiency, reliability, affordability, emissions and investment, but let's be honest: extending misconduct rules is not enough. If the government is serious about lowering energy prices, it must go beyond market reforms and regulations and home energy efficiency upgrades. It must stop backing and approving expensive fossil fuel projects, like Narrabri gas.

Research by the Institute for Energy, Economics and Financial Analysis shows that gas from Narrabri is up to 40 per cent more expensive than gas from Queensland. Narrabri gas will drive up prices, not to mention locking in decades of pollution and making our already weak climate targets harder to meet. It will lock us into high-cost fossil fuels and it will undermine our transition to clean energy. Extending energy market misconduct provisions as this bill does may be a sensible step, but cheaper, more reliable energy will be a pipedream if the government continues to lock in expensive gas infrastructure that undermines affordability and competitiveness.

As I said, much of this bill is reasonable and sensible; however, I am concerned about the measures in schedule 3. These change how often the Financial Regulator Assessment Authority conducts reviews of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, ASIC, and the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority, APRA. The bill increases the frequency of those reviews from every two years to every five years, ostensibly to lessen the regulatory burden on ASIC and APRA and to allow for a more comprehensive review process of these financial regulators. However, this is contrary to the recommendations of the Senate Economics References Committee, which in its inquiry into ASIC's investigation and enforcement activities recommended that the Australian government reverse its decision announced in the 2023-24 budget to reduce the frequency of Financial Regulator Assessment Authority reviews from every two years to every five years and that the FRAA undertake an inquiry into the effectiveness of the oversight mechanisms of corporate regulators.

The ability of our corporate regulators to do their job to hold financial entities to account and to regulate financial services and products in a way that protects consumers is absolutely paramount. This has been made painfully clear by the collapse of the First Guardian and Shield master funds, which have left more than 12,000 investors, including many retirees, facing devastating losses exceeding in total $1 billion. These Australian managed investment schemes were allegedly riddled with misconduct. ASIC is now conducting multiple investigations into these collapses and seeking to preserve any remaining assets, but this case exposes serious flaws in our financial regulatory system and the importance of our regulators.

I have heard directly from people in my community who have been devastated by the collapse of First Guardian and are desperate for answers. We must ensure our regulators are empowered, resourced and independent enough to act swiftly and decisively in cases such as this, and I do not believe the government has sufficiently explained their decision to reduce the frequency of assessments of the effectiveness and capability of ASIC and APRA at a time like this.

Finally, schedule 7 is about the instant asset write-off. This measure has been rolled over year after year, one year at a time, always tucked into the Treasury laws amendments bills like this one, and every year small businesses are left wondering, 'Will it be renewed? Can I plan ahead? Can I invest?' The write-off is good itself. It helps small businesses invest in tools, equipment and upgrades. It improves cash flow and it reduces compliance costs. But the way it's delivered, one year at a time, with no certainty, is just not good enough. I've spoken to many local businesses—cafe owners, tradies, retailers and creatives—all trying to grow their businesses and trying to plan ahead, and they're tired of the uncertainty. To give small businesses the confidence they deserve, I implore this government to finally make the measure permanent.

But we should go further. That's why I have proposed a $20,000 tax-free threshold for all small businesses with an annual turnover of less than $10 million. This simple change could reduce a small business's tax bill by up to $5,000 a year—money that could be reinvested in innovation, energy efficiency, staffing, renovations or simply provide some much-needed cost-of-living relief. I strongly believe that it is the small-business owners themselves that are best placed to decide how to reinvest the savings into their businesses.

This policy is the product of months of conversations, listening and walking the streets of Mackellar. I have spent countless hours doorknocking local small businesses and hearing from them about just how tough the last few years have been. Businesses have told me repeatedly about rising costs, shrinking margins and the sheer pressure of trying to stay afloat. Our shopping strips have too many empty shopfronts, and behind every one is a story of struggle, resilience and, often, frustration. I ran a local business survey, and the results were clear. A staggering 86 per cent of respondents said that the escalating cost of doing business was their No. 1 concern.

Additionally, the Council of Small Business Organisations Australia has long called for meaningful release from the tax burden placed on small businesses, and they are right. Small businesses don't need gimmicks or policies that reward long lunches. They need real, practical support to help them grow, innovate and invest in their future. When small businesses thrive, they create jobs, lift productivity and strengthen our communities. But COSBOA has identified a major barrier to innovation. It is access to finance. A $20,000 tax-free threshold for small businesses would help unlock the capital they need to invest in new ideas, improve efficiency and build resilience. These are the kinds of reforms we need, not just temporary fixes like the yearly extension of the instant asset write-off but structural changes that give small businesses the certainty and support they deserve because they are the backbone of our communities. They are our cafe owners, florists, tradies, creatives and carers. They deserve a tax system that works for them.

So, in conclusion, yes, much of this bill is sensible. It improves transparency, strengthens oversight and supports consumer protections. While I support the extension of the energy market misconduct rules, I urge the government to take real action on energy affordability, starting with cancelling expensive gas projects like Narrabri. Secondly, I believe the government needs to better explain the decision to reduce the frequency of the assessments of ASIC and APRA, particularly at a time when many Australians are reeling from the collapse of First Guardian and looking to our corporate regulators for answers and resolutions. Finally, I urge this government to stop extending the instant asset write-off in a piecemeal fashion one year at a time. Small businesses deserve better.

Is the amendment seconded?

I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.

I rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Strengthening Financial Systems and Other Measures) Bill 2025. Before coming to this place, I had the honour of working and volunteering in the Australian charity and non-profit sector for more than two decades as a volunteer, a fundraiser, a leader of teams, a CEO and a board director of other charities and nonprofits working within the sector. In that time, I had the opportunity to work to advance reconciliation between the broader community and First Nations people in South Australia, to empower young people across Australia to thrive beyond the impacts of family mental illness and to support more than 1,000 First Nations young people to gain transformative scholarships from communities throughout Australia. With each of the charities and non-profits I worked, I have been proud to work at the intersection of government, corporate and philanthropic bodies to help deliver remarkable outcomes for our community through genuine partnerships, where the whole is truly greater than the sum of its parts.

Every single day in my career and my volunteering in Australia, and especially in my electorate of Griffith, I saw volunteers, donors, partners, fundraisers and community organisations roll up their sleeves to help where governments and markets cannot. In Camp Hill, a Care Kits for Kids volunteer packs a backpack for a child who has recently entered foster care. In Musgrave Park, a Rosies volunteer hands a warm cup of coffee to someone sleeping rough. In a Morningside warehouse, a Foodbank worker manoeuvres a forklift to place another pallet of rescued food in place, ready for collection. In South Brisbane, a new, life-saving, state-of-the-art incubator is wheeled into a ward with funding from the Mater Foundation and Mater Little Miracles.

Charities and non-profits enrich our communities. They support families and vulnerable Australians in tough times, and they deliver services that we, as governments, could not deliver alone. I am so proud of our Australian charity and not-for-profit sector.

The sector has grown significantly in the last 20 years, becoming a vital economic contributor and employment powerhouse. In 2012 the Labor government established the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission, ACNC, the national regulator of charities. The ACNC was established to achieve the following objects: (1) maintain, protect and enhance public trust and confidence in the Australian not-for-profit sector; (2) support and sustain a robust, vibrant, independent and innovative not-for-profit sector; and (3) promote the reduction of unnecessary regulation obligations on the sector. The ACNC's five values—fairness, accountability and transparency, independence, integrity and respect—underpin their regulatory approach.

In the most recent charities report, ACNC commissioner Sue Woodward AM revealed:

Our data confirms the charity sector should not, and cannot, be ignored or underestimated. It is a powerhouse of good, bringing benefits to many people, and is an active economic contributor and driver.

Ms Woodward said:

Charities provide such a broad range of services that they touch almost every part of the economy.

She also said:

Charities continue to be a key driver of the economy.

The ACNC has helped the charity sector by boosting public trust through its public register and accountability measures, reduced red tape for charities via the report-once-use-often framework and Charity Passport, and supported charities with guidance, education and resources to meet their obligations and improve operations. Charities that maintain their reporting to the ACNC demonstrate accountability not just to the ACNC but to donors, beneficiaries and the broader community. The ACNC's data is available to the general public online. The use of data acts as a model of good practice for the sector and provides information that can be used for advocacy, planning and program development. In 2023-24 there were 3.8 million views on the ACNC website. This oversight has helped build on the trust and confidence the Australian public feels towards our vibrant, innovative and essential charitable sector.

The contribution of Australian charities to the Australian workforce and the economy is significant. As of the most recent ACNC reporting period, Australian charities employ 1.4 million people, which is 10.7 per cent of the entire Australian workforce. In my time in the charity and non-profit sector, I have worked alongside some of Australia's most influential, inspiring and impactful leaders, including the late Lowitja O'Donoghue AC, CBE, DSG and Professor Peter Buckskin PSM, FACE from Reconciliation SA; Michelle Penfold and Andrew Penfold AM from the Australian Indigenous Education Foundation; and, more recently, Patricia Reid, Sean O'Halloran and Mark Paterson AO from the Australian Kookaburra Kids Foundation—and so many others. The opportunity to have worked with these leaders in this sector is an opportunity that I remain incredibly thankful for, and that's not to mention the dozens of remarkable colleagues I was also able to work alongside over the last two decades.

Susan Pasco AM, the inaugural ACNC commissioner, observed: 'What is it that prompts people to work in the charity sector? After all, they are paid less than their counterparts in government or business and they work under considerable public visibility, scrutiny and red tape. Overwhelmingly, charity workers are motivated to do good for others. Whether they are providing assistance to vulnerable members of the Australian and international communities, advocating on human rights or environmental issues, fundraising for the arts or medical research, or providing spiritual support, these tireless workers generally see a gap, deficit or area for enrichment and commit their energies, intellects and personal resources to making their communities better places.' This sector is filled with over 1½ million workers, working hard and with integrity to advance health, social and public welfare, education and animal welfare and to protect the natural environment.

For the sector, we know, as the Assistant Minister for Productivity, Competition, Charities and Treasury, Andrew Leigh, recently shared in this place, 'transparency provides the oxygen that accountability requires'. This is what the ACNC offers the sector. And in this, my new role, here in this place, I see that an important part of our work in this place is to ensure that the sector is supported with appropriate legislative changes where needed.

Each month, the ACNC receives reports of concerns about a number of charities. In 2023-24, for example, just over 2,000 concerns were received. I understand from the ACNC that many of the concerns can be handled with guidance and regulatory advice or through referral to a relevant agency. However, a small portion are referred to the ACNC compliance area for examination. When complaints are raised with charities, I understand, overwhelmingly, they will move to rectify the situation or to improve their practice. The more serious or persistent cases move to investigation, often with the involvement of other regulatory intelligence or security agencies.

The ACNC make judicious use of their enforcement powers and are able to revoke a charity's charitable status. In the 2023-24 financial year, the ACNC revoked the registration of nine charities due to compliance action and separately revoked a total of 190 charity registrations for reasons that include failure to submit their annual information statements. This legislation, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Strengthening Financial Systems and Other Measures) Bill 2025, will allow the ACNC to assure charities and donors that it is acting on issues of public concern and strengthening compliance, which will in turn boost public confidence that the sector is doing the right thing.

Schedule 2 of the legislation allows the commissioner of the ACNC to make disclosures about new or ongoing investigations where the disclosure would prevent or minimise the risk of significant harm. Secrecy provisions previously prevented the ACNC from disclosing whether it is investigating alleged misconduct by a charity. This adversely impacted public trust and confidence in the sector and in the ACNC as an effective regulator. By increasing public trust and confidence in charities and the ACNC, this reform will help to ensure donors and philanthropists continue their support for the sector. This will contribute to the government's commitment to double philanthropy by 2030.

In my previous work in the charity and non-profit sector I saw firsthand how important donor trust is. Every dollar we received was a dollar entrusted to us by the community. Without transparency and without accountability, we simply could not do the work and we couldn't achieve the outcomes. Sue Woodward AM recently shared:

Trust is the foundation upon which the charity sector is built. It underpins donor confidence, volunteer engagement and the overall effectiveness of charity activities. While charities are traditionally viewed as one of our most trusted institutions, this can't be taken for granted.

When we speak about fostering and upholding trust in the sector, I am compelled to also recognise the outstanding work of Fundraising Institute Australia, which is an organisation I had the honour of working alongside as a board director. As a national peak body for professional fundraising, FIA sets the standards that ensure integrity, transparency and accountability across the sector. Their training, accreditation and advocacy support thousands of fundraisers to do their work ethically and effectively, building confidence among donors and strengthening the impact of every dollar raised. I acknowledge their important work in the sector.

This bill doesn't just stand alone. It complements a suite of reforms, including new pathways to deductible gift recipient status, harmonisation of fundraising rules across states and territories and greater sector representation at the ACNC board. Together these measures strengthen governance, reduce red tape and give donors confidence that their generosity is respected. I am a passionate supporter of our charities and non-profit sector and I am heartened by these reforms. We, as the Australian government, should do all we can to support this vital sector and its work. My wholehearted vision for the Australian charity and non-profit sector is where government and community have high expectations for transparency, compliance and, most importantly, outcomes, and where government builds capacity, provides clarity and delivers certainty for individual not-for-profits and to the broader sector.

In every corner of our country Australians give their time, their skill and their hearts to make life better for others, and our charities and not-for-profits are the engines of that generosity. This bill strengthens the framework that supports their work, ensuring that trust, transparency and integrity remain at the centre of our national charitable life. When donors, volunteers and communities have confidence in the system, they give more, and together we can achieve more. By reinforcing the ACNC's ability to uphold accountability, we are safeguarding the sector's future and honouring the millions who contribute to it. This bill is another important step to building a stronger, fairer and more compassionate Australia.

I'd like to speak today in support of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Strengthening Financial Systems and Other Measures) Bill 2025. Schedules 1 to 6 of the bill contain reforms that address consumer protection, financial transparency and responsible lending. These are measures that I believe are in the public interest and would be supported by the constituents and businesses in Curtin. I think they're sensible measures, and I won't be specifically addressing them in any more detail today. But I would like to take the opportunity to make very brief remarks on schedule 7, which amends the Income Tax (Transitional Provisions) Act 1997 to extend the $20,000 instant asset write-off for small businesses until 30 June 2026.

As I've said in the House before, the $20,000 write-off is a practical and effective way to support the small businesses that form the backbone of our economy. It allows eligible businesses to immediately deduct the cost of assets up to $20,000, rather than depreciating them over time. This improves cash flow, simplifies accounting and encourages investment in productivity-enhancing equipment. The measure applies to up to four million small businesses with turnover of under $10 million. It's a practical change that will make measurable differences for small businesses, including about 20,000 small businesses in my electorate of Curtin, many of whom I've spoken to.

It's worth noting that this was almost a failed Labor promise earlier this year, when the announced extension to June 2025 was still not legislated in the last sitting week before the end of the financial year. We were contacted by small businesses who were stuck in limbo and uncertainty as they were waiting and hoping for the extension to be enacted. This had been announced but not legislated, and many small businesses had incurred the expense on the expectation that the $20,000 write-off would apply in the 2024-25 financial year and were shaping up for a nasty surprise. It was only after crossbench pressure, advocacy from me and other Independents, that the legislation was passed in time in May this year. It's a good example of how the crossbench is listening to the community and holding the government to account.

I commend the government for extending and legislating the write-off to 30 June 2026, this time in a timely fashion. It does gives small businesses the confidence to continue to invest and plan ahead. But we also must consider the long-term stability of the measure. The threshold has changed multiple times over the years, and that inconsistency undermines its effectiveness. Small businesses in Curtin need this certainty so they can keep investing in growing our local economy. If we're serious about supporting small businesses, we should make the write-off permanent and index the threshold to inflation to ensure that it remains relevant and reliable. That's why I've seconded the member for Mackellar's amendment to extend this measure beyond one year and make it a more permanent feature of our tax system so that small businesses can make investments in productivity-enhancing improvements with certainty. So I commend that amendment and this bill to the House.

There are two central ingredients in our financial system. One is obvious, and the other one Labor recognises as equally important. Obviously the first one is money, but the other necessary, vital ingredient is trust. Australians should be able to trust their financial system and know when they save, invest or seek help that they're dealing with institutions that will act with integrity. I know that there's a bit of a trend at the moment. We're going through our normal cycle of focusing on red tape and reducing regulation. I understand that we have to go through these phases, and we'll go through it, no doubt. But, when it comes to the financial system, regulations are there for a very important reason—the reasons I mentioned before, not the least of which is to underscore, reinforce and support trust in the system.

The Treasury Laws Amendment (Strengthening Financial Systems and Other Measures) Bill 2025, as my colleagues have reflected, covers a number of areas that will be of great interest to Australians, but one of the big areas in here will be around improving the frequency of assessments of how our regulators are performing and supporting their work in maintaining that trust, that vital ingredient that I mentioned earlier, specifically delivering more comprehensive reviews of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission and the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority. This will help deliver more considered recommendations that are impossible under their current review cycle. It's designed to improve the effectiveness of our financial system regulations. It is exceptionally important.

Trust itself, in our financial system, isn't a given; it's got to be earned, and it's got to be continually protected. I have to say that, like many people in the public, I was simply staggered to see ANZ fined a record $240 million in penalties after admitting to widespread long-standing misconduct that affected tens of thousands of Australians. This was the largest penalty that ASIC had ever sought against a company—the largest ever. Why? It was because ANZ, one of the big four banks, misled the Commonwealth on a $14 billion bond deal, overstating bond trading volumes by tens of billions of dollars. It failed to respond to hundreds of customer hardship notices. It underpaid interest to tens of thousands of customers. It charged fees to the deceased while ignoring grieving families trying to settle estates.

This isn't a one-off. ASIC has—and this is, again, just as staggering—taken action against ANZ nearly a dozen times in the decade. This points to systemic misconduct. Even more importantly, it's happening against the backdrop of a 2019 royal commission into the banking system that was designed to weed out this type of misconduct and, equally, to improve governance—exceptionally important. When you look at ANZ's performance, given the things that I've just mentioned to the House, it seems like ANZ is not getting the message. If they can't get the message after a royal commission, then sterner, harder action needs to be followed up until they do get it.

I think it's important for the House to understand why ANZ was the target of the biggest fine that has been levied against a company. Let me read into Hansard, based on information released by ASIC, what happened. They were accused of 'unconscionable conduct when managing a $14 billion government bond deal and inaccurate reporting of secondary market bond turnover'. The ASIC media release reads:

On 19 April 2023, ANZ was assisting the Government's sovereign debt management agency, the Australian Office of Financial Management (AOFM), to help deliver a $14 billion bond issuance.

Instead of trading gradually throughout the day to limit market impact, ANZ sold a significant volume of 10-year Australian bond futures around the time of pricing which placed undue downward price pressure on the bond price. ANZ knew—

according to ASIC—

its trading could expose its client to significant risk of harm, but did not disclose to its client that ANZ still had significant volumes to sell before pricing nor provide its client an opportunity to consult with ANZ about delaying pricing.

This is extraordinary behaviour. The release continues:

This denied the Government an opportunity to protect itself and the public interest—

when it came to $14 billion worth of bonds—

The Government was relying on ANZ's expertise and professionalism. When the Government later asked what happened—

this is equally damning—

ANZ's reports were misleading or deceptive.

The point I would make about this is that, if ANZ did not even blink to do this to the Commonwealth, imagine how they are treating mum and dad consumers. If they are prepared to mislead the Commonwealth and do what they did, what else are they doing in terms of impacting on the security and the interests of mum-and-dad consumers? This is critically important.

It's also worth noting just the number of times that this bank, ANZ, has been found to engage in misconduct. Again, with the indulgence of the House, I will read this into Hansard:

over 150,000—

contraventions of the ASIC Act, Corporations Act and Credit Act for failing to provide promised benefits to customers with offset transaction accounts or under a 'Breakfree' package over 20 years …

We had a banking royal commission. This type of behaviour was supposed to be weeded out. We clearly have a bank, in ANZ, that has not picked up the message. As I indicated to the House earlier, if ANZ is prepared to deceive the Commonwealth on bond issuance, you can see what it's prepared to do to other people, based on some of the contraventions I just read into Hansard, which have genuinely affected mum-and-dad and other regular customers as well.

I congratulate ASIC, most definitely, on the fact they've taken this stand. It is really important not just that our regulators have the teeth but that they use them, and they did. But if anything, with the greatest of respect and regard to ASIC, while I do acknowledge the scale of the penalty that has been imposed, given the rap sheet for ANZ it would certainly be within their ability to go even harder than the $240 million. I'm not alone in thinking this. Jeannie Paterson, professor of law in consumer protection at the University of Melbourne, said that, while the $240 million is the largest penalty ever sought, the amount that actually can be imposed on financial institutions for contraventions of financial services law is way higher. So, while $240 million is big, it could and should have been bigger. Professor Paterson said:

Under provisions in place from 2019, the civil penalty could have been set at 10% of ANZ's annual turnover, currently capped at $825 million per contravention.

One point of comparison is the $125 million penalty ordered against Volkswagen in 2019 for misleading consumers about emissions (and later upheld on appeal). Notably, this was one contravention, not four as the case with the ANZ.

ANZ agreed to the penalty because they would rather do that than fight this in court and be further exposed for their poor governance behaviour and framework. But certainly we do need to take a harder line. In particular, where ASIC has the ability to pursue tougher penalties against banks, it should.

It's often said that the big four are too big to fail. But they can't be too big to be fined, and they should be fined hard where they breach trust. As I said, it's absolutely critical that people have trust in our financial system and that they have faith in the way the regulators pursue breaches of trust. This legislation will be an important step in giving further strength and improving the efficiency of our financial regulations. But if the behaviour of ANZ post the banking royal commission is anything to go by, and the number of contraventions and the fact that it secured the biggest corporate fine, then we need to go harder to protect trust in the financial system, and I'd certainly urge ASIC to do so.

I rise to speak to the Treasury Laws Amendment (Strengthening Financial Systems and Other Measures) Bill 2025. The Greens are supporting the bill in the House, but we reserve our position for the Senate, pending a Senate inquiry into the bill. This bill introduces several Treasury measures, and I'm going to speak to schedule 1 of the bill, relating to beneficial ownership reforms, and schedule 7, relating to the instant asset write-off. Schedule 7 extends the $20,000 instant asset write-off for small businesses until 30 June 2026. This was a policy the Greens took to the election, so we welcome the Labor government's getting onboard.

The Greens understand how important small businesses are to our communities and to the broader economy. I very much understand this myself from deep and long-term personal experience—many decades as a director of my own small and then larger business. Small businesses make a huge contribution to Australian society and to the economy. And we know that too many small businesses are struggling right now in the wake of the pandemic and with high inflation and interest rates, and these employers of so many Australians need some extra support.

Extending the instant asset write-off will give small businesses the certainty they need to invest in their businesses, which will have flow-on benefits for their customers, workers, the communities they're based in and indeed the whole economy. Schedule 1 of the bill relates to beneficial ownership obligations for listed entities. Last term, Labor failed their election promise to legislate to create a public register of ultimate beneficial ownership. This term, we get this bill, which marginally improves existing disclosure obligations but does not address private companies or trusts and does not create a publicly accessible register.

Did you report your income and investments to the ATO? If you did, then you're probably not a billionaire or a massive multinational corporation. Just last week a report from Global Energy Monitor found that people profiting from 22 million tonnes of Australia's annual CO2 emissions are hiding their identity behind nominee companies. Nominee companies are the fossil fuel industry's favourite middle men. They hide the real owners of shares, letting coal, oil and gas profiteers cash in from the shadows. Last term, Labor failed on their election promise to legislate to create a public register of ultimate beneficial ownership. That's because billionaires and the powerful owners of these companies lobbied the government and convinced them to back down on their election promise, because they just don't want that gravy train to stop.

If you're a nurse, a teacher or a small-business owner living in my electorate of Ryan, you paid more income tax than almost a third of Australia's largest companies. We need a public register of ultimate beneficial ownership, because billionaires and massive multinational corporations hide behind trusts and shadowy corporate structures to avoid accountability and to avoid paying their fair share of tax. Are you one of the lucky one in three massive multinational corporations that pays no tax in Australia?

Let's take a stroll down the corporate tax avoidance lane. The world's biggest meat producer, JBS, made $19 billion in income and paid zero dollars in tax. Massive gas and energy producer AGL made $12 billion in income and paid zero dollars in tax. Massive mining corporation Santos made $8 billion in income and paid zero dollars in tax. Transurban, the infrastructure company that owns and operates almost every toll road in Brisbane, received $3.2 billion in income and paid $0 in tax. Rupert Murdoch's media empire, News Australia Holdings, received $1.8 billion in income and paid $0 in tax. Microsoft's data centre in Australia received $1.5 billion in income. Guess what? They paid $0 in tax. Sony Australia received $1.5 billion in income and paid $0 in tax. Netflix Australia received $1.1 billion in income and paid $0 in tax. Optus telecom, infamous for its recent triple 0 outages, and its parent company received $8 billion in income and paid $0 in tax. You'd think, with that income, wouldn't you, that they could afford to spend some on reliable services for Australians.

So why aren't the massive multinational corporations, who are recording billions in income, paying no tax? That's because Labor and the LNP refuse to close the huge loopholes that let big corporations keep stealing from everyday Australians. 'Hello? Triple 0? Yes, I have an emergency. My phone provider, Optus, made $8 billion in income last year and paid no corporate tax. Hello? Hello? Oh, the line dropped out again.' Optus is once again responsible for an outage in their service that has left customers unable to contact triple 0. Four-and-a-half thousand people were affected by that outage, and services were impacted for nearly nine hours. That includes 9 triple 0 calls made during that time. Last year, Telstra shut down its 3G services, which left some rural Queenslanders with either much poorer service or no mobile coverage at all. Despite making those billions in profits, they're providing poorer service to their customers.

But, in fairness, just like everyday Australians, these companies are doing it tough! In the 2023-24 financial year, Optus recorded a measly $8 billion in income, while Telstra reported a trivial $23.5 billion in income. With tiny incomes like those, how can we really blame these massive corporations for offering us more and more unreliable and poorer services for increasingly higher prices? Optus has clearly shown again that they choose profit over people. It's time these massive corporations started paying their fair share of tax and actually providing the essential services they claim to provide.

Privatisation has been an utter disaster for Australia. Labor started the asset fire sale in the nineties, and their greatest hits include Qantas, the Commonwealth Bank and CSL. But it was the Howard coalition government that initiated the sale of then publicly owned Telstra in 1997. Let's check in on just how Telstra is going. Just last week, Telstra was fined $18 million by the ACCC for misleading customers about NBN speeds. That's just last week. They've proudly told their investors they will sack Telstra staff across the country and provide a poorer service to customers by embracing AI. It's no wonder that, according to a Roy Morgan Research survey, Telstra are Australia's sixth-least-trusted corporation alongside such esteemed company as Temu and News Corp.

None of this is news to everyday Australians. Selling off public assets has led to the downfall of both state and federal governments. Poll after poll shows people know that privatisation leads to higher prices and mainly benefits the corporate sector. Everyday Australians know what our politicians and the big corporations just don't seem to get: privatisation of essential services, like telecommunications, isn't sensible economic management, it just means higher prices for worse service. Essential services should stay in public hands.

Overall, the Greens are supporting this bill in the House because we know small businesses need more support, and we acknowledge that the bill makes marginal improvements to existing beneficial ownership obligations. However, we're reserving our position in the Senate. We need Labor to implement their 2022 election promise to deliver a public beneficial ownership register with actual teeth. Labor cannot let massive corporations and billionaires off the hook for another term.

I rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Strengthening Financial Systems and Other Measures) Bill 2025. This bill introduces a suite of measures that enhance transparency and accountability while also supporting our small businesses. These measures are at the core of the Albanese government's commitment to fairness. No matter whether you're a big multinational company or a mum and dad corner store, you should be upfront about your business and its structures. That's what the Australian public expects, and that's what this reform delivers. Too often, Labor governments are wrongly labelled as antibusiness or anticompetition. We're smashed as being hostile to hardworking Australian taxpayers who are just trying to get ahead, but this bill proves this wrong. The Albanese government is proud to introduce this bill to back small businesses, charities and consumers.

In this speech, I want to focus on four measures that this bill introduces or extends. They are the introduction of the public beneficial ownership register, the extension of the small business instant asset write-off, the new powers given to the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission and the extension of the prohibiting-energy-market-misconduct provisions. Each of these measures stand up for the people who open up their High Street shop each morning, staff their shop counters and pay the wages of local workers. In turn, these measures send a message to the multinational corporations who have the power to move their assets and hide their identities. We're backing family businesses who play by the rules, not the big corporations that bend them. No-one held back, no-one left behind and no-one more equal than others—that's the transparency, fairness and accountability that this bill and this government represent and which I'm proud to detail now.

The bill delivers on the first stage of the government's commitment to implement a public beneficial ownership register. A public beneficial ownership register is a database that is accessible to everyday people. On it, you'll be able to see who actually owns, controls or benefits from big multinational companies who operate here in Australia. If you conduct your business in Australia, then Australians should know who you are. This register is a huge step forward in increasing transparency, and from transparency comes greater fairness for taxpayers. The register will make it harder for multinationals to hide assets in shell companies. It will expose conflicts of interest and shed light on where exactly these businesses are based. All in all, this will crack down on multinational tax avoidance. Australia is not the place for big, powerful, multinational companies to hide. If you don't want to play by the rules, expect consequences.

These reforms also enhance ASIC's enforcement powers. It will be able to issue freezing notices when multinationals fail to comply. It can also issue tracing notices to entities to compel respondents to disclose details. The penalties for failing to disclose have also been increased. Of course, ASIC is also given the flexibility to determine what should be disclosed and how in order to protect the personal information of those people involved. Such flexibility flows from the consultation undertaken by Treasury for this bill. It ensures that individual privacy is not compromised while still retaining strict enforcement mechanisms. These are reforms with teeth. We are not just introducing a register for the sake of it. We want multinationals to be upfront about their structures, their tax and their activities.

What is particularly important is that this information will be accessible to everyone, not just the regulators. Any person will be able to look at this register and understand who controls the big companies that impact their lives. Dodgy operators have nowhere to hide. Everyday Australians and small local businesses have to be transparent come tax time. They spend their time and money crossing their t's and dotting their i's. It's time that billion-dollar companies do the same. This new public ownership register makes sure the same rules apply to everyone.

This bill also delivers the government's commitment to support small businesses by extending the $20,000 instant asset write-off by 12 months until 30 June 2026.

The instant asset write-off is a tax break for small businesses that lets them immediately claim the cost of new equipment or assets rather than spreading the deduction over several years. The threshold applies per asset, which means a small business can claim multiple purchases. To be eligible, the business must have an annual turnover of under $10 million. In Barton, our high streets depend on small operators. We have buzzing local neighbourhoods because small businesses are able to set up shop. This write-off is about continuing to support these businesses and the locals they employ.

With this instant asset write-off, offices might choose to upgrade their computer software, whilst tradies might purchase new tools and machinery. Takeaway shops might improve their point-of-sale systems, while hairdressers might install new signage on their facades. All of these common purchases go a long way to increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of the business. In turn, they can help bring more money through the front door and support their employees. Moreover, small businesses employ other locals to undertake upgrades and refurbishments. They look to local tradespeople, suppliers, service firms and fit-out contractors. The benefit is multiplied as the local community lifts each other up. Furthermore, by claiming the full tax deduction upfront, small businesses are able to reduce their taxable incomes and thus increase their refund. This means that cash stays in their business. This makes all the difference for small businesses operating with very tight margins. I know that the cost of doing business in Sydney is pretty difficult—rents are high, insurance can be expensive, technology is ever evolving. The $20,000 instant asset write-off is just one of the measures that this Albanese government is implementing to address these pressures.

We have also delivered additional energy bill relief for around one million small businesses and delivered two new tax cuts for every taxpayer. These cuts benefit around 1.5 million sole traders. On top of this, we've rolled out cheaper home batteries, so small businesses can slash energy bills for good, and extended unfair trading practice protections to small businesses. Small businesses are the heart of unique and diverse local communities. From along Princess Highway in Rockdale to Railway Parade in Kogarah and the hub around Forest Road in Hurstville, small businesses employ local people, cook incredible food and keep us caffeinated, fix our car, cut our hair and help us do our taxes. They help make Barton what it is. I'm proud to be part of a government aiding these small businesses.

The Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission is the national regulator for charities in Australia. It keeps track of which organisations qualify as charities, makes sure they play by the rules and helps the public see where charitable money goes. Clearly, the ACNC is essential for retaining public trust in our charity sector. That's why the Albanese government is making sure that the ACNC can disclose information about new and ongoing investigations where the disclosure would prevent or minimise the risk of significant harm. Previously, the ACNC could not publicly disclose whether it was conducting an investigation. In 2018, the ACNC review called out the secrecy provisions as being overly restrictive, as they meant that the public or donors may not know whether the allegations or concerns about a charity were being addressed.

Before entering parliament, I worked in the charity sector, and I still make sure to volunteer with local not-for-profit organisations. I hate that there are bad faith actors that take advantage of the title 'charity'. It's a blight on the sector. It's an insult of the worst kind to the good people working every single day for the benefit of others. The fact that these bad faith actors would take advantage of the most vulnerable in our community is disappointing. When a charity rorts the system, everyone loses, including donors, volunteers and the people who need help most.

These reforms protect our sector and punish those who seek to take advantage of it. Specifically, these reforms will allow the ACNC to assure charities and donors that it is acting on issues of public concern. It will now be able to disclose information about ongoing or newly commenced investigations. Of course, however, significant safeguards will apply to these disclosures, including a public harm test, which will balance transparency with risk to charity reputation, due process and confidentiality.

Taken as a whole, these reforms will assure donors and charities alike that we have confidence in our sector. In turn, this will contribute to the government's commitment of doubling philanthropic giving by 2030. This is about protecting those who give back and ensuring that the good in our community isn't undermined by the few who exploit it.

Finally, this bill extends the Treasury Laws Amendment (Prohibiting Energy Market Misconduct) Act provisions until 1 January 2031. This will allow the ACCC to continue to investigate and address misconduct by retailers and generators in the electricity markets. Like much of this bill, this goes to increasing transparency and accountability in the sector. Such an extension comes off the back of an independent review which found these were effective in constraining market misconduct and protecting households and businesses. When speaking about the application of these compliance powers, ACCC Chair Gina Cass-Gottlieb said:

With electricity prices increasing, and many Australians looking for a better deal, it's crucial that the information people receive from their energy company is correct and can be relied upon.

Indeed, without these checks and balances, households are beholden to the claims made by these providers and left in the dark. The extension of these powers means that the ACCC can continue to stamp out false and misleading claims. That way, Australians can continue to make informed financial decisions about their energy bills whilst balancing their household budgets.

This particular bill upholds the Albanese government's commitment to transparency and accountability. It sheds a light on the constitution and personnel of big multinational companies whilst also enabling small businesses to get ahead, because backing hardworking regular people whilst holding power to account has always been a part of Labor's agenda. As much as those on the other side would like to claim that we are an enemy of small business, these reforms prove this is not true.

At the same time, this bill backs in our charity sector. It does so by giving the ACNC the power to disclose information about its investigations. Such reform will give donors and the public the confidence to donate generously and volunteer their time to trustworthy organisations. Moreover, it will assure those who have made complaints about organisations. All in all, it means that bad-faith actors that undermine the reputation of our charity sector will be exposed, whilst the rest of the sector benefits from greater confidence and security.

Finally, the bill extends the powers of the ACCC in the energy market so it can continue to address misconduct by retailers and generators, because a fair, transparent economy isn't just good policy; it's who we are as Australians. We believe in a fair go. We believe in doing the right thing, and this bill helps make sure everyone else does too.

I give the call to the member for Warringah for two minutes.

This omnibus bill, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Strengthening Financial Systems and Other Measures) Bill 2025, looks to improve corporate disclosure, widen transparency and extend the instant asset write-off for small business. I support these measures. They are welcome.

Schedule 1 delivers the first stage of a public beneficial ownership register to tackle tax avoidance. Schedule 2 allows for the ACNC to disclose investigations to prevent harm. Schedule 3 adjusts the frequency of the Financial Regulator Assessment Authority's reviews of ASIC and APRA from biennial to every five years. These measures, taken together, implement sensible changes to bring greater efficiency and transparency.

Schedules 4 and 5 make minor and technical amendments, including minor amendments to strengthen the Scams Prevention Framework. The government continues to tweak the operation of the Scams Prevention Framework, but I point out that there has been no movement to implement any of the regulatory rules that would put the Scams Prevention Framework into action. We've been contacted by local constituents who are being impersonated and scammed online without any recourse or ability to use the framework that was passed in this place earlier this year. It was supposed to be implemented by July 2025, and we are still waiting, so I call on the government to implement those rules without further delay.

This debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour, and the member will be granted leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.

STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS

Fisher Electorate: Rail Transport

After years of delay and neglect under the former state Labor government, The Wave heavy rail stage 1 and 2 project is finally full steam ahead. For too long, Labor promised the Sunshine Coast a train and never delivered. Studies, reviews and photo opportunities were all we ever saw. Labor's empty promises date back nearly 25 years, but now, thanks to the Crisafulli state LNP government, this project is back on track and powering ahead. The Wave will transform the Fisher electorate, connecting Beerwah to Birtinya and, in time, to Maroochydore and the airport. It'll take cars off the Bruce Highway and major connecting routes, creating thousands of jobs and giving locals the reliable public transport they've been waiting decades for.

I recently met with Genevieve de Michele and Dylan Bowan, who are part of the project team in Caloundra, to discuss tunnelling under Little Mountain, improved environmental design and major station hubs with up to 1,700 new commuter car parks. This is a $5.5 billion joint investment, with the Australian and Queensland governments each contributing $2.75 billion to deliver stage 1 from Beerwah to Caloundra. The Wave represents the future of transport in Fisher and the broader Sunshine Coast. It is the result of persistence, planning and a new LNP government that actually gets things done.

Moore, Mr Peter

I rise today to commend the work of a great volunteer and friend of the community in Werriwa, Peter Moore. After 21 years, Peter Moore has taken the decision to step aside from his involvement with the Fairfield Liverpool Cricket Association. Peter was the Fairfield Liverpool Cricket Association secretary for 16 years, then the president since 2011, making him the longest serving president in the history of the association, which is more than 100 years old. He was awarded life membership in 2013. Peter was awarded the Medal of the Order of Australia in 2024 to honour his many years of service to the game of cricket and, especially, the community of South Western Sydney.

Peter has always advocated not only for the players but also to ensure that community cricket facilities receive grants enabling improvements and maintenance. Peter has advocated to increase the participation of women and young girls in local cricket groups. This year, five young women will represent our cricket community and state teams. This is down to the encouragement of our local cricket coaches, parents and people like Peter Moore. Peter will continue to be actively involved in the Hoxton Park Tigers Cricket Club, which he helped set up five years ago. I wish Peter all the best for his semi-retirement and thank him for his advocacy for players over the past two decades.

Crime

Aimee and Nick Mazza of Mildura are victims of the Labor government's failure to protect and deliver justice to mum and dad investors subject to financial crimes. Nick and Aimee have been through hell and back due to the criminal behaviour of financial adviser Anthony Del Vecchio of Freedom Finance, who stole their hard earned money and gambled it away. While Del Vecchio has been sentenced and jailed, Aimee and Nick continue to deal with the fallout of his evil behaviour. The stress, mental and emotional consequences and impact on their family have been immense. Yet the financial firm Del Vecchio worked for was wound up and has been able to phoenix into a new business.

This is indicative of the failings of ASIC and their lack of teeth when it comes to regulating the financial services sector. ASIC are just one of a number of agencies and businesses that have failed the Mazzas. I am determined to ensure there is justice for Nick and Aimee, and I am not done calling out those that have let them down.

Henry, Mr Joey

I rise with sadness to pay tribute to a promising young life cut tragically short. On Friday, Joey Henry lost his life in a farm vehicle accident. He was an immensely talented rugby player with a very bright future in front of him. A recent graduate of Marist College Canberra, he captained his school's First XV to win the premiership in 2023. In 2024, he made first grade for the Canberra Royals and played with them in the club's premiership win in the John I Dent Cup. He was also part of the academy program for the Brumbies. Joey was a leader, was well respected both on and off the field and made a contribution in whatever endeavour he was involved in.

Joey's loss has caused so many unimaginable ripples of grief to pass over different parts of our community, from his school to his team and of course to his loved ones. Thank you to Menslink for stepping up to provide support for the Royals community at this time. I express my deepest condolences to Joey's family and his friends. I know his loss is immeasurable to so many.

Youth Voice in Parliament

I want to congratulate all the students who participated in the Raise Our Voice in Parliament initiative. I'll read out the winning speech from Fowler by a 14-year-old constituent of mine, Jasmine Houng Giang of Canley Vale High School.

As a young Australian student, I would like to address a critical concern: The Australian curriculum is one that is tremendously outdated and creating a generation of unaware students. My generation is the most digitally connected to date, but we are not effectively taught how to use technology to its fullest extent.

I propose that the Australian government provide more funding for vocational courses, workshops and external opportunities, to help students develop everyday skills to resolve real world issues.

Many indispensable skills are not taught in school, and this can make students oblivious to the requirements of contemporary society.

The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare states "Of people who completed vocational education or training in 2019, 56% of people reported better employment after training."

Imagine this statistic but the training was already provided in schools, this would help students leave school feeling more assertive and self-assured.

Let's be honest, this idea is not revolutionary, it is an investment to encourage students to go into industries feeling more comfortable and confident. This isn't about making school easier, it is about making it more relevant and giving students the tools to build their own futures.

Tertiary Education

A university education is something that all Australians should have the opportunity to pursue. Nearly half of young Australians now have a degree, but that's not the case in Macquarie Fields, where only 29 per cent of young people have a degree.

This government is working to ensure that young people in my community of Hughes can pursue university education and the careers that they want to reach. I was so proud to join the Minister for Education to open the new Macquarie Fields Suburban Study Hub, bringing university closer for students in southern Sydney—part of this government's $66.9 million investment in university study hubs.

The new Suburban Study Hub Macquarie Fields now offers support services and study facilities for local students enrolled at any university or vocational education and training provider. The evidence shows that, where study hubs are, university participation goes up. Having access to university in my community helped me start my tertiary education journey. Attending the University of Wollongong Sutherland campus meant that I could pursue my education in the community where I lived. I am so excited to see the opportunities that this study hub opens up for my community and for its next generation.

Energy

Mount Isa brings in 1½ billion dollars a year, it is responsible for 15,000 jobs in the Australian economy and it is in desperate, desperate trouble. The trouble arises because the gas reserve resource policy gave Mount Isa gas at $6 a unit, the agreement ran out seven or eight years ago—maybe 10 or 12 years ago—and we've gone up to $16.60. It was $6; now it's $16.60. Our competitor nations—namely, Brazil, the United States and Russia, but particularly the United States and Russia, are getting their gas at $6 a unit while we're paying $16.60.

Everyone has talked about the copper mine, and there is no doubt that it is in desperate trouble without that gas at a competitive price. All electricity and power, and a whole lot of the chemical processes at Mount Isa, need that gas.

Quite separately, of course, is the fertiliser plant, employing over a thousand people directly and indirectly. It is paying $16.60. It produces di-ammonium phosphate: two parts natural gas and one part— (Time expired)

Sturt Electorate: Madonna di Montevergine Feast

On Sunday 28 September 2025, I had the privilege of attending the 70th Madonna di Montevergine feast, including the procession, mass and party held on the grounds of the St Francis of Assisi School at Newton in my electorate of Sturt. The morning mass emphasised the importance of kindness and empathy for others, and the evening party emphasised food, culture, connection, language and family. Beautifully led by the Madonna di Montevergine organising committee president, Mr Dominic Zollo, the festival was supported by community organisations, including Radio Italia 531, especially John di Fede and Eleonora Finoia, which broadcast the event across South Australia and beyond.

I was very proud to attend in my capacity as the member for Sturt because, for the first time since the feast's inception, the federal government contributed funds to the organising committee to help them put on a day to remember. This 70th anniversary was truly a wonderful community celebration. The food area had to be seen to be believed, with pasta, tripe, gelato and zeppole as far as the eye could see. Thank you, Mr Zollo, for your energy. Thank you, Dames di Montevergine, for your commitment to your faith and your community. But the biggest thank you has to go to the volunteers who worked day and night to make the event possible, especially the volunteers in the many kitchens operating across the event. E stata una festa di ricordare. Congratulazioni a tutti.

National Police Remembrance Day

Every day when a police officer answers a call, they never truly know what they're going to find out behind that door. Yet they go, without hesitation, to protect us. The badge they wear is more than metal. It carries the weight of every promise made to protect. Last week, I was honoured to attend two services in remembrance of fallen officers: the candlelight vigil in Mackay and the National Police Remembrance Day service in Bowen. Together with members of our community, we paused to remember and to pay tribute to those who have made the ultimate sacrifice in the line of duty.

Since 1861, 151 Queensland police officers have lost their lives while serving their communities. Their courage, dedication and commitment to protect will never be forgotten. Wreaths were laid as symbols of respect and remembrance—quiet reminders of lives given in service and of the families, friends and colleagues left behind. Their legacy lives on, written in the safety of our streets and in the strength of our communities. We also give thanks to those who continue to serve, standing the line every day to keep our communities safe, often in the face of great danger and uncertainty. With honour they served; with honour they continue to serve.

Korean War, War Widows Day

This coming Sunday in Darwin in my electorate, I will be attending a Legacy NT event commemorating the 74th anniversary of the Battle for Maryang San during the Korean War in 1951, where Australian, British and Canadian soldiers fought together in the United Nations command, or UN forces, supported by Kiwi artillery as well. We will present Korean Ambassador for Peace medals to the widows and families of the local veterans who served in the Korean War as an expression of appreciation from the Korean government.

The local Korean War veterans are James Theodore Clark, who served with the 1st Battalion Royal Australian Regiment; Robert McKechnie, who was in the Korean Maintenance area; Terence James Peters, who served with my old battalion, the 3rd Battalion; and James Henry Richardson, who was killed in action in Korea in 1951, aged 27. Private Richardson is at rest in the United Nations Memorial Cemetery in Korea.

We'll also acknowledge War Widows Day on 19 October. It's where we recognise those family members who have paid the ultimate sacrifice when their loved one paid that ultimate sacrifice. Thanks to the Korean Consulate in Melbourne for providing those peace medals.

Davey, Ms Tiffany

I rise to give a big shout out to Western Australia's newly minted rural ambassador, Tiffany Davey. I caught up with Tiffany last week at the Perth Royal Show and congratulated her on her well-deserved accolade. Tiffany is an accomplished young rural professional who studied agribusiness at my old alma mater, Muresk College. She has been an accredited Australian stockperson since 2019, ensuring the health and welfare of hundreds of thousands of sheep on live export vessels to the Middle East.

Tiffany understands more than most the importance of maintaining Australia's international reputation as a reliable supplier of high-quality protein to countries that cannot produce their own. In her role as project manager for the rural advocacy group the Livestock Collective, she is passionate about enhancing the public understanding of farming. Tiffany has been an integral part of the Keep the Sheep movement, and I commend her for her courage in proudly supporting an industry that has been so publicly vilified.

Tiffany is pleased to have a platform to help rural Australians tell their stories and share their passion for what they do as farmers, shearers, transporters and stockpeople. She firmly believes city people want to meet farmers and know more about where their food comes from. This makes Tiffany the perfect advocate for rural and regional Australia, so I take this opportunity to wish her every success in her year ahead as WA's rural ambassador.

Melbourne Electorate: Volunteering

Ahoy, Deputy Speaker! At North Wharf in Docklands, I saw volunteers bring a 122-year-old ship back to life: the Alma Doepel, a three-mast tall ship built in 1903. This ship has served our nation. She carried goods on our coast and worked as an army supply ship to Papua New Guinea.

Today, a skilled team and many local volunteers are bringing her back to life. More than 100,000 volunteer hours have gone into this work so far. This is a huge gift of time and craft. When Alma sails again, she will become a youth training ship. It's a program which will build grit, teamwork and confidence.

Also in Docklands is the topsail schooner Enterprize, a 27-metre all-timber working replica of the 1830 ship that carried the first European settlers to Melbourne. Enterprize is sailed by volunteers and runs sail training and public sails across the bay. I thank her crew and supporters for keeping these skills alive.

I thank Bill Reid for the kind invite and for his work, and I thank every volunteer—older hands passing on skills and new faces learning them. This is Melbourne at its best—community, history and hope in one project. I encourage people to check them out online and support their inspiring work. Alma Doepel shows what we can do when we back our volunteers—

The member for Longman has the call.

Queensland: Sport

Well, I couldn't resist—how good is Queensland! It's been a great year. It's very rare that you have a year like this, no matter what state you're from.

First of all, of course, we won the Origin against the odds, and the mighty Lions got up. Then the women's and the men's Broncos both got up on the weekend. Probably the most pleasing thing about all these results is that, in most cases, we weren't favoured to win—definitely not in the Origin. We didn't finish top of the ladder in the AFL or the NRL. In fact, the ladies beat the undefeated Roosters in the final, which was great, and it shows a lot of courage and guts to come back from that. The men's Broncos actually came back in three of the finals, which was absolutely tremendous.

Of course, a lot of us were nervous about Reece Walsh because a lot of the time we don't know what we're going to get when it comes to Reece. They call him 'rocks or diamonds' for a reason, but he played probably the best game of any individual in the grand final on Sunday night. I want to acknowledge that and say: 'Good on you, mate. You had a crack.' And good on you, Madge, for backing him up. Who knows? Maybe, just maybe, there's something in that water he drinks—Queenslander!

Manufacturing Industry

In my electorate of Aston, we have many incredible manufacturing businesses. Last month, I had the honour of visiting one of them to see firsthand how they operate. Catten Industries are a family run business located in Bayswater, and they specialise in advanced sheet metal fabrication and creative metal design. Catten Industries also employ many Aston locals, including young apprentices, to help them kickstart a career in manufacturing. This is an incredibly important thing for the future of many young Australians.

Unlike those opposite, our government understand how important it is to keep Australian jobs in Australia. In our first term alone, the Albanese Labor government created more than 1 million jobs right here in Australia, which is the highest number of jobs created by a first-term government. To see the member for Canning take to social media recently, profoundly expressing his sadness over the loss of our car manufacturing industry, was, quite frankly, galling. Let's not forget that this was the same member of parliament who was part of a coalition government that waved our car manufacturing industry goodbye as it sailed offshore, costing thousands of Australians their jobs. Coalition hypocrisy knows no bounds. Australians know that whilst those opposite are preparing for their fifth leadership change in 10 years, this Labor government will be busy delivering a future made right here in Australia.

Holt, Mr Christopher (Chris)

I wish to acknowledge the passing of Christopher Holt, the former principal of Marist-Sion College in Warragul who led the school with great distinction from 1993 to 2006. Chris Holt was a man of many callings—author, farmer, soldier, principal, husband and father—and was a mentor to many. He was also the great-nephew of former Liberal prime minister Harold Holt—a connection he carried with quiet pride. During his 13 years as principal, Chris oversaw the development of the music program, the college hall, the Marian Theatre and the village classroom clusters—a legacy that continues to shape the Marist-Sion College today.

Chris was known for his warmth, eccentric charm and sense of fun. Whether rallying hundreds of students to watch the Olympic torch relay or polishing shoes in the red dust of Central Australia, he inspired those around him to live life with joy, purpose and big dreams. I know many families connected to Marist-Sion are deeply mourning his passing. To quote the mayor of Baw Baw Shire Council, Danny Goss:

Chris Holt is one of the finest men I have ever met. It was both a pleasure and extraordinary experience to work with Chris. Never a fan of authority, his allegiances always lay with the students he taught.

On behalf of the Monash electorate, I extend my sincere condolences to his partner, Dawn, his family and the Marist-Sion College community. Vale, Chris Holt.

World Tasting Championship

Mesdames and messieurs—oh la la! The Hunter Valley has done it again. At the 2025 World Tasting Championship in the heart of France, our Aussie team of wine-growers and wine-lovers went sip for sip with the best noses and palates on the planet. Forty countries lined up. There were 12 mysterious wines, and more swirling, sniffing and spitting than you could poke a stick at. France took home the gold of course. It was a homegrown advantage I reckon—I don't want to spark an international incident, but let's just say it smelt a little suspicious. China came second but Australia, with our own Hunter Valley hero Declan McCaffrey of McCaffrey's Estate, came third in the world.

That's right. Aussies stood shoulder to shoulder with French sommeliers who taste wine for breakfast, lunch and dinner. The French might say: 'Ah, ze Australians. Zey make ze big wines. How could zey possibly know ze difference between a pinot and a shiraz?' Well, guess what? We do. And we can do it blindfolded, before smoko and without a beret in sight. This is more than a win for Declan and the Hunter Valley. It's proof the Australian wine industry is world-class, with craftsmanship and character that can stand proudly on any table or in any glass. So to Declan and the whole Hunter Valley: sante, or good health. You have done us proud. Cheers!

Albanese Government

Australia's way of life is built on the values of fairness, of tolerance and of respect. But, unfortunately, our strength and unity are being tested during times of civil unrest never before seen in our great country. The fact is that social cohesion is on a knife's edge, and Australians are rightly disappointed in the Prime Minister's lack of leadership. There have been multiple failures of government to keep our community safe and united. Crime is spiralling out of control in several states. Synagogues have been firebombed, with our Jewish community under siege.

The Prime Minister has turned a blind eye to hate, to discrimination and to crime in this country. There are pro-terrorist rallies taking place across the country, including at our iconic Sydney Opera House and across the Sydney Harbour Bridge. There was disturbing graffiti celebrating Hamas in Melbourne, as Jewish Australians marked the atrocities of October 7. There were 1,200 Israelis killed by those terrorists on that day. To do anything but condemn their atrocities is an absolute disgrace. We must never import the bitterness of overseas conflicts into our communities here at home. The Prime Minister cannot continue to let this spiral out of control. He must step up now and show some real leadership. Jewish Australians and all Australians deserve better than the scraps they're being thrown by this government and by this prime minister.

Mental Health

October is mental health month, and I want to take this opportunity to highlight our important investment in mental health support for our communities. Our government is investing $1 billion to deliver more mental health services right across the country, including free mental health services that are backed by Medicare. I'm pleased to say that Labor will be opening a new free Medicare mental health centre in Glen Iris in my own electorate of Chisholm. This service will play an important role in supporting other local services, including our headspace on Blackburn Road in Mount Waverley, which the health minister has previously visited.

Addressing mental health conditions in this country, particularly for young people with complex needs, is one of my biggest priorities. I'm proud that we're delivering more youth specialist care centres and training more mental health professionals. It was terrific to have the health minister in Chisholm last week to visit a clinic which will be becoming 100 per cent bulk-billing from 1 November this year—the Burwood Healthcare general practice—and to visit our urgent care clinic in Mount Waverley. I spoke with, literally, thousands of locals about the Mount Waverley Urgent Care Clinic, and I can confirm to the House that it has been warmly received by the community. We're making sure that we invest in health to support everyone in our community so no-one is left behind.

Forestry Industry

Since we last sat in this chamber, New South Wales Labor have gutted another regional industry. The industry they gutted this time—and that they've all but wiped out—is the forestry industry. Thousands of jobs have been lost. Timber mill workers have lost their jobs—forestry workers, people who drive trucks, haulage workers who are supported by that industry. Again Labor is selling out blue-collar jobs for Greens preferences.

The worst thing about the thousands of people who are going to lose their jobs is that they were announced on Father's Day. On Father's Day, thousands of men found out they were going to lose their jobs. This is a sustainable and renewable industry. And do you know what? Now we will be importing hardwood from countries who do not do it in the sustainable and environmentally friendly way we do.

The other thing that happens is that where they lock this up will now become weed infested, become feral-animal infested, become a tinderbox and make our communities more dangerous. In fact, koalas leave as well because it becomes too weed infested. The elite city MPs over there have demonised our forestry industry. They've demonised our farmers for the water they want for growing food and fibre. They've demonised our sheep farmers for live exports. They've demonised our coal miners and our gas industry workers. Their hypocrisy and sanctimony is very obvious over there. (Time expired)

Renewable Energy

Labor is getting on with the job of delivering a renewable clean energy future, but what's the member for Riverina doing? He's opposing renewables, talking down projects that create local jobs for his electors. In spite of this lousy representation for the locals in the Riverina, even in Western Australia we heard the great news for the Riverina this week, with the announcement of a wind farm to power 600,000 homes. This is a win-win-win for the region, delivering clean energy across the Riverina, improving local infrastructure and increasing jobs and investment—the very thing that the member for Riverina is looking to oppose.

The coalition are seriously out of touch. The only policies we've actually even heard from them is articulation of social division, infighting and climate denial. They're so busy draping themselves over car bonnets, daydreaming about their own nuclear fantasy, to acknowledge the task and the opportunity ahead of them. They're busy doubling down on their policy that is so incredibly unpopular and so incredibly unrealistic that it delivered a result for the coalition not seen in 70 years—the worst election result in history. In the meantime, Labor is getting on with it. We're delivering on real progress and sensible climate targets. This is what Australians wanted. This is what our Pacific neighbours want. This is what the world wants, and we're getting on with it.

In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statement has concluded. We shall move to questions without notice.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

Telecommunications

My question is to the Minister for Communications. Minister, asked when you and your office were first notified about the triple 0 crisis, you said:

… we were not notified of the catastrophic outage until late afternoon on Friday 19 September.

However, a secret email has revealed the minister's personal office was actually notified 24 hours earlier than what she told the house yesterday. Minister, how can Australians trust triple 0 to work in an emergency when they cannot even trust you to tell the truth in parliament?

I'm going to remind of an issue that I did raise yesterday: just moving forward with all questions, if we can just follow the standing orders to make sure the 'you' is not used. It's just reflecting on the chair. I'm sure the leader doesn't want that to occur, so we'll just ensure that's moving forward for all questions.

I thank the Leader of the Opposition for her question. All of this information is already in the public domain. I spoke to that at a press conference on 22 September. I spoke about that incorrect information that Optus provided to my office and to the ACMA regulator on Thursday 18 September. That transcript is available on my website if you would like to peruse. That advice that Optus gave to both my office and ACMA on Thursday afternoon was clearly incorrect, it was inaccurate and it was misleading. That is why we have put in place changes that will be further strengthened on 1 November when the new ACMA determination takes effect. It will mean that telcos must immediately share information relating to outages with relevant emergency service organisations—police, fire, ambulance—and the regulator and people who are relevant. So I've asked and telcos have agreed to start that early.

The Leader of the Opposition on a point of order?

I seek leave to table documents which clearly reveal a notification from Optus to the minister's office.

Leave not granted.

Climate Change

My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. What are the opportunities of acting on climate change? Are there any risks to acting on climate change, and what would not acting mean for Australia's economy?

I thank my honourable friend for the question. He asked about the opportunities of acting on climate change, and those opportunities are there for the country and they're there for Australia's households and businesses and farmers. Australians are taking up those opportunities every day.

Households are taking up that opportunity every day, and there is a bit of a milestone to share with the House. I can tell the House that, as of today, 80,005 Australians households have installed a cheaper home battery under the Albanese government's cheaper home battery policy. It's been a while since we sat, so I will give the House a bit of an update. It remains a regional and suburban story. Australians in regional Australia and the suburbs are taking up the Albanese government's cheaper home batteries policy. I won't go through every state, but in New South Wales we have a new leader. The member for Richmond now has more, cheaper home batteries than anybody else, but she's closely followed by the members for Page and Riverina, with the member for Gilmore coming in fourth. So right across regional New South Wales people are embracing the opportunities of net zero. In Western Australia, I also have an update. There's one particular Western Australian member everyone is talking about. He's got a great CV and an even better future. He's widely regarded as one of the parliament's better-looking members. I refer, of course, to the member for Tangney, who has the highest take-up in Western Australia of any member of parliament when it comes to cheaper home batteries. This is households, businesses and farmers taking up the opportunities.

Of course, farmers come up in this conversation a lot—as they should. On this side of the House, we believe that farmers, who know their land so well and are so expert in creating wealth out of that land, should be given the opportunity to seize these opportunities. Every farmer who has a wind farm or solar farm is paid for having it. No wind farm or solar farm is installed in Australia without the consent and full agreement of the landholder. We know that, between now and 2030, about $1 billion in payments will be made to farmers for hosting that infrastructure and, between now and 2050, it will be up to $8 billion in payments. If you don't believe in climate change, you cannot seize the opportunity.

The member for Flynn was asked, 'Have you as a federal parliamentarian ever been given empiric or scientific evidence that proves climate change?' and he said, 'No, I can assure you it does not exist.' This is the alternative government of Australia in 2025. They don't believe in the science of climate change. If you don't believe in climate change, you can't seize the opportunity. He's one of the more moderate members among those opposite. But, if you do not understand the challenges of modern Australia, you are not fit to be the government of Australia.

Telecommunications

My question is to the Minister for Communications. Yesterday, the minister told the House that the government made no error in the triple 0 crisis and that it was 'the fault of Optus and Optus alone'. But, today, when the coalition moved an amendment to double the maximum penalty for a telco company to $20 million per offence, the Albanese government shamefully voted it down. If Optus and Optus alone is to blame, why did Labor vote against the interests of Australians, who just want triple 0 to work when their lives are on the line?

I thank the Leader of the Opposition for her question. As I noted when the amendments were moved earlier today, we were keen to engage in good faith on potential amendments. But, unfortunately, that was not reciprocated by the opposition, who then pulled a parliamentary stunt. However, since then, we've had a bit of time to look over the proposed amendments by the member for Lindsay and I must say, unfortunately for all of us, they are quite poor.

In relation to the proposed amendment to the Security of Critical Infrastructure Act 2018, at best, the amendment is completely redundant. The current definition of 'critical telecommunications asset' already captures the infrastructure the amendment is targeted towards. At worst, the amendment would extend the definition of 'critical telecommunications asset' far beyond its intent. The proposed insertion of 'a telecommunications network that is used to supply an emergency call service' is untethered from the concept of carriers and carriage services and does not define what an emergency call service is and so it would potentially capture any system—

The minister will pause. She's talking about the amendment. I'll just get her to take a seat for a moment so I can hear from the Leader of the Opposition on a point of order.

It's a point of order on relevance, Mr Speaker. The minister is not answering the question about the penalty specifically. The minister needs to answer why she is letting Optus off the hook.

Government members interjecting—

Order, members on my right! I want to hear from the Leader of the House.

To the point of order, the Leader of the Opposition knows that on a question where you ask about an amendments and votes in the House and the minister responds by referring to the amendments that the House voted on it's completely relevant to what was asked. The Leader of the Opposition knows that.

I think the Leader of the Opposition was asking about a specific amendment, but the minister is giving detail about broader amendments. She can address those as part of the answer. She's got to remain directly relevant. I can appreciate the Leader of the Opposition would like a specific answer. If the minister was talking about another complete topic, it could not be classed as directly relevant. I note the beginning of her answer specifically addressed that part of the question, so she has addressed that part of the question about the specific she was asked. Now she's giving further information. Under the standing orders, she's addressed the specific part of the question directly. Now she's being directly relevant. I am going to listen carefully. She's talking about an amendment, and I want to make sure that's directly relevant to the topic she was asked about. The minister is in continuation.

As I was saying, the impact of that amendment would potentially capture any system or series of systems that carries or is capable of carrying communications by means of guided or unguided electromagnetic energy which is in any way connected to emergency services calls. It is not clear to me what exactly this is attempting to achieve beyond making the act confusing.

Climate Change

My question is for the Prime Minister. How is the Albanese Labor government tackling the environmental challenge of climate change while seizing the economic opportunities of renewable energy, and are there any risks?

I thank the member for Petrie for her question. Indeed, Australians were very clear, when they voted for the member for Petrie on 3 May, that they wanted action on climate change that not only protects our environment—and I must say that the member's electorate is particularly pristine there, around Redcliffe and that beautiful part of Queensland—but also strengthens our economy. Our government is taking precisely that action with our target to reduce emissions by 62-70 per cent by 2035. It's a responsible—

You can't tell us how much it's going to cost.

To the member for Fairfax, I'm not in the mood today for those sorts of interjections. I'm just not, and I don't think the House is either. Hold your horses so I can hear the Prime Minister.

It is a responsible target. Importantly, it was done under what is the world's best practice. We had the Climate Change Authority, chaired by Mr Kean, who put forward the evidence based approach so that it is ambitious but also, importantly, achievable. I must say it was well received.

We also have a practical plan to get us there. Government, industry and Australians are all doing their bits, protecting the environment for our children and also creating good jobs on the way through. Now, as a government, we are investing in the National Reconstruction Fund for new industries, boosting low-emissions manufacturing and industry. We're also getting more renewables in the grid through the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, and we're investing in clean fuels for the transport sector.

But Australians and Australian businesses are getting behind action, too, which is why this announcement was so well received by the business community—something that upsets those opposite, who used to talk to the business community. They don't these days.

Since 1 July, as the minister has proudly informed the House just minutes ago, we are now up to more than 80,000 home batteries being installed. What that's doing is storing the energy that comes from our roofs, which have the highest per capita rate of solar panels in the world, and making sure that people get the permanent reduction. Ninety-four per cent of ASX 50 companies are committed to net zero, because they recognise it's good for their business as well as for the environment.

Everyone is doing their bit except for those opposite, who are busy interjecting. They're the only people who aren't on board with this. They're stuck in the past and they're too busy getting stuck into each other to worry about Australia's national interest.

DISTINGUISHED VISITORS

University of Canberra: Pathway to Politics for Women, Health Care

I'm pleased to advise the House that in the gallery today are participants in the University of Canberra's Pathway to Politics for Women program, whom I had the privilege of meeting before question time.

Also in the gallery are a delegation of GPs who are at Parliament House to launch the General Practice: Health of the Nation report. Welcome to you all.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

National Security

My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, recent media reports state that your government had no involvement in bringing back the ISIS-affiliated group. My community in Fowler, home to large Syrian, Chaldean, Mandaean and Hasidic communities who are all persecuted and subjected to genocide by the ISIS regime, are rightly terrified. Will your government give my community in Fowler an absolute guarantee that none of the returned ISIS-affiliated women and children will be settled in our community?

I thank the member for Fowler for raising this issue in the House. Those opposite had given the impression in the media that they were going to raise the issue, but once they got in here they appeared for some reason unwilling to do so. Perhaps I could start with this principle. First of all, as the Prime Minister has made clear, there has been no repatriation. So, for the member for Fowler, when the end of that question refers to the government 'settling people'—the government is not settling people; the government is not involved in settling people.

We have a situation where we have a number of Australian citizens who made a terrible decision, an absolutely dreadful decision, to go off and join others who were involved in what has been described as one of the most horrific organisations the world has seen. And this is not the first time Australian citizens who made that decision have returned. When Australian citizens seek to return to Australia they are able to do so. There have been two times that there were repatriations, one under this government and one under the previous government. But there have also been repeated occasions where people have returned of their own volition. Those opposite seem to have forgotten the number of people who returned to Australia of their own volition in exactly this way while they were in office.

While the discussion has been about women and children who have recently returned, those who returned under those opposite—and this is in their own words, from a question on notice—include 'some who fought for ISIL, a few who had joined other Islamic extremist groups, others who provided support to ISIL', who returned in exactly this way. That's referred to as being part of a group of around 40 people, in answer to a question on notice that those opposite appear to want to forget.

But the thing that is consistent throughout all of this—and this is why I'm glad the member for Fowler has raised it—is that our security agencies are constantly engaged. And every conversation that you would expect that I, as the Minister for Home Affairs, would have with those security intelligence agencies about making sure Australians are safe is, you are guaranteed, happening, and our agencies are working with the professionalism you would expect.

Renewable Energy

My question is to the Treasurer. What did Treasury's net zero modelling show about the Albanese Labor government's approach to the transformation to cleaner and cheaper energy? And what risks are there in other proposals?

Thanks to the member for Gellibrand for his question and also for his thoughtful contributions to our climate policy and to our economic policies more broadly. He knows, and we know—and I think Australians know—that the net zero transformation is a golden economic opportunity for Australia. The shift to cleaner and cheaper energy over time is an opportunity that Australians cannot afford to waste, and the Treasury modelling our 2035 target makes that really clear. That modelling helped to inform the decision we took and announced not that long ago. It also helps Australians understand why those decisions and those targets are so important to our economy and to our future.

Treasury compared two orderly scenarios with a disorderly transition and reached five key conclusions. Firstly, decisive action and clear targets will make us a big beneficiary of the energy transformation. Secondly, cleaner and cheaper energy will make us more internationally competitive. Thirdly, clear and credible action means more jobs, higher wages and higher living standards. Fourthly, clear targets and an orderly plan give businesses the clarity and the certainty that they need to invest with confidence. Lastly, a disorderly transition means fewer jobs, less investment, lower wages and living standards, and higher power prices in a smaller economy.

The only scenario worse for the economy than this disorderly transformation would be to abandon net zero completely, which is what most of those opposite want Australia to do. They have found a position which is worse than the worst-case scenario modelled by the Treasury. They have found a worse outcome. Our policy and our path to net zero is all about the national economic interest. It's guided by sophisticated Treasury modelling. Their position is driven entirely by coalition internal party politics. This unseemly spat between the far right and the further right over there is driving their climate policies. What it shows, once again, is that, whether it's net zero or the budget or the economy more broadly, they haven't changed a bit. They haven't learned a thing. They are more divided and more divisive than ever. There is not a whiff of economic credibility coming from over there, and we know that because in this case they want to smash investor certainty, they want to trash our economy and they want to make people worse off all in the service of their extreme hard-right internal coalition politics.

Telecommunications

My question is to the Minister for Communications. Minister, when you were advised of a triple 0 outage that your department had no idea about, why didn't your office raise it with your department immediately? Was it because you were planning your well-publicised trip to a pub in New York?

On a point of order, Mr Speaker, I refer to your earlier instruction that all references to 'you' are in fact references to the Speaker. There were five violations of that in the 30 seconds of that question.

The manager of government business knows that those violations that he refers to are not violations. It's your office. You could say 'the minister' 100 times if you wanted to, but it's not a violation to say 'your'. She did not say 'you' repeatedly; that's what the standing order refers to. 'Your' is a perfectly fine reference in this regard—'your office' or 'your work'. What would you like? What's the problem?

Let's all agree that we're just going to follow the standing orders. The shadow minister was within the standing orders. Just to help the House, take the 'you' out of it, and, where you can, take the 'your' out of it as well.

Honourable members interjecting—

Order! It's not a laughing matter. I didn't raise it for fun. I raised it because I want a level of respect and dignity in the House. So, moving forward for everyone, it's not about me; it's about the office that I hold. So I am just asking everyone to follow that. The question is within order.

As is a matter of public record, I became aware of the major Optus outage on 19 September at approximately 4.30 pm. My office was contacted by Optus. Through my office, I received briefings and information following the Optus press conference. Overnight, I made arrangements to delay my trip to gather information and inform premiers and the Australian public, which I did at a press conference on Saturday. And we can agree that this is a tragic circumstance. People have lost loved ones, and that hardens my resolve. My department and my office will pursue this with absolute rigour. You have every right to raise these questions, but I am not led by the opposition. I am led by Australians, by telco customers and by ensuring that this system is as safe as it possibly can be and ensuring that all telcos, including Optus, treat this as too important to fail.

Fuel Industry

My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government. Minister, how will the Albanese Labor government's $1.1 billion commitment to building a sustainable fuel industry in Australia help support net zero by 2050, and what other approaches is government being asked to consider which would harm the development of this new critical industry?

I thank the member for Lingiari for the question, and for her support for this important and historic investment in our regional communities.

The Albanese Labor government is committed to growing an Australian low-carbon liquid fuels industry here on our soil that will support our farmers, create jobs and will provide a sustainable future for our transport industries. Sustainable fuels have an absolutely essential role to play in those hard-to-abate sectors of aviation and heavy haulage. It is why we have committed $1.1 billion to the Cleaner Fuels Program to build a new low-carbon liquid fuels industry here in Australia. It is a fantastic opportunity for regional Australia; from growers to refineries, creating new income streams for farmers and new job opportunities for workers.

I am so pleased to see how our plan to create a new sustainable fuels industry has been welcomed by so many. Like the National Farmers Federation, who said:

"This isn't just about cleaner fuels. It's about creating jobs, diversifying farm businesses, and ensuring our regions remain at the forefront of Australia's transition to net zero."

The Tourism & Transport Forum, who said:

… TTF applauds this landmark investment, which brings government and industry together to position Australia as a global leader in sustainable aviation, cruise and transport fuels.

And Ampol, who said:

The announcement is an important step forward in establishing a market for Australian-produced LCLF, paving the way for a new industry and creating jobs across the country.

Those are some who support our plan of investing $1.1 billion in low-carbon liquid fuels: our farmers, our tourism operators, our transport sector and, of course, our energy providers as well.

Do you know who doesn't support this plan? It is those opposite. Absolutely and utterly disappointing. No support for low-carbon liquid fuels, a transition that is happening across the world, and the opportunities that provides in regional Australia. The coalition would rather continue tearing themselves apart over net zero than support new jobs and new industries in our regions that will ensure the future sustainability of jobs in those regions, many areas of which have seen declining populations and declining jobs. These provide new opportunities for Australians to be able to continue to live, to work and to gain an income from agriculture but also from the refineries and the jobs that are there. On this side of the chamber, we support our regional communities; we support those jobs in those regional communities, and our Future Made in Australia plan will deliver just that for our regions.

Telecommunications

My question is to the Minister for Communications. A chain of emails revealing the minister's personal office's knowledge of the escalating triple 0 outage crisis on 18 September included alerting the minister's office to the fact that 'welfare checks will be made'. Did the minister take any actions to satisfy herself that those welfare and wellbeing checks of those impacted were being conducted—for example, by phoning to apologise to affected people and their families?

I thank the member for Mallee for her question. The information that Optus provided to my office on 18 September was that there had been a minor outage. It affected 10 calls. It had been resolved. And, most importantly, that there were no adverse impacts on any person. My office sought assurance that ACMA had been informed, ensuring that the regulator was investigating that incident, and ACMA has publicly confirmed that they were informed.

Climate Change

My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. How is the Albanese Labor government delivering credible action on climate change and why is this important to the region?

I thank the member for her question. The entry point for Australia's engagement with the countries of the Pacific is by our nation's meaningful action on climate change through a credible pathway to achieving net zero emissions by 2050.

Three of the four coral atoll nations in the world are in the Pacific—Kiribati, Tuvalu and the Marshall Islands. The fourth, the Maldives, is in another region of strategic importance to us—the north-east Indian Ocean. These countries occupy thin strips of land, and their people have an understandable, deep connection to the sea. The sea is their source of food and nourishment, their place of recreation and where they practise culture. In short, the sea has been their source of security. But, with the effects of climate change—with rising sea levels which threaten to engulf their nations, with more frequent storm surges which are fouling their water lenses—suddenly the sea is a source of threat. It is hard to describe how viscerally this impacts the peoples of the Pacific, their national psyche and their very way of life. They are left to wonder whether their towns and villages will be liveable, and governments are faced with decisions which, for us, would be unimaginable. So part of our responsibility is to help the Pacific tell its climate change story to the world.

Back in 2011, I was honoured to be able to take the then secretary-general of the United Nations, Ban Ki-moon, to Kiribati, where we stood in a kitchen and literally watched the sea lap up against the front door. Today, our government's bid to host COP31 next year is an incredible opportunity to tell the story of the Pacific, and indeed all small island states around the globe, in a way which places it front and centre on the world stage. How different is that to what we saw from those opposite? When they were in government, the Pacific Islands Forum was a meeting where Australia had absolutely nothing to say, and the only time they spoke about this issue was when they made jokes at the expense of the Pacific.

Meaningful action on climate change is central to our economic prosperity. To be clear, that is the core driver of our government's policies. But, at the same time, meaningful action on climate change is at the heart of Australia's standing within our region and within our world, and that in turn is fundamental to our nation's security.

Telecommunications

My question is to the Minister for Communications. Noting the minister's determination to hold Optus to account, why did the minister express confusion about the opposition's amendment to double the maximum penalty for getting things so badly wrong on behalf of Australians dialling triple 0? Will the minister review her decision and act to double this penalty as the opposition has suggested?

I thank the shadow minister for communications for her question. I'm sure, as the shadow minister for communications, she would recall that, a few sitting weeks ago, we introduced enhancing consumer safeguards legislation to this place, where we enhanced penalties for telcos doing the wrong thing by 40 times. So penalties are now up to $10 million and more in particular situations. So I believe—and, I believe, with her support—this House is already considering penalties. I offer, in good faith, that, if that is a live issue for you, given this bill is before the House, we can continue to work on penalties where it is already tabled in the House. I'm done.

I think the minister has concluded, but I will hear from the Manager of Opposition Business.

The bill is not before the House. The bill has passed the House. The bill has already passed. We asked if she would review her decision. The Prime Minister has just offered to quadruple the penalties. He just asked us across the table—

That is not a point of order.

so we're confused about government policy.

Well, you asked—

Resume your seat. The minister has concluded her answer. The manager made a point of order or a statement to the House. We're going to get the House to settle and come to order, and we will hear from the honourable member for Aston.

Vocational Education and Training

My question is to the Minister for Skills and Training. How are the Albanese Labor government ensuring Australians, particularly apprentices, can make the most of the opportunities in the clean energy sector? Are they aware of any alternatives?

I thank my friend the member for Aston for her question. Like all of us on this side of the House, she understands how critical it is that Australia makes the most of the opportunities of net zero and in particular the opportunities to upskill and work in the clean energy economy. The Albanese government has had a clear focus on delivering opportunities for Australians, for communities and for the economy and on how we can ensure that Australians in every corner of the country can access the skills they want for the jobs we need in our growing clean energy sector.

Of course, this includes our fantastic New Energy Apprenticeships Program, a program which has already seen more than 13,000 people pick up the tools and begin their path to become tradies in new energy, with the help of $10,000 incentive payments over the course of their apprenticeship to help with the cost of living now and to help with completing their qualifications. These thousands of tradies will ensure our renewable energy infrastructure can be built, maintained and sustained to service Australia well into the future in automotive trades, in plumbing and in electrical trades—training Australians to build our future. So far, the program has seen a retention rate, at the 12-month mark, of 85 per cent, making a real difference and opening doors of opportunity to pre-apprenticeship students like Jaz and Sayed, who I met in Box Hill TAFE with the member for Menzies and who are benefiting from free TAFE, and to students in communities like Gippsland, where I met Siobhan, a qualified electrician blazing a trail for others—

in Gippsland, Member for Gippsland.

We know that the Leader of the Opposition thinks that if you don't pay for something you don't value it. That's her track record on free TAFE. But, fortunately, she does back net zero by 2050, or she did. The Leader of the Opposition said only a few years ago, 'I think the net zero by 2050 aim is perfect.' 'Perfect', she said, but not to those sitting beside her, because let's not forget the coalition's first bill of this term was to abandon net zero. That's not perfect. While our government is delivering opportunity for Australians in clean energy, they're fighting amongst themselves about whether or not to even believe in climate change. Let's be clear about this: abandoning climate action isn't just reckless for our economy. It's reckless for our environment and it's reckless for jobs. It means slamming the doors shut for people like Jaz, Sayed and Siobhan. But, in place of the division, dysfunction and denial over there, the Albanese government will continue to deliver the clean energy skills Australians need, the clean energy jobs Australians want and the clean energy transition that will set Australia up for the future.

Medical Research Future Fund

My question is to the Minister for Health and Ageing. Minister, Australian medical researchers and universities are struggling to survive while your government is releasing less than half of what it could spend from the Medical Research Future Fund. The Parliamentary Budget Office says that you could spend up to $1.4 billion a year while still keeping $24 billion in a fund which was never intended to hold more than $20 billion. Why won't you release taxpayers' money for the purpose for which it's been set aside?

I thank the member for her question. As a paediatric neurologist and a very esteemed researcher, she understands this area very well and has been a strong contributor to the debate about the future of health and medical research, which I'll come to. That includes the question of disbursements from the MRFF, but it goes more broadly than that.

As the member knows, and as most in this House know, the MRFF was set up about a decade ago not just to add more money to our health and medical research sector from government but also to take a slightly different approach: not only to have funding flow essentially bottom up for investigator initiated applications to the NHMRC but to allow us as a country to set out particular priorities that would then be funded through a priority driven fund, through the MRFF. It means that we're now finding more than $1.5 billion of health and medical research projects every year. When I set up the review that set the MRFF in motion that was about $650 million—so more than double the amount of funding going in. The member looks confused—$850 million from the MREA, the endowment account from the NHMRC, and about $650 million per year from the MRFF.

As the member knows, $650 million has been the annual disbursement from the MRFF for some years now. The member knows the departments of treasury and finance conducted their statutory review, after 10 years of the MRFF. That review, I think, has been published in the last couple of weeks and has raised a number of issues around the funding from the MRFF, including annual disbursement amount.

More broadly than that, again, as the member knows, we are in the process of receiving a national strategy for health and medical research that's been prepared by Rosemary Huxtable, a very esteemed former public servant. This has been a big ask from the health and medical research sector to have an overarching national strategy. Ms Huxtable has released a draft strategy that's out for consultation now. I encourage the member and other interested members to engage with that. We've asked Ms Huxtable to deliver the final strategy to government by the end of the year. That strategy, obviously along with pieces of work like the 10-year review commissioned or delivered by the departments of treasury and finance, will guide the government's future thinking.

Critical and Strategic Minerals Industry

My question is to the Prime Minister. How is the Albanese Labor government working with the Queensland government to protect jobs in regional Queensland and strengthen Australia's copper capability?

I thank the member for Leichhardt foday our government has announced a joint investment with the Queensland government, in Glencore's Mount Isa copper smelter and Townsville refinery. Support will be jointly provided to ensure more than 600 direct jobs remain ongoing, with an additional 500 jobs at the nearby Phosphate Hill facility.

Glencore's Mount Isa smelter reinforces Australia's position as a key global supplier of copper. In this century, part of the transition to clean energy requires a greater use of copper. It is used as a conductor in everything, from electric vehicles to batteries, that will power the globe in the 21st century. This is a valuable resource that we can't afford to lose. Its important to Queensland and it's important to the nation. It's jobs, it's industry capability and it's economic power, and I thank Premier Crisafulli for the constructive engagement that we have had over recent weeks to be able to deliver this announcement.

The investment announced today, though, has been made contingent on Glencore taking their share of responsibility as well. This includes conducting a transformation study, putting in the work to bring the facility into the modern day, evaluating the end-to-end copper value chain in the region so that Mount Isa and Australia continue to benefit from a sustainable and long-term industry. Both the Commonwealth and the Queensland governments will support Glencore in that evaluation process.

Glencore needs to back Mount Isa just as Mount Isa has backed Glencore. Both the Premier and I are very clear about that with the company. It is a highly profitable company, delivering billions in dividends to shareholders this year alone. Future opportunities for industry mean that companies must invest to meet those opportunities. Of course, as the member for Kennedy has reminded the House on a number of occasions, there are third-generation workers at the Mount Isa facility. Our government wants there to be a fourth and a fifth generation. I've met workers there in the many visits that I've had to Mount Isa and it's quite clear that, if that facility closed, it would have a devastating impact on that community and on that important town in north Queensland.

We say to those workers at that facility that we're going to look after your jobs. We want to make sure that your children can have a good job too. That is what we are determined to do. That's what today's announcement will deliver. Once again, this government is backing jobs and backing industry. We're making sure we're also backing regional Queensland.

Telecommunications

My question is to the Minister for Communications. I refer to the minister's previous answer, where she refused to address whether welfare checks have been conducted. It is an open secret in the press gallery that Labor MPs are complaining to journalists that the minister continually fails to show any compassion for victims. Today, secret emails have revealed the minister—

Honourable members interjecting—

Order! I can't hear the question. I heard backgrounding, but I want to know what the context was. So I'm going to ask the member for Lindsay to begin her question again—and she will be heard in silence.

I refer to the minister's previous answer, where she refused to address whether welfare checks have been conducted. It is an open secret in the press gallery that Labor MPs are complaining to journalists that the minister continually fails to show any compassion for victims. Today, secret emails have revealed the minister's office was aware of this crisis 24 hours before the time at which the minister told the House she found out. Yesterday, the minister refused to apologise for this failure. Will the minister finally now apologise to victims and their families?

Government members interjecting—

Order! I just remind government members: do not test me on timed questions; otherwise, it will apply to ministers as well. There is nothing that annoys me more than when someone yells out on the issue of time. If people want me to go down the path of exact, strict limits, we will do it. It means questions will be ruled out and ministers will be sat down. I'm asking everyone to respect that.

As I said in an earlier answer, the information that Optus provided to my office on 18 September was that there had been a minor outage that affected 10 calls, that it had been resolved and, most importantly, that there were no adverse impacts on any persons. With respect to the more catastrophic outage that affected 631 calls, potentially with links to three deaths—potentially four deaths, as we found out on Sunday—I inquired as to the correct process for dealing with families in this situation. I was advised that emergency services is the correct and proper agency that we use to reach out, so that's what happened. I also spoke to the premiers of South Australia and Western Australia, the Chief Minister of the NT and numerous other people across that weekend as we all worked on our collective response.

Of course, I will absolutely meet with affected families if that's what they wish. I am respecting their space. There are many sensitivities here, and I'm not going to make their lives harder by politicising their grief in this place as you have now done two days in a row.

Housing

My question is to the Minister for Housing, Minister for Homelessness and Minister for Cities. What is the Albanese Labor government doing to back first home buyers and build more homes? What is standing in the way?

I really want to thank the fantastic member for Jagajaga for her question. I know, like everyone on this side of the chamber, she is so excited that our government has opened up a realistic pathway for tens of thousands of more young people every year to get into the dream of homeownership in our great country. In her electorate, about 500 people have already taken up the opportunity of getting into homeownership through our five per cent deposit scheme. I hope to see many more over the coming three years. They will have their local member of parliament to thank for that.

Our government understands that housing is a life-defining challenge for many people around our country. That's why we are taking our government on a journey from the complete negligence and ignorance about the housing crisis that was demonstrated by those opposite over nine years to building the boldest and most ambitious housing agenda that our country has had at the Commonwealth level for 70 years.

Of course, we know that the answer to our housing crisis is ultimately that we've got to build more homes more quickly, and that's why the majority of our government's $43 billion housing agenda is focused on building, building, building. We're seeing real progress on this. You've heard me say to the parliament before that we've got new housing starts up 17 per cent on where they were a year ago.

When we took office from those opposite and their shambolic dealings with housing, construction costs were rising at a historic 17 per cent. They're now rising below inflation. We're supporting modern methods of construction. We're training more tradies; tens of thousands have gone through fee-free TAFE with our government's support. Perhaps most importantly of all, we're doing something that the Commonwealth has not done at scale since the postwar period, and that is that we are building tens of thousands of homes—55,000 social and affordable homes—for Australians in need.

The Opposition's approach to our agenda defies any sensible words. I want to point to the reaction to the five per cent deposit scheme. This expansion is genuinely going to make meaningful shifts for thousands of young people around our country who are desperate to get into their own home, who need and deserve our government's support, but the shadow housing minister is particularly opposed to this expansion of homeownership. He's called it bizarre and ridiculous and he's said that this policy will help the children of billionaires get into their own homes. How absolutely out of touch do you need to be to make a foolish statement like that—as if the children of billionaires are taking out 95 per cent loans to buy a two-bedroom home in the member for Jagajaga's electorate. It's an insult to the 180,000 people who have already used this program and the thousands more who will get into it.

Those opposite did nothing when they were in opposition. They spent three years trying to hold our government up for doing important work. We are undeterred. We've got $43 billion on the table to build more homes, help renters get a better deal and, yes, get more Australians into homeownership.

Centre for Disease Control

My question is to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. The former director-general of the American Centers for Disease Control, Dr Susan Monarez, testified that she was illegally sacked from the role by US secretary for health for refusing to fire top scientists at the agency or to pre-approve changes to vaccine advice without evaluating the evidence. In her place, the health secretary's own deputy has been inserted into the role. Minister, will the Australian CDC be safeguarded from political interference by ensuring that its director-general must be appointed from a shortlist determined by an independent selection panel?

Thank you to the member for her question and for her engagement about this really important reform. As the member knows and as many in this House know, the lack of a single trusted source of advice and data was one of the very significant restrictions we had in our pandemic preparedness and our pandemic response. That was the view of many public health organisations. It was the first conclusion of the independent COVID inquiry. That is why we are currently debating legislation to introduce an independent CDC. It's supported by all state and territory governments. It's supported by every public health organisation I'm aware of. It's supported by many members of this House. I'm not sure whether it's supported by the opposition; they indicated at the last election that they would not proceed with this, but it's an important debate for this parliament to continue to have.

The CDC will be an independent agency that operates separately from the Department of Health. The Director-General of the CDC is a very important role, and many of its arrangements, powers and functions are set out in the bill that's currently being debated by the House. It's very important that the director-general perform his or her functions at arm's length from the government. They will not be subject to direction from the secretary of my department or from the minister—or anyone else, for that matter. There are also, importantly to the member's question, very limited provisions allowing the termination of the Director-General of the CDC. They are for misbehaviour or an inability to perform their duties due to physical or mental incapacity. Importantly, that person cannot be terminated for providing advice that the government of the day does not agree with.

As to the appointment, the Minister for Health must be satisfied that the director-general holds appropriate expertise, qualifications or experience in public health matters prior to their appointment. The process of appointment will reflect the government's well-understood merit-and-transparency policy. That involves a selection being put together, which in this case will probably involve the secretary of my department, along with a nominee of the Public Service Commission and other potential representatives. They would undertake an interview process after advertisement. They would then provide a shortlist with a report on every shortlisted candidate to the minister for the minister's consideration and then the decision of the government in the usual way. I'm very confident that that provides a level of independence and assurance for the community that this person occupying a very important role in this new agency will have the appropriate qualifications and experience and the appropriate protections and independence from political interference.

Schools: Bullying

My question is to the Minister for Education. What action is the Albanese Labor government taking to address bullying in schools and to make our schools safer for all Australian children?

I thank my friend the member for Sturt for her question. She understands this in a very personal and painful way, which she so powerfully explained to all of us in her first speech to this place. Bullying isn't just a bit of push and shove in the playground or stealing lunch money. It's a lot more awful and insidious than that. Sometimes it can leave invisible scars that never heal. Today it can follow you all the way home after school. The internet means that you can be bullied now at any time, day or night, and anyone can see it. AI, artificial intelligence, makes it even worse. We've seen too many examples of that over the last few months, where photos of students or teachers are cut and cropped onto naked bodies. That sort of bullying and harassment can sometimes lead to teachers leaving the job that they love or, in the worst and most heartbreaking examples, young people taking their own life. You can understand then why so many mothers and fathers around the country are so worried.

This is a serious problem, and it's getting worse. One in four students tell us that they've been bullied at school in the last few weeks. One in two say they've been bullied online. Thirteen per cent say that online bullying involved someone telling them that they should die. Complaints about online bullying to the eSafety Commissioner have increased by 450 per cent in the last five years. It's one of the reasons why we're implementing the social media ban for children under the age of 16. It's being led by my friend the Minister for Communications, and it starts in a few weeks.

It's also why the Prime Minister commissioned an antibullying rapid review earlier this year. That work is being led by Dr Charlotte Keating, a clinical psychologist, and Professor Jo Robinson AM, the head of suicide prevention research at Orygen. Over the last few months, they've received more than 1,700 submissions from mums, dads, teachers and students. They've also met with students and teachers and with the mothers and fathers who have lost their children because of this. Next week, they will present their recommendations to education ministers and their proposed national standard on bullying in schools. In advance of that, I thank them for the work that they have done. This is hard work, and it's getting harder. We can't be naive and think that anything we do here is going to stop bullying in all its forms or that bullying just happens at school. Of course it doesn't. But it does happen at schools, and schools are a place where we can act to help to keep our children safe. And this report will help us provide a way to do that.

Minister for Communications

My question is to the Minister for Communications. As the minister earlier said, people have died. Instead of coming clean about what the minister and her office knew and when, the minister chose to mislead the public and the House to protect herself. In light of evidence tabled at Senate estimates today, why doesn't the minister just say sorry?

Mr Speaker, in terms of questions—when you go through the list in standing order 100(d) of things that a question must not contain, this has already got most of them. Separate to that, there was an assertion made in the question that can only be made by direct motion and cannot be used in that way.

No. The assertion that the manager is referring to is actually 'deliberately misleading'. She did not use that phrase.

If the inference were being made in the form which the Manager of Opposition Business just put, the question wouldn't have concluded with seeking an apology.

I think we can find a way through this without the back and forth.

Just resume your seat.

Minister for the Environment, I appreciate your assistance, but I think I've got this. There were a lot of problems with that question, in terms of the way it was phrased and in terms of the direct reference and inference—if we could just take out some of those inferences. Standing order 100(d)—I want to read it out so the whole House knows:

Questions must not contain:

(i) statements of facts or names of persons, unless they can be authenticated and are strictly necessary to make the question intelligible;

(ii) arguments;

(iii) inferences;

(iv) imputations;

(v) insults;

(vi) ironical expressions; or

(vii) hypothetical matter.

It did contain a lot of those things. If the member for Mallee could just tone that question down, make it factual and make it a little less personal, she could still get her point across and still make sure the House knows what she is asking the minister. I'm asking her to work with me on that for the benefit of the House. She has the call.

My question is to the Minister for Communications. People have died. Instead of coming clean about what the minister or office knew and when, the minister chose not to accept responsibility. In light of evidence tabled at Senate estimates today, why doesn't the minister just say sorry?

Thank you for the question. All of the matters that have been raised today are a matter of public record and have been a matter of public record for more than two weeks. They were declared by the regulator, Nerida O'Loughlin, and me at a press conference. That press conference transcript is available on my website. It has been available for more than two weeks. This issue is not about emails. Hopefully we can all agree about that. This is fundamentally about Optus's failure to manage its network and to meet its legal obligations. My job as minister is to improve the system, to work for Australians and to deliver maximum safety and public confidence.

Pharmaceutical Benefit Scheme

My question is to the Minister for Health. How is the Albanese Labor government making medicines cheaper for all Australians? How are new medicines being listed on the PBS making new treatments available for Australians with serious illnesses?

Thank you to the member for Bullwinkel—following the member for Cooper and the member for Indi, she is the 10th nurse elected to this parliament and very appropriately represents an electorate named after the most famous nurse we have in Australia, Vivian Bullwinkel.

I first met the member for Bullwinkel when she was preparing a paper at a global cancer conference about the benefits of receiving chemotherapy in home as part of her Doctor of Nursing. This is a member who deeply understands the importance of a stronger Medicare and cheaper medicines. She also knows that October is Breast Cancer Awareness Month. Today and every other day, on average, around 60 Australian women are told that they have breast cancer. Although the overall survival rate in this country is one of the world's best, it's much lower if you're told that you have metastatic breast cancer, or cancer that has spread to other parts of the body. Only about one in three of those women will survive more than five years.

Last week, we listed on the PBS a new drug that gives new hope to those women who've received a diagnosis of metastatic breast cancer. Truqap will benefit as many as 3,000 patients every year—women with HR-positive/HER2-negative advanced or metastatic breast cancer, a type that accounts for as much as 70 per cent of all breast cancer cases. Without a listing on the PBS, patients would have to pay around $100,000 for a course of treatment with this drug, and that is the magic of the PBS: providing access for Australian patients to the world's best medicines at affordable prices.

And we're making those PBS medicines even cheaper. The first four waves of our Cheaper Medicines policies have already saved Australian patients more than $1.5 billion in payments at the pharmacy counter—a huge amount. But there are more savings to come. This year we froze the price of PBS scripts for Australia's millions of pensioners, not just for this year but for the rest of the decade. And from 1 January next year the maximum price of a PBS script for Australia's general patients will be cut to just $25—the same price it was way back in 2004, more than 20 years ago. Obviously—it goes without saying—all this is terrific for the hip pocket, but it's also good for your health: helping Australians afford the medicines and the health care that their doctors have said are important for their health, creating a stronger Medicare and a healthier Australia.

Pest Management

My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, the grand final is over; Queensland won—sorry about that! The season is over. A thousand North Queensland Rugby League players are bored. And you know, PM, an idle mind is the devil's workshop. In some of the last jungles left on Earth, three million pigs are destroying our fauna and flora. Please give the boys back their rifles and licensed—I emphasise 'licensed'—access to national parks. Prime Minister, you'll rescue the now doomed cassowary and the North Queensland turtle. Give the boys back their air rifles. You may even eliminate some of the 2,000 million toads in North Queensland. Prime Minister, it's too late for the Rabbitohs—sorry, sorry!—and don't worry about the pests in this place. Please would you worry about the pests in North Queensland?

The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order?

Well, I think, Speaker, you know my point of order already. You just finished reading standing order 100(d), which says that questions may not contain arguments, inferences, imputations, insults, ironical expressions or hypothetical matter.

No, the question was about pest management, at the end. The actual question was about pest management. So, it's completely within order. And the difference between the questions, if you want to get into it, Manager, is that the member for Kennedy wasn't specifying any person. He didn't mention any person. That's the difference. So, there's a difference in the previous question when it's about a person. That's an important point to make to the House.

No way, member for Kennedy! No chance! The Prime Minister has the call.

I am concerned about pests; I assure the House of that. And I know that this is a really serious issue around our national parks, and not just around regional Queensland but right around the country. Some time ago I visited the Northern Territory, with the Cattlemen's Association, looking at the issue of feral pigs there. It is devastating the country and having a real impact on our wildlife, and therefore it is something that we do take seriously.

I will ask the minister for agriculture, though, to supplement—although I will say to the member for Kennedy that, as a South Sydney supporter, we've been 40 years in a drought, and we always have hope! And we have something that those on this side of the House have in abundance: it's called loyalty.

I thank the Prime Minister for passing through that question from the member for Kennedy. We've had many discussions in person about his love of the land in Queensland, his genuine commitment to improving land management in Queensland and his concern for invasive species, because there's no doubt they are having a serious impact in Queensland and elsewhere around the country.

That is why, since coming to government, we have strengthened our biosecurity system—because we do know that we want to stop more pests and disease from getting into the country. We've now invested around $2 billion in doing that. Can I say that we also work closely with states and territories, and, as the member for Kennedy would be aware, it is the responsibility of those respective states and territories to do the invasive species management on the ground in those states where the invasive species are. In the past, the former federal government offered some funding in relation to the prickly acacia, which I understand he's concerned about.

In terms of the feral pigs, we have actually provided funding to Australian Pork to host the National Feral Pig Coordinator, which is a program we just announced we will extend so that it can better coordinate with the states and territories about how they can manage on the ground the feral pig population across the country. We have invested $3.87 million as part of a National Feral Pig Action Plan that will run through to 2031. So we are investing with states and territories to make sure we can manage some of these feral species around the country. We're doing it with feral pigs and a whole range of other species, but it is primarily the responsibility of the states and territories. Our job, of course, is biosecurity which we're investing more in. We've put more biosecurity detector dogs on the beat as well.

Natural Disasters

My question is to the Minister for Emergency Management. What is the Albanese Labor government doing to prepare communities, particularly in regional Australia, for more intense natural disasters as a result of climate change? And what other approaches has the government been asked to consider?

I want to thank the member for Richmond for her question. She understands the impact of climate change on her regional communities, and I was with her in Murwillumbah, where I had the privilege of meeting with local farmers, businessowners and community members, who understand the need for action on climate change now and investment in particular in disaster resilience. I thank her for her work in advocating for disaster affected communities.

We know natural disasters are increasing in frequency and ferocity. The National Climate Risk Assessment highlighted that Australia will experience climate hazards, like floods, cyclones, heatwaves, droughts and bushfires, more frequently, more severely and often at the same time. It finds that no Australian community will be immune to climate risks. Those opposite are shaking their heads, and I don't know why. In 2024-25, there were 70 declared natural disasters, impacting more than 200 local councils across the country. And some of them had more than one disaster. It is absolutely gobsmacking to sit there and shake your head and say this isn't impacting communities that you represent.

It highlights the importance of taking action to help mitigate the impacts on communities, and this government is taking action. We've created the National Emergency Management Agency. We've established the Disaster Ready Fund, where we're investing a billion dollars in disaster mitigation over five years with matching funding from other levels of government. We've increased funding for aerial capability to respond to fires, to floods and to other severe weather events. We've built the first ever national emergency stockpile to supplement jurisdictions' own resources of emergency housing, water purification and other necessities when disasters strike. We're funding Disaster Relief Australia, a veteran run volunteer organisation to provide boots on the ground when it comes to clean-up and to recovery. We are taking action to mitigate risks and to ensure communities are more resilient ahead of the next natural disaster.

While those opposite continue to debate whether they believe in climate change or not, we are taking action. While those opposite continue to fight the climate wars amongst themselves, because the rest of us are getting on with the job—

Point of order! Point of order! Point of order!

Yes, yes, okay! Order! The minister may pause. It's okay!

It's on relevance. The minister was not asked about this. The minister was asked about the preparations she's making, and she's addressing matters that are not matters she was asked about.

The question I hear is about what other measures the government had been asked to consider. As long as she's being relevant to the House about what the other measures are—she needs to relate it to the question, because the manager is correct; she wasn't asked about alternative policies or approaches. She was asked about what other measures the government has been asked to consider. So I will get her to specify to the House the measures that she was asked about.

We on this side of the House don't need to fight climate wars. On this side of the House, we are taking action to help communities when they need it most. We're helping communities through preparedness and through infrastructure investment. We are taking action to keep Australians safe when natural disasters strike. I am proud to be part of a government that takes climate change seriously and is taking decisive action to prevent the worst of what we know is coming for Australians during high-risk weather seasons. Building resilience in the face of disasters is a priority for this Labor government. We only wish it were for those on that side of the House.

Telecommunications

My question is to the Minister for Communications. As a self-described new minister, over the last two days the minister has informed this House that it is not appropriate for the minister to express empathy, that the email that alerted the minister's office to the escalating crisis needed no response from the minister or her office, and that the coalition's request to double the penalty for telcos who let Australians down is 'confusing'. When will the minister step up, take responsibility and restore trust in the triple 0 network for Australians?

Order. Before I call the minister, I want to make all questions relevant, but to simply give opinions—you know, it would help the House if any member, including the Leader of the Opposition, could perhaps give a quote or read something from Hansard or a newspaper article rather than just giving an opinion about what you think someone has said or hasn't said, because—

Honourable members interjecting—

Order! I don't have every single word that anyone has said in the whole House, so it's very hard for me to know exactly what is accurate or not. I'm trying to work with everyone here. Perhaps, moving forward for the rest of the week, if people could just be a little bit more accurate with their questions in terms of what has been said, that would be great, I think, for all members—and also for ministers to be accurate with their responses as well. I hope everyone gets the point.

Thank you to the Leader of the Opposition for her question. I will deal with various elements of it. With respect to penalties, as I said in my previous answer, there is a bill before the House, the Telecommunications Amendment (Enhancing Consumer Safeguards) Bill 2025. It's an amendment to the Telecommunications Act. It was introduced on 28 August. It was debated on 4 September. The shadow minister for communications herself debated this bill on 4 September.

Before the outage.

Order! The member for Lindsay has the MPI. She won't be here for it if she continues interjecting, which means we won't have the debate.

The shadow minister for communications spoke on this bill about enhancing consumer safeguards on 4 September. She spoke about penalties on 4 September. She spoke about her support for the increase in penalties up to $10 million and, in some particular cases, even more than that. She spoke in support of that work. So I would contend it is confusing for her, having done that on 4 September, to now bring an amendment to a different bill and object to us not supporting that amendment because we have already done this work which she has already supported in this place.

Opposition members interjecting—

Order, members on my left!

The member for Gippsland is warned.

Nonetheless, we can all agree, surely, that what happened in September was not good enough, and the Albanese government will always work to protect Australians and we will always work to hold those who fail to deliver on their obligations to full account. There are several investigations underway now to this effect. If a telco fails Australians as Optus did, it will face real and serious consequences. There are no excuses. Telcos must deliver resilient and reliable triple 0 services. That is their obligation under the law, and that is the work we will continue to do on this side of the House to hold them to account.

Taxation: Alcohol

My question is to the Prime Minister. How is the Albanese Labor government taking action to support Australia's local pubs, sporting clubs and RSLs and the Australians who gather and celebrate in these venues?

I thank the member for Moore for his question. I'm reminded of his fantastic first speech in this place where he spoke about his background as a publican, the work he did engaging with people and how it motivated him to go into public life, to represent the people he used to serve across the bar. He's now serving across his electorate and doing a fantastic job.

Today we introduced legislation cementing our two-year freeze to the draft beer excise—the first time this has happened in 40 years. Forty years—that's a long time between drinks! As a local member, with so many terrific small breweries in my electorate, I know what this means for brewers, for publicans and, most importantly, for their customers, people who enjoy the odd beer.

Those local pubs, sporting clubs and RSLs are community focal points; they're places where we gather. And increasingly, as society becomes—with smaller families and people wanting to interact and have that social interaction face-to-face, these venues are really important in bonding our community together. Indeed, if you go into any of your local pubs or clubs, they will be the people who are sponsoring the local rugby league team or the local AFL team or the local netball team. They are the people who are really contributing and putting back. They're having barbecues at pubs to raise money for funds and for charities, making an enormous difference.

Ten thousand hospitality venues will benefit from this freeze. Overwhelmingly, they are small businesses run by mums and dads, by people who pitch in and work really hard on a day-to-day basis. That's why this freeze is a good thing. It's also part of our cost-of-living measures, together with other measures we've put in place—the cheaper medicines, the cheaper batteries that are in place—to provide cost-of-living support and to make a real difference for people to be able to get by.

And when Australians now raise a glass, they know that the Australian government won't be raising the price at the same time, something they've campaigned on for a long period of time. It's good news for Australian beer drinkers, it's good news for Australian small business, it's good news for Australian pubs and clubs and good news for you, Mr Speaker, that, on that note, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.

STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE

Prime Minister of Singapore

Today I had the great pleasure of welcoming Prime Minister Lawrence Wong to our parliament, his first official visit to Australia as Prime Minister of Singapore. Last night at the Lodge, Jodie Haydon and I had the privilege of hosting Mr and Mrs Wong—a delightful dinner, great company, good discussion on an informal level about the challenges that the world faces together.

Prime Minister Wong's delegation included the minister for defence, the minister for foreign affairs, the minister for manpower and a minister in charge of energy, science and technology. In defence cooperation, medical research, education, clean energy and a range of other sectors, Singapore and Australia are close partners. Our two nations are even closer friends.

This year, as we celebrate 60 years of Singapore's independence, 60 years of diplomatic relations and 10 years of our comprehensive strategic partnership, we are taking that cooperation to the next level. Today, Prime Minister Wong and I agreed to an upgraded comprehensive strategic partnership. This will help ensure supply chains remain resilient. It will support our action together on climate change. It will strengthen pandemic preparedness and research cooperation. It will boost development on artificial intelligence and emerging technologies. It will further partnerships between our public services, universities and the arts.

In addition to our upgraded partnership, ministers have signed MOUs across the board, including an important one on enhanced defence cooperation. This is about allowing access—which currently only the United States has—to Singapore's ports and, of course, its magnificent airport. This really is a game changer for Australia's presence in our regions to the north. It's really important and is something I've worked through with Prime Minister Wong. I thank the Minister for Defence and Deputy Prime Minister for the work that he's done with his counterpart on that as well.

We also have our economic resilience agreement and an agreement working with our ASEAN partners. Both our nations are proud and constructive supporters of multilateral dialogues. Both of our nations support free and fair trade. We spoke about Australia and Singapore's focus on ASEAN and its central role in this region—particularly in the lead-up to Singapore chairing ASEAN in 2027.

This is an important time where the world is seeing a lot of turbulence and uncertainty. What we can be certain about is that our friends in Singapore have the same values and the same interests as we do here, in Australia, and the agreements that we've signed today and the presence of Prime Minister Wong here, along with his delegation, are so important. All of that underlines the value of true and trusted friends such as Australia and Singapore.

This is a friendship of course—it is 60 years of Singapore's independence. We were one of the first countries to recognise Singapore and that's not surprising, because of the relationship that we had—including, of course, with the devastation that Singapore suffered during World War II. The people-to-people relations are absolutely critical.

One of the things that is important is that nations have relationships. It's also important that leaders have relationships, and I've developed a good relationship with Prime Minister Wong. He stood in whilst at the Shangri-La Dialogue that I spoke at—unfortunately his predecessor Prime Minister Lee suffered from COVID, so he hosted me on my bilateral visit to Singapore during that time.

This is a relationship between not just nations and leaders but also peoples, and one of the initiatives of the former government was to bring back the Colombo Plan. That is continuing to deliver, with more Australians going to Singapore to study as well as Singapore residents coming here. Prime Minister Wong would have attended here. He wanted to go to the Australian War Memorial to pay his respects as well. He is a most valued leader. I wish him well on his visit across the ditch to New Zealand. I'm sure that this is a relationship that will continue to grow stronger into the future.

On behalf of the opposition, may I extend my warmest welcome to the Singaporean prime minister Lawrence Wong and his delegation. I met with Prime Minister Wong and the delegation earlier today. I was joined by the shadow minister for energy and emissions reduction, the shadow minister for defence and the member for Flinders in this place. When I met with the Prime Minister, Senator Cash described Singapore as 'family', and I think that is absolutely the right description. We are the closest of neighbours, with deep people-to-people connections across so many aspects of our society.

The defence relationship, which the coalition took to the next level in 2015 with the inking of the comprehensive strategic partnership, is helping to strengthen our two nations and to support regional security. Our exchange of students and our joint research and investment in new technologies—including in the energy sector—are building the backbone for a stronger and more prosperous South-East Asia. It was a privilege to have Prime Minister Wong in the parliament, and I know I speak for all members when I say that, when you are in Australia, you are indeed among family.

STATEMENTS

Personal Explanation

Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.

Do you claim to have been misrepresented?

Most grievously.

You may proceed.

During question time today, the member for McMahon made reference to some comments that I made at a gathering recently. I would like to inform the member for McMahon that he is wrong and has misrepresented me. First of all, nobody is disputing climate change. Climate change is real, it has always happened and it always will. The question that I was asked was: have I ever seen any scientific, empirical, conclusive evidence that man-made emissions of carbon dioxide are changing the climate on planet Earth? Now, the answer to that is no, and I don't believe that it exists. There are many arguments on both sides of this argument, as we are all aware. Now, if the honourable member is in possession of this empirical, conclusive evidence, please give it to me.

AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS

Report No. 3 of 2025-26

I present the Auditor-General's performance audit report No. 3 of 2025-26 entitled Implementation of procurement reforms: Digital Transformation Agency and Department of Finance: Digital Transformation Agency; Department of Finance.

Document made a parliamentary paper.

DOCUMENTS

Presentation

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.

MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE

Telecommunications

I have received letters from the honourable member for Macquarie and the honourable member for Lindsay proposing that definite matters of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion today. As required under standing order 46(d), if more than one matter is required for the same day, the Speaker shall select the matter to be read that day. It is my opinion that the one that is more urgent and important is the one prepared by the honourable member for Lindsay, namely:

The Government's tragic failure to ensure the oversight of the vital triple zero ecosystem.

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 a tragic circumstance. We have to remember why we are even discussing this. Sadly, four people passed away during an Optus outage, and we are still seeking answers. If there was a gold star for confused tactics today, it would have gone to the Minister for Communications. She is still saying she didn't know about the outage until the Friday, although one of her answers may have suggested she did in fact know on Thursday, but we have an email that was revealed in Senate estimates that actually said her office did find out on the Thursday. Yet she still comes here and declares that we've got it wrong. Her office doesn't have it wrong, the department doesn't have it wrong, ACMA, who is involved, doesn't have it wrong, and certainly she doesn't have it wrong.

She also disclosed that she did hold a press conference on the Saturday and then left the country even though there was a crisis unfolding. And where did she go? She went to New York. Sounds great, doesn't it—the Big Apple. She said she delayed her flight, though. Thanks, Minister, for delaying your flight. You certainly delayed the action that was required to address this serious issue. She also seems a bit confused about whether she should apologise or not and says that she shouldn't meet with the families, because that would be disrespectful. In what world is it disrespectful for a government minister representing the crown not to meet with families who have been devastated by such an outage, such a horrible circumstance that no-one would want to happen in this country in 2025? The minister is lacking empathy—even the press gallery knows; it's no hidden secret—and she's lacking knowledge about the time that she received this notification.

This goes back to 18 September, where there was an outage that impacted 600. Then four people died, and the Optus CEO got up and promised—and the Optus CEO should not get off free here—Australians that he would do everything in his power to hold his organisation to account and find out what went on. Then the minister got up and promised Australians that she would do the same, and then she appointed ACMA, the regulator. But ACMA is actually part of the problem because the emails also reveal that ACMA received notification of the outage on the Thursday but didn't alert the minister's office and the minister. So it's like no-one is talking. No-one can read an email. No-one can pick up the phone when there is a major outage that is impacting so many Australians.

But this is not news. We could see the warning signs. This happened in 2023, when there were no deaths. There was a review, and there were 18 recommendations. We only found out yesterday that a custodian has been in place inside the department of communications since March this year. What was that custodian doing during the outage? What have they been doing during this time? Why didn't they prevent this from happening? Now we've been dragged in here to pass legislation quickly so they can do something in the future but couldn't do it this time. It just doesn't make sense.

We had about 24 hours to review really important legislation to save lives, even though the government has been sitting on this for a year and a half. Now it is urgent and we had to review it overnight. Yet the minister came in here and said she couldn't review recommendations—there were about four of them—in 24 hours and that wasn't fair on us and so we should just pass the bureaucracy. That is what it is. It is bureaucracy within a department overseeing another department. It is pretty much insane. We will do it in the interests of the Australian people, but we wanted to do it better, and we offered the government that today. We offered the government some strengthening of their legislation. All of us on this side came together. People contributed to this on our side because we care about Australians and we want to get this done.

We asked for a triple 0 register so the public can have transparency when outages occur. That's pretty fair enough. I think Australians are always shocked when there's an outage, but it happens more often than not. So a register makes sense. What did the government do? They said no. We asked for the triple 0 system to be put on the critical infrastructure list. We have water, energy and sewage. But when someone's wanting to call triple 0 in their time of greatest need it's not critical? The minister got up today and said: 'That is not important. Why are we even considering that it should be critical infrastructure?' So they said no to that too and that it seems okay that the reporting in their legislation is every six months. Well, something really bad has happened. People have died. We want it every three months and we want the outcomes to be made public.

Finally—and this was a doozy in question time—it's fair enough that Optus has its penalties increased—doubled, in fact. That's fair enough, when people have died. We want $20 million as a fine for each breach. That's fair enough, I think Australians would be calling for that too. But the minister came in here and said: 'What are they doing? We're passing a bill that says $10 million. It was from the beginning of September. You should be coming on board with this because we are already doing it.' This was before the catastrophic outage when four people died. These telcos should be held accountable. Obviously $10 million is not enough to stop this kind of thing happening. I think every Australian would be very happy with $20 million and they would expect it. They would expect us to be putting extra things in place to ensure we are doing anything we can do, pulling every lever we can pull, to make sure this never happens again.

It's inexcusable that the government voted down these commonsense amendments. The minister walked away from our amendments. She's walked out of this chamber now. She's walking away from Australians in their time of greatest need. She also said no to a committee. It's fair enough that we have asked for a committee, for the government, the opposition and crossbenchers to come together and examine this and, most importantly, invite Australians impacted by triple 0 outages to tell their stories. Isn't that what all of us are meant to do—represent our communities from right across Australia? The shadow minister for regional communications has been telling those stories about the regions and how much they're impacted. Those people should have a chance to tell their stories. We should be listening to them from the top of Australia to the bottom and from east to west. But no. The government does not want parliamentarians to hear about the struggles of Australians when they're trying to call triple 0. They don't want to hear from emergency services about what they're going through on the ground, and they said no to this too. Commonsense options from us are presented to the government, and the minister walks out the door. Maybe she's flying overseas again on another junket. When a crisis unfolds, it seems like a standard thing to do.

It is really concerning that the minister walks away from Australians in their greatest time of need and that she places the blame purely on a company when the government, as a regulator, has a big job to do. She appoints ACMA, the regulator, as the investigator when they are part of the failed process. How can the regulator investigate themselves? What is going to be the outcome there? Where's the transparency?

The minister is still saying, even though we have evidence from Senate estimates that her office was aware of an outage on the Thursday, that she knew nothing and that there were welfare checks made. How can you not follow up when you're being told that welfare checks are being made or think that that's not important? When she was asked again today, 'Have you called the families of the victims?' what did she say? 'It's not up to me to do that. That's not my job. It might make them feel uncomfortable. It is an extraordinary time. I'm a new minister. I don't know how to pick up the phone and call people in their greatest time of need.'

So many things went wrong over the last three weeks—firstly, Optus and the outage, where people couldn't make those very important calls. But it does not stop there. We have exposed major faults in our most essential telecommunications service. Every single Australian should be able to pick up a phone and call triple 0 in their greatest time of need. There is nothing more important for a government to do than to protect its citizens, and what this government and this minister are doing now is letting every single citizen down.

Every Australian relies on triple 0. This essential service is not one that any Australian ever wants to call, but every single one of those calls should be connected, every time. It is the most critical service of Australia's telecommunications system.

I know so many in this place have been in that situation, as I have, where you do have to call triple 0 because a loved one or just a fellow Australian citizen is in a time of need. I remember having to make that call to triple 0 for my young son, Leo, when he was having a horrible allergic reaction to some food. That's when we discovered that he had severe anaphylaxis. But we were so fortunate. That call was connected, paramedics arrived and he got the public health care that he needed. That is what every Australian should expect when they call our emergency services. It connects Australians to emergency health, fire and policing services. I think in this debate it is worth pausing for a moment to thank all of those who make those services work—the emergency communications officers who are there at the end of the phone line, the paramedics, the firefighters and the police officers. I want to say a big thank you to every Australian worker who is behind Australia's triple 0 service. They keep Australians safe. Every day, hundreds of Australians rely upon that service, which is saving lives, protecting livelihoods and maintaining social cohesion.

That's why I share the Australian public's outrage at the conduct of Optus. Optus should be rightly criticised in this place. They have failed. Optus's failures resulted in a loss of life. It was completely unacceptable that they failed their customers in this way. Hundreds of calls were not connected, and it came after previous failures that severely eroded trust, including this parliament's trust, in Optus, because Optus failed to manage their network and they failed to comply with the law.

Now, for the benefit of the opposition, I want to read some of the quotes from the Chief Executive Officer of Optus. This is what the Chief Executive Officer of Optus, Stephen Rue, said:

On the first night of the upgrade, the steps taken on past successful upgrades of a similar nature were not followed.

That's Optus admitting their failures. Further, the CEO went on to say:

This issue occurred because there was a deviation from established processes.

Again, that's Optus acknowledging that they had failed. And then, further, the CEO said this:

Regardless of where a process is conducted, the issue was that a process was not followed. And to be very clear, the accountability for that rests with Optus.

I think, if that's the CEO of Optus acknowledging the accountability rests with Optus, maybe those opposite could spend a little bit more time demanding proper accountability from the CEO of Optus and the providers of Optus.

I just sat through the remarks of the member for Lindsay, and I thought I'd just address some of the interesting contortions of fact that were in those remarks. Firstly, the member for Lindsay acknowledged that the minister gave a press conference on Saturday 20 September. It is very clear from the speech we saw from the member for Lindsay that she neither watched nor read the transcript of that press conference.

Then we had the member for Lindsay undermine ACMA, the Australian Communications and Media Authority. The member for Lindsay walked in here, in her MPI, and said ACMA was 'part of the problem'. Right now, ACMA is conducting an investigation into what went wrong. To have the member for Lindsay come in here and undermine the authority is a very interesting choice for the opposition leader to have allowed to be made.

Then we had the member for Lindsay acknowledge that the custodian has in fact been in place since March. Again, you wouldn't know that from some of the remarks in the other parts of the speech from the member for Lindsay nor the questions we've seen from those opposite.

Then, apparently, legislating to put further protections and further obligations onto the telecommunications companies wasn't good enough for the member for Lindsay. We saw the opposition in this chamber just a few minutes ago complaining that they had only had 24 hours to read the legislation. Either they want us to act on the first day of parliament since this failure from Optus—that was the choice that we made. That was the choice the government made. We came here in the first sitting of the parliament to act—to legislate. If that's not what the opposition want to do, they should just come out and say so.

In fact, what the member for Lindsay said—I wrote down this quote and reflected on the idea that the government wanted to legislate within the first sitting day of parliament and that those opposite complained about only having had 24 hours to read the legislation. I've read the legislation. A number of people on this side have. If the member from Lindsay can't read it in 24 hours, that's interesting. She said that this requirement was 'pretty much insane'. I don't think that it is 'pretty much insane' for the government to want to strengthen accountability.

The member for Lindsay also—and credit to her on this—did acknowledge that, previously, the minister had already introduced legislation on penalties for telecommunications companies. I think it was an MPI speech that will not stand the test of time.

I want to reiterate. Every telecommunications provider has obligations. This week, the minister had those companies here in this parliament and outlined the existing legislative obligations on those companies, the basic human decency that every telecommunications customer should expect and our expectations as government that Optus, Telstra and TPG Telecom ensure their services are complying with current laws and ensure they are ready for the coming disaster season. But we're comfortable going further, and that's what these laws—which the shadow minister, the member for Lindsay, said were 'pretty much insane'—are about. As the minister said when introducing the bill:

… while telco outages may occur, the law is clear: carriers must always make sure that triple 0 calls still connect by being redirected to alternate mobile towers or infrastructure.

I think it's clear everyone in this place wants accountability from Optus. That's what the Australian public want—for Optus to do their job. That's what the investigation by the Australian Communications and Media Authority—undermined by the member from Lindsay just now—is about, and it will look at Optus's compliance with emergency call service regulations and related rules. And, as ACMA has said, these are the same rules that ACMA found Optus breached in 2022 during a nationwide outage.

I think it's important to note in this debate that these regulations and rules already exist. There is the Telecommunications (Emergency Call Service) Determination 2019, is the Telecommunications (Customer Communications for Outages) Industry Standard 2024 and Industry Code C536: Emergency Call Service Requirements. They already exist. I outline that because it's important to note that this is about ensuring that things that Optus should have done but did not do are thoroughly investigated, even if those opposite seek to undermine this investigation, which I think is a very interesting choice to have made.

We learnt two things about the opposition today. First, we learnt from the opposition that they are determined to let Optus off the hook for Optus's failures. We are seeing excuse after excuse for Optus from those opposite. Second, we learnt from those opposite is that they are obsessed emails that have been in the public domain for weeks. We saw, in the final questions from the Leader of the Opposition, questions based on opinion not on quotes.

Again, I think even the opposition would agree that Optus should have told the government on Thursday afternoon. That did not occur. We also want to make sure that we enforce existing laws to telcos. Again, this is about making sure that the existing laws are enforced—something that those opposite are seeking to actively undermine.

Some of those opposite were here in May 2018. That's when an outage happened that affected some 4,000 calls. Did we see any legislative change from those opposite at that point? No. There was not a single legislative change when there was a failure on their watch in 2018. They had a choice, and they chose to do nothing. The Albanese government has a decidedly different approach. We on this side hold Optus to account, and I believe the opposition should start doing the same.

I note the comments made by the member for Perth. Of course, this is political. The fact is that it is sad the minister herself is not here to respond to this MPI. This is a serious issue. We take it seriously on this side. Our side is under no illusion that Optus has no responsibility. Clearly Optus is responsible. But the minister is where the buck stops, and that is our point. To continually walk away and point the finger at Optus and say, 'They're responsible, not me,' is absolutely unacceptable.

There is nowhere for the minister to hide. The buck stops, however, with the minister not Optus, not the department and not her staff. We know how serious the outage was. Four people died—four Australians who are no longer with us due to this government's failings. That is a fact. Labor can point the finger at Optus, but, of course, it wasn't Optus's first outage; it was their second. The first, over 18 months ago, was investigated by Richard Bean, who produced a report with 18 recommendations. It was an outage that happened on this government's watch, yet, despite all of that, this negligent Albanese Labor government allowed another failure to happen on their watch.

Westminster tradition, one of the core foundations of this place, makes it very clear that the buck stops with the minister, yet ministerial accountability in the Albanese Labor government is about as strong as a regional mobile phone signal—flaky at best. We are talking today about arguably Australia's most trusted brand: the triple 0 telephone number. Australians rely on triple 0 to ensure that an ambulance, a fire engine or a police officer arrives to assist them as fast as possible.

Let's remember how thin the emergency services workforce is in regional Australia. Farmers, Indigenous Australians and residents of small rural towns live even further from an emergency service than metropolitan Australians do. Regional remoteness is exacerbated by the lack of a reliable mobile phone signal, or no signal at all.

This government has been in office for more than three years, yet we do not have a fit-for-purpose universal service obligation for the 21st century. Telecommunications is an essential service and has been for some time—no different to potable water supply, sewerage and electricity. Without reliable telecommunications, people can get sick and they can die, particularly in regional Australia. Yet, when I moved amendments to make regional telecommunications a specific focus of the new Triple Zero Custodian, Labor weren't interested. They expect regional Australians to trust the government to look out for their interests.

Regional Australians have plenty of reasons not to do that. Everywhere you look at the Labor brand, at federal and state levels—from the reckless renewables rollout to imposing new taxes in Victoria during a drought period, until they were shamed into giving farmers a one-year break—Labor cannot be trusted to look out for the interests of regional Australians. Regional Australians have seen centralisation and closure of local services under Labor governments, particularly in health services. Adding insult to injury, the same Labor governments that have undermined local emergency services have allowed, twice on their watch, the triple 0 service to fail. Regional Australians need reliable triple 0 service, as do all Australians. There is no debate or question about that. I am proud to be part of a coalition on this side of the House, with our colleagues in the Senate, applying the blowtorch of accountability to this government on its failings on the most essential of our essential services: triple 0.

Summer is coming in less than two months time, and in my electorate of Mallee the fire danger period tends to start by the end of October—just a couple of weeks from now. I urge the government to work with the opposition, to be transparent and accountable and build confidence in triple 0 so we do not lose another Australian life.

Let me be absolutely clear. Optus has failed the Australian people. Optus is the reason we debated legislation today, and its failures are why we have expedited telecommunications reform. I will not be lectured by the moral grandstanding of those opposite in the chamber, trying to gain cheap political points while families are grieving—while a family in my own electorate is grieving; that loss has left a mark on our community and on me personally.

Let me be clear. This outage should never have happened, and it must never happen again. There is an unspoken understanding between Australians and their emergency services that, in their darkest hour of need, help will be only three numbers away. Optus, as one of Australia's largest telecommunications providers, had a clear legal and moral duty to ensure that emergency calls were carried through, regardless of commercial inconvenience. They failed, and Australians paid the price. Lives were lost, faith and trust were shattered, and communities were left to pick up the pieces.

The simple truth is this: Australians expect more; Australians deserve more. They expect accountability—real accountability, not corporate apologies after the fact by sheepish CEOs and not excuses in any capacity, but genuine responsibility by the heads of these corporations for the systems they control and have oversight of, and they are right to demand it.

That is why legislation has been moved by the Minister for Communications as a matter of urgency. The establishment of a Triple Zero Custodian and the new powers given to the Australian Communications and Media Authority by the legislation are incredibly important for Australians. The custodian will oversee the performance of the triple 0 ecosystem, identify risks, coordinate responses and demand accountability, because when every second counts, we cannot afford a system faltering through confusion or delay.

Combined with this, ACMA will have the power to issue binding directions to carriers, carriage service providers and emergency call persons—no more waiting, no more chasing and no more voluntary briefings after the fact. ACMA will be able to demand to demand answers immediately and direct corrective action on the spot.

These changes show that this is a government focused on positive change for Australians and a government determined to ensure that the failures of September 2025 are never repeated. These changes have mandated reporting and transparency, which is just the first step we're taking to ensure the public have confidence that their safety is being treated with the seriousness it deserves.

Every one of us in this chamber has a duty to the people we represent. For some that duty is about policy; for others it is about principle. But on this issue it's about people—people who trust us to ensure that the systems that protect them never fail, people who trust us to act not when it's convenient but when it's critical, and people who trust that, when they call for help, they will not be met with silence.

Triple 0 is more than a number; it is a promise between Australians and the services they need most. It is a promise that, no matter the hour, no matter the circumstance and no matter the location, help will be there. Optus has broken this promise to our constituents. Because of this, I stand firmly with the Minister for Communications in saying that Optus will be held to account. The trust of the Australian people is sacred, and it is our responsibility to restore this trust and then protect it with the legislation passed today. We're doing just that. We are taking those steps. We are saying with one voice that never again will a preventable outage take lives. We are saying that never again will Australians be isolated from emergency services in the time when they need them the most. We are saying that never again will silence stand between an Australian and the help they deserve.

We will continue to build a system worthy of the trust Australians place in it—one that is stronger, more transparent and unbreakable in the moments that matter most. The Australian government is standing up for Australians in all parts of the country and putting the work in to make sure that a telecommunications company like Optus never fails the triple 0 ecosystem ever again. (Time expired)

The member for Spence is partially right. Yes, Optus is at fault, but so is the government. Today, the member for Spence and the entire government voted against doubling the penalty on Optus. We proposed to double the penalty on Optus and any telco who puts lives at risk. Yet so keen was this government to deflect and to push politics that it voted against that amendment—against punishing Optus and against punishing future telcos. Shameful! They were so focused on blame deflection that they voted against making triple 0 critical infrastructure.

Yes, unfortunately, this is not about politics; this is about people. When people call triple 0, they expect someone to answer. They expect help. Unfortunately for 600 people who tried to call triple 0, no-one answered, and they could not get help. We know that, unfortunately, three of those people who called, or three people related to those people, died.

The sad thing about this outage is that it was preventable. We heard the member for Spence talk about the custodian. We heard about the great powers this custodian will have. Yes, they should have those powers. Unfortunately, a review was done 18 months ago that noted the need for this custodian and the need for the powers. We had the first speaker for the government say, 'Oh, we rushed this through in 24 hours.' Unfortunately, they knew about this 18 months ago, yet this custodian was being set up without the powers it needed. This should have been monitored 24/7. The second this went out, it should have been known to the government. The custodian should have known and should have been able to act. How did this go on for 14 hours, and why are we rushing it through? We're closing the gate after the horse has bolted. Now, what we're seeing here is a minister who is reactive not proactive, a government that's reactive not proactive, a government that's keen to play politics but very reluctant to get into policy.

Unfortunately, this is not the only area of this minister's portfolio where this is happening. People are also dying in other areas. On gambling reform, it's been 833 days since the Murphy report, which looked at the harms of online gambling. This minister is also responsible for this report and has failed to act. I have personally listened to family members in this parliament who've come here to tell stories about their loved ones who have killed themselves. I heard a sister and some parents read the suicide note of a young man who took his own life, unable to escape gambling ads and text messages—the guilt he had as they read through page after page of this young man's suicide note.

We heard this government say last term that they would act on it before Christmas. We're already up to another Christmas and we've got a minister here who again is refusing to act, who is being reactive not proactive and who is playing politics instead of addressing policy. Well, enough is enough. Australians deserve a government that takes responsibility. Australia deserves a government that will take responsibility for triple 0. Australians deserve to be able to trust their government. But we have a minister missing in action. The minister is missing from this MPI today. I would like to think, if this were any other person's portfolio, they would sit through it. They would sit through the shadow minister's speech to hear what they had to say. But she's missing in action. She's missing from the debate on triple 0. She's missing from the Murphy review. This is a minister who has no answers at all and is just playing politics.

I'll take the laughter over there. I'll take the laughter when they've been sitting on a report for 18 months and done nothing. They've been sitting on the Murphy report for 833 days, and they have the gall to laugh. Well, Australia doesn't want jokes; it wants action. Enough is enough.

Coming to this place in 2022, one of the things I've been most surprised about, perhaps naively, is the level to which people in this chamber see it as appropriate to play politics with the tragedies of others. I think it's something that makes the general public think less of us as politicians—that, even in the case of a tragedy, instead of focusing on addressing the issues and ensuring it doesn't happen again and instead of working together for the betterment of the community and the country, some in this chamber seek to make personal gain, to point score and to undermine. We've certainly seen that this week and now here again.

The Optus triple 0 failure, for over 600 Australians, was a catastrophe. For at least three individuals, their families and their friends, it was literally life or death. In this country, we expect that, when Australians dial triple 0 in an emergency, they can rely on the call being answered. We are privileged. This is one of those expectations we don't even think about, until it doesn't happen. Australians are unfortunately very aware of the recent failures of the Optus services with regard to the triple 0 function, and it just isn't good enough.

Reliable telecommunications are an important part of modern life, and, for the companies involved, a very profitable enterprise. In 2025, Optus's earnings before interest and tax were $446 million, an increase of 55 per cent on the previous year. Their earnings before interest tax depreciation and amortisation rose by 5.7 per cent in the same year to $2.2 billion. With that level of profit, it's not too much to require them to abide by their legal requirements to provide a reliable essential service to their customers.

It's quite simple. Australian citizens in distress have a reasonable expectation to have access to emergency help. They dial triple 0. That call is answered—police, fire or ambulance. There's no room for ambiguity, delay or failure. That is a social contract telecommunications companies providing these services on a profitable basis have with every customer. The existing regulations require telecommunications carriers and carriage service providers to ensure that emergency calls are successfully carried to the emergency call service at all times. Thanks to changes implemented under this government, telcos are legally required to inform the government of any failures. Under those opposite, when they were in government, there was no requirement for telcos to advise of breaches.

Less than a month ago, approximately 600 emergency calls in South Australia, Western Australia and the Northern Territory using the Optus network failed to connect. We're aware of at least three deaths associated with the outage in South Australia and Western Australia. As we debated the bill earlier today, it is their deaths, possibly avoidable—we may never know—that should be foremost in our minds. But, on top of that, around 600 more people tried to call triple 0 and were not able to get through. And you can only imagine the sense of rising panic when people in their worst time tried to call for assistance, not getting through. Most people don't call triple 0 lightly. It is the last resort. When it fails, when you can't get help, it's hard to know what to do next. You're on your own in a situation that is your worst fear. Investigations are ongoing via the communications watchdog, the Australian Communications and Media Authority, and we keenly await their results. We understand anecdotally that it was only when the South Australian ambulance service contacted Optus to report a significant drop-off in triple 0 calls compared to their normal call load that Optus recognised there was a problem and acted to resolve the issue.

There is no doubt the fault lies with Optus. It was their system that failed. Either there was either no backup or checking, or that system failed as well. Sadly, this is just the latest in a series of issues Australians have had with Optus, including a major data breach in 2022, a national outage in 2023 that impacted internet, fixed line and mobile services, including EFTPOS, for more than 10 million Australian customers and businesses for more than 16 hours, and now this. These failures are of Optus and Optus alone. They must do better, and they should not be let off the hook for it. It really wasn't good enough, and Australian citizens paid the price for the failure. While the government awaits the findings of this investigation, I recognise the minister introduced the bill, which was passed earlier today.

I understand that those opposite have drawn the short straw and have to try and defend the indefensible because the Minister for Communications is missing, but let's make two things quite clear. When three Australians pass away, possibly four, and 600 Australians make that call that nobody wants to make to triple 0 to get the help that they need, when we call out the failings of the Minister for Communications, who is responsible for communications in this country, it is not playing politics. It is called accountability. If you are prepared to put your hand up to be the Minister for Communications in this country, you need to be prepared to take responsibility for the triple 0 emergency system. That is your responsibility. That is your job. Everyone in this House, including the government, backbenchers and ministers, knows this, and, unfortunately for those opposite, they have to run a protection line for a minister who is not up to the job.

They are rightly saying that Optus are at fault. Absolutely, Optus are to blame for this situation, and Optus should be held to account. We should do everything possible to hold Optus to account. In fact, this morning, the coalition, seeking to work in a bipartisan way, put an amendment to this legislation that was very simple and very clear. It sought to double the penalty to Optus from $10 million to $20 million—a very simple amendment. Every person on the opposite side that will stand to speak, every member of this government, made a conscious decision to vote against that amendment and look after Optus. They need to defend that decision to their communities, and they need to defend that decision to those families who lost loved ones and those families that called triple 0 and had it not pick up. They made a conscious choice to protect Optus over the Australian people. So we will not be lectured to about the accountability of Optus. Optus are absolutely accountable. We sought to hold them to account, and this government did not want to work with us in that way.

As I've said, the Minister for Communications is responsible for communications in this country. This minister is so out of her depth. After five months in the portfolio since sitting on the government benches since 2022, she claims that she is a new minister and not able to do her job correctly. We sought to help that minister. We sought to move another amendment to make sure that the triple 0 network was defined as a critical infrastructure and an asset of national significance. That's a very simple amendment. You would think everyone would agree, after listening to the member for Boothby and the member for Spence about how important the triple 0 network is, that it would be critical infrastructure and an asset of national significance. But no—according to the government and those opposite, it is not, because they made the decision to vote against an amendment to make it critical infrastructure and an asset of national significance.

As we come into the bushfire season in my community, disasters are a fact of life. My community will be interested to know that the government doesn't think that it's critical infrastructure and an asset of national significance to be able to call the CFA if there's a bushfire in my community. The coalition knows it is. Again, those opposite will have to go back to their communities. I look forward to those opposite that represent regional and rural communities explaining to their communities how it's not critical infrastructure to be able to call triple 0 to alert the CFA of a fire or to call an ambulance service when your family needs it. They are the facts about what this government decided to do. They are so afraid of scrutiny and the minister is so out of her depth that those opposite voted against an independent committee to make sure that triple 0 would work, that the telcos would be held to account, that ACMA would be held to account and that the minister will be held to account. The minister knows they failed. That's why they voted against an independent committee, and it is a shame and a disgrace for all Australia.

I rise to speak to the triple 0 legislation that we have passed today in this House. This bill is about the most fundamental promise a government can make: that when you are in peril and you reach out for help, your call will get through. As a remote-area nurse and member for Bullwinkel, a bushfire-prone area, I know the value of triple 0 all too well. In 2014, my communities in my electorate of the Perth Hills were devastated by the Parkerville-Stoneville-Mount Helena fire—a fire that, before it was extinguished, tore through the community, destroying 57 homes and scarring the landscape and the people for years to come. At that time, and in times of reporting any fire activity and other emergencies, our phones are everything and the one thread that we cling to. To imagine that thread being cut is to imagine the unimaginable.

That terror became a reality for 631 Australians during the Optus outage a few weeks ago. It was a catastrophic failure of a private company to meet its most basic social obligation, and it's completely unacceptable. The Albanese Labor government acted swiftly. We acted decisively, and, unlike those in the opposition, our priority is protecting Australians, not protecting corporate interests. And let's be clear about what we're seeing from the opposition. They seem hell-bent on letting Optus off the hook and wasting parliament's time, waving around old emails to manufacture a political scandal. But the record is clear: this outage was the fault of Optus and Optus alone, and they will be held accountable for the 631 calls that went unanswered and, sadly, the three or four deaths which resulted. But their failure has exposed a deeper problem: a decade of neglect under the previous government. The warning signs were flashing for years. In May 2018, under the coalition, there was an outage affecting 4,000 calls, and what was their response? Nothing. No laws were changed. No custodian was created.

We cannot hope to do things; we need to act. Our government is cleaning up that decade of neglect, and this bill today is the product of our swift action. It is our government's answer to the question 'Who is watching out for Australians?' This bill ensures that a triple 0 custodian, a guardian of this sacred service, is enshrined in law, not just policy. It gives our communications watchdog, ACMA, the teeth it needs to hold massive corporations to account. The bill gives our government the power to step in during a crisis to demand answers and to direct action. Because of the swift action of this government, this bill turns policy into legislation, into certainty, and it's our promise that the lifeline of triple 0 will be available when needed.

I take this opportunity to thank all the workers who man the triple 0 calls, including my next-door neighbour, Amanda. It can be a very stressful job, and they play a crucial role in saving lives on a daily, if not hourly, basis.

'Before anything else, preparation is the key to success.' Those words from Alexander Graham Bell, the inventor of the telephone, carry profound weight today. They remind us that the most essential systems must be ready for anything. I rise to speak about the tragic failure of preparation, the collapse of our nation's most fundamental lifeline, triple 0. This is not a technical glitch; it is an issue of profound importance that jeopardises the lives of constituents across regional South Australia. Sadly, that's nothing new under Labor.

The Optus outage was a catastrophic day for all Australians, but, for those living in the country, in remote areas and in the outback, this failure cuts even deeper. The triple 0 network isn't a regular service; it's our only reliable path to emergency help. The network collapse was not brief. It lasted for over 12 hours, during which a staggering 600 calls failed to connect. We know the cost: three deaths, maybe four, including an eight-week-old baby in Gawler in my home state. Think about that moment of crisis—people cut off from health, forced to scramble, find a neighbour on a different network or desperately search for a landline. Before anything else, preparation is the key to success. Alexander Graham Bell was on to something.

As a resident of the northern Yorke Peninsula, I have unique insight into what this borderline-doomsday situation looks like. Earlier this year, the power went out for 24 hours, cutting phone lines, cutting internet and placing essential services into chaos. Only those with generators were able to survive. People were helpless as cell services ran dry. Cars were running out of fuel. Hospitals were on edge. Critical care was on life support. I have it on good authority that, during that 24-hour period, residents were only a matter of minutes away from the full failure of the sewage system in Kadina, Wallaroo and Moonta. But it was the lack of communications that made it all so hard. Unless you have lived it, you really don't know what it feels like to be truly helpless in 2025. It is dystopian.

Broadly, phone service has been significantly reduced in regional SA since Labor came to government. The coalition, on the other hand, has had a strong track record of delivering real solutions to improve regional telecommunications, particularly through initiatives like the Mobile Black Spot Program. Under Rowan Ramsey's tenure in my electorate of Grey, this program delivered 57 mobile phone towers, many on the Yorke Peninsula. In contrast, Labor scrapped the program and have delivered zero new towers—not triple 0, zero. Where was the government's watchdog then? ACMA was asleep at the wheel. The Minister for Communications was not informed of this crisis until a staggering 24 hours later. This is a spectacular failure of departmental and regulatory processes under this minister's watch. Then where was the minister? Having sleepless nights—I don't doubt that. She was, after all, in a city that never sleeps, old New York. And who did this minister appoint to lead this critical investigation? ACMA, the Australian Communications and Media Authority. It's like letting school students mark their own homework. You won't ever get good answers. ACMA was an integral part of a regulatory and oversight process that clearly failed.

If the minister were truly serious about transparency and fixing this life-saving system, she would do what is right: she would commission a full and thorough independent review of the entire triple 0 ecosystem. Nothing less is warranted. We need an external, impartial body with the authority to delve into every corner, every protocol and every point of failure. Only then can we truly understand the full scope of the issues that need to be addressed in the system and, most importantly, ensure that no-one else loses their life.

We are now approaching bushfire season in my electorate. We need a system that is fully functional, with adequate fail-safes, now. For regional communities, who already grapple with less robust infrastructure, triple 0 not working is a death sentence. The Albanese government needs to stop its shambolic response, get its priorities straight and deliver a triple 0 system that works for all Australians, particularly those in regional and remote communities such as the ones I represent.

Our triple 0 system is an Australian staple and one that all of us have come to rely upon as a given, to be there when we need it. It's well known, it's trusted and it's essential. That's because the triple 0 system saves lives, and that is why it is completely unacceptable to see that system fail during an outage of a telecommunications provider. This simply should not ever happen, and our government has been working hard to make sure that it doesn't.

During the first Optus outage in September, 631 calls could not connect to triple 0, and this cost lives. That is completely devastating, and my heart goes out to those families who tragically lost a loved one. It should not have happened, and it is reprehensible. Then, just 10 days later, came another outage in my region. Nine calls to triple 0 did not go through thanks to the Optus outage in Dapto on 28 September, which was caused by an issue with an Optus mobile phone tower. We were lucky that there do not appear to have been any adverse outcomes for those callers, but that is by pure luck and chance, and we know how easily that can go the other way. One person, I understand, was forced to use someone else's phone to call for an ambulance, so clearly there were other services that could fill that gap, and that is the law. If an outage occurs, emergency calls must be redirected to alternative mobile towers. That is the responsibility of all telcos in Australia. So why weren't they?

Already our government has directed the Australian Communications and Media Authority to investigate what happened to cause these failures. These were Optus's failures, and they are unacceptable. Every telco has a responsibility to ensure that Australians can connect to emergency services when they need to. Optus failed, and we will not only find out why but also hold them to account. The minister has been very clear that there will be consequences, and so there should be.

In the meantime, we have taken action to ensure that this can't happen again. We've introduced the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Triple Zero Custodian and Emergency Calling Powers) Bill 2025. This critical bill will immediately strengthen government oversight of the triple 0 system. It enshrines the Triple Zero Custodian framework into law and gives ACMA powers to act quickly and decisively. It also gives government the ability to step in during outages.

As the minister has said, we have announced six key points to make sure the triple 0 system is as resilient and safe as it can be. We've introduced that legislation. We're introducing real-time reporting of outages to ACMA and to emergency services so that everyone can know when these outages are happening and take steps to address them straightaway.

Telcos will also now be required to test triple 0 during upgrades and maintenance, and there will be new requirements to fully ensure that triple 0 calls will go through to another network—something the law already requires. We will make sure they meet it. Additionally, there will now be mandatory improvement plans after triple 0 outages, and the new custodian will issue additional performance requirements to telcos, through ACMA, within six months of these new laws. This is decisive action. This is tough action. This will make sure that Australians can be confident that triple 0 will be there for them when they need it.

Minister Wells has worked hard on this. She has worked fast on this. Our government is taking the action that we need to right now. Under these laws, ACMA will have new statutory powers to issue binding directions to carriers, carriage service providers and emergency call persons. It will be able to mandate specific actions and it will ensure that all stakeholders are informed as soon as possible to ensure a coordinated response.

I reiterate: this is a failing of Optus. The law already required that triple 0 calls not fail, and Optus has let our community down. Under the new laws, telcos will face significant consequences—as they should—if they don't act as they must, if they don't provide the information that they must during an outage. We take this seriously, and this new bill demonstrates that. I would encourage those opposite to stop playing political games and get on board with what our government has done. Fast, strong and effective action to protect all Australians. That's what we will continue to do because that's what all Australians deserve.

The discussion is now concluded.

BILLS

Treasury Laws Amendment (Strengthening Financial Systems and Other Measures) Bill 2025; Second Reading

Treasury Laws Amendment (Strengthening Financial Systems and Other Measures) Bill 2025

In respect of this bill, there is a particular schedule that I want to focus on, and that is schedule 7. Schedule 7 extends the 20,000 instant asset write-off for small businesses to June 2026. What we are seeing, again, is this eking out, this drip feeding to small business the support they so desperately need year to year to year, rather than finally making this permanent. Rather than giving small business some certainty so that they can manage their cash flow and their commitments knowing that something has been legislated, what we've seen, during the last term of government and this term, is this constant uncertainty. I support the member for Mackellar's call in how we can help small business by having a 20 per cent tax-free threshold for small business and to make the instant asset write-off permanent, and I will come to that in a moment.

The instant asset write-off extension is welcome, but, again, it is too low and the government needs to provide certainty by ensuring that it be permanent. I will be introducing an amendment during consideration in detail, before the third reading, to make it permanent. I'd also like it extended to a level that actually reflects the needs of small businesses, that makes it meaningful in assisting them with their investment within their small businesses and their assets. We need to also ensure we are incentivising small businesses to become more effective and efficient, to reduce waste. Requiring energy efficiency and waste reduction in small business is an important part of this puzzle.

We know small businesses are the lifeblood of so many communities, and Warringah is the same. Recently, I've had the pleasure of meeting with local small businesses across Manly to discuss the staffing and other regulatory changes they are facing. Our local businesses are facing the perfect storm, grappling with higher costs, tight margins and slowing consumer demand alongside an inability to find workers to fill key roles. Whether it's a chef, waitress, landscaper, childcare worker or bus driver, across so many industries, businesses are struggling. The growing shortage of skilled workers is hurting our local businesses' ability to grow and serve the community. This is not just being felt in Warringah. It's being felt all across Australia but more acutely in regional communities, where small businesses drive local economies and the pool of available labour is even smaller. So you would think that they would come in this place or before the media and champion support for more skilled immigration and more workers to come in and support small businesses, but no. In fact, it's quite the opposite.

What small businesses have raised with me are concerns around the complexity and cost of the current visa process, the complexity of the tax systems for small businesses and the burden of successive legislation that's been passed by the Albanese government. Our skilled worker visas can take up to eight months to process, which is far too long for a small business trying to meet immediate demand and fill a role. Local operators have shared their concerns as well, with the GST threshold remaining at $75,000 for small businesses since 2007 without indexation, which has added extra burden as costs continues to rise. That compliance cost is something that continually small businesses raise. So, whilst this amendment to try and make this instant asset write-off again for one year is good, the government seems to be completely deaf to the concerns small businesses have and their continued challenge when it comes to meeting the administrative burden but also the additional cost.

We want to have a strong, ambitious and productive economy. We've heard a lot from the government and the Treasurer about that, but we're not hearing a lot about how to help small businesses achieve that. We need companies to be able to invest and innovate—companies of all sizes—but too often the ear of government is only for big business. They have that scale and ability to deal that small and medium businesses do not. So it was disappointing there wasn't a bigger focus in the Treasurer's productivity roundtable on how we're going to support small and medium businesses to innovate and invest.

I would say, respectfully, that the instant asset write-off levelled at $20,000 is just not going do it. It doesn't cut it. All that does is allow for the write-off of a small investment in an asset for a small business. It doesn't really allow a business to invest in better technology, significant sustainability or waste management, or innovation within a business. So what we need is that certainty and an instant asset write-off that is scalable to the challenge and costs that small businesses are incurring. If we want a strong, ambitious and productive economy where companies and small businesses are encouraged to invest and innovate, then we need to provide certainty, fairness and a regulatory framework that assists us, not shifting goalposts.

I rise in support of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Strengthening Financial Systems and Other Measures) Bill 2025. Whilst I support the bill in its entirety, it would be natural for me to focus on a part that is particularly important to my portfolio of small business, which is schedule 7. Schedule 7 extends the $20,000 instant asset write-off until 30 June 2026 for eligible businesses. What this measure does is make a real difference to 2.6 million small businesses in Australia. That includes 1.5 million small businesses that are sole traders and who are also benefitting and have also benefitted from our government's tax cuts.

As everyone in here knows—because I hear it head said often enough that people support small business in this House—small business owners are out there every day, and they're working hard. They're working hard to fulfil their dreams. They are your Indian grocer. They are the place you go to to get your eyebrows threaded. They are where you get your Vietnamese pancakes. They are the translators and interpreters who operate with an ABN. They fix your cars. They cut your hair. They cater your birthday parties. They resole your shoes. They help you with your tax returns.

An example of a small business is My Aunt's Handmade Noodles, which I visited the other day with the member for Reid and the local mayor in her electorate. This is a family owned business, run by a formidable mother and daughter duo, and they craft these handmade noodles using time honoured techniques. The passion and care that My Aunt's Handmade Noodles brings to each and every bowl of these perfectly chewy and flavoured noodles is a level of dedication that I see in the small businesses that I visit and that I meet with right across the country.

The Albanese government is backing small businesses just like My Aunt's Handmade Noodles to ensure that they have the support that they need to thrive, because we know that not only are they building a better life for themselves and for their families, but they are also building a better future for Australia. They employ locals. They train apprentices. They give young people jobs, and they keep regional communities alive. They sponsor local sports clubs, and they donate to school raffles as well. They are not just the engine room of the economy, as is often said; they are also often the beating hearts of communities. That's why our government developed Australia's very first National Small Business Strategy.

You would think that an intimate understanding of small business would necessitate a strategy that brings together all levels of government to look at how we can collectively support small businesses to grow and to thrive. You would think that this is something that would have been done a very long time ago, but, in fact, this was done by this government, the very first National Small Business Strategy, bringing together different levels of government and focusing on three key areas: levelling the playing field for small businesses, easing the pressure on small businesses and supporting small businesses to grow.

The extension of the instant asset write-off is a really key part of our commitment under this national strategy. What it means is that small businesses with an aggregate annual turnover of less than $10 million will continue to be able to immediately deduct eligible assets costing less than $20,000. That's $20,000 per asset, not just once but right across the business. Let's have a look at what that means. What that means is that restaurants, cafes, grocers, hairdressers, tradies, accountants and small retailers can actually start to buy the equipment that they need today to keep their businesses going, today and into tomorrow. No matter where I go, when I speak to small businesses, the one thing that constantly comes up is how important the instant asset write-off is in helping them grow and modernise and the extension of the instant asset write-off, giving these businesses the confidence to plan, to budget and to invest as well.

For small businesses looking to grow, the instant asset write-off frees up cash flow so that they can purchase new equipment that allows them to expand their operations or open new locations. At a recent roundtable that I attended in the member for Swan's electorate, in Belmont, a group of small businesses there told me that managing cash flow was one of their biggest daily challenges. Really, that makes sense, doesn't it?

It does.

It certainly does. They also told me that the instant asset write-off and the extension of the write-off helps them to manage those challenges of daily cash flow. An example is the Indian grocer who buys a freezer so that their business can not just expand but also diversify and start selling naan breads that people can take home and cook at home. If anyone has not tried them yet, I highly recommend them. For small businesses needing to repair or replace items in order to continue to operate safely or efficiently, the write-off allows them to claim the full deduction immediately. That then eases the financial pressure to maintain day-to-day operations—for example, you might have a small manufacturer replace some machinery in order to avoid production stoppages. For small businesses wanting or needing to modernise, the ability to upgrade technology or equipment can improve efficiency, reduce costs and indeed enhance competitiveness.

For startups and new small businesses, the write-off provides immediate financial relief, helping new businesses invest without having to build up profits. An example would be a startup online retailer buying storage equipment or a young photographer, who is embarking on a career as a sole trader, going out and buying a new professional camera and lens. The expansion of the write-offs gives them the ability to buy what they need today. The items might be small in nature, but, when we look at small businesses, the diversity of small businesses, the breadth of small businesses and the fact that a large number of small businesses are indeed sole traders who do not operate from a physical premises, the instant asset write-off—though it can provide for small items—can actually make a humungous difference to these small businesses. And I don't think we should be dismissing the impact that the instant asset write-off has for the small businesses that, often, we don't think about.

I'm going to be very honest here and say that we don't think about our translators and interpreters as small businesses yet they operate with ABNs. We don't think about those small businesses for whom a relatively small piece of equipment is actually essential to them being able to establish their business, start up their business, grow their business or continue their business. For that reason, this measure supports fairness, because big corporations can more easily absorb shocks. They can more easily access finance and they can more easily take advantage of complex depreciation systems. Small businesses don't necessarily have that luxury. They don't have the luxury of being able to wait years to recover a cost through depreciation. They don't have big reserves to dip into when something breaks or needs repair or replacement.

The instant asset write-off lets small businesses reinvest and expand and employ people in their local communities. It's the difference between putting off an upgrade and improving businesses today. And I know, from speaking to business owners right across Australia, that this is one of the most impactful ways that we can back small businesses and help them through. But I also know that this doesn't fix every problem for every small business and that there is more to do. Another issue I hear about among small businesses wherever I go is about red tape. I know it's a bit of a motherhood statement, red tape, so I've charged the small businesses that I meet with to actually give me some examples of what red tape means.

Inevitably and consistently, what small businesses come back to me with is that red tape is a kind of shorthand for the fact that small businesses have to navigate three levels of government, often all at once. It can be confusing. It can be time-consuming. Sometimes they have to apply more than once or more than twice for permits and so forth. That's what I'm hearing from small businesses everywhere, and that's something that we want to tackle as well. The National Small Business Strategy outlines how governments will work together. That is the key here: governments working together to support small businesses by removing some of the complexities, making it easier for them to operate and creating environments in which they can operate and therefore thrive.

We are working with state governments to basically cut the clutter for small businesses—actively working and looking, together, for ways to reduce or eliminate this red tape or these layers and layers of compliance, without reducing or impacting quality. It's a big job and it is ongoing, but the enthusiasm of all the ministers from the different jurisdictions is inspiring. I would like to thank them and commend them for their passion for supporting small businesses in line with the federal government's own passion for supporting small businesses.

We are also working to level the playing field for small businesses, ensuring that the power imbalances that they face when dealing with larger businesses are addressed, recognising that they often lack market power as well, and increasing the pressure on large businesses with poor payment practices by highlighting the best and worst payment performers and strengthening communication challenges to promote prompt payment as an environment, social and governance obligation.

In closing—small business is big business. That's what it is. There are over 2 million small businesses around Australia. They employ over 5 million Australians, and 1.5 million of those are sole traders. If we don't back in small businesses, it means that we're also not backing in communities. It also means that we're not backing in economies where small businesses form the backbone of those economies. We understand that small business is at the heart of community and that small business isn't just about the economy; it's about people: the people who run small businesses every day, the people who dedicate their blood, sweat and tears to growing a business not for themselves but as a legacy, often for their families, and so that they can contribute. We recognise, I might add, as Minister for Multicultural Affairs as well, that over 30 per cent of small businesses are started by migrants. In my state of Western Australia 40 per cent of small businesses are started by migrants.

In extending the $20,000 instant asset write-off, we're not just supporting businesses but also backing people: people who take risks, people who work long hours and people who keep local economies alive. Labor will always stand with them because we know and understand that every piece of equipment, every tool and every shopfront opened represents something bigger. It represents confidence and the chance to build a better future. That's what this measure delivers, and that's what this government delivers.

I rise to speak on Treasury Laws Amendment (Strengthening Financial Systems and Other Measures) Bill 2025, which, on balance I believe introduces some broadly sensible measures. I will not speak to all those measures however today.

Schedule 1 of this legislation brings cash settled equity derivatives under the beneficial ownership disclosure legislation, acknowledging that alternative financial products can have similar effects on owning assets. While this change will create some additional compliance requirements for holders of derivatives, I believe it is broadly consistent with greater transparency in Australia's financial market and is broadly supported.

Schedule 3 changes the reporting period of the Financial Regulator Assessment Authority from two years to five years. This measure does raise some concerns for me, as the FRAA was only established in 2021 and has delivered only one report for each regulator in 2022 and 2023. I understand that frequent reporting and analysis provides limited time to implement changes prior to another assessment. However, I am concerned that five years may be too far in the other direction, without sufficient data points to indicate that the difficulties with this reporting regularity outweigh the reduction in regulator accountability.

This is because I do have some concerns about the performance and effectiveness of regulators. I repeatedly hear from members of the business community and my electorate that regulators are not always meeting their requirements and responsibilities. In some cases, they are taking months or years to respond to cases and using workarounds, such as requests for additional information, to reset the clock to meet their reporting requirements. As one executive said to me, regulators have no natural predators, and, if the government is not able to hold them accountable for their effectiveness, there is a significant chance that they are causing damage by poor standards of support for the business community. This change in the legislation will put a greater onus on other parliamentary mechanisms of accountability, such as the committees' reviews of regulators, to ensure that the regulators are held to account.

Finally, I'd like to speak mainly to schedule 7, which extends the instant asset write-off of $20,000 for another financial year. Here we are again. Since I've come into this parliament, we have passed this instant asset write-off measure three times now, coinciding with each financial year since 2023. We have come to expect this amendment each year, yet we refuse to make it permanent. Despite the regularity with which this measure is passed, businesses still can't rely on it, because it is politicised, weaponised, senselessly debated, thrown in with other controversial measures, and held up for months in this parliament until the government finally relents.

In the financial year 2024-25, we passed this measure on the final sitting day of the financial year. So let's think of the timing here and what that means. This instant asset write-off is meant to incentivise businesses to invest, but the legislation for this incentive passed on the last sitting day of that financial year, which from memory was back in April—so a mere couple of months before the end of that financial year. So, for most businesses, over the previous 10 months this had provided no incentive to make that investment, because of that uncertainty—or, on the other side, businesses had actually made some purchases, having listened to the government make an announcement about this instant asset write-off, without really being aware that it hadn't actually passed through the parliament, so they were undertaking an enormous amount of risk in their own business.

This really makes no sense. People are caught between two stools. In 2025, it was the last sitting day of the financial year. In the last term, this happened only because the crossbench put significant pressure on the government and the opposition to come to the party and pass the legislation, because it wasn't on the agenda and we were coming literally to the last two days of the sitting calendar. The Senate was about to rise, and the legislation was just not going to go through. Again, there would have been an election. Again, we don't know what would have happened. Australian small businesses would have been left in the lurch. Businesses just can't make decisions under these conditions. It's just not fair.

As such, numerous small businesses and tax groups have called on the government to make this policy permanent, or at the very least make it more permanent, so that small businesses can plan ahead and have more confidence in the scheme. If we agree in this House, as I believe we do, that the measure is worthwhile, let's deliver the certainty that businesses need to invest.

One question is really: is it because there are not more interesting or innovative policies that the government could announce to support small businesses that they just have to roll this out every single year? If that is the case—if they don't have ideas on how to support small businesses—I'm happy to share a couple of ideas that I and others on the crossbench have put forward.

The first is to increase the threshold for the definition of a small business in the Fair Work Act from 15 to at least 25 people. Let me tell you why. The past five years have been tough on small businesses. COVID-19 lockdowns, followed by high inflation and high interest rates, eviscerated consumer demand. We are only now seeing some relief from this, five years on. Furthermore, the government has made, in my opinion, some retrograde choices on industrial relations legislation that have increased the complexity and created disincentives for small businesses to hire employees and expand their businesses. If the government would raise their threshold with a simple adjustment, it would relieve over 40,000 small businesses of the regulatory red tape burden designed for big corporates with hundreds or thousands of employees.

I've run a business. I've run a small not-for-profit with around 15 employees that grew to around 25 employees. I've run a business with more than 100 employees. I've worked in businesses with thousands of employees. They are quite different beasts. It does not make sense for each of those businesses to be under the same regulatory burden. Frankly, they just don't have the same resources to manage all the regulation that bigger businesses do. I think that needs to be reflected in the scope of the legislation and the scope of the regulation that affects small businesses.

Secondly, I believe that the government should strengthen the payment system reporting times regulation by making fast payee designation a requirement of procurement, as they do in the United Kingdom. Under the Payment Times Reporting Scheme, large businesses and some government enterprises that have an annual taxable income of more than $100 million, known as reporting entities, must report every six months on their payment times and terms for small business. But, apart from naming and shaming the businesses that are slow payers, this scheme doesn't really have a lot of teeth and consequently has barely shifted the dial on payment reporting times more than 30 days. Multiple reviews have highlighted the scheme's ineffectiveness in terms of changing those behaviours.

The change I propose is a modest one, given that we already collect all the data that is required. Furthermore, it would act as a real setting of expectations by large businesses, with currently about 15 per cent of government contracts held by some of these large-business slow payers. It's pretty simple. If, as a big business, you are a slow payer—if you are not paying your small businesses, your suppliers, on time, within 30 days—then you shouldn't expect to be able to access government contracts. That could make a real difference to small businesses and smaller businesses that are struggling with working capital, struggling to stay afloat. This is something simple that the government could do now, and I urge the government to act on this example, because it is something that could make a difference right now to small businesses that are struggling with working capital.

This type of proposal has been recommended both by the 2023 Emerson review of payment times reporting and by the payment times and practices inquiry of 2017. All we need is a government that is willing to act and to back small businesses to make sure they are paid on time and have access to working capital so they can continue to invest in themselves and also invest in their employees.

In conclusion, this legislation implements broadly sensible changes, and, as such, I will not stand in its way. But I am concerned that the government, and indeed regulators, have made an insufficient case for increasing the reporting period from two to five years. Lastly, I am disappointed that we do not have a stronger agenda from the government on supporting small businesses, because they need it. There are some great ideas out there on the table. It is time for the government to step up and to act.

Higher taxes, lower wages, cuts to health care, sky-high inflation, nuclear-high electricity prices: these are the legacies and the plans of those who sit opposite. Every single one of these things makes it tougher for everyday Australians, who are living at an incredibly challenging time for cost of living. The Albanese Labor government has been focused on making sure the economy and the financial systems that sit around and are regulated by government must work for everyday Australians, every single day. That means we need financial systems that are resilient. That means we need financial systems that are trusted. And that means we need financial systems that are stable.

When we talk about the foundations of stronger productivity and public trust in our financial system, three pillars stand out as absolutely essential: investment, transparency and accountability. Investment is the engine that drives economic growth. It provides the capital that businesses need to innovate, to expand and to create jobs—ultimately, boosting productivity and improving the quality of life for our local communities. Investment alone is simply not enough. The system needs to be transparent, and when financial information and dealings are clear, accurate and accessible it builds trust into that system. Transparency allows investors, policymakers and the public to make informed decisions, and it helps prevent fraud and corruption. That confidence is absolutely critical. It is part of being accountable, which ensures that those managing public and, indeed, private funds are held responsible for their actions. This in turn promotes ethical leadership, good governance and compliance with the rules that protect everyone in our community.

These pillars of investment, transparency and accountability support a broader structure of a strong and resilient financial system—a system that is efficient, a system where funds move quickly and affordably to where they are needed the most, a system that is resilient and able to withstand shocks and recover with confidence and a system that is inclusive, ensuring that everyone has access to financial services and opportunities. It must also be innovative, embracing new technologies to stay competitive and to stay relevant, and stability is crucial in giving people and businesses that confidence to plan for the future. It doesn't matter if you are a small business, a big business or a family—being able to plan for the future is always important, and our systems must reflect that. And, above all, it has to be sustainable.

The Treasury Laws Amendment (Strengthening Financial Systems and Other Measures) Bill 2025 contains seven schedules which bolster the components that I have just spoken about, and it's an important piece of legislation that will strengthen confidence in our markets, enhance the operation of regulators and boost long-term economic growth. Schedule 1 of the bill focuses on delivering the first stage of Labor's commitment to develop a public beneficial ownership register as part of our multinational tax integrity package. At present, Australia lacks a comprehensive and consistent system for gathering, verifying and maintaining beneficial ownership data across all corporate entities. It's something that we need. It's something that's important. It's something that needs to change.

A beneficial owner refers to the real individual who ultimately possesses or controls a company, trust or asset, even if they are not listed as the legal owner. There are valid reasons for separating legal and beneficial ownership, but intricate ownership arrangements can be exploited to conceal true ownership, enabling activities such as tax evasion, money laundering and other illicit financial conduct. Again, people must have the confidence to know that these systems are fair, and they must have the confidence to know that unscrupulous people cannot take advantage of flaws in systems. The current gap undermines corporate transparency and creates vulnerabilities in the regulatory framework, which can be exploited by bad actors and hinder the effectiveness of enforcement agencies.

The Albanese Labor government's reforms will establish a robust and centralised framework for beneficial ownership disclosure. It will also align us with the Financial Action Task Force, and the FATF outlines global benchmarks for legal and regulatory measures to combat money laundering, terrorism financing and the misuse of corporate structure. The amendments provide ASIC with enhanced enforcement capabilities. ASIC will have more flexibility to identify what needs to be disclosed and how it needs to be disclosed. Compliance will be incentivised through the potential increased penalties for nondisclosure and freezing notices.

The increased transparency means that the public, journalists and academics will have access to the information on who really controls the companies operating in this country. These reforms follow on from Labor's commitment to transparency, with public country-by-country reporting, requirements for information on subsidiaries, tax residency and increased accountabilities for companies bidding for government tenders.

Schedule 2 of this bill concerns the changes Labor is making to help the not-for-profit sector to be more transparent and more trustworthy. One of the key updates in the new bill gives the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission the ability to share information about investigations, either new or ongoing, if doing so could help prevent serious harm. This idea isn't new. It was part of a previous bill that lapsed in the previous parliament, as we've heard. This government is bringing it back because it is important that the generosity of Australians is matched with trust in our charitable organisations. When Australians put their hands into their pockets and take out their hard earned cash to give to charity, they need to know, they need to have confidence, they need to be sure, that that money is being used in a proper way. This change means that the ACNC can let the public know when it's looking into serious concerns about a charity, which helps reassure donors and the community that action is being taken. It's a way to strengthen oversight and to build trust, encouraging more people to support charities through donations and, of course, through volunteering.

Of course, there are strong safeguards in place. The ACNC can only disclose information if it passes the public-harm test—if the issue is already known publicly or if the risk of harm is serious enough to justify speaking out. If the issue isn't already public, the rules are stricter: the charity must be notified and it has the right to challenge the disclosure.

This reform is just the first step in a bigger plan to update secrecy rules around charities. As promised in the 2023-24 budget, the goal is to help double philanthropic giving by 2030. These changes are part of making the sector more open, they're part of making the sector more accountable and they're part of making the sector more trusted, to drive towards that goal. It is part of Labor's broader agenda in the not-for-profit sector, which includes implementing new pathways to deductible-gift-recipient status, consolidating fundraising guidelines and ensuring voices from the sector are part of the ACNC board.

The third schedule of this bill changes how frequently the FRAA can review ASIC and the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority, APRA. Currently, reviews are biennial, but this bill proposes a review every five years. The benefits of this are twofold. Firstly, it will enable the FRAA to conduct more thorough and comprehensive reviews. Secondly, it will support ASIC and APRA to have enough time to respond to and implement review recommendations. The minister will continue to have the power to appoint the FRAA members and will also be able to call for ad hoc reviews of either ASIC or APRA.

Schedule 4 makes small but important changes to laws managed by Treasury, and these tweaks help make sure the laws work the way they were meant to. It's part of an ongoing commitment to keep our tax and financial systems running smoothly. These updates fix drafting errors, clarify wording and implement administrative improvements. They have been flagged by Treasury, other government agencies and legal drafters.

Similar to schedule 4, schedule 5 deals with technical adjustments that require some urgency. These changes are needed quickly to keep key government programs functioning properly. They fix problems caused by earlier legislative changes that didn't work as intended. When we make laws, we need to make sure that they work as intended. Without these fixes, some programs could face delays or disruptions.

Schedule 6 of the bill extends the rules that help ensure Australians receive fair treatment in the energy market. Known as the prohibiting-energy-market-misconduct provisions, the PEMM provisions, these rules give the ACCC the power to investigate and act against energy companies that simply aren't playing fair. The extension until 2031 will ensure that consumers receive protection and that affordability and fairness are upheld as we undergo energy transition.

The final part of this bill will help small businesses invest and grow by extending the $20,000 instant asset write-off for another year until 30 June 2026. This means that small businesses can continue to claim a full deduction for the cost of eligible assets—not just one asset but eligible assets—under $20,000 as long as they are first used or installed by that date. The limit applies to each asset, so businesses can claim multiple purchases separately. We heard Minister Aly talk about this earlier. She talked about it in the context of the fact that this Labor government, the Albanese Labor government, has also introduced the first National Small Business Strategy, which is designed to make sure that small businesses have clarity on this government's vision, that small businesses have a voice and that that voice is clarified in a strategy which includes critical reforms like this.

Up to 4.1 million small businesses—817,000 in my home state of Queensland—will benefit from improved cash flow and reduced compliance. In my electorate of Moreton, on Brisbane's south side, we have so many small businesses. We have many small businesses that are driven by our multicultural communities. Whether it's a small business selling newspapers, serving coffee, or operating as a restaurant in some of our key areas for small business like Sunnybank, it's important that they are part of this and it's important they have benefits to them as small-business owners.

This is part of a suite of support for small business that includes energy relief, cutting red tape and boosting competition through the $900 million National Productivity Fund and extending unfair trading practice protections. Labor has also provided over $60 million to support small businesses to enhance their cybersecurity measures, and this government wants to see the small-business sector thrive. The targeted support offered by this bill balances practical assistance with responsible economic management.

The Treasury Laws Amendment (Strengthening Financial Systems and Other Measures) Bill 2025 reinforces the foundational pillars of investment. It reinforces the foundational pillars of transparency and it reinforces the foundational pillar of accountability. Each one of those is critical to building a resilient and trustworthy financial system.

This bill 's seven schedules translate these principles into practical action. Key reforms include the creation of a public beneficial ownership register to enhance corporate transparency, stronger oversight of charities to protect public trust and more strategic reviews of financial regulators. Fundamentally, technical amendments will ensure smooth legislative function while extended protections in the energy market and support for small businesses will demonstrate that Labor's commitment to fairness and economic resilience is paramount. They collectively strengthen our financial architecture and promote long-term transparency.

What a terrific speech we just heard from the member for Moreton. I would like to thank her and all those members who have contributed to the debate: the members for Fairfax, Bennelong, Monash, Maribyrnong, New England, Griffith, Mackellar, Curtin, Barton, Ryan, Cowan, Wentworth, Warringah and Chifley. There have been wide-ranging speeches focusing on stories and on policy, and the House has been better for the debate and the important conversation about charities, which too rarely comes to this House.

The Treasury Laws Amendment (Strengthening Financial Systems and Other Measures) Bill 2025 brings together a suite of measures aimed at strengthening confidence in our markets, improving the performance of regulators and supporting long-term economic growth. It covers corporate disclosure, charity regulation, financial oversight, energy market protections and taxation. A standout provision for small business is the extension of the $20,000 instant asset write-off until the middle of 2026. By allowing immediate deductions, we lower the barrier to investment and help ensure Australian workers have the tools they need to thrive.

The bill also reinforces the importance of transparency. In the corporate sector, clearer ownership information supports fairer decision-making and better governance. For civil society, empowering the charities regulated to speak publicly when misconduct is suspected helps maintain trust in the sector. In both business and the not-for-profit world, transparency is the oxygen that accountability needs. Additional provisions ensure robust reviews of financial regulators, maintain consumer protections in the energy market and make technical amendments to keep the law operating as intended. Together those reforms promote investment, transparency and accountability, the foundations of stronger productivity and public confidence.

Let me briefly give the House an overview of the schedules. Schedule 1 improves transparency of ownership of some of Australia's biggest and most influential businesses. These amendments close loopholes and disclosure requirements and provide the Australian Securities and Investments Commission with the tools it needs to quickly and efficiently encourage and shore up compliance. They also bring Australia into greater alignment with the corporate ownership disclosure requirements over a number of comparable jurisdictions. The changes will improve market efficiency by reducing information asymmetry and increasing market integrity, improving investors' access to information and supporting a more efficient allocation of resources. They will also better support company directors and other interested stakeholders to identify when a person or group of associates might be building up an influential stake in their company.

Schedule 1 to the bill further supports corporate transparency by providing greater access to beneficial ownership information to interested members of the public, including providing journalists and academics, who play a key role in initiating and encouraging public debate, with fee-free access to tracing notice registers. Overall, a stronger beneficial ownership disclosure regime will assist regulators and law enforcement to address tax evasion, money laundering and other financial crime facilitated by complex ownership arrangements.

Schedule 2 to the bill allows the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission to disclose information about new or ongoing investigations where necessary to prevent or minimise the risk of significant harm. This reform will allow the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission to assure charities and donors that it is acting on issues of public concern and strengthening compliance to build the necessary public trust and confidence for donors and philanthropists to increase their support for the sector.

Schedule 3 changes the frequency of the Financial Regulator Assessment Authority's review cycles from biannually to every five years. This change will enable the authority to conduct more comprehensive reviews into our financial system regulators and allow the Australian Securities & Investments Commission and Australian Prudential Regulation Authority sufficient time to respond to recommendations made by the authority.

Schedules 4 and 5 to the bill make minor machinery and other technical amendments to various laws in the Treasury portfolio to ensure those laws operate in accordance with policy intent, improve administrative outcomes, remedy unintended consequences and correct technical and drafting defects.

Schedule 6 to the bill will maintain protections for consumers and constrain market misconduct through extending the sunset date of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Prohibiting Energy Market Misconduct) Act provisions to 1 January 2031. The amendment supports the ongoing efforts to improve electricity affordability and protect consumers in the energy market and complements other initiatives as part of the energy transition.

Schedule 7 of the bill extends the $20,000 instant asset write-off until 30 June 2026. This will improve cashflow and reduce compliance costs for small businesses.

We are heading now towards votes on two second reading amendments and a substantive amendment. To save the time of the House, let me say that the government will not be supporting those second reading amendments and substantive amendment. I won't go to all of the specifics of those second reading and substantive amendments. But I note that, in the case of the second reading amendment moved by the shadow Treasurer, he is wrong to say that this will reduce the scrutiny of ASIC and APRA. Indeed, this will provide more scrutiny through carrying out better reviews and allowing those organisations the time to respond to the important outcomes of the reviews. To the amendment moved by the member for Wentworth, we share the goals of tax reform, productivity and boosting the uptake of renewable energy, but we prefer other means through which to achieve that. The respect that this side of the House holds for the member for Wentworth was reflected in her important participation in the economic reform roundtable, which took place in the cabinet room recently. I commend the bill to the House.

The question before the House is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Mackellar be agreed to.

Treasury Laws Amendment (Strengthening Financial Systems and Other Measures) Bill 2025 Nicolette Boele Kate Chaney Andrew Gee Helen Haines Sophie Scamps Zali Steggall Elizabeth Watson-Brown Andrew Wilkie Basem Abdo Anthony Norman Albanese Anne Aly Ash Ambihaipahar Jodie Belyea Chris Eyles Bowen Colin Boyce Jo Briskey Mr Tony Stephen Burke Matt Burnell Josh Burns Mark Christopher Butler Alison Byrnes Julie-Ann Campbell Andrew Charlton Lisa Chesters Sharon Claydon Claire Clutterham Renee Coffey Julie Maree Collins Emma Comer Kara Cook Trish Cook Mary Doyle Mark Alfred Dreyfus Justine Elliot Mike Freelander Tom French Carina Garland Steve Georganas Andrew Giles Patrick Gorman Luke Gosling Matt Gregg Julian Hill Kevin Hogan Rowan Holzberger Ed Husic Madonna Jarrett Alice Jordan-Baird Ged Kearney Ms Catherine Fiona King Madeleine King Tania Lawrence Jerome Laxale Andrew Leigh Sam Lim Zaneta Mascarenhas Kristy McBain Emma McBride Louise Miller-Frost David Moncrieff Daniel Mulino Shayne Kenneth Neumann Gabriel Ng Fiona Phillips Sam Rae Gordon Reid Dan Repacholi Amanda Louise Rishworth Tracey Roberts Michelle Rowland Joanne Ryan Marion Scrymgour Sally Sitou David Smith Matt Smith Zhi Soon Anne Stanley Jess Teesdale Susan Templeman Kate Thwaites Anne Urquhart Tim Watts Anika Wells Rebecca White Josh Wilson Sarah Witty Tony Zappia

The question before the House is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Fairfax be agreed to.

Treasury Laws Amendment (Strengthening Financial Systems and Other Measures) Bill 2025 Mary Aldred David Batt Angie Bell Sam Birrell Nicolette Boele Colin Boyce Scott Buchholz Cameron Caldwell Jamie Chaffey Darren Chester Andrew Gee Andrew Hastie Alex George Hawke Kevin Hogan Barnaby Thomas Gerard Joyce Simon Kennedy Michelle Landry Julian Leeser Michael McCormack Melissa McIntosh Zoe McKenzie Ted O'Brien Llew O'Brien Tony Pasin Alison Penfold Henry Pike Melissa Price Leon Rebello Monique Ryan Sophie Scamps Ben Small Dan Tehan Tom Venning Aaron Violi Andrew Wallace Anne Webster Andrew Willcox Rick Wilson Jason Peter Wood Terry Young Basem Abdo Anthony Norman Albanese Anne Aly Ash Ambihaipahar Jodie Belyea Chris Eyles Bowen Jo Briskey Mr Tony Stephen Burke Matt Burnell Josh Burns Mark Christopher Butler Alison Byrnes Julie-Ann Campbell Jim Chalmers Kate Chaney Andrew Charlton Lisa Chesters Jason Dean Clare Sharon Claydon Claire Clutterham Renee Coffey Julie Maree Collins Emma Comer Pat Conroy Kara Cook Trish Cook Mary Doyle Mark Alfred Dreyfus Justine Elliot Mike Freelander Tom French Carina Garland Steve Georganas Andrew Giles Patrick Gorman Luke Gosling Matt Gregg Helen Haines Julian Hill Rowan Holzberger Ed Husic Madonna Jarrett Alice Jordan-Baird Ged Kearney Matt Keogh Peter Khalil Ms Catherine Fiona King Madeleine King Tania Lawrence Jerome Laxale Andrew Leigh Sam Lim Richard Donald Marles Zaneta Mascarenhas Kristy McBain Emma McBride Louise Miller-Frost Rob Mitchell David Moncrieff Daniel Mulino Shayne Kenneth Neumann Gabriel Ng Clare O'Neil Fiona Phillips Tanya Joan Plibersek Sam Rae Gordon Reid Dan Repacholi Amanda Louise Rishworth Tracey Roberts Michelle Rowland Joanne Ryan Marion Scrymgour Sally Sitou David Smith Matt Smith Zhi Soon Anne Stanley Zali Steggall Jess Teesdale Susan Templeman Kate Thwaites Anne Urquhart Elizabeth Watson-Brown Tim Watts Anika Wells Rebecca White Josh Wilson Sarah Witty Tony Zappia

Treasury Laws Amendment (Strengthening Financial Systems and Other Measures) Bill 2025; Consideration in Detail

Treasury Laws Amendment (Strengthening Financial Systems and Other Measures) Bill 2025

I move:

(2) Schedule 7, page 132 (line 1) to page 132 (line 13), omit the Schedule, substitute:

Schedule 7 — instant asset write-off for small business entities

Income Tax (Transitional Provisions) Act 1997

1 Section 328-180 (heading)

Omit "to 30 June 2025".

2 Subsection 328-180(1) (definition of increased access year )

Repeal the definition, substitute:

increased access year: an income year is an increased access year if any day of the year occurs on or after 12 May 2015.

3 Subsection 328-180(4)

Omit "Temporary increase", substitute "Increase".

4 Paragraph 328-180(4)(d)

Omit "$20,000", substitute "50,000".

5 Paragraph 328-180(4)(d)

Omit "and on or before 30 June 2025" (wherever occurring).

6 Paragraph 328-180(5)(e)

Repeal the paragraph, substitute:

(e) were a reference to $50,000, if the amount is so included at any time on or after 1 July 2023.

7 Paragraph 328-180(6)(e)

Repeal the paragraph, substitute:

(e) were a reference to $50,000, in relation to a deduction for an income year that ends on or after 1 July 2023.

This amendment is in relation to schedule 7, in relation to the instant asset write-off, which was first introduced as a stimulus measure some years ago. It is a practical way to boost cash flow and support investment, but, over the years, it has become a vital business planning tool. The problem is there's no ability for business to actually plan with this tool because there is no consistency. Each year it's implemented it is prey to politicking and becomes a political football. And it has changed over time. Usually it is for a limited time, and the thresholds keep changing. It's now at $20,000. When it was originally introduced, it was actually $150,000, but now it's back to $20,000 and is drip fed with the legislation every 12 months to extend the measure.

The amendment I move is to make this instant asset write-off permanent so that businesses can in fact have the certainty of knowing they can invest in their business, in innovation and efficiencies, ahead of time. The amendment increases it to an amount that is actually meaningful for small businesses to allow them to actually invest and boost their productivity. We know that nearly four million small businesses rely on this, and they want this. They want this to be at the $50,000 mark, and they want it to be permanent.

According to MYOB, who assist so many small businesses, nearly 60 per cent of small business would support a permanent instant asset tax write-off because the uncertainty undermines the confidence small businesses need to invest in their business. So if the government were genuine in their desire to assist small business, it would accept this amendment, because we have been calling on the government to make this instant asset write-off permanent for sometime. In the last two parliaments, we've seen this kicked around like a political football, and the people paying the price are small businesses. They are the ones who cannot invest in their business with certainty because they don't know whether the legislation will ultimately pass. In the last term of parliament, it passed on pretty much the very last sitting day, which was only a short period of time before the end of the financial year and which meant there was no ability for a business to genuinely look to this measure to invest in their business and boost their productivity.

There is a high-stakes roadmap. At a time when Australia needs policy settings that help to boost productivity and growth, we should be looking at ways to enhance investment by local businesses. The proposal to extend this doesn't provide the certainty that businesses need. When the amendment was before the House in the 2023-24 financial year, leading professional bodies, including the CPA, the Tax Institute of Australia and the Mortgage and Finance Association of Australia, all called for the instant asset tax write-off measure to be made permanent. Permanency would reduce red tape for business, government and tax agents. While the government deserves credit for continuing the scheme, it's time to stop treating this as a temporary fix. Small businesses need long-term certainty.

Also, the current $20,000 threshold does not provide the economic stimulus needed for small businesses to have confidence to grow and invest. That's why my amendment seeks to make the instant asset write-off permanent and increases the threshold to $50,000 so that businesses have got a meaningful ability to invest in their businesses. I commend the amendment to the House.

I rise to support the amendments proposed by the member for Warringah, and I commend her for bringing these very important changes and amendments to the House. It is no secret that small businesses have been doing it very tough right around Australia but particularly in country Australia. There are high interest rates, high energy costs, inflation and too much red tape. There is red tape seemingly at every level of government. There's the stress that our small-business people experience of having to borrow money and lie awake at night hoping that they will be paid so they, in turn, can pay someone else.

It is not easy being in small business, yet our small-business people are key to driving jobs, prosperity and growth in the regions and right around the country. The instant asset write-off is a very important measure to support our small-business people. It enables our businesses to make key investments to keep their businesses thriving, which has been very difficult lately, but it could be made better. This is what the member for Warringah has put to this House. She wants to improve this key piece of legislation and this key measure for small business.

At the moment, as members such as the member for Wentworth have eloquently pointed out to this House, the instant asset write-off has been a year-to-year proposition. Businesses have not had certainty that the instant asset write-off will be there from one year to the next. Because of delays in the implementation and the passing of legislation relating to the instant asset write-off, it has meant that some businesses just haven't been aware of it. Some businesses have missed the opportunity to take advantage of it. So it should be made permanent. By making it permanent, it allows businesses to plan their investment decisions. It would allow them to steer by the stars instead of navigating by the lights of each passing ship, and that certainty is a very important thing for small businesses right around the country. So I'm very supportive of that measure in the amendments.

I'm also very supportive of actually extending the instant asset write-off and increasing it to $50,000. This will allow more businesses the flexibility to make larger investment decisions and receive the tax benefits that the instant asset write-off brings. It will drive more growth and more investment and will actually help our businesses thrive. I'm very supportive of the amendments. I commend them to the House, and I implore all members of this place to get behind the amendments and back our small businesses—the engine room of the Australian economy.

The question is that amendment (2), put forward by the honourable member for Warringah, be agreed to.

Treasury Laws Amendment (Strengthening Financial Systems and Other Measures) Bill 2025 Nicolette Boele Kate Chaney Andrew Gee Helen Haines Monique Ryan Sophie Scamps Zali Steggall Elizabeth Watson-Brown Andrew Wilkie Basem Abdo Ash Ambihaipahar Jodie Belyea Colin Boyce Jo Briskey Matt Burnell Josh Burns Alison Byrnes Julie-Ann Campbell Jamie Chaffey Lisa Chesters Sharon Claydon Claire Clutterham Renee Coffey Kara Cook Trish Cook Mary Doyle Mark Alfred Dreyfus Justine Elliot Mike Freelander Tom French Carina Garland Andrew Giles Patrick Gorman Matt Gregg Julian Hill Kevin Hogan Rowan Holzberger Ed Husic Madonna Jarrett Alice Jordan-Baird Ged Kearney Peter Khalil Tania Lawrence Jerome Laxale Andrew Leigh Sam Lim Zaneta Mascarenhas Emma McBride Louise Miller-Frost David Moncrieff Shayne Kenneth Neumann Gabriel Ng Clare O'Neil Fiona Phillips Sam Rae Gordon Reid Dan Repacholi Tracey Roberts Joanne Ryan Marion Scrymgour Sally Sitou David Smith Matt Smith Anne Stanley Jess Teesdale Susan Templeman Kate Thwaites Anne Urquhart Tim Watts Rebecca White Josh Wilson Sarah Witty Tony Zappia

by leave—I move amendments (1) and (3) as circulated in my name together:

(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 9), omit "Schedules 6 and 7", substitute "Schedules 6 to 8".

(3) Page 99 (after line 15), at the end of the Bill, add:

Schedule 8

Income Tax (Transitional Provisions) Act 1997

1 At the end of section 328-180

Add:

Increased access linked to waste reduction or energy efficiency

(7) Despite any other provision of this Act, section 328-180 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 applies in relation to:

(a) an increased access year beginning after 30 June 2025; and

(b) a depreciating asset between $20,000 and $50,000;

only if the depreciating asset would reduce waste or be covered by the energy incentive in section 328-465 if the appropriate change were made to that section.

In relation to the instant asset tax write-off, it's raising the question of how it is used for small businesses. In the past, there has been concern that the instant tax write-off has been used for, essentially, spending by some businesses—for example, the paying of the RAM tradie utes. We've seen them proliferate in some of our areas. So it's looking at the question of how small business can be incentivised to invest into energy efficiency and waste reduction, because these are key elements that the government ends up spending significant amounts of money on in other programs. So these amendments seek to justify the increase to $50,000 for that instant asset tax write-off by linking it to waste reduction and energy efficiency measures for small businesses. These come in so many ways that the write-off would essentially be available to most businesses and industries, but it gives small business that incentive and that encouragement to spend that money in a really purposeful way.

We know from the national climate risk assessment that small businesses across Australia will face notable impacts and increasing risks from climate change. They will potentially face compounding impacts from inundation, flooding and erosion, making them unviable, particularly in high-risk areas across Queensland, WA, the Northern Territory and New South Wales. Often, small businesses also struggle to get insurance because of the amount of risk they carry when it comes to climate impacts. So for small businesses there's a real benefit in being incentivised to act to reduce that risk and invest in those efficiencies for their buildings and in the ability to act now to protect their energy sources and ensure they can build resilience in their business and continue to operate in the face of rising temperatures and increasing risks.

So these amendments would incentivise small businesses and deliver real benefits by allowing small businesses to invest in energy efficiency and decarbonisation options to reduce the costs of doing business. For example, the cost of utilities is a key driver of stress for small to medium enterprises. The amendments would allow for investment in productivity enhancement, and they would simplify tax compliance, removing the confusion of annual threshold changes.

I urge the government to consider: if not through these amendments, how, through other measures, do we incentivise small to medium businesses to innovate and to build resilience within themselves? We need to ensure that they have access to ways to build energy efficiency in their operations but also to build waste management. We know we need to build towards more of a circular economy and ensure that that waste management is there.

I've had the privilege of spending time with small businesses within my electorate. They're ambitious, hardworking and innovative. They deserve tax frameworks that reward innovation and support cleaner, more efficient technologies. Under the current arrangements, it shifts every budget cycle, which risks missing the opportunity to help small businesses be part of the clean energy transition. With better design, the instant asset write-off can be a powerful tool towards our national decarbonisation efforts and lifting productivity through small businesses. So these amendments, like others, support both business growth and Australia's long-term economic resilience. It's about providing certainty and fairness, not shifting goalposts. So I commend these amendments to the government and urge the government to consider much greater support for small to medium enterprises.

Question negatived.

Bill agreed to.

Treasury Laws Amendment (Strengthening Financial Systems and Other Measures) Bill 2025; Third Reading

Treasury Laws Amendment (Strengthening Financial Systems and Other Measures) Bill 2025

by leave—I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

The House transcript was published up to 18:05. The remainder of the transcript will be published progressively as it is completed.