I move:
That further statements on the Domestic, Family and Sexual Violence Commission's yearly report to Parliament be permitted in the Federation Chamber.
Question agreed to.
(): I move:
That further statements on the 50th anniversary of the Racial Discrimination Act be permitted in the Federation Chamber.
Question agreed to.
(): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Customs Tariff Amendment (Geelong Treaty Implementation) Bill 2025will amend the Customs Tariff Act 1995 to implement a waiver on customs duties for goods imported under the Nuclear-Powered Submarine Partnership and Collaboration Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The agreement—which is known as the Geelong treaty—was signed in Geelong by the Deputy Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Defence of the United Kingdom in July this year.
The Geelong treaty is a historic agreement, a commitment to the next 50 years of United Kingdom and Australian bilateral defence cooperation under AUKUS Pillar I with respect to delivering Australia's SSN-AUKUS submarines.
This bill enables Australia to comply with its obligations under the Geelong treaty. Under the Geelong treaty, Australia and the United Kingdom will not impose value added taxes, excise and customs duties and other similar charges on imports and exports of goods in connection with the Geelong treaty.
If those charges are levied, the Geelong treaty provides that the levying party will be liable for payment of the charges.
The bill implements Australia's obligations under the Geelong treaty with respect to customs duties. This bill amends schedule 4 to the Customs Tariff Act to insert a new table item, item 58A, which will prescribe a free rate of duty for goods that are for use under the Geelong treaty.
I commend this bill to the chamber.
Debate adjourned.
(): I move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament: Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications, Sport and the Arts—Proposed fit-out of new leased premises at 7 London Circuit, Canberra City.
The Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications, Sport and the Arts is proposing works to fit-out recently leased office accommodation at 7 London Circuit, Canberra City. The estimated cost of the fit-out works is $23.4 million, excluding GST. The proposed works were referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works on 31 July 2025. Following its inquiry, the committee recommended that the House of Representatives resolve that it is expedient to carry out the proposed works. Subject to parliamentary approval, works are expected to commence as soon as possible for completion in May 2026, with final commissioning and relocation of staff occurring in April to June 2026.
On behalf of the government, I would like to thank the committee, ably chaired by the member for Makin, for undertaking a timely inquiry. I commend the motion to the House.
Question agreed to.
(): by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
(): by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Globally, twice the rate of international peers, super is a great Australian success story. It gives millions of everyday Australians the chance to live the life they want in retirement, while saving the budget money over the long term. It's a win-win. I am incredibly proud to be part of a Labor government that continues to bolster it and make it fairer for hardworking Australians. Make no mistake about it: we are the envy of the world when it comes to our superannuation system. We are a world leader in securing financial independence for all Australians.
We need to remember what the coalition said at the time super was first introduced. What they said was that we'd all be ruined. They said that this was something that would collapse our economy. They said that it wouldn't work. It was the same thing they said when we introduced Medicare: that it wouldn't work, that it wasn't okay, that we'd all be ruined. They said something incredibly similar when it came to an increase in the minimum wage just recently. When the Prime Minister said that he would increase the minimum wage, and he said 'Absolutely,' those opposite thought that it was a joke. Those opposite thought that it wasn't possible. We on this side of the House say that not only is it possible; it makes the lives of Australians better, it makes their retirements more dignified, and it makes the system fairer.
This is a long-overdue reform. Payday super is not just a policy change. It's a fundamental fix to a broken system that has allowed billions in superannuation to go unpaid. When it comes to superannuation, this is not a bonus. It's not an extra. It's not something that comes on top of your wage. It is part of your wage, and because of that it is an entitlement. It's something that you deserve, not something that you should have to scrap or scrape for. It's something that you have earned.
The ATO estimates that $5.2 billion in super went unpaid in 2021-22. That is $100 million per week—every week, $100 million gone, $100 million that workers earned but were never paid. That's not just a number. That's people's futures being short-changed. That's their lives being short-changed. That is the hard work, the toil, that they have put in day in, day out that has not been given to them.
The Treasury Laws Amendment (Payday Superannuation) Bill 2025 will ensure that workers actually receive the super that they are owed when they are owed it. If you're a teacher grading papers, putting together a lesson plan, you deserve your super. If you're an early childhood educator like the ones looking after my daughter and the many children who go to day care and kindy every day, you deserve to be paid your super. If you're a sparky working on a big project or on someone's home, you deserve to be paid your super. If you're a nurse—many of whom do shift work—looking after people when they're sick, you deserve to be paid your super. If you work in retail at the checkout, you deserve to be paid your super. It doesn't matter what profession you are in, everyone deserves it, because they've earned it.
Unpaid super particularly hurts younger Australians and those in insecure jobs the most, the ones who can least afford to lose out on super payments. ATO investigations show that a typical case of missing super can equate to two years worth of contributions. It's a big impact and it's a big impact on those who are the most vulnerable in our society. For an average 35-year-old, that could impact their retirement savings by $35,000 worth of contributions. We're talking about a big impact. We're talking about big money. We're talking about the kind of numbers that can change people's lives and make them better or, without that money, make them worse. Another way young people are losing out is when a business goes bust. The same 35-year-old could lose $90,000 off their super.
When we talk about super, it's important to remember the concept of compounding interest. It's something that we all learned in primary school, and it's something that, when it comes to super, means that even the smallest changes, even the smallest number, the smallest amount that you have not been paid for the super that you've earned now, can have an enormous impact when it comes to your retirement. That's what this bill is all about. It's about making sure that there is fairness, that you get what you deserve, that you get what you earn, that you get what you are entitled to when it comes to superannuation.
From 1 July 2026, employers will be required to pay super at the same time they pay wages—not quarterly, not later, not never, but on payday. Contributions must reach the employee's fund within the seven business days. It's simple, but it's an effective change. Workers can check that they have been paid. The ATO can match missed payments early, before they become unrecoverable. And don't forget we are talking about $5.2 billion here in unpaid super. The upshot is a secure future, easier to track your pay when it comes to superannuation and the ability to plan for your future.
The bill increases the superannuation guarantee charge. This is the penalty employers face when they don't pay super on time. It will now apply for each and every payday. Updated superannuation guarantee charges means that notional earnings to compensate for workers lost investment returns will be included. It means an administrative uplift, additional charges to reflect enforcement costs and inspire employers to voluntarily rectify, and choice loading penalties if employers ignore their employees selected funds. If someone didn't pay you your wage, there would be consequences. If someone doesn't pay you your super, there must be consequences. And if they still don't pay, employers will face penalties of up to 50 per cent of the unpaid amount. It's a big stick for a big problem. Labor wants employers to fix mistakes quickly and ensure workers are compensated if those mistakes happen. And the ATO will use Single Touch Payroll data and match it with super funds data to detect missed payments quickly—almost in real time.
When we talk about updating legislation, when we talk about rectifying challenges, we need to use the full force of what we have in terms of technology. We need to make sure that we are using the digital space for good, and we are using it to make our systems fairer. That's what this is about. Single Touch Payroll data is already reported, and this data-matching capability means earlier intervention, it means fewer unrecoverable debts and it means better outcomes for working people in this country.
To support this rollout, the government is investing more than $400 million. This is $400 million to get more than $5 billion back into the pockets of the hardworking Australians who have earned this money—a very small price to pay for peace of mind, for entitlement to what they earn now for their future and for their dignity in retirement. Importantly, the ATO will take a facilitative approach in the first year by helping employers who genuinely tried to comply, even if they face technical challenges. This is about making sure that we help small businesses, that we help businesses who are trying to do the right thing to do the right thing.
This reform also benefits employers by aligning with payroll. It reduces the end-of-quarter administrative pressure and the risk of large liabilities building up. We are trying to ease the burden by smoothing out some of the challenges and liabilities, but also, again, by making it fair. And we have undertaken stakeholder feedback. Treasury consulted on the draft legislation from March to April 2025, receiving 167 submissions and engaging with more than 200 stakeholders across roundtables, bilateral meetings, talking with our communities, talking with business, talking with people about what this will mean for them. There is absolutely strong support for aligning super payments with wages—that much is very clear. The bill reflects stakeholder feedback in terms of IT system readiness, hence the support for a compliance approach and seven business days to pay.
Last night I talked about the fact that superannuation is a great Labor reform. It sits alongside the dismantling of WorkChoices. It sits alongside the introduction of Medicare, and, for the minister in front of me, perhaps, one day it will sit alongside the introduction of our great batteries program. It sits alongside those because, at its heart, it's about dignity for working people. At its heart, it's about getting Australians what they deserve. At its heart, it's about setting people up for their future. And there is no doubt that it is vital to act on this now.
Passing this legislation promptly gives employers, payroll providers, super funds and the ATO the time that they need to prepare for the July 2026 date. Every delay means more workers missing out and more money lost that could have supported their retirement, and Australians are too important for that to happen.
The amount of unpaid super owed to workers in my electorate of Deakin was $31.4 million, according to analysis by the Super Members Council in 2022-23. The analysis also highlighted that that's $1.4 billion of lost super for workers in my home state of Victoria and a whopping $5.7 billion for workers across Australia.
We're talking about a lot of money earned by workers owed to workers; it's not sitting in their superannuation accounts. It is an unacceptable and unsustainable situation. This is a problem we've known about for a long time. There has been report after report, including the 2020 review into retirement savings initiated by the coalition, and likewise. This is a well-known problem. The risks are increased when we're talking about small businesses with low turnover approaching insolvency and workers who are young and vulnerable, and we've seen the consequences play out in a very real way.
Not only do we not have the wonderful magic of compound interest playing; we also have a significant loss of insurance coverage, which we've seen many cases of—for example, people not having the permanent disability or income protection insurance that they would ordinarily have, because contributions that were lawfully required to be made weren't paid. We've also seen situations where a person who may be eligible to withdraw their superannuation on compassionate grounds, such as upon the death of a spouse or dependent, have not been able to access super, because, once again, the money simply hasn't been put into the account. This isn't money that is given as a gift to workers; this is money earned, owed and part of their remuneration—and, unfortunately, on a mass scale, hasn't been received. These are debts that need to be claimed in a better, more efficient and effective way, and this bill provides that means.
This bill is the commonsense approach. When I talk to people in my electorate, they wonder why the it hasn't already happened and why it isn't already the case that superannuation has to be paid into the worker's account at the same time as they receive their wages. After all, remuneration isn't a business credit facility. It's not there as a loan to pay for other expenses. It is a debt owed to workers. This legislation sensibly adjusts that, and I welcome the fact that at least that principle has been adopted by many people in the coalition.
Unfortunately, as I walked past this chamber last night I overheard the contribution of the member for Goldstein, who decided to pop on the tinfoil hat, pull out the coathanger and start speaking in fluent crazy. He went on and on about serfdom and the fact that superannuation was some kind of a conspiracy by the Labor Party to line its own pockets. He said the pre-1992 position on superannuation was somehow more logical. Why?
Superannuation did the daring thing of saying that working people had a right to a share in capital wealth. It was the idea that it wasn't just the wealthy or those lucky enough to be with certain employers who got the benefits of superannuation but every single wage earner in the country. It was one of the most important reforms to working life in the twentieth century—and they simply don't get it.
I wouldn't be so bold as to presume that it's Liberal Party policy. We all know for a fact that the Liberal Party and the coalition have many different policies simultaneously at the moment, because they can't seem to agree on anything. But one of the saddest things about the member for Goldstein's contribution was that, if that is the sensible centre of the Liberal Party, God help us all! It shows that even their moderates have jumped onto the crazy train, not knowing where they're going. We find that superannuation remains something that causes them heartburn. They hate the idea that workers are in the system, somehow getting their place in the boardroom and taking their opportunity to take their fair share of the wealth of this great country. Superannuation is essential because it is compulsory—the fact that we are together saving for our retirements. We're not relying on the aged pension, which has never provided the quality of life we expect and hope for for our older citizens. In order to live a comfortable and decent life as an older person, as we live longer, as we grow as an ageing population, it's more essential than ever that we look after our superannuation system, we jealously guard it and we make sure all Australians have access to the dignified retirement that they deserve.
Unfortunately, we've seen some immature debates around what superannuation is for. Is it going to be an alternative to fixing the housing crisis? Is it something that should be withdrawn at will at the last minute to pay for certain things? Is it something we have decided is essential for the saving of retirement amounts for all workers? I think it's the latter; I believe it's there to provide a dignified retirement to workers as they age. Most Australians agree. They know it's there, they value the system and they have received the benefits. In my electorate of Deakin, we've got an increasing number of people aged over 65 and a decreasing number of people on the aged pension. Superannuation is working. It is delivering a better quality of life for Australians all around the country at all income levels. It is doing exactly what it is designed to do. We can't afford to have any process or change that is going to undermine the accumulation of superannuation savings over time. But, sadly, that remains an item of contention from time to time in this House.
Luckily, this approach, payday super, reflects common sense. From what I can tell, even from the amendments with the usual dose of nuttiness, there is at least consensus on the notion that payday super is a way of ensuring workers are getting the amounts they are owed and deserve, that we can safeguard some of our most vulnerable workers from losing the superannuation they've already earned and that we have better capability of enforcing against noncompliance with superannuation guarantee obligations. We've seen many, many occasions where unpaid super going over years is not being repaid. Workers, because of the way the information is delivered to them, can barely tell whether or not superannuation has been paid at a particular time, because they can't just pick up any old payslip and find out whether it's happened—so they find themselves in a situation where it's not being called out in time. By the time they find out they have not been paid, the company has either gone into administration or ceased to exist, and the capacity for that worker to recover either through the ATO or directly has completely expired.
We need to get to the point where workers can be confident that the money they've earned has been paid. It is not a controversial ask. But, for some reason, as is often the case in this House, we are seeing some rather strange and eclectic contributions. Among them last night was the conspiracy about what super is—
Like Matt Keogh in question time!
It is the ultimate—
Don't listen to me!
I should know better than to listen to the member for Gippsland. I have to admit, I'm new to this place and I occasionally make the mistake of listening to members of the coalition. I mistake them for individuals who have credibility and make worthwhile contributions to debate. This particular bill is a perfect example of one where the coalition have absolutely nothing to contribute to the debate. They have an atrocious record on superannuation. They see it as a lucky dip for their own policymaking rather than as an essential part of the retirement framework of this country. The reality is: if we want the next generation to have a proper dignified retirement, we need to deal with housing, protect super and make sure that our institutions remain as strong and trustworthy as ever before.
This is one of the great legacies of the Labor Party. Superannuation for workers finally gave the working people of Australia their fair share of the nation's wealth. Anything designed to undermine that or to use it as a simple slush fund for taking over the consequences of coalition policy over a long time is completely unforgivable. We need to make sure that trust and confidence in the system can be preserved, and we need to get on with dealing with the fact that millions and millions of dollars have been shafted from workers over a long period of time. I will not stand here and allow any suggestion that there is anything insidious about the idea that the workers in Deakin or anywhere in Australia, and their millions of dollars in savings—it is billions if you take it to the total for Australia, $5.7 billion. The idea of trying to ensure that that shafting doesn't happen anymore should be a completely uncontroversial proposition. But, again, we have a little bit of the usual squabble and nuttiness that we have in this House.
In terms of the enforcement of these things, we need to make sure that, when superannuation is not paid, the compound interest that could otherwise have been earned from those contributions is also recovered as part of the regime. In the past, we have seen superannuation recovered at just the nominal amount. It's effectively stolen money because they have lost the real value of the superannuation contributions being made—the earnings that they would have received but for the failure to contribute. So these enforcement provisions and the penalties that sit within this legislation are eminently sensible.
Then we talk about the transition. The transitionary provisions contained within this legislation enable a period of time for business to adjust. The ATO have already given their draft guidance—I think it was on 21 October—which has made it very clear that they will be taking a facilitative approach to the enforcement of these new laws.
We're not out to get businesses. We're there to support them in transitioning their systems to ensure that this can be done right. This is not about punishing small businesses trying to do the right thing. The ATO has made that abundantly clear. We have made that abundantly clear. This is simply about making sure that businesses are supported and enabled to make the payments that are owed to their workers in a reasonably timely way so they can enjoy the benefits of their earnings and have that beautiful magic of compound interest work in their favour as they save for their retirements.
It's about ensuring a dignified and decent retirement for Australians. It's about making sure that the promise of superannuation is fulfilled. And it's about safeguarding the superannuation of some of our most vulnerable workers. We're talking about young workers for whom the loss of superannuation income has dire consequences—tens of thousands of dollars less in their superannuation if these failures continue to persist. We see differences in balances of $31,000, $32,000 and up to $35,000 if super isn't paid at my age, at around 35. It can have significant impacts on a superannuation balance at the end of a person's career.
As I mentioned before, it is not just at the end of a career. It is ensuring that these individuals continue to have the total and permanent disability insurance that they've signed up to, that they continue to have the income protection insurance and, in the worst-case scenario, that they have access to those funds on compassionate grounds, whether it be for emergency health care, for the funeral of loved ones or for the other reasons that are already provided for in legislation. This is the money of workers. They deserve to have it paid into their superannuation accounts in a timely way. It is what the entire system is for.
The proposition that this is part of some crazy cabal, as was suggested by the member for Goldstein last night, is as outrageous as it is foolish. It is absolutely terrifying that a key member of their economic team sees superannuation as some kind of sick conspiracy and has the very idea that superannuation is simply about increasing the money in the Labor Party coffers. By the way, this is a government that just passed laws capping the amount of money that can be put into coffers. This is simply about workers. The very notion of a piece of legislation being purely about benefiting employees seems to be shocking and outrageous to some in the coalition. We need to protect and safeguard this system. We are dealing with an issue that was identified not only by us but by reports commissioned by the coalition themselves. They know this was a problem, and they did nothing about it. We came here, stood up and made a number of changes to protect the sustainability and security of the superannuation system, and all we ask is that you just let us get on with it.
These matters are too important to continue delaying. Ten more years of delay on these things will result in the loss of millions and millions of dollars of superannuation savings. We need to get on with it. The sooner we pass it, the sooner business will have the certainty as to what's coming and the sooner they'll be able to prepare for the changes and be ready by the time this comes in in July next year. I commend the bill, and I express my complete dismay and contempt for the suggested amendments by the shadow Treasurer. I look forward to this essential reform becoming law.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Labor is the party of the environment. It's Labor that has delivered every single major environment reform in Australia's history—Landcare, saving the Franklin, protecting the Daintree and Kakadu, building the largest network of marine parks in the world and meaningfully addressing the threat of climate change.
And now it's Labor that wants to reform our national environment laws to ensure that we are protecting nature for generations to come.
The truth is our environment laws are broken.
They're not working for the environment, business, the economy or for the community.
That was the clear assessment delivered by Professor Graeme Samuel when he handed down his independent review of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act), a review that was delivered five years ago today to the then minister for the environment and now opposition leader.
And five years later where are we? With laws that are enabling the decline of our precious natural environment—the iconic creatures and beautiful places that are fundamental to the Australian character.
They are also not facilitating the important projects we need—the housing, renewable energy, critical minerals we need for Australia's economic future.
This government has listened and the message is clear: we need change.
The law is broken. We have to fix it.
That's the challenge for everyone in this place now.
I acknowledge the presence in the chamber of Australia's Minister for the Environment, Senator Murray Watt. His work has made sure that we now have before us a package of bills that will finally deliver the reforms to our environment laws that Australians have long demanded.
Our a pproach
Five years ago today the Samuel review was handed down to the then coalition government, outlining a blueprint for reform.
It provided a clear set of recommendations to fundamentally reform the way that environment impacts and approvals are managed in this country.
This package of bills remains faithful to our commitment to follow the spirit of the Samuel review in reforming this legislation.
In crafting these reforms we have looked to three key pillars.
Firstly, there is stronger environmental protection and restoration—to not just look after our special places, but to restore and regenerate them for future generations.
Secondly, there is more efficient and robust project assessments and approvals, delivering a system which can better respond to big national priorities like the renewable energy transition, a future made in Australia and the housing that we need.
And finally, there is greater accountability and transparency in decision-making, so that all Australians can have confidence in these laws, including delivering our election commitment for Australia's National Environment Protection Agency.
Pillar 1: stronger environmental protection and restoration.
The Samuel review clearly articulated the necessity of better protecting the environment.
It found that 'Australia's natural environment and iconic places are in an overall state of decline and are under increasing threat.'
There are a number of key new measures in these bills.
E nvironmental s tandards
This bill will deliver a new framework for national environmental standards, which would allow clear standards for critical environmental protection measures to be set out in regulations—this was the centrepiece of the Samuel review.
Standards are aimed at delivering both improved environmental outcomes and better certainty for businesses through setting clear and enforceable expectations.
The bill establishes the ministerial power to make national environmental standards which will be made in similar ways to other regulations.
Priority standards include those for matters of national environmental standards and offsets, with other standards, including for first nations engagement and data and information, to follow.
Draft priority standards will soon be available for consultation so that there is clarity on the direction of new protections before the passage of this legislation.
To ensure protections are not eroded over time, the standards framework includes a 'no regression' clause, meaning that standards cannot be changed or updated unless the new standard would deliver equivalent or improved environmental outcomes.
Unacceptable impacts
The EPBC Act currently includes a 'clearly unacceptable' category for decisions at the referral stage, however, the term unacceptable is undefined.
This was identified in the Samuel review which found that 'strong protections are needed for those matters most at risk of being lost, including clear rules about unacceptable impacts'.
This bill sets clear, upfront criteria for what constitutes an unacceptable impact to give clarity and certainty to business, while safeguarding our most precious natural assets.
It is designed to set a responsible standard, used in very limited circumstances, to protect those nationally protected matters that cannot ever be replaced.
Protection statements
A new ability to make protection statements will reduce ambiguity around what a decision-maker must consider during the approval of actions in protecting threatened species, providing greater clarity for proponents.
This results in strengthened protections for threatened species as well as more efficient decisions, meaning better environmental outcomes and faster assessments.
Stronger powers and penalties
The Samuel review recognised that for some bad actors, breaching the law is just the cost of doing business.
This bill package introduces tougher penalties and new compliance and enforcement powers to deter breaches and respond swiftly to serious environmental harm.
While we know that most proponents follow the law, we need modern, fit-for-purpose tools to respond to the most serious breaches.
The way to avoid these penalties is simple—follow the law, refer for assessment when appropriate and abide by the conditions of your approval, because once some things are gone, they are gone for good.
'Net gain'
This bill ensures that projects must leave the environment better off by introducing the concept of 'net gain' for environmental offsets, a shift from the current rules threshold which is 'no net loss'.
This is also a clear principle from the Samuel review.
Impacts to protected matters would need to be avoided and minimised, with residual significant impacts offset to leave the environment in a better state than what was there in the absence of a project.
This will shift the dial towards avoided impacts and restoration and give our natural environment the opportunity to regenerate, recover and become more resilient.
To support the shift in the offsets framework and deliver time savings for proponents, a new restoration contribution framework will be introduced. This framework will allow proponents to meet their obligations by either delivering their own offsets or by an upfront payment into a government restoration fund, or both.
The new Restoration Contributions Holder will be able to use the funds to strategically deliver offsets to have greater environmental benefits, including through pooling funds for similar impacts.
This approach is better for the environment and better for business.
Pillar 2: more efficient and robust decision-making
This bill package recognises that a more efficient regulatory system is also needed to enable better, faster decisions.
We have heard loud and clear that assessments under the EPBC Act are unpredictable, take too long, and that the impacts of long approval timeframes are being felt across the economy.
These reforms address this challenge head on.
Accreditatio n
Central to the Samuel Review were recommendations around reducing duplication between state and territory processes and Commonwealth processes.
While the act currently enables assessments and approvals under the EPBC Act to be undertaken by states and territories under bilateral agreements, these agreements are inflexible, unresponsive and easily broken over time.
The bill package seeks to improve the operation of bilateral agreements with states and territories, making the framework more responsive to change and more durable in the long term.
The changes will also ensure that state and territory processes accredited under bilateral agreements meet national environmental standards and have ongoing assurance mechanisms to ensure that environmental protection requirements are being met.
Ultimately, we want states and territories to be able to work with us towards less duplicative assessments, and ultimately, approvals while meeting our environmental standards.
Landscape scale approaches
In addition to increasing the efficiency of project-by-project approvals, we are focused on delivering proper landscape-scale approaches to environmental restoration and approvals.
Close cooperation between the Commonwealth, states and territories is critical to aligning regulatory systems and implementing these important national reforms.
These reforms provide the potential for us to plan together, at a landscape scale, delivering better environmental outcomes and more certainty for proponents.
Bioregional planning provisions will also be improved to unlock better government led planning and facilitate faster approvals.
By doing the work upfront to map areas of higher and lower biodiversity we can give certainty to industry and the community about where development can occur, while protecting areas of high environmental value.
This means that projects covered by a bioregional plan development zone will simply register to comply with the bioregional plan without needing to seek project level approval under the act.
Bioregional plans will, at the same time, give clear signals about where development is inappropriate with conservation zones where certain activities can't be undertaken.
Strategic assessments will also be made more flexible and efficient, better enabling state or territory governments or a partner to gain a strategic assessment approval.
Streamlined assessment pathways
The reforms create faster and clearer environmental assessments through a new streamlined pathway for proponents who provide sufficient upfront information and design their proposals in line with the environmental and other requirements of this bill.
It rationalises three existing pathways and is responsive to a recommendation of the Samuel Review.
The new pathway would reduce assessment and approval timeframes by 20 days, cutting the current 70-day statutory period to 50 days or less.
Analysis has shown that faster approvals through this pathway are estimated to save over half a billion dollars across the economy, and potentially as much as $7 billion.
Rulings
The bill introduces a new power for ministerial rulings, assisting in the interpretation and clarity of decision making under the act.
Rulings will clarify how laws, regulations or subordinate instruments apply in specific circumstances and would be made publicly available so that assessments are predictable, and everyone has visibility of how the law will be applied.
National interest pathways
A new national interest approval pathway would also be included in the act to allow critical projects to proceed in the national interest under strict transparency conditions, even if they do not meet all environmental standards—responding to a recommendation in the Samuel Review.
It is designed to be used rarely, where projects are demonstrably in the national interest and require the Minister to publish a statement of reasons in support of the decision.
The reforms would also make the current national interest exemption a more responsive mechanism, particularly in emergency situations, like where roads need to be made safe following natural disasters.
Reconsiderations changes
This bill package also addresses out-of-date reconsideration provisions—balancing environmental protection with certainty for industry.
These changes will include imposing a 28-day time limit for third parties to request a reconsideration of a controlled action decision, while the action is under assessment, aligned with timelines and other administrative review provisions in the act and increasing certainty for business.
Pillar 3: greater accountability and transparency in decision - making
Finally, these reforms deliver on this third pillar of the government's environmental law reform agenda: as I said, greater accountability and transparency in environmental decision-making.
This brings us to the Environmental Protection Agency.
EPA
A cornerstone of this third pillar is the establishment of an independent National Environmental Protection Agency, through the subsequent bill I will introduce, the National Environmental Protection Agency Bill 2025.
This has been a Labor commitment at the last two elections, endorsed by the Australian people, and will be delivered through this bill.
This is a landmark step in restoring transparency and effectiveness in environmental governance.
I want to take the opportunity here, as well as acknowledging the minister, to acknowledge Labor Party members, particularly the Labor Environment Action Network, who have advocated so strongly for this reform for many years. The establishment of the EPA will be a true Labor legacy—and I indicate thanks to those involved in that campaign over such a long time.
The National EPA will be Australia's first national, independent environmental protection agency.
As a national environmental regulator, the National EPA would not duplicate the role of state and territory EPAs.
By establishing a National EPA, we are creating a transparent, accountable, and unified regulator to oversee environmental protections.
The development of a National EPA model has been informed by extensive—indeed, years—of engagement with stakeholders.
Under current laws, decision-making on EPBC Act environmental assessments and approvals is the responsibility of the minister, who is democratically accountable.
This will not change.
The National EPA will also have a wholly independent role as a regulator of compliance and enforcement under the EPBC Act.
They will have access to stronger new powers, such as new environment protection orders, and will be tasked with holding serious environmental rule breakers to account for the environmental harm they have caused.
Integrated regulatory functions, spanning compliance, enforcement, assessment, monitoring and auditing, would deliver a more consistent and effective approach for stakeholders and the regulated community.
The National EPA will also provide guidance and education to both businesses and the public, in order to raise awareness and proactively support compliance with environmental laws.
The EPA will also have an important role to play in ensuring compliance with the national standards through bilateral agreements, providing advice to the minister about how accredited arrangements are complying with the national standards, with the minister ultimately responsible for signing off on accreditations.
There's also Environment Information Australia.
EIA
Currently, we know that national environmental information is fragmented. It's inconsistent in quality, and it's difficult to access and it's difficult to use.
To solve this problem, the Environment Information Australia Bill 2025 would establish the Head of Environment Information Australia.
This is a new statutory position within the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water, with a mandate to provide environmental data and information to the National EPA, to the minister, and to the public.
The head of the EIA will be tasked with transparently reporting on trends in the environment, collecting information and producing consistent tracking of the state of Australia's environment.
Better data means better, faster decisions by government and business while protecting areas of high environmental value.
Emissions disclosure
The Environment Protection Reform Bill requires proponents to disclose estimates for scope 1 and 2 greenhouse gas emissions as part of the information requirements for a controlled action.
This will improve transparency and accountability for new developments under the act and support the effective operation of the safeguard mechanism, without duplicating it.
First Nations engagement in decision - making
The reforms codify the involvement of First Nations people in environmental governance and decision-making through the Indigenous advisory committee.
The reforms also create statutory advisory functions for the committee in the development of national environmental standards and in species listings and conservation planning.
Charges
The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (Restoration Charge Imposition) Bill 2025 provides a legislative framework for cost recovery arrangements of restoration contributions to support project approvals, bioregional planning and national interest approvals and exemptions.
These changes support a new robust offsets regime. This contributes to simplified and streamlined environmental assessment processes, reducing uncertainty and delay for proponents.
This bill is one of four imposition bills that would establish a charging framework and provide for potential future appropriate cost recovery arrangements for environmental matters under the EPBC Act, subject to the decision of government.
Administrative fixes
Finally, the Environment Protection Reform Bill introduces a range of administrative fixes to address duplicative or inefficient processes in the legislation.
This includes streamlining wildlife trade laws to align with international standards, making permits more flexible and processes more efficient and making changes to reduce the need for separate approvals of offshore petroleum projects where regulations meet national standards, reflecting current practice under the National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority strategic assessment.
The bill would also refine the scope of the nuclear trigger to focus on radiological exposure, which will avoid unnecessary referrals for critical minerals projects which are encountering trace elements of radioactive material, while maintaining strict oversight of uranium and nuclear facilities.
Conclusion
This package of bills is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to reform our environmental laws.
We've been down this path before—under governments of both sides—and we cannot afford to wait any longer.
This bill is the product of work over many years by countless people, all of whom I know are keen to see this done.
It's a bill that clearly responds to the Samuel review and balances the need for stronger environmental protections with the imperative to ensure Australia's prosperity and deliver the critical projects we need.
It would deliver on the expectations of Australians for a system that is faster, fairer and fit for the future.
And now everyone who has the privilege of representing their community or their state or territory has the opportunity to be part of the solution.
We can get this done to deliver on what the Australian people put us here to do.
That is the priority of the Albanese government, and our door is open to make it happen.
Every day we delay is a day our environment is degrading further.
And every day we delay is one we could be building the renewable energy and the housing we need for the future.
I commend this bill to the chamber.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The National Environmental Protection Agency Bill 2025 would establish a statutory Commonwealth entity known as the National Environmental Protection Agency (National EPA). An independent environmental regulator is central to an Australia which is focused on environmental protection and the restoration of public accountability and trust. The National EPA would be Australia's first national, independent environmental protection agency with strong new powers and penalties to better protect and restore Australia's unique environment.
The National EPA Bill accompanies a suite of amendments to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act). The amendments will deliver stronger protections and restoration for the environment, more efficient and robust project assessments to support our economy, and greater accountability and trust in decision-making.
I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The 2020 independent review of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, led by Professor Graeme Samuel AC, found that Australia's environment data and information is fragmented and disparate, and that there are fundamental information gaps.
Unlocking impediments to data sharing and supply is a key component of Australia's environmental law reforms to enable better, faster decisions by government and business while protecting areas of high environmental value.
The Environment Information Australia Bill 2025 (the EIA Bill) would establish the statutory position of the Head of Environment Information Australia (HEIA), to provide national leadership for improving the availability and accessibility of high-quality, national environmental data and information, and ensuring that there is independent reporting and accountability for the state of the environment and our effectiveness in protecting and restoring it. Access to authoritative sources of high-quality environmental information is crucial for evidence-informed and targeted policy, project, investment and regulatory decision-making.
Providing better, more readily available and useable data and reporting on the environment, its condition and the location of our nationally significant plants and animals would underpin more streamlined and informed environmental decisions that reduce negative impacts, and increase positive impacts, on nature. This will restore transparency and confidence in environmental information and decision-making.
I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (Restoration Charge Imposition) Bill 2025 (the restoration charge imposition bill) would impose the following charges relevant to actions taken under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999:
These charges relate to amendments to the EPBC Act proposed by the Environment Protection Reform Bill 2025.
Any arrangements will be consulted on prior to their imposition.
I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (General Charges Imposition) Bill 2025 would provide a framework to impose charges in relation to prescribed matters connected with the administration of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. The specific activities for which charges will be imposed, and the amount of such charges, will be set out in the regulations.
The charges imposed under these bills will be limited to those charges (and amounts of charges) necessary for cost recovery purposes.
Any arrangements will be consulted on prior to their imposition.
I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (Customs Charges Imposition) Bill 2025 would provide a framework to impose charges in relation to prescribed matters connected with the administration of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. The specific activities for which charges will be imposed, and the amount of such charges, will be set out in the regulations.
The charges imposed under these bills will be limited to those charges (and amounts of charges) necessary for cost recovery purposes.
Any arrangements will be consulted on prior to their imposition.
I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (Excise Charges Imposition) Bill 2025 would provide a framework to impose charges in relation to prescribed matters connected with the administration of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.
The specific activities for which charges will be imposed, and the amount of such charges, will be set out in the regulations.
The charges imposed under these bills will be limited to those charges (and amounts of charges) necessary for cost recovery purposes.
Any arrangements will be consulted on prior to their imposition.
In commending this bill to the House, I commend the entire package of bills to the House. This report has been waiting for a response for a good five years. The environment needs the response to be made. Business needs the response to be made. Let's get this done.
Debate adjourned.
The Treasury Laws Amendment (Payday Superannuation) Bill 2025 has been a long time coming for people on my side of politics. This bill is common sense. This bill will be welcome news to all Australian workers. For businesses doing the right thing: keep doing what you're doing. This bill will have minimal impact on you, because it's not about you, the businesses that pay their employees super on time. This is about giving tools to the employers that might get a bit caught up and accidentally not pay on time, or the employers or businesses for whom not paying super on time has become part of their business model or who are unable to pay super on time.
It is a fact in this country that far too many workers go without super. Along the way, some in business in Australia have not accepted that super is not their money but their employees' money. Many, many years ago, this parliament, with the support of industry and the trade union movement, agreed to set up the superannuation industry. Today, it is worth billions upon billions of dollars, safeguarding savings for Australian workers for their retirement. It was founded on that fundamental principle: super is employees' pay. They defer collecting it, and it is kept in safeguard by superannuation accounts until they retire, but essentially it is their pay. They have earnt it.
As I stated at the beginning, the majority of businesses do the right thing. I acknowledge that. They put the pay aside and pay super. All of us in this place receive super on time, as do employees of the Parliamentary Service. The majority of businesses do the right thing and pay super on time. Advancement of technology has made it so much easier for our small businesses. The ATO already supports businesses using the Single Touch Payroll data system to ensure workers are paid super on time. This is how the ATO will enforce the legislation that is before us.
What we are proposing in this legislation is that, from 1 July 2026, employers will be required to pay superannuation guarantee contributions on the same day as wages instead of quarterly, aligning, for the first time, your regular pay with your regular super payment. Employers must ensure that contributions are received by an employees' super fund within seven days of payday. This change will make it easier for employees to track their super. It will ensure that they earn on their savings but also ensure that employers have the ability to manage cash flow.
I know those opposite like to claim that people in Labor don't understand small business. It is just a falsehood. We do, many people on this side of the House being small business owners themselves or having close connections with families through small business. I myself grew up in a family of small business. I can remember the work my parents did managing cash flow in the running of their small businesses, a second-hand furniture business and then a holiday hire company.
Cash flow with small business has always been king, and the ability to manage cash flow is critical, so I can understand why some small businesses, that are so focused on the day-to-day running of their business and delivering the goods and services, can sometimes get caught out with that super bill. Have they put enough aside? That is why this reform will help them. The Australian tax office and the Treasurer have already committed to supporting businesses to adapt to this system and manage their super. There will be a way in place, working with chambers of commerce and with the ATO, to ensure small businesses can transition to this system.
Those who will not like this bill are those businesses who are doing the wrong thing, undermining all of us, undermining the businesses doing the right thing and ripping off their workers—the ones who build that into their business model: the phoenixers, the people who will go and undercut or underquote another small business because they bank on never having to pay their super bill.
Before coming to this place, my background was working for the United Workers Union, in their cleaning and security divisions. Time and time again we saw dodgy cleaning companies and security companies undercutting someone who did the right thing by their workers—paid them properly—and then phoenixing at the point when the ATO chased them for unpaid super. Those workers would lose their jobs. The company would go into bankruptcy and would phoenix. The workers would lose their super. Through the Fair Entitlement Guarantee and, before that, GEERS, we would try to manage payment of what they were owed. The ATO, of course, would miss out on payments, and whilst, quite often, through the federal government-backed scheme, we could recover annual leave, they lost their sick leave and they lost their super. It was just accepted that you would not get that super.
This changes that. It catches out those businesses early and it will help break that phoenixing model that exists. It will be a game changer for those service based industries, such as cleaning and security and so many others, where wages are a critical part of the competitive tender. But, most importantly, apart from helping to create fair competition in those industries so businesses can compete against businesses on quality, not on the fact that you'll rip off super from your employees, those employees who've done that hard work and who might have been paid their weekly, fortnightly or monthly wages will also know that their super is being paid.
Since the creation of super, far too many people in our history have missed out on super, and many people in this place have shared those stories. Quite often it was when they were younger and they worked in hospitality or in a retail business, in those early days—and in those early days of super too. Quite often, when I'm talking to people in my electorate, I talk about my generation being the generation of super. Like so many others, I started working at 14 and nine months—legitimately, of course. I worked in my family's businesses. When you're working in a family business, it's a little bit of pocket money for those hours that you do when you're in the truck helping your dad with the deliveries or helping with the till. But I was 14 and nine months when I got my first job, and it was early days.
My generation, the people now in their 40s and 30s, will have a working life of super when they retire. Technically, for when it is planned, we should have enough to retire on. But far too many people in their 30s and 40s missed out on those early days of super because we didn't have the system set up. It was paid quarterly, and not all businesses did the right thing and put it aside. And there was the phoenixing that I talked about.
One of the reasons I got actively involved in the union movement was that I was one of those young workers at university who didn't get paid their super. I was being paid cash, and I said: 'Hey, this isn't right. I've got a pay slip here, but there's no super on it.' It was only when I started to ask questions that I discovered I actually wasn't being paid properly. There was something really dodgy going on with my pay slip. I got sacked because I was a casual worker, and I brought that up. But the bar didn't want to have a bar of it. So that was one of the reasons why I started to get actively involved in my union. I was one of those young workers who said: 'I should be getting pay slips. I've got this dodgy thing that doesn't look like a pay slip. Where's my super?' That is the experience of far too many young people. Even with all the advances in technology, where we're at today, this is still happening. This bill will change that.
This bill will ensure that super, for the first time since its creation, will be paid on payday. From 21 July 2026, employers will be required to pay super guarantee contributions on the same day as wages. The changes will make it easier for businesses, easier for employees, and easier for the ATO to detect missing payments earlier—before debts become unrecoverable and before some businesses are unable to pay. The legislation also updates the super guarantee charge, which is the penalty employers face if they fail to pay super on time. Under the new framework, the super guarantee charge will apply for each payday an employer fails to pay super in full and on time. The updated super guarantee charge includes national earnings, administrative uplift and choice loading as well as a number of other ways to help ensure that employers pay on time.
As I said before, this isn't just a great advancement and support for employees, to make sure that they get what they're owed. For those industries where wages are a big part of competition, it helps to ensure an equal playing field so employers who are doing the right thing are not disadvantaged in the market because of employers doing the wrong thing. It's something that's quite often forgotten in this debate. They think it's about employees versus employers, but it's not. It's about employees and good employers having the opportunity to compete in a fair playing field on the very fundamental that is their wages. This is what they've earned.
I'm reminded, as I stand in this debate, of all the heartbreaking cases that have come into my office and into all of our offices. People ask, 'I realised too late I didn't get paid my super; what can I do?' Standing in this place, I have to acknowledge Meryl Birch. She and her brother first came to see me when I first got elected. Her's is a legacy case that goes back to the previous two federal members for Bendigo. They knew her brother wasn't being paid super. They tried to pursue it, to get the money owed to her brother, and it never came. They went through the ATO, and they pursued the business. When the business eventually went bankrupt, they tried to get the money any way they could. It never came. She continues to try to get justice for her brother—even though he has, sadly, passed away—because it is money that he earned as part of his wages. He never got that money because it was deferred.
If this had been in place from the inception of super, then Meryl may have never had to go through this. Her brother may have been able to enjoy his retirement with his retirement savings, through super, that he would have earned. Meryl and her brother are just one example of the countless cases that we have all seen come through unpaid super and the impact it has on people's lives and their retirements.
Then there are the hundreds of thousands of other people who have just written it off: 'It doesn't matter; I've written it off. I can't cry over what I can't fix.' This reform will be a game changer for workers. It will ensure that every dollar they've earnt in their super will be there when they retire. It will make it easier for business to be able to pay on time and equal the playing field, disrupting the way in which the dodgy ones use it as part of their business model to phoenix. In construction, cleaning, security and other service based industries, it is real.
I'm proud to be part of a government that is making this reform happen, and I am ready and willing to work with our local small businesses to make sure they're aware of the changes they need to make to ensure they're ready for this. We can make this happen so it is a win-win for all. Ultimately, it's good for workers, it's good for businesses and it's good for the future.
I rise to speak in support of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Payday Superannuation) Bill 2025. This is a bill that represents the Labor Party and the union movement at its best. It's a bill that supports working people, women and older Australians. It's a bill that builds a system and a country that is fair, that is just and that supports people to live a life of dignity. That is what the Australian Labor Party is about: working hard, looking after one another and assuring that everyone, not just the wealthy, can live that life with dignity.
One of the key ways that the Australian Labor Party has supported this vision for our society is through the mighty superannuation system. Superannuation is one of the proudest achievements of the Australian Labor Party and the Australian Labor movement. It is the absolute embodiment of a simple but powerful idea: that after a lifetime of work, every Australian deserves dignity, independence and financial security in their retirement. Let me tell you this: it did not come easily. Superannuation wasn't handed down by very generous employers. No, it was fought for, tooth and nail. It was envisaged to be part of that great idea of the social wage. This was a view and a vision of the Hawke-Keating era and of that great trade unionist Bill Kelty. It was established along with other great measures of the social wage like Medicare, another great implementation that we are incredibly proud of on this side of the House.
In the 1980s, unions and the Hawke and Keating Labor governments came together to tackle one of the great injustices of our economy: that only the wealthiest Australians could have a decent retirement. At that time, it was only a small percentage of Australians—and, I've got to say, mostly men—in fairly high-paying jobs that had any form of superannuation at all. These superannuation funds were run by their employees. They were industry based and all run under different legislation and different rules. We wanted that to be uniform and available to everyone, and, through bold Labor reform, that changed. The introduction of universal compulsory superannuation in 1992 transformed our entire economy. It definitely transformed the lives of millions of Australians. It extended the promise of a decent retirement to women, casual workers, people in low-paid jobs and those who were too often left behind. It established the three pillars of retirement: the pension, superannuation and personal savings. Today, the superannuation industry holds trillions of dollars in superannuation savings that belong to the workers of this country. That's not just an extraordinary asset. It's a testament to the power of a collective vision, to hard work and, yes, to sacrifice.
Many people might forget that at the establishment of the superannuation industry, workers forewent a three per cent pay rise in one year to establish their funds, putting that hard-earned money, or that hoped-for pay rise, not directly into their pockets that year to spend but into a superannuation fund that would grow with compound interest—that amazing thing—over their working lives to give them a decent retirement. Some of these workers were very low paid, so foregoing a three per cent pay rise was actually a great sacrifice to them.
Not everybody supported the concept. Definitely, I would say people on the conservative side of politics and a lot of employers did not support it, but neither did a lot of people on the progressive side, including some workers and some unions. They thought that that money was better off going directly into the pockets of workers and not into a fund. So there was a lot of debate and a lot of discussion about establishing the superannuation industry. But thanks to union legends like the great Tom McDonald—the late Tom McDonald, I'm sad to say. He was the national secretary of the Building Workers' Industrial Union of Australia at the time. He believed passionately that superannuation was going to be one of the most important assets that workers could have. He ran an amazing campaign with his building workers at the time to convince them that this was a good idea. He did that. He held a members meeting one day, and they voted to forego their pay rise to establish their superannuation fund. And when the Building Workers' Industrial Union of Australia got that over the line with their members, other unions followed. It was an amazing beginning. Tom McDonald went on to be a great supporter of the superannuation industry, and I'd like to acknowledge his contribution today.
Superannuation has made Australia one of the most secure retiree nations in the world. But, like any system, we know it can always be improved. There's always more work to do. It seems that those on the other side want to spend a great deal of their time tearing down some of our great institutions. We know what they've tried to do to Medicare over the decades and over time. We've heard that many times in this House. They have constantly launched attacks on our superannuation system. They seem to think that it is an absolute anathema that workers should accrue such capital. Even more offensive to them is that workers have control of that capital. You see, workers sit on industry superannuation fund boards and are part of a very important governance structure of that industry. When I was president of the ACTU—and, indeed, secretary of the nurses' union—we fought off attack after attack from conservative governments on that system.
We on this side of the House are in absolute agreement that we need to build on these systems. That's why, in the last term of government, the Albanese Labor government expanded paid parental leave to include the payment of superannuation, to ensure people who take time away from work for parental leave don't miss out on lost super. And, my goodness, it will go a long way to closing that gender pay gap.
That's why we are here today. We know that too many workers are missing out. They're missing out because some employers only pay super once a quarter or, worse, fall behind all together. When super isn't paid every payday, workers lose out on the compound interest that makes super so powerful. It's their money, earned through their labour, and it should be in their account when they're paid, not months later. In addition to this, quarterly payments make it harder for workers to track what they're owed, and it's easier for those dodgy employers—and I want to make the point that there are not many of them, but there are some out there—to delay or avoid paying super at all. In fact, the Australian Taxation Office estimates that $5.2 billion in super went unpaid in 2021-22 alone. That's $100 million every week that workers earned but never received, $100 million that should have gone to support their retirement, $100 million a week that would have supported them to live their lives with dignity.
This issue isn't impacting the top of the town. It disproportionately affects younger workers and those in insecure work. These are people who can least afford to miss out on their retirement savings. These are the people who the Australian Labor Party is here, proudly, to support today with this legislation. People like my stepdaughter, who worked casually in hospitality, like so many people young people have done and still do. She would check her pay packet regularly. She just happened to see there was a super payment there, but didn't really take much notice of what was in her super account. It became apparent that she had not been paid her super for years. She worked for the one employer; she trusted him and he let her down. For three to four years he'd put no superannuation in her account at all. When we discovered this, she alerted her fellow employees and, just as the previous speaker my good friend the member for Bendigo said, the employer went bankrupt and disappeared. He had no money to pay what was owed to those employees. This is a story that we've heard time and time again.
I'm very proud to say that, years later, my stepdaughter is a mum, she has a good career and she is also a union delegate. One of the things she is absolutely fiercely passionate about is making sure that all her fellow employees know how to check their super and make sure they're getting paid. Labor believes super should be paid on payday, just like wages. It's a simple idea that makes a big difference, ensuring every dollar workers earn works for them straight away. It's why the Albanese Labor government is introducing this bill, and why I am speaking so passionately in support of it.
This legislation is a once-in-a-generation reform to fix unpaid super, and from 1 July 2026 employers will be required to pay superannuation guarantee contributions at the same time as wages. Employers must ensure that contributions are received by the employees super fund within seven business days of payday. This change will make it easier for employees to track their super, and for the ATO to detect missed payments earlier, before debts become unrecoverable—this is a critical part of this legislation. It also updates the superannuation guarantee charge, which is the penalty employers face when they fail to pay super on time, because failing to pay working people what they are owed is not okay.
Under the new framework, the super guarantee charge will apply for each payday an employer fails to pay super in full and on time. The updated super guarantee charge includes notional earnings, and this compensates employees for the investment returns they missed out on due to late payment; an administrative uplift, which is an additional charge to reflect the cost of enforcement and to incentivise voluntary rectification; and choice loading, an additional penalty if the employer fails to pay into the employee's chosen fund. Employers who continue not to pay, even after the ATO has raised an SG charge, will face higher penalties of up to 50 per cent of the unpaid amount. These changes are designed to prompt employers to fix mistakes quickly and ensure workers are fairly compensated when employers fall short. If employers want to avoid these penalties, all they need to do is the right thing and make sure workers get paid their super on time into the right account with the right amount.
Superannuation is a vehicle for fairness, for long-term investment and for nation building. We're incredibly proud of our superannuation industry. I think around $4 trillion is now held in assets for workers in this country. That is amazing money that is being invested in infrastructure, in health care, in all sorts of things that make this nation better.
But we must always remain vigilant. We can't listen to those opposite who, every few years, try again and again to undermine the superannuation industry. Labor will always defend superannuation, because we know what it stands for: fairness, security and shared prosperity. The story of superannuation is a story about what Labor does best. We take good ideas and we make them universal. We don't just look after a few; we build systems that lift everyone up, and we improve those systems as time goes on.
And that's what we'll keep doing. We'll keep defending the superannuation system for the workers who rely on it. We'll keep strengthening it. We'll keep defending it when it's under attack. And we will keep ensuring that the next generation of Australians can look forward to a retirement with dignity, built on those three pillars. They will have a retirement that is not uncertain and precarious but one built on security and dignity, knowing that they have worked hard all their life to achieve it, and that is exactly what will happen.
I rise today in strong support of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Payday Superannuation) Bill 2025. This isn't just a minor administrative tweak; this isn't just another line in the budget paper. This is a fundamental reform to the bedrock of our retirement system. It is a promise to Australian workers that the money they earn, the money they're entitled to, will actually end up in their superannuation accounts. It's a reform that is long overdue.
Before Labor, superannuation was not a right. It was a privilege, and it was reserved for a select few in high-paying jobs—mostly men—while the majority of working Australians, especially women and blue-collar workers, were left with nothing but the age pension. It was unsustainable. It was the Labor Party, through the grand social and economic bargain of the Prices and Incomes Accord under the Hawke government, that laid the foundation. And it was the Keating Labor government that built the house, legislating the landmark superannuation guarantee in 1992.
Today's superannuation is the result of Labor's vision to turn a privilege for the few into a universal right for every worker. We built this system, now the envy of the world, and ever since its creation superannuation has been a defining fault line in Australian politics. Those opposite have consistently sought to undermine it, freezing the rate for years and treating super as a nest egg to be cracked open for other purposes. Labor's job has always been to build, strengthen and protect this legacy. This bill is a proud and critical continuation of that nation-building project.
But here is the problem. The Australian Taxation Office estimates that, in the 2021-22 financial year alone, $5.2 billion in super went unpaid because the employer either failed to pay the super or paid it quarterly. Let's pause on that number: $5.2 billion. That is $100 million every single week that Australian workers earned but never received. It's not a rounding error; it's a retirement crisis in the making if we don't fix it. It is wage theft, plain and simple. And it is a theft that disproportionately hurts the most-vulnerable in our workforce: younger workers who are just starting out, workers in lower-income jobs, and those in the gig economy or in insecure work. These are the very people who can least afford to have their retirement savings stolen from under them. The long-term impact is devastating.
Before I entered this place I was a small-business owner. I ran a small business for 10 years in my electorate of Bullwinkel, employing occupational health and safety nurses for remote area healthcare centres. So I know what it's like to manage a payroll. I know what it's like to balance cash flow in order to meet your obligations and to deal with the pressures of running a business. I know it's possible to do the right thing by your staff. I made the decision in my business to pay my staff's superannuation monthly, not quarterly. I did it when I paid their wages. First and foremost, it was their money. They had earned it and they deserved to have it paid into their accounts promptly, where it could start working for them by the magic of compound interest. I also did it because it was simply good business practice. It never meant I had a large looming superannuation liability building up, waiting to ambush my cash flow at the end of the quarter. It integrated super into my regular fortnightly payroll processes and kept my books clean, with obligations clear.
This legislation doesn't punish small businesses; it levels the playing field. It aligns the law with what is good and responsible business, small and large, what is good practice and what many already do. It ends a system that allows unscrupulous employers to use their employees' superannuation entitlements as a cheap short-term loan to prop up their own failing cash flow.
This bill is simple. From 1 July 2026 employers will be required to pay superannuation guarantee contributions at the same time as their wages. It's incredibly reasonable and incredibly fair. The benefits of this are immediate and profound. First, for employees it makes it easier for them to track their super—no more trying to cross-reference with a payslip from July when the super fund statement is in October and wondering where the money is. They will see the payment on their payslip, and within seven business days they will see it land in their super fund. It gives them visibility and power. Second, for enforcement this bill allows the ATO to detect missed payments earlier before the debts become unrecoverable.
This brings me to the new strengthened superannuation guarantee charge. This is the penalty employers face for failing to pay on time. Under this new framework the charge will apply for each payday that an employer fails to pay in full and on time. This new charge is designed to be tough but fair. It includes notional earnings to compensate employees for the investment returns they lose because of a late payment; an administration uplift to reflect the cost of enforcement—and, importantly, this uplift can be reduced for employers who put their hands up voluntarily and disclose an honest mistake; and choice loading, which is an additional penalty if the employer fails to pay into the employee's chosen fund. For those employers who still refuse to pay even after the ATO has raised a SG charge, the penalties will be higher—up to 50 per cent of the unpaid amount. These charges are designed to prompt employers to fix mistakes fast and ensure workers are made whole.
I know some in the business community will be concerned about the transition, and I want to address that directly. This is not a gotcha campaign. The enforcement of the reform is smart, modern and data driven. The ATO will use its data it already receives from Single Touch Payroll and match it with data from the super funds. This allows for near-real-time detection of missed payments. It's not about creating new red tape; it's about using existing data more intelligently to protect workers. This data matching allows the ATO to intervene early, reducing the risk of those massive unpayable debts building up.
This government is backing the reform with a $404 million commitment to support the implementation. Critically, the ATO will adopt a facilitative compliance approach in the first year. Employers who are making a genuine attempt to comply, even if they face technical hurdles, will not be the target of ATO compliance actions. This is about helping employers like myself to get it right, not catching them out. This reform helps employers by aligning super with their regular payroll cycle, reducing the end-of-quarter administrative burdens.
Finally, I want to address the urgency of this legislation. This legislation must pass as soon as possible. The start date of 1 July 2026 is necessary to give the entire ecosystem time to prepare. Employers need to update their systems, payroll providers need to build and test new software, and super funds and the ATO need to finalise their data-matching and reporting infrastructure.
This is a massive, once-in-a-generation reform which cannot wait. The longer we delay, the more workers are missing out. Every week we wait, another $100 million in super goes unpaid. This bill is pro worker, it's pro good business, it protects the vulnerable, it simplifies administration for responsible employers, and it closes a $5.2 billion gap of systemic wage theft. Let's get this done; let's fix unpaid super for good. This reform continues Labor's proudest legacy—ensuring that every Australian worker can build a dignified retirement. I commend the bill to the House.
Firstly, I would like to thank all those members who have contributed to this debate. The Treasury Laws Amendment (Payday Superannuation) Bill 2025 and related bill reflect the government's commitment to a stronger superannuation system, which will ensure a dignified retirement for all Australians. The payday superannuation bill will require super contributions to be paid at the same frequency as wages, which will benefit the retirement income of around 8.9 million Australian workers. The bill will help to address the problem of unpaid super, which is putting the retirement outcomes of millions of Australians at risk every year.
The ATO has estimated that around $5.2 billion in super went unpaid in 2021-2022. That's around $100 million every week that workers earned but never received. In the current quarterly system, unpaid super is occurring too often and for too long. Through this bill, employees will benefit from more frequent contributions that compound over their working life. Employees will be able to more quickly recognise when they are missing contributions that they are owed and the Australian Taxation Office will be better equipped to enforce the law and recover unpaid super earlier. This will help to avoid unpaid super building up for employers and limit the amount of super that never gets recovered. Unpaid super disproportionately affects younger workers and those in insecure work; these are the people who can least afford to miss out on retirement savings.
In a typical ATO investigation of an unpaid super case, a worker has missed out on nearly two years worth of super contributions. For the average 35-year-old, failing to recover this money could reduce their retirement savings by around $32,000 in today's dollars. The bill will also improve the way the superannuation guarantee charge works. It will encourage employers to contribute for their employees in full and on time. Where employers don't contribute on time, it will provide a clearer path for employers to correct their mistake and it will deliver more significant consequences for employers who continue to do the wrong thing.
The increased frequency of contributions will also result in greater earnings on contributions, as they are in workers' funds sooner. In the current system, a 25-year-old median income worker who is paid their wages fortnightly and their super quarterly could be $6,000 better off in today's dollars at retirement with the shift to payday super.
The government will not be supporting the amendments moved and tabled by the shadow Treasurer. I accept that businesses across the economy will need to make system and process changes to implement what is contained in this bill. We share the desire of those opposite to support employers and small businesses through the implementation of this change. However, where we differ is that we believe every single worker should benefit from these changes from 1 July 2026. We've made sensible changes that will support employers and digital service providers in the transition to the new system. We adjusted the default due date for contributions to be received by superannuation funds, changing this from seven calendar days to seven business days.
We have also introduced an extended due date of 20 business days for situations where an employer needs to change the fund they contribute to for an employee. In addition, the ATO has indicated that it will adopt a transitional compliance approach during the first year. Employers who make a genuine attempt to comply, even if they face technical issues, will not be targeted by ATO compliance.
The shadow Treasurer compared the staged rollout of Single Touch Payroll with payday rollout, suggesting the government should adopt the same approach. The key difference here is that Single Touch Payroll is a reporting measure, whereas payday is a cashflow measure. A staggered approach in this instance would result in workers losing out on their super balances.
We listened to the feedback from stakeholders, and this bill strikes the correct balance. It avoids both delays and further financial harm for workers who do not currently have super paid into their accounts. This bill is an important step forward in strengthening the super system and achieving a dignified retirement for all Australians. I commend this bill to the House.
The question before the House is that the amendment moved by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition be agreed to.
I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
The Administrative Review Tribunal and Other Legislation Amendment Bill is a key part of our government's efforts to clean up the dysfunctional migration system left to us by the former coalition government. It is so important to my electorate of Gorton that the ART is able to review migration decisions quickly and efficiently. Gorton, in Melbourne's western suburbs, is one of the fastest growing electorates in the country. So many families in the electorate come from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds. In fact, Gorton has one of the highest proportions of first and second generation migrants in Australia.
I'm incredibly proud to represent an electorate with so many families that made the difficult decision to pack up and start a new life in Melbourne's west. This decision, made by so many new Australians throughout our modern history, is central to our country's DNA. Migration has enriched countless community groups, religious organisations, sporting clubs and schools throughout Gorton. Migrants also fill a number of crucial skills gaps in our local economy in Melbourne's west. These sectors include health care, manufacturing and construction.
In recent times we have seen fringe groups try and divide us by targeting migrants. The Albanese government stands against this division. We're getting on the job of giving our migration system the tools it needs to work quickly and effectively. This includes our merits review system, which allows people to review decisions made by government departments.
Last year, this government created the ART to replace the former Administrative Appeals Tribunal, the AAT, as Australia's federal merits review body. Under the previous tribunal, the backlog of cases awaiting review totalled almost 70,000 by the 2022 election. More than 80 per cent of those cases were migration and refugee matters. The AAT's backlog caused significant delays for so many migration decision reviews. These delays compromised the functioning of the AAT under the previous government.
The AAT was also undermined by a lack of transparency in the process of appointing its members. The previous government appointed dozens of former Liberal MPs, candidates and staffers to the AAT without a merit based selection process. As a result, the AAT was constantly affected by scandals and mismanagement. It could not function as an independent body capable of making high-quality decisions. An accessible, efficient and thorough merits review process is critical to maintaining trust in our system of government. This is why the Albanese government set out to abolish the dysfunctional AAT after forming government in 2022. We established the new ART to restore public trust and confidence in an independent system of review, and we designed the tribunal with merit based selection processes to support the appointment of experienced high-quality decision-makers. The ART allows Australians to seek an independent review of decisions made by government departments under more than 400 Commonwealth acts. These reviews ensure that legislation is applied correctly by our departments and authorities. They also allow those affected by certain decisions to access a relatively informal review and to achieve an outcome as soon as practicable.
The Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 formally established the ART, outlining several objectives. One of these objectives was ensuring that the tribunal processes applications as quickly possible, while still giving each application the proper consideration it requires. The ART also aims to process applications with as little formality and expense as needed. In setting out these objectives, we recognise that not every application to the ART is the same. The review process should always be of high quality, and it needs to make sense for each applicant, based on the issues involved. It does not make sense for the same resources and time to be committed to cases with different levels of complexity. Timely decision-making is incredibly important for the tribunal's reviews of migration decisions, like decisions to refuse visas. We can't expect applicants to wait several months or even years for a decision on whether or not they're able to stay in Australia. These decisions are life changing, and applicants deserve outcomes sooner.
It's not just that the applicants need outcomes; there's also a bigger threat at play. The Rapid Review into the Exploitation of Australia's Visa System highlighted the threat posed to the integrity of our migration system by delays at the tribunal stage. Long ART wait times give people the opportunity to exploit our migration system. When you receive a visa refusal and you apply for a review of that decision through the ART, you are entitled to remain in Australia on a bridging visa. This has opened the door for people to apply for a review, even though they know they do not have grounds, so they can get access to a bridging visa. This clogs the system with reviews that lack genuine grounds, and everyone waiting for a tribunal review has to wait longer for the outcome. This hurts the vast majority of applicants, who do go through the review process for the right reasons.
There are so many cases of applicants who have genuine grounds to apply for a review of a visa refusal outcome. You only have to be in Australia, to walk around my electorate, to see it. Because of the diversity of my electorate, immigration matters are one of the main issues my constituents contact my office about. My office recently assisted a young woman from the Middle East in receiving advice from the department as to the process for applying for a partner visa. In this instance the application was successful. Receiving a partner visa meant she could be together with her family and contribute positively to our community. Despite her young daughter growing up in Australia, they had been paying international school fees. For this woman, the partner visa meant that her daughter could access our amazing Australian education system. I hear stories like this every day in my office, and I see those stories in the first- and second-generation migrant communities that have decided to call Melbourne's west home. While long ART wait times exploit our migration system, they also hurt those people who have genuine grounds for review of visa refusal decisions.
We on this side of the House recognise that the ART needs the proper resources and flexibility to review applications efficiently. That's why our government has introduced the Administrative Review Tribunal and Other Legislation Amendment Bill. The ART is currently required to hold oral hearings for almost all reviews, even when they're not needed. These hearings are costly and delay the review process. The bill would amend the Migration Act 1958 to remove this requirement when it comes to certain decisions, including decisions to refuse student visa applications. The bill would strengthen the ART's procedures by allowing the tribunal to instead make decisions under a new on-the-papers review procedure. This means that the procedures will be based entirely on written materials instead of lengthy and unnecessary oral hearings.
Every case has unique circumstances and should be treated as such. Allowing the tribunal to be flexible is crucial in preventing backlogs from forming. Student visas are significant when we're talking about backlogs. In 2024-25, almost 40 per cent of applications lodged with the ART were student visa matters. This was almost double the number of student visa matters submitted to the previous tribunal in 2022-23. Because we're a young electorate, student visa matters are raised with my office nearly every day. Student visas are short-term in nature. They're also relatively low in complexity, in terms of the materials involved. There simply does not need to be a large backlog and excessive wait times for outcomes.
The tribunal process needs to be streamlined so that it makes sense for the issues involved in each case. In saying that, we know how important it often is for applicants to get to present their case to the ART. That's why the tribunal will also be required to invite applicants to give the tribunal written submissions and evidence on certain matters relating to the issues under review; will continue to give applicants certain adverse information and invite applicants to comment on it; will continue to request or obtain additional materials by other means, including making requests or orders for the applicant to provide certain documents; and will make its decision based on the written materials provided by applicants, without holding a hearing.
We recognise that the review case loads have changed significantly in the short time since the ART was established. A balance must be struck between efficiency and high-quality decision-making. These changes will better strike that balance. We're acting to make sure that our review system remains flexible and fit for purpose now and into the future.
The bill will also allow the minister to expand the on-the-papers process regulation to include decisions relating to other kinds of temporary visas. In saying that, we recognise that certain visas, such as permanent and protection visas, are complex and involve vulnerable applicants. Visas like these are often applied for by people fleeing war and persecution overseas. These amendments would therefore exclude reviews of these visas from being assessed on the papers.
The bill would also amend the ART Act to give the tribunal greater flexibility in terms of the types of cases it can assess on the papers. The ART would be able to make its decision based on written materials for applications where the application can be reviewed without the presence of the parties involved and the circumstances do not require a hearing to be held for a decision to be made. Everyone deserves a fair review, and we understand that giving the tribunal members the capacity to adapt their processes to the matters put before them is crucial in maintaining a fair review process.
While the bill would strengthen the independence of the ART, it's important that it includes safeguards. Parliament will still be able to disallow regulations extending the tribunal's ability to review applications without holding hearings if such regulations are inappropriate. The ART will also be required to consult and take submissions from the parties involved before it decides not to hold a hearing. It's important that we understand that efficiency in the review process cannot come at the expense of applicants having the opportunity to present their case to the ART. This is why our bill will not limit the written information applicants would be able to present to the tribunal in relation to their review.
The bill goes hand in hand with the migration reforms passed by the Albanese Labor government. The bill supports the government in ensuring our migration system can give Australia the skills we need. The bill protects our migration system, streamlining the review process and increasing flexibility and fairness. I want to see our migration system continue to deliver great outcomes for my electorate in Melbourne's western suburbs and for all our communities around Australia. I commend the bill to the House.
I rise to speak on the Administrative Review Tribunal and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025. The ART commenced operation in October 2024 in place of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The ART is responsible for reviewing administrative decisions made under various Commonwealth acts and instruments, including disputes on matters ranging from visas, the NDIS, Centrelink, PPL and workers compensation. This bill amends the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 and the Migration Act in an effort to increase the efficiency in the processing of visas. It does this in three ways. Firstly, it expands the circumstances in which the ART can make decisions based on the papers. Currently, most matters are dealt with through an oral hearing, with the circumstances for dispensing with the hearing limited to occasions where both parties consent, or where one party has failed to comply with the requirements of the tribunal. This bill, instead, gives the tribunal discretion to dispense with a hearing when it appears avoidable, based on the facts of the case. Secondly, this bill amends the Migration Act such that the reviews of student visa claims must now be determined on the papers. Finally, the bill grants the minister the ability to extend this provision to other temporary visas via regulations.
I want to recognise that the ART is a really important institution in our democracy. This is the last port of call for citizens when they feel that the government has let them down or has not served them accordingly. It is actually pretty fundamental to making sure that government is accountable, even to individuals in individual cases. I also want to acknowledge that access to the ART and the speed with which it makes determinations are critically important, because justice delayed is justice denied. In some cases, this can truly have a significant effect on people's lives. That's the context in which I approach this bill. I look at this and go, 'Yes, I want to see the ART work more efficiently,' because, frankly, some of the delays that I have heard about in my electorate, around people's access to and work with the ART, are not acceptable and have significant costs to the community.
I do agree that the ballooning number of review decisions, particularly for student visa refusals, which now account for 40 per cent of all lodgements, holds genuine reviews in limbo for months, often at great distress. I acknowledge that the Nixon review found that the system of review was being exploited by those looking to draw out and extend that process—again, particularly focusing on student visas.
For that reason, I do see good grounds for extending the discretion of the court to review cases on the papers, as in schedule 1, and to dispense with oral hearings wherever possible. However, there are obvious concerns around mandating that a type of visa class must be determined purely on the papers. As the Law Council of Australia argues, the blanket refusal of oral hearings for all cases represents a 'disproportionate response' to the issue at hand. In the last two financial years, almost 50 per cent of all student visa cancellations or refusals heard in the ART have been overturned, bringing serious doubt to the assumption that even student visas are clear-cut cases to be determined purely on written submissions.
This brings me to another issue, and the one my amendment deals with. This is the ability of other visa classes to be captured in the future by this blanket rule, simply by regulation. While it may be the case that many student visa cases can be suitably determined on the papers—although, as I have already pointed out, even this is questionable—certain other temporary visa classes could be problematic. The Law Council of Australia, while supporting the decision to exclude protection visas, argues that it is likely that vulnerable applicants would be captured by expanding these powers to other classes, including provisional partner visas, bridging visas and employer sponsored visas. The Law Council's submission to the inquiry into this bill by the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs states:
These decisions go to the core of how the Tribunal operates for potentially wide groups of people, and relate to its overall design, as determined by Parliament only a year ago. Such decisions should not be left to delegated legislation.
While I acknowledge that these regulations are disallowable, for something so fundamental to the role of the ART I would agree with the Law Council, who argue:
… decisions that remove the ability of whole classes of individuals to have a hearing should, if included in legislation at all, be determined by Parliament under primary legislation.
I take the view of the Law Council very seriously in these matters, because this is about making sure—as I said at the start of my speech—that people can access justice when they believe that government has not served them, as individuals, whether they have been excluded on visas or whether they see a decision by government as unjust.
There are some amendments to this particular bill that I urge the government to accept. The first amendment, from the member for Warringah, would require these changes to be reviewed within three years, allowing the parliament to determine if there have indeed been unintended consequences. A simple review after three years will make sure we have accountability on these decisions. The second amendment, from the member for Curtin, will maintain some level of discretion within the tribunal to hold oral hearings for student and other temporary visa categories if they find sufficient reason to do so. I think that is very practical and simple. The default will be towards determination on the papers. However, that amendment still allows the tribunal discretion if they find sufficient reason to hold an in-person hearing. The final amendment, my amendment, would remove the minister's ability to expand this requirement to other temporary visa classes, instead needing further changes to be made in the primary legislation, as recommended by the Law Council of Australia. If the government were to accept the member for Curtin's amendment, I would see no reason to move my own.
I conclude by saying that no-one disputes that lengthy delays in the tribunal process increase costs, reduce the effectiveness of our entire visa system and unnecessarily hold up genuine visa applicants. There is a human cost as well as a financial cost to the problems of this current system. I strongly urge the government to consider the consequences of such blunt instruments and caution the government, and, indeed, future governments, against using the powers enabled in this bill to bring in other visa classes. I urge the government to accept the amendments made in good faith by members of the crossbench. They are very moderate amendments that will add to the protections in the bill without taking away from the overall purpose and, hopefully, impact of the bill on people's processing times.
I rise today to speak on the Administrative Review Tribunal and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025. As some of the members of this House may know, I used to be a public servant. In my last job I worked at the Department of Home Affairs, assessing protection visa applications. Because of this, I understand the importance of having a trustworthy, efficient body for reviewing government decisions. I saw firsthand the consequences of the stacking by the previous coalition government of the previous body, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, with unqualified political appointees. The consequences were poor-quality decisions that undermined government programs and delivered unjust outcomes. That is exactly why this government created the Administrative Review Tribunal, the ART.
The ART, as did the Administrative Appeals Tribunal before it, performs an important function. It provides de novo, or fresh, reviews of government decisions in areas like the NDIS, Centrelink, taxation and immigration. The reality is that government decision-makers don't always get it right, and it's important that the public be given avenues for review of decisions that can have a profound effect on someone's life, such as whether they'll have access to disability or veterans supports and whether or not they'll be given a visa to study in Australia or remain in Australia.
The ART is more accessible than a court. It's not subject to complicated rules of legal procedure and evidence. Without going into a second-year law degree lecture, to successfully appeal a decision in court under administrative law it's necessary to prove legal, factual or discretionary error. This is a very technical area and a high bar which would generally require legal representation. Whatever the administrative review body is, it is vital that the Australian public have confidence in the integrity and capability of its members.
This brings me back to my role as a protection obligations decision-maker. Assessing protection visas also requires a degree of skill and knowledge. Legal training isn't necessary but it helps. You're determining if someone has 'a well-founded fear of persecution'; this is one of those phrases that is dense with legal meaning. Protection visa decision-makers must elicit an asylum seeker's account of why they require protection, and they must determine if they're telling the truth and assess any evidence that someone is able to provide to support their claims. Where someone's claims are accepted, they can be assessed against information from their country of origin to see if there is a real chance that they would be harmed if they returned. All of that is to say they are complex decisions. Decision records could stretch to anywhere between three and 50 pages or more. There is no visa area that required more training or where staff received more ongoing support and mentoring.
At that time, our decisions were subject to review from the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Where the AAT disagreed with our decisions they would send them back to the department. Sometimes genuine problems with the initial departmental decision were identified. But, too often, the AAT also sent back decisions that made no sense. It was clear that the AAT members did not have the proper training, did not have the proper expertise and did not have proper oversight. Poor decisions undermined trust in the AAT but, worse, undermined government policy.
I am a strong supporter of Australia's refugee program, but protection visas have criteria, and it's important that those criteria are applied fairly. This is the result of the previous coalition government stacking the AAT with failed candidates and political operatives. Worse, underresourcing and poor performance by AAT members meant that backlogs grew for decisions in reviews of protection visas and other visa categories. Long wait times incentivised international migration syndicates who helped people come to Australia on a tourist or student visa and then would submit bogus protection visa applications, sometimes without the applicant even knowing—migration fraud on an industrial scale, incentivised by cronyism.
Worse, people with genuine grounds to remain in Australia would be delayed because of the sheer volume of cases waiting for a decision. My electorate of Menzies, like that of the previous speaker on our side, the member for Gorton, is incredibly diverse. Over 60 per cent of people in the electorate have at least one parent who was born overseas. So migration decisions will be incredibly important to them. For those with genuine grounds to study in Australia—with genuine grounds to remain in Australia—it's incredibly important that, again, they have avenues for review where decisions have been made that don't reflect their grounds for a visa.
So it was clear that the AAT could no longer act with efficiency and integrity. That is why the Albanese Labor government acted decisively to restore public trust in the system of administrative review and establish the ART. The difference with this new body is that we have introduced governance processes that prioritise merit based applications and appointments: no more jobs for mates, no more hacks, and decision-makers who are experienced and who can be professional and independent.
We as a government are committed to rebuilding confidence in public institutions by ensuring that fairness is matched with confidence. Our work did not end with the establishment of the ART. While the new tribunal represents a significant improvement, it faces real operational pressures. Currently the ART has very limited flexibility to determine matters without holding an oral hearing. It's required to conduct a hearing even in situations where issues are straightforward, wasting time and resources. For instance, many student visa cases depend entirely on very straightforward documentary evidence, such as whether an applicant has submitted the correct form or proof of enrolment. In these situations a full oral hearing provides little value but consumes considerable time and resources. Allowing such matters to be reviewed in writing would streamline the process and reduce inefficiencies across the system.
The current inflexibility, combined with a surge in applications, particularly student visa refusals, has placed enormous pressures on the tribunal. In 2024-25 nearly 40 per cent of all applications before the ART related to student visas, up from 22 per cent in the previous year. This sharp increase has stretched resources and again created long wait times. As I know all too well, this creates unintended incentives for non-genuine applicants, who may exploit lengthy wait periods to extend their stay in Australia. This in turn undermines fairness for genuine applicants, whose education and future depend on timely decisions.
Such challenges highlight the need for reform that will allow the ART to operate efficiently while maintaining fairness and accountability. That is why the Albanese Labor government has brought forward this bill—to ensure that timely and efficient decisions are made. This bill responds directly to those challenges through targeted amendments to both the Administrative Review Tribunal Act and the Migration Act.
These proposals are informed by the experience of the tribunal since its commencement, as well as the recommendations of the 2023 Rapid Review into the Exploitation of Australia's Visa System, also known as the Nixon review. The bill introduces a new discretion, allowing the ART to decide matters on the papers, without an oral hearing, where appropriate. This can occur if the issues can be resolved without the parties present, and if it is reasonable to do so. Safeguards are built in to preserve procedural fairness. The tribunal must give parties the opportunity to make submissions, and it must consider those views before proceeding. The reform will help the tribunal manage its workload more intelligently, focusing its hearings on complex cases while resolving simpler matters faster. It is not about limiting access to justice; it is about improving it, by reducing delay and unnecessary bureaucracy.
The second major reform in the bill focuses on migration reviews, particularly student visa refusals. Under the amendments to the Migration Act, the ART will be required to determine all student visa refusal matters on the papers, without an oral hearing. This change responds to the unprecedented surge in student visa appeals, which now make up nearly 40 per cent of the tribunal's case load. Requiring oral hearings for every case is unsustainable and has contributed to growing backlogs. The Nixon review found that temporary visa categories, such as student visas, are well suited to written review because they rely mainly on documentary evidence and objective facts. Applicants will still have the opportunity to make written submissions, respond to adverse information and provide supporting material. The tribunal will make decisions based on written records. This reform will deliver faster outcomes. It will reduce misuse of the review process and ensure that genuine student visa applicants are assessed fairly. It will also allow the tribunal to focus its resources on complex or sensitive matters.
The third reform in the bill gives the minister the power, through regulation, to apply similar on-the-papers review processes to other categories of temporary visas in the future. This provides flexibility to respond to emerging pressures in the migration system while maintaining parliamentary oversight. I know that international migration syndicates can adapt their business models with alarming speed. Importantly, this power does not apply to protection visa matters. As I said, these cases often involve complex humanitarian issues and vulnerable applicants, and the government recognises that these cases require the full procedural safeguards of an oral hearing.
This bill delivers broad benefits across the administrative justice system. It will make the ART a more modern, capable and trusted institution. Firstly, it increases efficiency. Allowing matters to be determined on the papers means decisions can be made more quickly, reducing wait times for applicants. It frees up tribunal members and staff to focus on cases that require oral hearings. Secondly, it improves fairness and accessibility. Applicants will continue to have the opportunity to present their case and respond to any adverse information. Written procedures are often less intimidating, less costly and more convenient for applicants, especially those overseas. Thirdly, it strengthens integrity within the migration system. Faster and more proportionate decision-making discourages misuse of the appeals process and reduces the incentive for non-genuine applicants to exploit procedural delays. It also ensures that genuine applicants are not disadvantaged by those who seek to manipulate the system. Finally, the bill reinforces public confidence in Australia's administrative review system. It demonstrates that fairness and efficiency are not opposing goals but complementary ones.
The Albanese Labor government believes that justice must be timely, accessible and proportionate. This bill achieves that balance. As a government, we act because Australians deserve institutions that are fair, efficient and accountable. As the saying goes, justice delayed is justice denied. Our reforms will allow genuine applicants to have their matters considered quickly and fairly without being caught in unnecessary delays.
This bill is about getting the fundamentals right. It ensures that Australians and those who choose to study, work or build a life here can have confidence in a review system that is fair, efficient and well administered. In an age when people have declining trust in institutions, it's incredibly important that Australians can have confidence that, where they have doubt that a government decision has been made fairly, they have those avenues for appeal and those appeals will be heard by people who are suitably qualified, who have suitable experience and who have suitable oversight to be able to make the right decision in those cases.
The bill also prepares the tribunal to handle future challenges. It embeds balance and helps prevent the return of large backlogs that can weaken public trust and undermine government programs. It is important that things such as visa applications are assessed not just correctly but also quickly so that we avoid some of those unintended consequences that can arise through delays in processing.
We are committed to restoring faith in institutions and ensuring those institutions are fit to adapt to new challenges. This bill provides the flexibility to extend on-the-papers review to other visa case loads, because we recognise that international migration syndicates can adapt their business models quickly to exploit loopholes in the visa system. So this is an important provision in this bill.
For these reasons, I commend the Administrative Review Tribunal and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025 to the House.
The Administrative Review Tribunal is an important element of our judicial system, to provide an independent mechanism of review of administrative decisions. It is central to ensuring fairness, transparency and accountability in government decision-making. Immigration has again become a political football, as all too often it does in Australia, and this must be resisted. Small businesses, regional communities and universities across Australia rely on a fair, efficient and humane immigration system, and the Administrative Review Tribunal plays a really important part in that processing ecosystem.
Every day, my office receives correspondence from people in our local community trying to navigate the complex visa system. We work with local businesses who are struggling to find staff and look to international students and qualified foreigners to fill these gaps. A local business, the Fur Salon, reached out to our office, desperately seeking the finalisation of visas for three key staff members without whom they would have been forced to close their doors. After advocacy from our office to the department, these visas were granted, but delays in processing caused certain unnecessary stress.
The Administrative Review Tribunal is incredibly important because it is the final point when our system is being challenged, and often it is in relation to immigration and visas. The Administrative Review Tribunal was established 12 months ago as a result of the review into the very faulty and difficult Administrative Appeals Tribunal. So the ART replaced the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and the Immigration Assessment Authority. The objectives were to be user focused, efficient, accessible and fair. I am concerned that the amendments proposed by the Attorney-General undermine the objectives of the ART.
The bill before the House now, the Administrative Review Tribunal and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025, includes two concerning provisions. It gives the tribunal a broad discretion to dispense with hearings where it considers it appropriate and reasonable to do so, and it requires that certain migration matters, such as student visa refusals and prescribed temporary visa decisions, must be reviewed only on the papers, without any oral hearing. For me, that is concerning, because the papers can often be a difficult way of doing it. For some people, it is actually that in-person hearing that enables them to properly express or raise their issue or concern. Those affected, including international students, temporary workers and families, may not have the language skills or resources to present complex cases in writing. Without the chance to be heard in person, many valid cases may well fall through the cracks, so I am concerned about the amendment. I appreciate it is done with the idea of efficiently dealing with the complex backlog and workload, but we have to make sure that we don't, in the process, undermine the very principle of what the ART was established to achieve.
We know immigration is frequently used in politics in Australia as a very divisive political football. It has become a hot topic in this place once again, and it is used to explain away other policy failings when it comes to key areas, such as housing. We've seen the coalition seize immigration yet again. It's out of their usual playbook to sow fear and division within our community, to blame others for the problems that have evolved out of poor policy and to pit Australians against one another and against those who might change the situation. They've used immigration to reduce complex policy discussions into simplistic slogans and populist approach. It's deeply disappointing.
Immigration has been one of Australia's great strengths. Our incredible country is built on it. Other than First Australians—Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples—we are all immigrants of one shape or another. It's how this country has grown, innovated and connected to the world. It's how small businesses thrive. It's how regional towns survive. And it is how we will address the challenges of the future. Responsible migration must be done with honesty, compassion and fairness, not political point scoring and fearmongering.
We know, for example, that many in this place seek to blame the housing crisis on immigration. We have to remember that temporary migrants, students and skilled workers are not the cause of our housing challenges or cost-of-living pressures. They are structural issues built on decades of underinvestment and poor planning. They require long-term solutions, such as investment in housing, reduction of incentives for housing as an investment and workforce training. When immigration is used as a wedge, they diminish our shared humanity and the values that unite us as Australians. That's why it's so important that our review systems, like the ART, reflect fairness, independence and respect for due process.
I do understand the government's objective in this amendment bill. I recognise there is immense overloading and a backlog of delays in the Administrative Review Tribunal. The Nixon review, on which the bill is based, revealed deep vulnerabilities in our migration system. It found that the delays and backlogs in merits review processes were contributing to an abuse of the visa system. Protracted appeals were allowing non-genuine operators to exploit the system and vulnerable migrants alike. The Attorney-General's Department has suggested that the tribunal has more than 110,000 cases on hand, and the bill is aimed at reducing those case load numbers by introducing flexibility into the system, but we've got to be careful that flexibility is not a short cut or a waving of due process.
The proposed amendments especially requiring the tribunal to only hear certain visa classes on the papers limit the discretion of the tribunal and counter the user centred objective that was first established as the real purpose of the Administrative Review Tribunal. The tribunal needs the ability to undertake a quick resolution of matters with as little formality and expense as a proper consideration of the relevant matter permits. But, for that, it requires discretion. Trying to create that flexibility and efficiency should never be at the expense of fairness or justice. After all, the Nixon review was about closing loopholes for exploitation, not closing the door on due process and justice. These observations and concerns have been raised by many, including the National Legal Aid and Law Council of Australia.
How we implement the bill will really matter. I intend to propose an amendment to introduce a review clause that compels an independent assessment of this amendment after five years. We can't have a situation where the ART is not working, where these changes—which I'm sure the government will use its numbers to push through—are sidelining procedure fairness and justice and where there is no clear timeline for review and assessment. By having an amendment to ensure there is an independent assessment after five years, we ensure oversight on how the amendments have impacted the functionality of the Administrative Review Tribunal and ensure accountability and transparency, which should be core principles of administrative justice.
What are the consequences of these changes? The creation of the Administrative Review Tribunal was meant to embed fairness and accessibility, whilst balancing them with efficiency. I support this bill's intent, but I will move amendments, as I've said, to introduce a review period. We have to ensure that efficiency does not come at the expense of fairness and that we restore the discretion of the ART to hear cases in person if the case permits or where it is deemed appropriate.
Most Australians don't commit criminal offences and don't get involved in car accidents, so they don't end up in courts, criminal or civil. But 111,000 Australians, or people who aspire to be Australians, appeared before the Administrative Review Tribunal in the last 12 months. When you look at the jurisdiction of this particular tribunal, which is the subject of the amending bill we are talking about today, you will see the breadth of the jurisdiction of the ART. Child support—you would think that that would be a very large proportion of the work the ART does, but it is a very small proportion. There are well over 600,000 Australians who interact or are a part of the National Disability Insurance Scheme, but a very small proportion of those people ever get to the ART. Indeed, you would think, with the number of Australians who interact with the social security system, that there'd be many people, through Centrelink or paid parental leave, who would be engaging with the ART as a litigant, but hardly anyone of them does compared to what I'm about to talk about. It's the same with veterans or workers compensation cases, or indeed taxation matters.
The majority of the work that's done by the ART is in the area of migration, or indeed those people seeking protection. In any given year, migration makes up 50 to 60 per cent of the work of the ART, or its predecessor, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. That's what's the case. Of those migration cases, about two-thirds of the work that's done relates to student visa issues. If you take migration together with the protection visas people are seeking, they form an overwhelming amount of the work that the ART does. So the bill we're debating today is important. It addresses efficiency and effectiveness in our system, and it maintains integrity and allows people to still pursue their rights in a fair way—the idea of dealing with matters on the papers is a very common thing when it comes to our judicial system.
I'm pleased to speak on this bill, the Administrative Review Tribunal and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025. We are committed as a government to upholding the rule of law. We are committed as a government to enabling access to justice and maintaining and promoting the public's trust in our legal system, as a matter of principle. But there won't be trust in the system if people don't get dealt with in a timely way. The 111,000 Australians who dealt with the ART last year, according to the figures from the ART itself, need to make sure they get access to justice.
Administrative law and merits review are important. They're a longstanding pillar of Australia's system of government and our legal system. People who are impacted by decisions of government have a recourse, a right to review, or an avenue of appeal in a relatively informal way. It's critical. We see that often with matters that are dealt with in, say, a lower part of the system, where it's not necessarily a magistrate or a judge but a registrar who deals with matters on an informal basis, in the civil courts. That's why I say that this is a good decision of the government. It is efficient but still fair. It maintains the right of individuals impacted by a government decision to pursue a review of that decision. This ART is an absolute necessity that we undertook to legislate to establish. Remember what the former government did to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. They absolutely stacked it with their mates. Any form of failed Liberal or National Party candidate they could find who might have had a law degree from some obscure university they stuck on the AAT. It was astonishing. They didn't even need a law degree, frankly. They just stuck them on there.
And the great irony of the whole thing with the AAT is that you would see in the media the Liberal and National Party politicians constantly berating the AAT for its failure when they were the ones that stuck their mates on there. And they say: 'It is inefficient. They're making decisions we do not like.' Well, I'm sorry. There have been a lot of prime ministers and premiers in the history of this country who had decisions they didn't like. I channel Ben Chifley with the bank nationalisation decision. Prime ministers and premiers do not like a whole bunch of decisions made by courts and tribunals. We had to put in the ART. We just had to, to bring integrity back into the system. They made such a mess of the AAT. We had to resolve the huge backlog of student visas created as a legacy of the Morrison government flinging open the borders after the pandemic. And they constantly criticise us about migration, but the massive increase in migration after COVID happened on their watch. They initiated it, often with the support, can I just say, of the business community and the university sector as well.
This legislation will improve the tribunal's efficiency. There are clear existing caseloads, and we need to address them. We need to reduce the likelihood of backlogs in the future, especially for migration matters. So the bill introduces a new, on-the-papers review process without an oral hearing, and that is just so common in lots of civil matters that are dealt with in our legal system. Student visa matters, like I said, take up two-thirds of the migration matters that the ART deals with. If you look at student visa matters as a percentage of the total number of people who engage with the ART, it is an enormous percentage. We're dealing with a really big problem that has been created courtesy of the Morrison government, and there is a need for us to address this. We're going to create a new discretion for the tribunal to decide not to hold a hearing if additional circumstances and specified criteria are met. These reforms are balanced and targeted. They will enable the tribunal to efficiently manage the caseload. Quick, efficient and informal merits review is a fundamental feature of our legal system. To say it's not is simply nonsense. It just doesn't bear fact. The fact is it is a feature of our legal system. This will improve government decision-making and help maintain public confidence in our institutions.
We're committed to merits review. That is precisely why we abolished the dysfunctional AAT. It was beset, can I just say, with mismanagement and political stacking by those opposite. The new ART that replaced the AAT came into operation in October last year. It's a sustainable model, but we need to improve it. As part of this, we're committed to making sure the ART has the tools it needs to deliver timely and high-quality review of government decisions. One of the core objectives of the ART is to ensure that applications are resolved quickly and with little expense. The cost of justice—as a former litigation lawyer, I know—often results in inequities and injustices in our legal system due to the power imbalance between litigants. Anyone who has ever been charged with a criminal offence knows the power of the state in criminal matters. Anyone that has to litigate a corporate or civil matter involving commercial matters knows the power of money. Anyone that has to make an application for property settlement in a family law case, when you are the party that's at home and often without the qualifications, skills, talents, ability and money against a very wealthy person, knows the power, imbalances and injustices in our systems. So we need to make sure that we can equalise it, but we also need to make sure that we have efficient methods, and that's why this whole process under the ART is critical for those 111,000 Australians and people who engage with the system.
Onshore applicants seeking review of a decision to refuse a grant of certain visas are entitled to stay in Australia on a bridging visa for the duration of the merits review process. We, as politicians in the House of Representatives and, indeed, in the other place, would know that our offices deal with people every day in relation to those issues. In this context, efficient review procedures are important to reduce delays in decision-making. Backlogs and extended waiting times at the tribunal create incentives for non-genuine applicants to apply for review in order to extend their stays in Australia. For genuine applicants, this creates an access to justice issue, as the volume of applications that must be dealt with, including from non-genuine applicants, means they have to wait months and, indeed, sometimes years for a decision.
This point was made in the Rapid review into the exploitation of Australia's visa system, delivered by Ms Christine Nixon AO, APM in March 2023. The challenge we face now, since the tribunal was established by the Albanese government, is that the tribunal has seen an unprecedented level of demand for independent review services and, in particular, for applications for review of the student visas I referred to and refusals by delegates in relation to those matters.
What happened was that, at the height of the pandemic in early 2022, the former Morrison government invited international students back to Australia to work in critical sectors to address workforce shortages. It might seem fine in principle, but the implementation of this decision was badly botched. It effectively opened the floodgates, without any proper management or oversight, and in particular they corrupted the student visa pipeline with their terrible decision to uncap student visa work rights.
Students were allowed unlimited access to the job market when they were supposedly in full-time study. The result of this was that a lot of non-genuine students came in, not to study but to earn money, which they sent back home and, thus, contributed significantly to the current backlog the ART is dealing with. Another contributing factor was the post-COVID-19 temporary activity visa, which allowed people on student visas to, at no cost, switch from their student visa or suspend it and work unlimited hours. Even before the current surge, the old, dysfunctional AAT had a shocking case backlog which was allowed to build under the coalition.
The reality is that our government inherited a shocking mess in this area, and we're attempting to deal with it. We tried to rectify this by putting international student numbers on a more sustainable path and reducing the number of student visas issued. To be clear, international education is an incredibly important export industry for Australia, including in my electorate of Blair in South-East Queensland. I've got two campuses from the University of Southern Queensland, and I know how important it is for my local community. Indeed, greater priority has now been given to regional and outer metropolitan universities like UniSQ and to TAFE, but we need to manage the growth of the sector in a sustainable fashion, along with our migration program more broadly, and that's exactly what this government is doing. Notwithstanding our efforts in this space, since last year the ART has continued to experience a surge in applications for reviews of decisions to review student visas related to that post-pandemic boom in international students. Given this tribunal is a demand driven organisation, this has highlighted the importance of ensuring that it's equipped with the tools it needs for quick and efficient merits review.
It's clear, from the recent operational experience of the tribunal, that some of its current procedures are not flexible enough. That's why we're doing what we're doing here. Inefficient allocation of resources and significant delays and backlogs, particularly in the temporary migration space, means that applicants are left in limbo for far too long—a one-size-fits-all approach that's resource intensive and not appropriately targeted. So this bill gives the tribunal the additional flexibility. It enhances the powers and procedures of the tribunal to ensure that it achieves the objective we want: resolving matters as expeditiously yet as justly as possible.
Informed by the recommendation of the Nixon review and, I might add, the operational experience of the ART since October 2024, the bill ensures that the merits review is proportionate in so many ways. It amends the legislation to ensure an on-the-papers process, and that's important. What we do in relation to this is critical. We'll seek submissions and consider those submissions before a decision, and that's important. The process will reduce backlogs. Oral hearings will not be required for this visa class, and the growing backlog will be addressed.
This is an important reform. We're cleaning up the Liberals and Nationals mess yet again.
I rise today to speak in support of the Administrative Review Tribunal and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025. Replacing the previous Administrative Appeals Tribunal, the Administrative Review Tribunal operates as Australia's federal merits review body and provides an independent review of decisions made by Australian government agencies, departments and ministers. Its jurisdiction is incredibly wide. It provides a review mechanism for decisions made under more than 400 Commonwealth acts. That being the case, it needs to be equipped with the right tools to deliver reviews that are efficient and effective, that are of high quality, that are accurate and sustainable and that are tailored to the decision being reviewed—recognising, of course, that not every review is the same. Every review needs to be determined on its own merits.
The system of reviewing the decisions of agencies, departments and ministers provides the Australian public with trust and confidence in our institutions, and this review mechanism is critical to our system of government. It is indeed the job of the Administrative Review Tribunal to consider each case on its merits by taking a fresh and objective look at the facts, law and policy relating to the original decision and also considering new information. In applying this fresh lens, the tribunal can agree with the original decision, change the original decision or make a new decision.
Overall, however, the objective of the tribunal as set out in the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 is to provide the independent mechanism of review that is fair and just, that ensures that applications to the tribunal are resolved as quickly and with as little formality and expense as possible as a proper consideration of the matters before the tribunal permits, and that is accessible and responsive to the diverse needs of the parties to proceedings. It must also improve the transparency and quality of government decision-making in a way that promotes public trust and confidence in the tribunal.
The 400 Commonwealth acts and legislative instruments that the tribunal can review decisions in relation to cover a very broad range of topics. The relevant act, regulation or other legislative instrument must state that the tribunal can review the decision, because there is no general power of review. The most common types of decisions that the tribunal reviews are in relation to visas, including migration and refugee visas, and Centrelink payments, including family assistance, paid parental leave and student assistance. The tribunal reviews decisions in relation to the National Disability Insurance Scheme, child support, taxation, Commonwealth workers compensation, and veterans entitlements.
In addition, the tribunal's review jurisdiction includes reviewing decisions relating to Australian citizenship, bankruptcy, civil aviation, corporations and financial services regulation, customs, freedom of information, passports, and security assessments by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation. Again, given the breadth of this jurisdiction, it must operate efficiently and effectively to ensure that fair and just reviews of complex and in some cases life-changing decisions for the applicants are delivered promptly and accurately.
The Administrative Review Tribunal Act itself is home to the description of the tribunal's standard powers and proceedings relating to the conduct of a review. These provisions are subject to modification made in other acts or instruments so that the powers and procedures can, if necessary, be adapted for the unique features of particular case law. For example, the Administrative Review Tribunal and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025 would amend the ART Act and the Migration Act 1958 to expand the circumstances in which the tribunal may make a decision without holding an oral hearing and to require the tribunal to make decisions in relation to certain kinds of applications without holding an oral hearing.
This will be done by amending section 106 of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act. That section provides that the tribunal may make decisions without hearings in certain circumstances, including if all the parties to the proceeding consent to that matter being determined without the hearing of the proceeding and it appears to the tribunal that the issues for determination in the proceeding can be adequately determined in the absence of the parties. Other reasons include where the only parties to the proceeding are the applicant and a non-participating party; where the hearing of the proceeding and the reviewable decision is wholly in favour of the applicant already; and where the applicant requests the tribunal to make its decision without holding a hearing of the proceeding. In all those circumstances, it must also appear to the tribunal that the issues for determination in the proceeding can be adequately determined in the absence of the parties.
A further reason is if a party fails to comply with the act or an order of the tribunal in relation to the proceeding within a reasonable time, and it still appears to the tribunal that the issues are capable of being adequately determined in the absence of the parties. Similarly, if a party fails to appear, subject to that party being a non-participating party of the proceeding, and the tribunal is satisfied that that party received appropriate notice of the date, time and place of the hearing, directions hearing or dispute resolution process, and if the matter can be determined in the proceeding adequately without a hearing, this is also covered.
The bill will amend section 106 by inserting the additional circumstance in which the tribunal may make its decision in a proceeding without holding a hearing. That additional circumstance also includes a safeguard that it must appear to the tribunal that those issues for determination can be adequately determined in the absence of the parties; that it appears to the tribunal that it's reasonable in the circumstances to make its decision in the proceeding without holding a hearing; that the tribunal has given the parties to the proceeding a reasonable opportunity to make submissions to the tribunal in relation to the tribunal making its decision without holding a hearing; and that the tribunal has taken into account any submissions received. There are significant safeguards around this new additional circumstance.
Given the volume of case load and the breadth of the tribunal's jurisdiction, the need to deliver review decisions promptly is imperative. This new discretion provides additional flexibility to the tribunal in relation to the procedures to be followed in a proceeding without compromising the integrity of the process or the quality of the review determination. Exercise of this new discretion would be conditioned by the appropriate safeguards to ensure that it would be able to be exercised compatibly with the tribunal's existing obligation to afford the parties an opportunity to present their case. This supports the objective of the tribunal, which is to resolve matters as quickly and with as little formality as possible and with proper consideration of the matter—especially given the time and resources required to conduct a substantive hearing.
The bill also seeks to amend the Migration Act to require the tribunal to make decisions in relation to applications for review of certain kinds of reviewable migration decisions on the papers without conducting an oral hearing. The objective of this is that enabling decisions of this kind to be reviewed on the papers would facilitate an efficient and proportionate method of review whilst ensuring genuine applicants are given a meaningful and fair opportunity to present their case to the tribunal in writing. Specifically, this new requirement will apply to applications for review of decisions to refuse a student visa. Having regard to the nature of the issue under review, the low volume and complexity of written materials relevant to proceedings of this kind, and the temporary and short-term nature of student visas, decisions of this kind are entirely appropriate for review without an oral hearing.
It is also contemplated that the requirement will apply to applications for the review of decisions relating to a temporary visa of a kind prescribed in regulations. In addition to expediency of determinations, this framework would provide further flexibility for the Migration Regulations 1994 to prescribe additional kinds of applications relating to temporary visas as being subject to this new requirement for a review to be able to be conducted on the papers.
Applications which are required to be reviewed on the papers would be subject to a new, bespoke review procedure set out in new division 4A of part 5 of the Migration Act. The review would be conducted entirely on the basis of written materials without the tribunal holding an oral hearing. The applicant would be given an opportunity to present their case to the tribunal in writing. Importantly, and to be absolutely clear, it will not be possible for reviews of decisions relating to permanent visas or reviewable protection decisions, within the meaning of the Migration Act, to be subject to this new requirement.
These amendments seek to further one of the key objectives of the tribunal, which is to ensure that applications to the tribunal are resolved quickly, with as little formality and expense as proper consideration of the matters permits. The amendments further the principle that the merits review process should be proportionate, with the time and resources expended to determine a matter being directly proportionate to the complexity of the issues and the importance of what is at stake. The amendments are not designed to rush decisions without due and proper consideration being given to them. They are designed to promote proportionate and efficient review procedures that mean the tribunal can make decisions efficiently and without delay.
We heard earlier from the member for Blair, who described over 100,000 decisions being made on an annual basis. This is critical when decisions are being made about refusing visas. For example, onshore applicants seeking a review of a decision to refuse the grant of certain visas are entitled to stay in Australia on a bridging visa for the duration of the merits review process. In this context, efficient review procedures are important in order to reduce delays in decision-making, providing genuine applicants with the benefit of a timely and effective remedy, thus strengthening the integrity of the migration system. Backlogs and extended wait times at tribunal stage create an incentivised environment for non-genuine applicants to apply for review, simply to extend their stay in Australia. This is not fair for genuine applicants because it creates an access-to-justice issue, as the large volume of applications that must be dealt with, including from non-genuine applicants, means genuine applicants could wait months or years for a decision.
The amendments proposed by this bill will provide additional flexibility in the tribunal's procedure in a way that is proportionate to maintaining public trust and confidence in the decision review process. Decisions can be made in a more efficient and timely manner, without compromising the critical right of the applicant to have a meaningful opportunity to present their case to the tribunal. I commend the bill to the House.
It's a pleasure to speak on the Administrative Review Tribunal and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025 and to follow the member for Sturt, who's just given a very good argument and a clear explanation of why this legislation is so important. Some 50 years ago, in 1975, in introducing the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Bill, the then Attorney-General Kep Enderby, stated:
… the Tribunal is not to be an ordinary court, but neither is it to be an appendage of government departments. The Tribunal is to be regarded as machinery provided by Parliament for adjudication rather than as part of the machinery of departmental administration. Nothing less than a tribunal of full judicial status would be satisfactory for these purposes.
He went on:
The tribunal is not to be bound by the rules of evidence but is empowered to inform itself in any way it sees fit.
He then ends his speech with:
It will provide an opportunity to build up a significant body of administrative law and practice of general application as well as providing the machinery to ensure that persons are dealt with fairly and properly in their relationships with government.
Those opening comments, I believe, very well describe the purpose and intent of the then Administrative Appeals Tribunal and its successor, the Administrative Review Tribunal, which is the legislation that we are now dealing with. And albeit the name has changed, it is my view that the purpose and intent of the tribunal never did.
Since 1975, when the Administrative Appeals Tribunal was established, society and the way it functions has changed markedly. Laws, regulations and processes have changed. Government administrative processes have changed as well. Society has changed. Community expectations and demands have changed. So where a grievance arises, the community must have confidence in the review process that is currently available to them. That is what this legislation seeks to do. It's a legislation that looks at what has happened in the past 50 years and seeks to address any flaws in that legislation, and effectively says, 'How can we do things better?' I believe this legislation will in fact lead us down the path where we will be doing things better.
Any review process must be speedy, because for people who have lodged a review of their case with the department—and we've already heard that there are some 400 pieces of legislation under which people might challenge a decision—the delays can be both traumatic and even life-changing, as other speakers have quite rightly pointed out. Indeed, for people waiting for a decision, every day can seem like eternity, adding to stress whilst at the same time putting their lives on hold.
With respect to that, I'm sure other members of this place would have had similar experiences as me within my office in Makin. We regularly see people come into the office who have lodged an appeal, because they want to challenge a decision, and have been waiting months and months for that appeal to be heard. In those intervening months, their lives are effectively put on hold or severely disrupted in a way that certainly causes them severe distress and anxiety. It's important that we have a process that deals with their applications as efficiently as possible.
It's just as important that the outcome must be fair and just, which is why the Administrative Review Tribunal is not bound by normal legal framework. It is for that very reason. In fact, it has often been said that law and justice are not always the same. Indeed, a court is a place where the primary responsibility is to administer and apply law. The ART has, I believe, a slightly different role in that it's a process that seeks to deliver justice, common sense and fairness that might not otherwise be found when you simply apply law. In other words, it's a process where one would say it delivers a fair go. Sounds simple, but regrettably that has not always been the case. Too often decisions are made by ministers, their delegates or departmental officers who use their personal judgement and their analysis and sometimes, regrettably, their bias in reaching the decisions they make. We saw that with the robodebt debacle, where a flawed computer-generated process was used to burden people with wrongful debts. As everyone in this House knows, the consequences of the robodebt debacle were devastating for so many people. It's the role of the ART to ensure that the community can have confidence in whatever processes we put in place, from here going forward.
Decisions under this new arrangement can now be made on the basis of written materials, without holding an oral hearing. This is particularly with respect to student visa cases, but I understand there is also flexibility for that to be extended in the future. The point I want to make is based on my experience in the Makin electorate. Many people have come in and said, 'Yes, we will lodge an application for a hearing to be held, but we don't feel confident to front up to the people that are going to sit there and make the decision.' Because they don't know the laws or they don't speak the language well—whatever the case is—they feel somewhat nervous about appearing before a tribunal, which they envisage as being a court setting. This new arrangements means that, in their own quiet time, they will be able to write things down and put together a submission, perhaps with the help of people who are willing to assist them, and then submit it so it can form part of the hearing. This is incredibly important, and it's an improvement on the current process, whereby they would otherwise have to go in themselves and appear.
This process will be much more streamlined. It will enable more cases to be heard, and that in turn will shorten the waiting times that people are currently experiencing with respect to their appeal applications. As I said a moment ago, being able to present their case in the quietness of their own home will certainly save people the emotional stress they might feel when appearing before a quasi-judicial body. Simultaneously, timely decision-making will prevent non-genuine visa applicants from using the Administrative Review Tribunal as a delaying tactic, as the member for Sturt alluded to in her contribution a few moments ago. I have no doubt that some of the applications for review are lodged simply to delay a final decision being made. That not only ties up the tribunal's time and resources and puts people in the waiting queue for even longer, but it's also a costly process for taxpayers. It is often used simply as a delaying tactic so that someone can continue to do whatever it is they are appealing against. Again, a streamlined process which reduces the time for an application to be heard will hopefully eliminate some of that as well.
Since 2024 we've seen a surge in student visa refusals. I don't know how many of those reviews end up in a decision being overturned. In fact, I say this with respect to all applications that go before the ART. How many of them successfully overturn the original decision? It would be an interesting study to carry out, and it would be important to know those statistics. Without knowing those statistics, it seems to me that the increase in the number of student applications warrants specific focus on those applications. This legislation does that, because it allows the process to be streamlined through applications being heard without the person appearing in person. It's a process which I believe will go a long way towards fixing up the current problem, which is the long waiting list.
There are other matters in this legislation that others have spoken of which I won't go into detail about. I see the minister is in the chamber right now, and she probably wants to sum up. In a nutshell, this is simply an improvement that is warranted and arises because, as things change, we need to change the laws of the land to ensure that they are still relevant and applicable to society today. I commend the legislation to the House.
The Administrative Review Tribunal and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025 equips the tribunal with the tools it needs to ensure that it can continue to provide a fair, quick and efficient merits review. In particular, the bill expands the tribunal's ability to make decisions based on written materials without holding an oral hearing. Oral hearings are time and resource intensive. The bill recognises that a one-size-fits-all approach that requires oral hearings be conducted in all matters is unnecessarily rigid.
The bill would enhance the tribunal's powers and procedures to ensure that review procedures are efficient and proportionate to the circumstances of the case. The bill would amend the Migration Act 1958 to require the tribunal to make decisions without conducting an oral hearing in reviews of certain migration decisions—specifically student visa refusals. This aims to address the significant surge in applications for review of student visa refusal decisions experienced by the tribunal since early 2024. These reviews will be subject to a new review procedure conducted entirely on the basis of written materials. Applicants would be given the opportunity to present their case in writing and present information to the tribunal in support of their case. This procedure could be expanded by regulation to include decisions in relation to other temporary visa types but not protection visas or permanent visas.
The bill would also amend the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 to enable the tribunal to dispense with an oral hearing if it appears that the issues can be adequately determined in the absence of the parties and it would be reasonable in the circumstances to make a decision without holding a hearing. This new discretion will ensure that simple matters and straightforward issues can be determined as efficiently as possible while still providing a fair and just review. The tribunal would be required to consult the parties about this and take their submissions into account. This bill reflects the ongoing commitment of the government to ensuring the tribunal is able to make decisions in an efficient and timely manner while ensuring applicants have a meaningful opportunity to present their case to the tribunal.
I thank all members who have made a contribution to this debate, especially for bringing to light some of the experiences of their own constituents and circumstances that are very much about the human experience with the tribunal system. I was pleased to hear some of the contributions from the members for Sturt and Makin, who again highlighted the fact that there needs to be a balancing between the efficiency of the tribunal system and ensuring that access to justice is served. It is through consultation with impacted parties, the tribunal itself and relevant stakeholders that we have arrived at this position of being able to bring forward proposals to make the ART much more responsive and to ensure that we address those backlogs where they are occurring. Ultimately that is in the interests of all our constituents as well as of the rule of law and access to justice overall. I commend the bill to the House.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
In February, Cyclone Zelia devastated road networks in the Shire of East Pilbara. For eight months, the shire has worked incredibly hard and negotiated in good faith to secure funding, with $26 million required to rebuild 10 damaged roads, including vital access routes to the Western Desert communities. The response from the state and federal governments has been, frankly, insulting, with the current proposal totalling just $12 million. Instead of funding a like-for-like rebuild, they are prescribing a deliberate downgrade of roads that will fail once again when the next cyclone inevitably hits.
Just four days before Cyclone Zelia struck, the Prime Minister stood here in this parliament and spoke about closing the gap, promising 'the building blocks of a good life'—that's what he said: 'the building blocks of a good life'—to communities cut off for far too long. Well, how can this government be serious about closing the gap when it is underfunding the very lifeline roads that connect the Western Desert communities to clinics, schools, food and fuel? This week I was informed of serious incidents on the Punmu Access Road—a teacher's vehicle rolling over several times, tyres blown and bearings collapsed. People are lucky to be alive. This is unacceptable. The Pilbara is the engine room of the Australian economy. It's time this government started treating it like one. (Time expired)
When you get paid, your super should too, but right now employers only need to pay super every three months. That means your super isn't growing as fast as it should. The Albanese government is fixing this with our payday super reforms. From next July, our reforms will ensure workers get their super paid on payday—not once a quarter, not when it's convenient, but every time they get paid. This is a simple change with a big impact. For a 25-year-old worker on an average wage, it means around $6,000 more at retirement. So the need for this reform is clear and compelling. It'll help more Australians retire with dignity, including working women and people in casual and part-time jobs. We know most employers do the right thing. Our reforms will make it easier for them, with simpler systems and peace of mind that workers are getting what they're owed. This reform makes sure every worker gets what they've earned in full and on time. On top of this, we've added super to paid parental leave because nobody should be penalised for taking time to raise a family. Labor built super, and under this government we're strengthening it so Australians can work, save and retire with confidence.
The fun police in this country have gone too far. As taxpayers, we're now employing some 106,000 people here in Canberra to hold clipboards and red pens and stop people doing things, building things or employing people. It's enough people to fill the MCG on Grand Final day, and they create no value whatsoever. They shuffle paper from one desk to another. They no doubt hold a lot of meetings and spend a lot of time and money travelling to conferences all the over the shop, but they don't create prosperity for our country. They don't empower the next generation of entrepreneurs to become the next Kerry Packer. In my view, they do not know more about your life, your family or your business than you do. So why the hell are we allowing them so much control? Last time I checked, Aussies hate being told what to do, yet we're all paying for more fun police than ever before.
They have now dreamed up a proposal to lower the default speed limit on Australian roads to 70 kays per hour, stating
… roads may have sealed surfaces, but may be in poor condition, or lacking the road features that would enable safe travel at high speeds.
Here's an idea: how about you just fix our roads? You have until 10 November to have your say on this madness, and I urge every Australian to jump online and do so, because in regional Australia we deserve better.
This week I had the privilege of meeting Hasmik and Hrug, youth advocates from the Armenian National Committee of Australia's Job Shadow Advocate Program. We spoke about the challenges facing young people today, and I learned more about their community's proud history. They told me that the cost of living continues to rise, noting that even a simple bottle of water can now cost $5. They said it feels like their money does not go as far as it once did. They told me that, as young Australians, they feel shut out—working hard, studying and saving, but still worried they will never own a home. Yet they also said they had not lost hope. With smart decisions and leaders who listen, they believe the future can still be fairer and brighter.
A better future is exactly what the Albanese Labor government is delivering. We are delivering for young people. We've halved inflation from what we inherited from those opposite. We've introduced a five per cent home deposit discount to help first home buyers and reserved 100,000 homes just for first home buyers. We've had three interest rate cuts as a result of our responsible management of inflation. We've cut student debt by 20 per cent for students and graduates, and increased the threshold at which student debts are repaid. We've made fee-free TAFE permanent so more Australians can gain practical skills. These are just some of the ways the Albanese Labor government is investing in the future for the next generation of Australians like Hasmik and Hrug.
Prosecco is an Australian favourite. You'd be hard-pressed to find an Australian restaurant without it on the wine list, a bottle shop without it on the shelf or a Friday fizz without a glass in hand. It's local prosecco that Australians love most. It's now the eighth-most produced grape variety in Australia, grown across 20 wine regions. Sixty per cent of Australian prosecco is produced in the King Valley, in my beautiful electorate of Indi—so renowned that it's known as Prosecco Road. The industry has been carefully nurtured by local families, from Otto Dal Zotto's first vines decades ago to the thriving market it enjoys today. Prosecco doesn't just taste great; it is great for our economy, is worth more than $200 million in sales alone, drives regional tourism and supports hospitality.
Prosecco has strong name recognition. It's an international brand the whole world shares. When the European Union sought to restrict its use under a geographic indicator in 2023, I worked with local grapegrowers and winemakers and this federal government collaboratively to successfully defend our right to use the name. As EU trade negotiations resume, there's a lot on the table and a lot at stake. Losing the name 'prosecco' would be devastating for Australian grapegrowers and winemakers. I urge the government to stand firm for Australian winemakers and their right to use the name 'prosecco'.
It supplies 77,000 jobs and contributes $100 billion annually to the economy. It creates over a billion dollars in the Far North alone in tax revenue, building hospitals, roads and critical infrastructure. More than that, it is a cultural and international touchpoint. It is one of the things people think about when they first think of Australia. It supplies food, comfort and recreation, creates memories and is a major economic driver for the regions of the Far North. It is the Great Barrier Reef—the world's largest living organism, a natural wonder of the world.
On this side we support the reef. We work with the agricultural industry to improve their yield while limiting run-off. We work with the tourism industry to monitor the reef and remove crown-of-thorns starfish. We work with the fishing industry for a sustainable and profitable seafood future, and we work with traditional owners to preserve the stories and the cultural value of the reef. Most importantly, we accept the science and are acting on climate change.
The risk those opposite pose to hardworking Queenslanders and those small businesses who have built the Far North is unacceptable, and we will not have it. My region matters. The jobs matter. The people dependent on these industries matter. The energy transition matters. There has been much talk of T-shirts over the last few days, and I'm reminded of the old gen X staple, the No Fear shirt. It says simply: 'Lead, follow or get out of the way.' Having refused to do the first two, I suggest the opposition does the latter.
I rise to share Mackellar student Imogen Kee's thoughtful response to this year's Raise our Voice campaign, which asked, 'How can government build a better future for young Australians?' Imogen wrote:
"What do you want to be when you grow up?" It's a question we've been asked since we were five. The older I get, the harder it is to answer, not because I don't have dreams but because I wonder what kind of Australia I'll be stepping into.
An Australia where climate change has gone unchecked. Where mental health is in crisis. Where access to opportunity depends on your postcode. And where young women still earn less than men of equal ability.
Young Australians don't just want to grow up, we want to grow into a future that's fair, sustainable, and equal. To build that future, Parliament must take steps of responsibility not just for what happens now, but for what happens next. That means:
- Embedding a legal duty to consider the long-term impacts of decisions;
- Investing in public education, so every Aussie kid, not just the lucky few, can thrive;
- Funding real solutions to the mental health crisis;
- Closing the gender pay gap; and
- Giving young women a seat at every table where power is held.
'What do I want to be when I grow up?' I want to be heard. I want to lead. I want a future worth growing into. And I want to trust the government to take the steps to build a better tomorrow for young Australians.
Today it was my pleasure as co-chair of the Parliamentary Friends of Veterans, along with Senator Andrew Mclachlan CSC, to welcome the Families of Veterans Guild to Parliament House, many of whom are up in the gallery today. I want to thank Minister for Veterans' Affairs and Defence Personnel Matt Keogh, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs Darren Chester and Greens Spokesperson for Defence and Veterans' Affairs Senator David Shoebridge, as well as my good friend Luke Gosling MP, Special Envoy for Defence, Veterans' Affairs and Northern Australia, and all my parliamentary colleagues who attended the roundtable.
Today's discussion was to launch the results of the 2025 Veteran Families Survey, which will be extremely important in aiding us to deliver better outcomes for Defence families and veterans. I especially want to thank Barbara, Jodie, Shiela and Kelly for your extremely moving personal stories of the lived family experience of those living within the dynamic of someone who has served. You all helped to bring the words on a page to life and provided deep meaning to this report. I thank Renee Wilson and Tricia Hobson, CEO and chair of the Families of Veterans Guild, respectively, for their hard work with this report and for bringing this roundtable to parliament.
To all of you: your hard work continues to ensure that the dial moves in the right direction when support is needed most for those we love. Thank you very much.
Earlier this week the Minister for Climate Change and Energy was forced by the Senate to release the incoming ministerial brief on electricity prices—he'd tried to hide it since May—but the sad reality is that what he released still had blank pages right through it. Now, what was the minister trying to hide? He was trying to hide the fact that electricity prices are driving inflation through the roof in this country. That's going to have a real impact on families and on businesses, because unless you can drive energy prices down, sadly, what we're going to see is inflation continue to rise and rise in this country.
What are those opposite doing to try and stop this? What they're doing is spending all their time trying to hide documents which show that, once the bureaucrats briefed them, it was clear that they had to do something about electricity prices. What we think is that all those blank pages show that electricity prices are forecast to double. What is that going to do to inflation? If they think that's not the case then they should release the whole document. Otherwise, what it shows is they do not have electricity prices under control.
This morning I sat in the chamber and listened to Minister Plibersek's announcement about the inquiry into domestic, family and sexual violence related suicide. As she spoke, my lived experience of domestic violence, stalking and predatory behaviour quickly rose to surface. It triggered memories of a time in my 20s when I contemplated suicide in order to flee the fear associated with domestic violence—violence that had me trapped mentally and physically because of stalking and violent behaviour requiring me to move residence five times. At that time talking about domestic or family violence was taboo. There were limited services. The shame of this experience meant that I kept it in the closet. My lived experience informed my career with Family Life and Anglicare in Victoria, working in the family violence sector and then founding the Women's Spirit Project.
The Women's Spirit Project supports women dealing with trauma to recover and heal. I welcome this inquiry and use my voice and my lived experience to highlight the importance of recovery programs for women, men, young people and children—programs that enable victims to survive and thrive and not choose suicide as an option.
869639—Lance Corporal Tulsa Rumney. Tulsa tragically lost his life in a military training accident on 15 October 2025. The 3rd Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment lost a brother. His parents lost a son. His siblings have lost a family member. And a partner lost their love. This country lost a warrior and a proud Australian. Tulsa was 26 years old, with his whole life to live. He was a motivated infantry soldier and served in Old Faithful as a signaller. He supported Operation COVID-19 Assist. He deployed to Papua New Guinea as part of the Operation Kudu training team training Ukrainian soldiers. To Ben and Kristen, I'm sorry this happened to your son. Tulsa, your brothers of the 3rd Battalion will miss you. You will never be forgotten; you'll always be remembered. You were a great mate, a great man and a bloody good Australian. Duty first, brother.
How we look after each other says everything we are as a nation. This weekend marks not only the largest investment in Medicare in its history; 1 November kicks off another key milestone in our government's historic and landmark aged-care reforms. I want to take this opportunity to acknowledge and pay tribute to those who show up every day to support and care for our older Australians, our aged-care workers. Yesterday I had the great privilege of meeting with some incredible aged-care workers and delegates of their union, United Workers Union. Lobang, Ainura, Maddy, Rosemary and Liz spoke of their dedication to the residents that they care for. To that dedication is their staunch advocacy for their profession, having the time to care and resources they need to do their job well, and I congratulate them for their advocacy. It is with immense pride that I can continue to advocate for them in this role, for the aged-care workers across my electorate and, importantly, of course, for those who rely on them, their care and their work, so that they can age with dignity and respect.
Whether it's delivering greater access to bulk-billing GPs, delivering cheaper medicines, our investment in mental health, our world-leading social media reforms, protecting the mental wellbeing of our young people or investing in the incredible people who look after and care for our older Australians, this government is proudly demonstrating our commitment to the care and wellbeing of our nation.
This week, the Senate voted in favour of an inquiry into regional airport security fees. The cost of screening has made regional air travel prohibitively expensive. While travellers from capital cities pay no more than a dollar, regional passengers bear a cost of more than $50 in my electorate. Rex no longer services Whyalla for this very reason. It is simply not viable. It was disappointing that Labor, including Labor's duty senator for Grey, Senator Grogan, voted against the inquiry. Regional Australians deserve equal access to air travel, and I encourage the government to bring in a national screening levy.
I've been contacted by the Australian Breastfeeding Association councillor and Yorke Peninsula farmer Sarah Clifford, who has brought to my attention the wonderful work her ABA group in Kadina is doing. With groups like this in Kadina, Clare, Crystal Brook, Whyalla, Port Lincoln and Breastfeeding Everywhere venues in Port Augusta and as far north as Roxby Downs, this group is doing amazing work to support mothers. But this organisation needs assistance, because funding for ABA's national Breastfeeding Helpline and live chat services expires in 2026. Today I'd like to show my support for the ABA and the proposal it has submitted to the Australian government for a four-year, $14.8 million investment. I call on Mark Butler, the Minister for Health and Ageing, to grant full funding to ABA's proposal.
Labor built Medicare, and we'll always fight to strengthen it. When you're sick, seeing a doctor shouldn't be a struggle. That's why our government is delivering the single largest investment in Medicare ever, expanding bulk-billing so more Australians can see a GP for free. For the first time, we're boosting payments to practices that bulk-bill every payment, helping deliver 18 million bulk-billed visits each year. From Saturday, locals in Deception Bay will be able to access fully bulk-billed care thanks to the Deception Bay doctors taking up these incentives. I'd like to thank this clinic for its commitment to providing the community with accessible health care. By 2030, nine in 10 GP visits will be bulk-billed. This means affordable and accessible for every Australian, right where they live.
We're also delivering on mental health. Fifty new Medicare mental health centres are now open across the country. I spoke to the team at the new Redcliffe centre today, and they are thrilled by how many locals will now be able to access the health care that they need.
Finally, I'm delighted to announce the Deception Bay Staying Deadly headspace centre will open in December this year. This will be the first headspace service in Australia designed for First Nations people, their families and their friends. Operated by the Institute for Urban Indigenous Health, this centre will offer culturally appropriate community led support.
We're investing in your health, your community and your future so that every Australian can get the care they need when they need it.
This morning, my community and the cricket community across Australia woke to the devastating news that Ben Austin was taken too soon. He was 17 and doing what he loved: playing cricket. Ben was actively involved in the Ferntree Gully Cricket Club, the Mulgrave Cricket Club and the Eildon Park Cricket Club. He played representative cricket, and he captained his side to a premiership for the Ferntree Gully and District Cricket Association. He started his cricket with Ferntree Gully juniors in 2018-19. He also turned out for Croydon and Lyndale teams, where he was a premiership player for the Dandenong District Cricket Association. He was well respected and liked by all who knew him. He was, as an emerging bowler and batter, a star cricketer. In March this year, Ben received the Brian Wright Trophy, a trophy awarded to the junior player who shows the correct attitude and dedication to playing the game. The game of cricket is Australia's national game. I, and so many others, have spent countless Tuesday afternoons at the nets playing cricket. That last Tuesday turned to a tragic day is heartbreaking for all of us who have played the game, and for all Australians. Rest in peace, Ben. I offer my deepest condolences to his dad, Jace, his mum, Tracey, and his brothers, Cooper and Zach.
Two weeks ago, the Minister for Health and Ageing announced that there had been over two million visits to Medicare urgent care clinics across the country. This means that over two million Australians have been able to walk into one of these clinics and get the care they needed without paying one cent. From cuts and burns to sprains and infections, Australians are getting free health care closer to home when they need it. Since being elected, the Albanese Labor government has opened urgent care clinics right across the country, including the Bayswater urgent care clinic in my own electorate of Aston. And the good news is that there are even more of these clinics on the way.
Also on the way, from 1 November, is a major boost in payments to general practices that bulk-bill every patient. Our investment will deliver an additional 18 million bulk-billed GP visits every year, nationwide, with nine out of 10 GP visits being bulk-billed by 2030. Australians know that, when it comes to investing in the health care of Australians, they can only trust a Labor government. On this side of the House, we know that, when it comes to getting quality health care close to home, all you need, or all you should need, is your Medicare card—not your credit card.
Tomorrow morning, more than 8,000 schools across the nation will take part in Day for Daniel, honouring the memory of Daniel Morcombe and reminding every Australian to keep our children safe. Bruce and Denise Morcombe have turned unimaginable loss into national leadership. Their work through the Daniel Morcombe Foundation has given parents, teachers and communities the tools to educate, empower and protect children right across Australia. On behalf of the Sunshine Coast and this parliament, I thank them for their extraordinary service.
As we speak, the Queensland LNP government is delivering Daniel's Law. It is legislation designed to strengthen child protection and to prevent another tragedy like Daniel's. It is a landmark reform as well as the state's first child sex offender register. It will arm parents with the information they need. Yet here, in the federal parliament, this Labor government continues to gag debate on our own bill to protect the most vulnerable children in our country. Four times we've sought to debate the Crimes Amendment (Mandatory Minimum Sentences for Child Sexual Abuse) Bill, and four times Labor has voted to stop it. They make the right noises, but when push comes to shove they block it. When the nation demands tougher sentences, they block it. When survivors cry out for justice, they block it. When parliament could act to protect kids, they block it.
Tomorrow thousands of children will wear red to remember Daniel. The least this parliament can do is to show the same courage as Bruce and Denise.
It's nearly the end of the week. Not only will it be great to return to our communities, but, from Saturday, what goes live is the single-largest investment in Medicare ever. We're expanding the bulk-billing incentive to all Australians, and we're boosting payments to general practices that bulk-bill every patient. We're already seeing the difference this is making in my own community. The Craigieburn Medical and Dental Centre has already moved to 100 per cent bulk-billing. It means families don't have to worry about gap payments or putting off care because of costs. I'm proud to have announced a full Medicare mental health centre in my community to roll out more places that locals can go for free public mental health care, backed by Medicare.
Under those opposite, it had never been harder to see a doctor. Bulk-billing was in freefall. We had a neglected health system, longer wait times and Australians paying for care that should have been free. And who was at the helm of that policy? It was the current Leader of the Opposition, the then health minister—someone who said, 'If you don't pay for something, you don't value it.' My community values Medicare, we on this side of the House value Medicare, and Australians value Medicare.
I am sorry to say that life in the regions is even harder one year on from the disastrous 3G shutdown on Labor's watch. Let me give you some examples. I was talking on Perth radio earlier this week. Joe from the Western Australian Wheatbelt called in, saying:
I live right on the highway, the Telstra map when you look it up says you may receive 4G with aerial on your roof. I get people knocking on my front door saying could we use your landline I get nothing on the highway—the transcontinental highway! We can't get any service.
Then there's Christine from Cumnock, in rural New South Wales. Christine had a car accident in an area with no mobile phone service at all. After the accident, she had to go to a house one kilometre further up the road to call triple 0, presumably on a landline. Christine and Ann Marriott of nearby Baldry said they are now back to relying on UHF to communicate.
What happened to 'nobody held back and nobody left behind'? That is the lived experience under Labor in regional Australia.
On the border of Macnamara and Goldstein, unfortunately on the wrong side of the tracks, lives a fantastic medical centre called the Elsternwick Medical Centre. No thanks to the member for Goldstein, but thanks to this Albanese Labor government, the Elsternwick Medical Centre has gone 100 per cent bulk-billed—100 per cent bulk-billing for the 77,000 consultations that the Elsternwick Medical Centre did last year. This is a fantastic medical centre. The GPs and the staff there are doing an incredible job, and I was pleased to go and visit them recently.
Of course, there were other plans by other people that weren't about bulk-billing. The approach of the Leader of the Opposition, when she was the health minister—obviously after the $7 GP co-payment was scrapped—was to lower the rebate of Medicare and then get the doctors to pass it on to patients. At that time the Leader of the Opposition said:
The price signal is about somebody paying a bit extra when they go to the doctor and not receiving a bulk-billed consultation when they can afford to pay … That's what we mean by the price signal and I think that's vital.
I'll tell you what this side of the House thinks is vital—that people can go and see a doctor with their Medicare card, not their credit card. This side of the House thinks it's vital that Australians can access the health care they need, at fantastic clinics like the Elsternwick Medical Centre.
In my electorate, manufacturing businesses are being crushed by this government's irresponsible energy policy. FJP Manufacturing's electricity prices are up 76 per cent in just two years. This government is driving us off an economic cliff, and this madness has to stop. I call on the Minister for Climate Change and Energy to stop this reckless policy, stop killing Australian manufacturing and put this country back on track.
In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded.
My question is to the Acting Prime Minister. The dream of homeownership in this country has become a nightmare for millennials and gen Z, who have no hope of ever owning under Labor. The Auditor-General has now launched an investigation into Labor's failed housing fund, the chair of Housing Australia has resigned and the failed Minister for Housing is building bureaucracies instead of building homes. Why is it that, when Labor fails, Australians always pay the price?
I thank the Leader of the Opposition for her question. The first point to make is that, if the Liberals are so concerned about the Housing Australia Future Fund and its contribution to providing more houses in this country, then they should have supported the Housing Australia Future Fund much earlier than they did. The Housing Australia Future Fund is now making an important contribution to the building of houses in this country. Indeed, in the Leader of the Opposition's own electorate, there are 54 homes in Thurgoona which are currently part of the first tranche of the Housing Australia Future Fund's projects. In the member for Lindsay's electorate, there are 135 homes in Penrith which are being pursued. In the member for Moncrieff's electorate, 213 homes are being pursued.
Since we have come to government, half a million houses have been built. That includes 5,000 social and affordable houses. In the nine years that those opposite were in government, the number of social and affordable houses that they constructed was 313—313 in nine years. What we have done is the biggest investment in housing that we have seen from a federal government. The Housing Australia Future Fund is a critical part of that because we care about providing affordable housing in this country. What we have over on that side is enormous hypocrisy and a massive gap between what they say and what they do, but the Australian people absolutely saw through it.
The member for Wright is warned.
My question is to the Acting Prime Minister. How are the Prime Minister's recent engagements in the United States, Malaysia and Korea and with a range of world leaders providing economic growth and opportunities back here at home?
I thank the member for his question. Last night the Prime Minister met again with President Trump along with the leaders of Korea, Canada, New Zealand, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam, on the eve of today's APEC leaders summit. America is our largest two-way investment partner. We have a comprehensive strategic partnership with Singapore, which we are renewing on its 10th anniversary, and our economic relationship has never been deeper. Thailand is our third-largest trading partner in South-East Asia. We have a rapidly growing relationship with Vietnam, accounting for $30 billion in two-way trade. We have in prospect the biggest defence industry export in our country's history, and that is with Canada. The Australian and New Zealand economies are the two most integrated in the world today. And Korea is our fourth-largest trading partner globally, accounting for $67 billion in two-way trade. Now, together these seven countries represent fully one-quarter of Australia's exports. And given that one in four jobs today is based on trade, that means that these seven countries underpin about a million jobs in Australia. That is in the context of trade being an increasing part of Australia's national prosperity, and the APEC region accounting for three-quarters of that.
And so all of this is why the Prime Minister is in Korea today. He is over there fighting for Australian jobs right here. And it is really important that, in doing so, we place ourselves at the forefront of technology and modernity, and that is why the critical minerals framework agreement that we signed with the United States last week was so important. The downstream processing of the critical minerals and rare earths that we have, as a natural resource, underpins so many modern technologies today, and it is a really exciting prospect for a new sector in this country with huge employment opportunities and a massive potential to contribute to our national wealth.
Australia was a founding member of APEC under the Hawke government back in 1989. We understood then that connecting ourselves to the economies of these nations was the best strategy to lock in long-term economic growth and prosperity for our nation. And today, 36 years later, our Prime Minister is pursuing that same mission at APEC with vigour for the benefit of all Australians.
My question is to the Minister for Housing. The Insurance Council of Australia have warned that Labor's reckless expansion of its Help to Buy Scheme will drive up house prices by 6.6 per cent next year, and for years afterwards. They have said:
… if one asks who is most likely to be priced out of the market … it is lower-income first home buyers …
That means a young couple buying a home worth $800,000 today could be forced to pay more than $52,000 extra. Why is it that when Labor fails Australians pay the price?
I thank the member for Fadden for his question. We have a housing crisis in our country that's been cooking for 40 years. If there's one thing that we can do that's important about this problem, we need to build more homes more quickly because more housing means more affordable housing for all Australians. That's why our government took a ruinous situation that was created by those opposite and, out of that, has built the boldest and most ambitious housing agenda in our country that a Commonwealth government has had since the postwar period.
At the centre of that $43 billion of investment is our plan to build more homes for Australians, and we're getting on with delivering that. We're building 55,000 social and affordable homes around our country—5,000 are finished; 25,000 are in planning or construction—and we've set a national ambition to try to build 1.2 million homes over the coming five years. The Prime Minister has stood up and taken some accountability—not like those opposite who said: 'Housing's got nothing to do us with us. We're not going to do anything about it. We're going to be so checked out of housing we're not even going to have a housing minister.' Our government has stood up and taken some accountability.
The member asked me about first home ownership. What he is really saying is that, in the context of extreme housing challenges that face young people in all of our electorates around this chamber, we should look people in the eye and say, 'We're not going to do anything to help you.' That is what you are arguing. We take a fundamentally different view. We actually talk to those young people and we say to them: 'We think it is manifestly unfair that you face different housing opportunities than your parents and grandparents. We are stepping up and we are doing something about it.'
At the centrepiece of our approach to homeownership is us expanding the five per cent deposit program to every single first home buyer in the country, and we are immensely proud to be doing it. For those who represent the City of Sydney, young couples in your electorates are having to save for 11 years to buy their first home. Because of our government's policies, we are bringing that timeline back to two or three years. One of the things that hasn't got sufficient publicity is that in that eight-year period a couple on a normal income is going to pay a quarter of a million dollars in rent. And now, instead of paying off someone else's mortgage, they're getting to pay off their own because of our government.
We will not shy away from the support that we are offering to young people around the country. The simple truth is that, after the complete bin fire that those opposite left us on housing, we are having to do all of the things all at the same time. That's why we've got a $43 billion agenda. We are building more homes, we are getting renters a better deal, and we are helping more Australians into homeownership. And we're going to continue to do it for the next 2½ years.
My question is to the Minister for Health and Ageing. How is the Albanese Labor government strengthening Medicare through record investment in bulk-billing? How is this making it easier for Australians to see a GP for free and to access urgent care when they need it?
Thanks to the member for Sturt—the best member for Sturt since Stormy Normy Foster won the electorate back in 1969, the 'Don's party' election. She's already giving terrific representation and service to the beautiful eastern suburbs of Adelaide. and she's making an amazing contribution to the debate around stronger Medicare and cheaper medicines that's deeply informed by her time as a board member of the iconic Royal Flying Doctor Service. Like everyone else on this side, the member for Sturt can well and truly look her electorate in the eye already and say, 'I'm delivering on the things that I promised I said I would deliver.'
This month, she and I visited a terrific GP clinic, the Paramount health centre in Campbelltown in her electorate. Dr Trehan, who runs that clinic, told us that that clinic does currently charge gap fees to some patients to cover the costs of running the clinic. But she also told us that from this Saturday they will start bulk-billing all of their patients all of the time. Tomorrow we'll be visiting another clinic in her electorate making exactly the same shift. Already, some 1,000 clinics have informed us that they will be shifting to full bulk-billing next week after charging gap fees this week. That number is growing every single day, and it's on top of the 1,500 clinics that are already 100 per cent bulk-billing clinics.
But the member for Sturt didn't just promise more doctors, more bulk-billing and cheaper medicines—although she did promise that. She also promised a Medicare urgent care clinic for eastern Adelaide, one of 50 that we promised at the last election. We've already got 90 urgent care clinics operating around Australia, operating seven days a week—extended hours—and, already, more than two million patients have gone through those clinics, one-third of them under the age of 15. Every single one of them has been seen completely free of charge, fully bulk-billed. All they had to take was their Medicare card.
I'm delighted to say to the House that expressions of interest for the remaining 47 clinics have already closed and have already been assessed. We'll be in a position over the next few weeks to make announcements about the locations of those clinics, and I hope that they will all be open by Christmas time. When they are, they'll be relieving pressure on local hospitals, they'll be delivering high-quality urgent care completely free of charge, and they'll be doing what the member for Sturt promised her electorate we would do: delivering a stronger Medicare.
I'd like to inform the House that present in the gallery today are the winners of the brand new Yarning competition and their families. The competition, run by the Department of the House of Representatives, celebrates the unique stories and experiences of First Nations secondary school students. Welcome to Lincoln, Brooke, Jehdah-Rose and Cleo. I'm also pleased to inform the House that present in the gallery today are students from Fitzroy Community School in Melbourne, in the member for Wills's electorate. Also present in the gallery today are representatives from the Families of Veterans Guild including chair Tricia Hobson and CEO Renee Wilson, and the Veteran Family Advocate Commissioner, Annabelle Wilson. Also in the gallery, as a guest of the member for Perth, is the City of Perth lord mayor, Councillor Bruce Reynolds. Welcome to you all.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
My question is to the Acting Prime Minister. In February 2023, the Minister for the Public Service announced an inquiry into public sector board appointments to end the jobs-for-mates culture of the previous coalition government. The minister stated: 'In line with the government’s commitment to transparency, a report will be published after the review is finalised in mid-2023.' The government has had over two years to consider its findings and has repeatedly refused to make the report public. When will the government release the Briggs report and legislate a transparent, merit based appointment process across the public sector?
I thank the member for her question on this important matter. As the member referred to, we commissioned Lynelle Briggs to undertake a report to cabinet which would look at what the appropriate standards were in terms of appointing people to public sector boards. Ms Briggs has undertaken that work. The matter is in front of the cabinet and it is there to be considered. The cabinet is working through the process of considering the report and we will respond to it. When we respond to it, we will release the report, as the Minister for the Public Service has repeatedly said. So we will release this report, but we will do so after the cabinet has appropriately considered it, given that this is a report to cabinet.
That is the normal and appropriate way in which we go about this.
Opposition members interjecting—
We listen to the interjections from the other side. The hypocrisy in those interjections is breathtaking, given that, when it comes to the question of appointing people to government positions, they industrialised it in terms of who they were appointing from their ranks. That said, the Briggs report is very important piece of work.
Order! The member for Hume will cease interjecting.
We are considering it at the cabinet level, and when we have responded to it, we will make it public.
But, on the question of transparency, which the member raises, I would also point out that it was the former Rudd Labor government which introduced the ministerial code of conduct. It was the former Rudd Labor government which introduced the Lobbying Code of Conduct, as well as the lobbying register, which provided transparency in relation to that. It is the Albanese Labor government which has established the National Anti-Corruption Commission, has increased funding for the ANAO and has strengthened whistleblower protection. So, when you are looking at which party is on the side of government transparency and government accountability, it is the party which is currently running the government.
My question is to the Acting Prime Minister. How are the Albanese Labor government's historic investments in Medicare and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme helping Australians with the cost of living and with access to the health care that they need? Why is this important after a decade of cuts and neglect?
I thank the member for his question and acknowledge his expertise in asking this question. In just under 34 hours, the Albanese Labor Government's Bulk Billing Practice Incentive Program will begin. Over the next four years, we will see around 4,800 GP clinics converted to fully fledged bulk-billing practices. Now, in the member for Canning's electorate, there are already three practices which have indicated that they want to participate in the program, and in the Leader of the Opposition's electorate of Farrer, there are 13 practices which have expressed an interest, and that's before the program has even begun. That is good news for both of them, not least of the reasons being it means that the next time these two meet they will have a nice, easy, comfortable icebreaker in their conversation before they get on to more difficult topics.
This represents the biggest increase in Medicare spending since Medicare was created. We will restore to Medicare every dollar that the Liberals cut. The Liberals froze the Medicare rebate for six years, putting bulk-billing into freefall. We know that they wanted to abolish bulk-billing through the introduction of a GP tax. When the Leader of the Opposition was the minister for health she said that the price signal of that tax was vital. She's told us that people don't value things unless they pay for them. She's warned us against a culture of dependency. All of this says that deep in her heart the Leader of the Opposition believes that Australians should not be able to go to the doctor for free, and that is why the Liberals represent a serious risk to Medicare.
Well, this government is about providing accessible health care. That's why on 1 January, in just a couple of months, we will also be capping Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme scripts at just $25. That's great for people who use Jardiance. Jardiance is a drug that manages chronic kidney disease, and it helps stop the progression of the disease to more invasive, debilitating and for that matter expensive treatments, such as dialysis. Jardiance retails for hundreds of dollars, but in just a couple of months those who are using it will pay just $25 a script. That is literally life changing, as it is for the millions of Australians who are dependent on access to affordable medicines.
There is a big difference in this chamber on health care. Whatever is going on over on that side, a core mission of our government is to provide accessible and affordable health care to every Australian.
My question goes to the Treasurer. We learnt yesterday that inflation has smashed right through the top of the RBA's target band. This is a direct consequence of the Treasurer's spending spree. Labor's spending is growing four times faster than the economy and has reached a 40-year high outside of recession. What is the Treasurer's explanation for both unemployment and inflation being well above the RBA's forecast, not unlike the stagflation from the 1970s, which people nowadays are referring to as the 'Jimflation effect'?
I'm not happy with that descriptor. Equally, if someone made it about the opposition or the opposition leader, I would take offence at that. We don't want to get into name-calling. That's not necessary, and trust me: that applies to everyone inside the chamber, and I've got multiple examples I can give to the chamber. So we're going to ask the member to withdraw just that last little part of the question.
I withdraw.
I thank the member for Fairfax. We want to treat each other with respect and dignity. The Treasurer has the call.
For those of you wondering why the shadow Treasurer cuts such a comical, almost cartoonish figure in this place, that's your answer. We are working through serious economic challenges and serious economic opportunities, and the best way to do that is in the considered, methodical, consultative way that defines this government. If the shadow Treasurer wants to ask me about unemployment, he needs to acknowledge that the average unemployment rate under this government is the lowest of any government in half a century. Under those opposite, unemployment averaged 5.6 per cent and under this government 3.9 per cent. So I find it odd that the shadow Treasurer would want to highlight that in question time in the House of Representatives—and similarly when it comes to inflation.
Now, I will take advice from a whole range of places in the course of my job as Treasurer, but I won't be taking advice on inflation from those who left us with an inflation rate that was 6.1 per cent and rising fast. Inflation on their watch was twice what inflation is now, and it was rising fast. One of the reasons for that that we now know about, whether from the COVID review or from other places, is that when inflation was absolutely galloping in our economy in 2022—6.1 per cent and rising fast—they were pouring more and more fuel onto the flames. We know that. That is an economic fact, and that is their legacy. That is why they have no economic credibility, especially when it comes to inflation, especially when it comes to employment and also when it comes to real wages.
I'm asked about government spending as well. Those opposite promised a surplus every year they were in office. They delivered nine consecutive deficits. On this side of the House—we've been here for three full years—we've delivered two surpluses and one much smaller deficit than we inherited from those opposite. They had spending in the economy as almost a third of the economy; we got it down to closer to a quarter of the economy. They had real spending growing by 4.1 per cent; we've got it growing by 1.7 per cent. This is why the questions from those opposite lack any credibility whatsoever, because we remember your record. We know that when we came to office inflation was roaring, interest rates were rising, real wages were falling, living standards were falling, you'd only delivered deficits, and there was $1 trillion in Liberal debt. We've spent every day of our three-and-a-bit years in office cleaning up the mess they left us.
The member for Dawson and the member for Forrest are going to cease interjecting, otherwise they won't be here for the remainder of question time.
My question is to the Treasurer. How is the Albanese Labor government strengthening Medicare, easing the cost of living and reforming the economy? How does this compare to other approaches to health and the economy?
I thank the member for Bennelong for his question and also for being a champion for Medicare in his local community and for the important role he plays in the House's Standing Committee on Economics.
We promised to roll out more responsible cost-of-living relief and to strengthen Medicare, and we are delivering. This Saturday marks a really important day in both respects. We are strengthening Medicare because more bulk-billing means less pressure on families in local communities. We're expanding bulk-billing incentives and topping up payments for practices that bulk-bill every patient, and this means more bulk-billing doctors in more communities.
The contrast could not be clearer. Those opposite are divided and divisive, and we are delivering. We're strengthening Medicare and we're delivering cost-of-living relief at the same time as we're making progress on the reform directions agreed to at our productivity roundtable. In just the couple of months since that roundtable met, we slashed another 500 nuisance tariffs; introduced regulatory reforms in the parliament; got the Investor Front Door pilot up and running; got the regulators to reduce regulation; progressed a single national market with the states; cleared a backlog of 26,000 homes awaiting assessment; finalised the AI plan, the public sector AI strategy; reformed the super performance test; and signed off on the first set of state and territory reforms under the National Productivity Fund. And today we're introducing new laws into the parliament to reform our environmental approvals. These EPBC changes are better for the economy and better for the environment as well. They represent a faster process, driving more productivity with more transparency and stronger protections for the environment.
There is no shortage of challenges in our economy or in the world; we know that. But we also know that by working through these challenges in a considered and consultative and methodical way we are making progress. We're helping with the cost of living. We are strengthening Medicare. We've secured our AAA credit rating from Fitch this week. We're making our economy more productive over time, and we're delivering for the Australian people.
Again, I invite the House to consider the contrast between all of this progress that we're making—Medicare, the cost of living and the economy more broadly—and the divided and divisive rabble over there. Just in the last couple of weeks we've had the member for Canning spit the dummy. We've had the member for New England spit the dummy. I think the member for Hume tried to spit the dummy, but, with him, it's always hard to tell. The difference is between us delivering and them divided and divisive—
Order!
My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. Labor promised Australians that their bills would fall by $275 in 2025. Is the minister aware that it is now 2025 and that electricity bills are up by nearly 40 per cent? Why did the minister mislead Australians?
The member for Spence is warned.
Yes, I am aware it is 2025. I'm not entirely sure the National Party is. I'm also aware that there are considerable pressures in our energy system, as there are around the world. I'm aware that the AEMO quarterly energy dynamics report released today, which is a welcome progress report, shows wholesale prices are down 27 per cent year on year and 38 per cent quarter on quarter. I see this as good progress with much more to do. It is no coincidence that the quarterly report, which showed a 38 per cent reduction in wholesale prices, also shows the highest renewable penetration for that quarter in Australian history. This is a sign of progress.
We have never said that there isn't a lot more to do. We haven't said that there aren't pressures in the system. This is why we've introduced three rounds of energy bill relief which were opposed by those opposite.
The member for Page is now warned.
The difference between the two parties in this House—the government and the opposition—is that we recognise the need to ensure that we have more of the most reliable and cheapest form of energy, which is renewables, and those opposite are opposed to it.
My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Women. How has the Albanese Labor government's investments into health care created more choice and increased affordability for women?
(): I thank the member for Newcastle for the question. The member for Newcastle is one of the people in this place who has done a huge amount not just for women's health but across the whole spectrum of issues that affect women. You couldn't have a greater champion than the member for Newcastle. Women's health care is, of course, not just a women's issue. It is crucial to our families, our communities and our economy that women are able to exercise choice and control over their health care. As a government we understand this and it's why, when we came to government in 2022, we made it one of our top priorities.
This government has been working to reverse years of neglect of women's health, with our $729 million package to deliver more choice, lower costs and better health care for women. Women have asked government to take their health care seriously and we have listened. Our landmark women's health package could save women and their families thousands of dollars across their lifetimes, and I'm very pleased today to report that, in just 48 hours, many of these changes will come into effect. From 1 November, women will have better access to affordable contraceptive options thanks to this government's women's health package.
We're providing Australian women more choice, lower costs and better support for long-term contraceptives, with larger Medicare payments and more bulk-billing for IUDs and birth control implants. Medical rebates for insertion of IUDs and birth control implants will increase by up to 150 per cent, with around 300,000 women each year expected to save up to $400 in out-of-pocket costs. We are also funding free training for healthcare practitioners in the insertion and removal of IUDs to boost the number of qualified practitioners and improve access to services. A 40 per cent bulk-billing incentive will incentivise health professionals to provide long-acting contraceptive services and support more women to choose the contraceptive options that work best for them.
We are also adding new contraceptive options such as NuvaRing to the PBS, providing women more choices at a much more affordable cost. Before the listing of this contraceptive option on the PBS, women might have paid more than $270 a year. Now they will only have to pay $31.60 per script or $7.70 if they're concessional. These changes should not be underestimated. For many women they are life changing. They come on top of the first PBS listings of new oral contraceptives in more than 30 years. The AMA has said our package is a major investment in women's health, and the college of GPs has said that better funding for women's health is an investment that will pay off and improve health care. On this side of the chamber, we are investing in the health of women.
My question is to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. Under Labor's administration of the CFMEU, whistleblowers are saying that organised crime figures have a 'stronger position, perhaps even stronger than they had 14 or 15 months ago'.
Order! The member for Macarthur will leave the chamber under standing order 94(a).
The member for Macarthur then left the chamber.
Honourable members interjecting—
Order! Every time, the same thing will happen. It's that simple. The member for Goldstein will begin his question again, and he's going to be heard in silence and shown some respect.
My question is to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. Under Labor's administration of the CFMEU, whistleblowers are saying that organised crime figures have a 'stronger position, perhaps even stronger than they had 14 or 15 months ago'. We now know that the head of the Victorian CFMEU, Zach Smith, who is a member of the minister's National Construction Industry Forum and a member of the Labor Party National Executive, has had meetings approved by the administrator with misogynist thug John Setka. Does Mr Smith still sit with the minister as a member of the National Construction Industry Forum? If he does, will Mr Smith be advising the minister at the next meeting?
I thank the shadow minister for his question. His question really goes to the role that our government has been playing in making sure that we have a construction industry that is free from corruption. Of course, this did not happen under those opposite, and I might give a few examples in a minute.
What I will go to firstly is the National Construction Industry Forum, which is playing an incredibly important role in bringing unions, employers and government together on how we tackle this issue. Of course, I make no apologies for actually bringing people together to look at how we tackle these issues. I would invite the shadow minister to look at the taskforce report, which has been made public, and also look at the work that's being undertaken because—guess what? Employers and unions are united in what work needs to be done to make sure that our construction industry is as productive as possible.
I thought I might go through some of the work that has been done under this government to actually address crime and corruption in the construction industry. I draw the House's attention firstly to a number of members—
I have a point of order on relevance My question was straightforward: will Mr Smith be advising the minister at the next meeting?
I know that was the question, but there was a very long preamble to that question. If it had just been that short, sharp question, the minister wouldn't be able to talk about the issues that you raised. You did a very long preamble and you went over time with the question. The minister is talking about the membership of the group that you talked about. I like to explain everything just so everyone knows. She's talking about exactly who's in the group and what is involved. I think everyone will agree she's being directly relevant. Yes, there is a part of the question that you'd like answered, but I can't compel the minister to do that. I can compel her to be directly relevant. She is being directly relevant right now. So I'll continue to listen carefully to the minister.
Of course, our government has absolutely been committed to tackling crime and corruption in the construction industry. It was ignored for years and years by those opposite. I'll give just a few examples. Under the coalition and the ABCC's watch, Michael Greenfield, Darren Greenfield, Rita Mallia and Rob Kera were found to be involved in coercion and intimidation of a Sydney crane company. What did the ABCC do? They gave them a slap on the wrist. They are gone under this government. In Victoria, in 2013, CFMEU official Derek Christopher was found to have assaulted a building manager at a site in Melbourne. Under the ABCC and those opposite, he was given a slap on the wrist. He is gone under our government. Let's look at Michael Ravbar, who was exposed by Geoffrey Watson in his investigation, which showed that in 2020 the coalition under their failed ABCC allowed him to use standover tactics including telling a female public servant that she 'should be dragged out of here'. Under those opposite, he kept his job. Under us, he is gone. If we want to talk about who is taking action, it is our government cleaning up the industry while those opposite stood by and did nothing.
On a point of order, the manager?
The minister was reading from a document of serious criminals, and we'd like to ask her to table that document for the benefit of the House.
Was the minister reading from confidential notes?
Yes.
Okay. Well, let's move on.
My question is to the Minister for Education. What is the Albanese Labor government doing to help Australians with a student debt and build a better and fairer education system?
Can I thank my friend the member for Deakin for this question. As a former schoolteacher, he understands better than most of us the power of education to change lives.
At the election, we promised to cut student debt by 20 per cent. The Australian people voted for it, we've passed legislation now to make it happen, and the tax office is working on this right now. In a few weeks time, this will all begin. Phones will start beeping; you'll get a text message or an email telling you that your student debt has been cut by 20 per cent. Millions of Australians will get this message, and all of that beeping and dinging of phones will be the sound of $16 billion coming off the shoulders of young Australians. Millions of Aussies will save thousands of dollars—on average, about $5½ thousand, changing lives.
The member for Deakin asked me about this, but he also asked me what else we're doing to build a better and fairer education system. This year, we signed agreements with every state and territory to fix the funding of our public schools, to put them on a path to full and fair funding—something that no government has ever done. It is the biggest new investment in public schools by an Australian government ever. And it's not a blank cheque; it's tied to real reforms, practical reforms that we know work—things like explicit teaching, as well as phonics checks and numeracy checks when kids are little, in year 1, to identify the children who are behind and need more help; and small-group tutoring or catch-up tutoring to help the same children to catch up.
Two weeks ago, we took the next step. Two weeks ago, education ministers met and agreed to bring forward work on the national curriculum, starting with the first three years of maths. If you get maths, it helps to set you up for success. It's critical for work and for life, and it's really important to get the basics at school, early. If you don't get the basics right in the first few years of school, you can't build on it. Learning maths is cumulative. You learn it step by step, and that's why we have to get the first three years right. A number of principals and teachers have told us that they think the current maths curriculum here is too complex, and others have told us that teachers need more support to implement it, with clearer advice about what to teach in what order. That is why we'll start here. It's the first part of the curriculum that we're going to work on, but it won't be the last.
Before I call the honourable member for Mayo, I'd like to advise the House that we've been joined by a delegation from the Kiribati government, led by the Minister for Health and Medical Services, the Hon. Bootii Nauan. Welcome to you all.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
My question is for the Minister for Aged Care and Seniors. Every Mayo home-care provider that I've researched is lifting its fees on Saturday, by 40 per cent to 100 per cent. One provider is charging non-grandfathered self-funded retirees and part-pensioners a co-payment of up to $132 per hour for meal preparation and up to $101 per hour for showering on a Saturday. Most older Australians can't afford this. Will you please look at price capping and bringing it forward?
I thank the member for Mayo for her question and her ongoing commitment to ensuring that older people in her community do get safe, dignified and high-quality aged care. Of course, from Saturday, with bipartisan support, we herald the arrival of the new Support at Home program, which is a new generation of aged care for every single older person across Australia, and it's to this program that the member's question pertains. From Saturday, we will ensure that administration prices under the home-care program are capped. They have previously been exorbitantly charged by some providers—not all providers but some providers—so caps will come into place at 10 per cent around most administration fees. We want the money that is afforded to older people for their care to be used for their care, not for administrative purposes.
We also have the independent pricing authority having issued pricing guidance to both consumers and providers—a better level of transparency and understanding for the entire sector around what appropriate pricing for services looks like. And, from July 2026, the independent pricing authority will, of course, introduce the pricing caps to ensure that no older person is inappropriately charged for the services.
Of course, we have to understand the road that we have trodden to get to this point. We had a royal commission which uncovered extraordinarily distressing stories of mistreatment of older people. Its report was mononymously named Neglect. For nine long years, those opposite, including the Leader of the Opposition in her position as health minister, neglected older people across our country, and finally Labor has come to the plate to ensure that every single older Australian can be afforded the safe, dignified and high-quality aged care that those opposite should have done a long time ago.
My question is to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations: What is the Albanese Labor government doing to protect workplace entitlements of parents who suffer the devastating loss of a child to stillbirth or early infant death?
I'd like to thank the member for Lalor for the question and for her advocacy for those parents who have suffered the devastating loss of a child. Experiencing stillbirth or the death of a child is an inconceivable tragedy, and, unfortunately for some parents, it becomes a too-real reality.
The last thing any parent should have to deal with after grieving the loss of a child is the uncertainty around their employer paid parental leave. It is for those parents that our government has introduced the Fair Work Amendment (Baby Priya's) Bill 2025, which passed through the House today. The bill is named after Priya, who heartbreakingly died when she was just six weeks old. Priya's mother explained that, after informing her employer her child had passed away, she lost access to her paid parental leave and had to negotiate to return to work while grieving the loss of the child. Priya's parents were determined to protect others from the same fate and began advocating for change. Our government listened, and we're making that change happen.
Baby Priya's bill introduced a principle into the Fair Work Act that protects employer paid parental leave in the event a child is stillborn or dies. It brings these protections in line with government paid parental leave and unpaid leave arrangements. This bill only applies where there is a lack of clarity on an employee's leave if a child is stillborn or dies after birth. Priya's bill has sparked an outpouring of public support, like from Tammy, who wrote: 'I remember having to go back to work within six weeks after the loss of my baby daughter. I am so pleased that there has been the needed reform in this space.'
While it's been heartening to see support across the parliament, it has been disappointing to see the efforts of a few who are trying to make this something that it's not. This morning, I got a message from Priya's mum, who reminded us all about what this bill is about. Priya's mum said: 'I want to sincerely thank every speaker who has supported this bill with such compassion, sensitivity and care. I am profoundly grateful to everyone who has embraced and supported this legacy of love.' No parent should have to go through what Priya's parents experienced, and that is why our government has acted.
My question is to the Assistant Treasurer. Recent collapses like Shield and First Guardian have put over $1 billion of Australians' hard-earned retirement savings at risk. How many times has the government ignored warnings from Treasury and ASIC to effectively regulate these schemes?
I thank the honourable member for the question. I acknowledge his interest in this area and I look forward to constructively engaging with him and members across this chamber on this issue. I know that this affects members across this chamber in terms of how it's affected their constituents. I want to acknowledge from the outset how distressing this has been for many people who have lost considerable amounts of funds. There are many individuals and families who have lost a significant proportion of their life savings. I've met with victims of these collapses. I have heard firsthand harrowing stories, and I understand how difficult this has been.
Can I stress that the focus of ASIC, the independent regulator, over recent months has been to protect investor funds, and it has undertaken a range of actions to do so. It has a range of actions already underway in court. This includes actions in relation to financial advisers involved in these collapses. It also involves actions against individuals involved in the managed investment schemes. Importantly, there were also significant actions in relation to the platforms. I welcome the fact that recently there was an agreement reached between Macquarie and ASIC which saw over $300 million returned to investors. So a significant proportion of the investors in the Shield MIS will see a full return of their capital. But I do acknowledge that there is more work to be done, and I continue to work with ASIC and with other regulators in relation to the immediate priority of protecting investor interests.
I have a point of order on relevance. I appreciate that the minister is entitled to preamble, but the question was in relation to how many times the government ignored warnings from Treasury and ASIC.
The minister has covered some ground. He was asked a specific question. I can't compel him to give the number that you're requesting, but he won't be able to go too much longer, because he'll need to be directly relevant. He can choose how to answer the question as long as he's being directly relevant, and so far he has been.
What I can say is I haven't ignored any warnings. When I was notified of this matter earlier this year, I very quickly sought a briefing from my department in relation to the matter. Following on from that, having found out about these matters, I wrote to APRA to receive briefings from APRA in relation to what further actions might be needed in relation to platforms. I've been working constructively with the Financial Services Council and with the industry on that matter. Furthermore, I've written to ASIC in relation to whether or not capital holding requirements of MISs are sufficient. Having been notified of these matters, I have asked my department to provide me with briefings in relation to how we might strengthen regulatory arrangements going forward.
So I would say to this chamber and, of course, to the member who's asked this question that, as we consider options going forward, I certainly look forward to working constructively with members of this House in order to find ways we can strengthen arrangements going forward.
My question is to the Minister for Housing, Minister for Homelessness and Minister for Cities. How is the Albanese Labor government working to build more homes for Australians, what other approaches are there and what is standing in our way?
I thank the member for Barton. She is one of the brilliant, strong and energetic class of 2025, who are already having a transformative effect over the work of this parliament, and I am incredibly lucky to call her a colleague. I know how proud she is to be a part of a government that is delivering better housing opportunities for the people of her electorate. In Barton alone, over 1,000 people have gotten into their first home through our five per cent deposit program and with our government's backing. And it's not just that. We are building about 400 social and affordable homes under the Housing Australia Future Fund in her electorate. It is an epic project that the member and I have visited together.
The member for Braddon will cease interject.
Just this one project alone is going to change the lives of hundreds and hundreds of people who desperately need housing in her electorate, and we're damn proud to be making it happen.
We've got a housing crisis in our country that's been cooking for 40 years, and for all of the complexity that's a part of this debate, there's one simple thing that we desperately need to be doing, and that is building more homes for Australians—and that is exactly what our government is doing. We've amassed an historic $43 billion, and the majority of those dollars is going straight into building more homes for Australians. We're seeing really big impacts with these investments. There have been 520,000 homes built since we came to government. We're rolling up our sleeves and doing something that the Commonwealth has not done at scale for decades, and that is building homes ourselves: 55,000 social and affordable homes—5,000 are already completed and 25,000 are actually in planning or construction right now.
Of course, we've seen that fantastic leadership from the PM. He has stood up; he hasn't washed his hands of the problem like this opposite but has said, 'We are going to work together across the three levels of government to build 1.2 million homes over a five-year period.' We know there is more work to do, and that's why we're getting on with it. We're getting on with delivering this absolutely massive agenda.
The member for Barton asked me about some alternatives, and there are some quite terrifying alternatives out there. The worst that we see is that exhibited by those opposite, who sat for nine years and did pretty much absolutely nothing about a housing crisis that was building before their eyes. Now, we're getting a little bit of backchat, so let me remind those opposite of the record here. Not only have they spent the last three years trying to block and delay all our critical programs, but over a nine-year period—Speaker, you're not going to believe this—do you know how many social and affordable homes they built? It was 373. How many homes did they build in the whole state of Victoria in nine years? It was zero. How many homes did they build in the whole state of Queensland? It was zero. How many homes did they build in the whole state of Western Australia? It was zero. The only silver lining is that we've finally found a net zero target that the coalition can get behind!
We're getting on with the job of delivering, delivering, delivering. That's our priority in housing every single day. (Time expired)
My question is for the Treasurer: Many people in the business community and at the economic reform roundtable have asked for regulation that better enables growth as well as manages risk. But any permanent consolidation of red tape is hard when the incentives for regulators and, frankly, politicians is for just to add more and more complexity. How can the government permanently shift incentives to reduce regulatory complexity, and will you set targets for reductions in regulatory complexity?
I want to thank the member for Wentworth not just for her question but for being a really important contributor to the Economic Reform Roundtable that we hosted here just a couple of months ago.
Now, I can hear the opposition leader chirping at me about the Economic Reform Roundtable. When she was down the hill with the Australian Industry Group, she said it was a useful discussion and a very welcome conversation. But, anyway, leaving that aside—
You did. I'll show you. I'll table it. Mr Speaker, more seriously—
Order! The Treasurer will just return to the question.
I thank the honourable member for Wentworth for her important question, and I thank her for the role that she's played as we've worked through some of the issues that she raises in her question. The member for Wentworth knows that, even with the progress we're making in our economy, particularly in the private sector, our economy is not productive enough. One of the ways that we make our economy more productive is we find ways to reduce compliance costs, and one way that we do that is to reduce complexity and wind back red tape where we can. Obviously, regulation has a useful role to play in our economy, as long as it's serving the purpose for which it's intended, but I think the government and the member, as well as participants at the roundtable, recognise that we have some work to do to wind back some of this complexity and some of this red tape.
The member for Wentworth has asked me about targets. We have been considering targets. We will work with the Productivity Commission to see if those targets are appropriate. But we haven't been waiting. We've actually taken a number of quite substantial steps just in the last couple of months, since the roundtable, to wind back red tape. We've slashed another 500 nuisance tariffs. That will reduce compliance costs for a lot of businesses. We've introduced regulatory reforms into the parliament: 60 improvements across 13 agencies. We got the Investor Front Door pilot up and running. That's about quicker approvals. We're getting the regulators to reduce unnecessary regulations. The Assistant Treasurer is working with me and the Council of Financial Regulators to unwind some of the unnecessary data duplication, for example. We've asked the board of tax to help us reduce complexity in the tax system. We're progressing a single national market with the states, harmonising standards and national occupational licensing. There are a number of important measures there. We've started clearing a backlog of 26,000 homes, because the regulatory burden on building homes is still too great; we recognise that. We've signed off on a whole bunch of reforms with the states and territories to wind back complexity as well. I could go on, but I think the House gets the point.
We have taken substantial steps when it comes to winding back red tape, but we know that there's more work to do. Our way to improve productivity in our economy is not like the way of those opposite, which is to make people work harder and longer for less, but to work through these issues in a sensible and methodical way. The member for Wentworth is playing a constructive role in that. If only those opposite were as well.
My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. How are the Albanese Labor government's policies to deliver more renewable energy, backed by batteries, helping Australians? What policies would threaten this progress?
I thank my honourable friend for the question. It was of course in her now electorate that the Prime Minister and I announced the Cheaper Home Batteries policy during the recent federal election campaign. It was a great day—although the member for Griffith and I were both wearing Cheaper Home Batteries T-shirts, and the combination of renewable energy and a T-shirt would be particularly triggering for the Leader of the Opposition! But I digress.
I am happy to report to the House that, since we announced that policy, 104,900 Australians have introduced a cheaper home battery into their house or their small business. That's 104,900 households and small businesses that are reducing their bills and their emissions. It's a similar story across the country. Again, I'll update the House on AEMO's quarterly figures, which were released today, that show the highest renewable penetration in quarter 3 in Australian history and energy prices down 27 per cent, year on year, and 38 per cent, quarter on quarter, in a wholesale term. This is good progress. It is good step forward, with much more to do.
The member for Griffith asked me what policies might threaten this progress. Of course, we've been seeing a lot of them over the course of this week. The member for Wannon released a bit of a policy update in the House during the week. He said that his approach as energy minister would be to sweat the coal assets for longer and he called for us to keep the coal-fired power stations working harder and longer, apparently unaware that as of today there are 11 separate coal-fired power units out of action, broken down, not working—3.6 gigawatts. These are unreliable units. They are now the biggest threat to reliability in our energy system, and those opposite want to see them working longer and harder. We want to see appropriate investment to see them replaced, to see them in due course, in an orderly transition, replaced with new energy for the future, so that those communities that have powered Australia for so long can power us into the future.
Of course it's a big day for the opposition tomorrow. They will be having their big meeting, their big love-in, their big briefing about net zero. We had a contribution overnight from the former Treasurer, energy minister, home affairs minister, health minister and industry minister of the Morrison government in one LinkedIn post by Scott Morrison, saying that they should move away from net zero. This just shows us that the Liberal Party hasn't changed. The man who stood at this dispatch box and held up a lump of coal is now telling them that it's okay to move away from net zero. They haven't learnt. They haven't got the memo from the Australian people or from the 104,000 households that are getting on with the job. I'm sure another thousand households tomorrow and another thousand households on Monday will install a cheaper home battery with support from the Albanese Labor government.
We are transitioning this economy and this energy system to make it fit for the future, while those opposite are stuck in their denial and delay.
Before I call the member for Durack, the member for Lyne interjected eight times during that answer. She's warned, and I'm sure she won't do any more interjections—I hope.
My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. On Tuesday, the minister made a commitment to Australia's heavy industry saying, 'I can guarantee that we will ensure that energy policy is designed to ensure the supply of cheap and reliable energy.' But today the CEO of the Chamber of Minerals and Energy WA warned that electricity costs are on 'an unsustainable trajectory, preventing expansion activities in a region that is experiencing booming interest in both gold and critical minerals.' Minister, is this really what a future in Australia looks like?
I thank the honourable member for the question. I'm sure the Chamber of Minerals and Energy and the honourable member support everything this government has done in recent weeks to support the mining industry in Australia and critical minerals in the great state of Western Australia, with the Prime Minister's leadership and the leadership of the Minister for Resources. They're engaging in proper international diplomacy, engaging in proper interactions with our key trading partners. That's what a future made in Australia looks like; proper investments and a proper calibration of industry and energy policy, as well as foreign and trade policy, to ensure that our great critical minerals that have so much capacity to power not only Australia but also the rest of the world—we have a periodic table of minerals under our earth. We have nine out of the 10 minerals necessary to make a battery in our country. We think that's a good thing, and we want to see more of those minerals exploited and more value added in Australia. We want to see batteries made in Australia and minerals processed in Australia.
That's our vision; your vision is stuck in your 10 years of denial and delay, while you're arguing tomorrow about whether climate change is real and whether humankind has anything to do with it and whether governments should even bother to try. That's why you are out of office now. You are showing the Australian people continually that you are not fit for modern government in Australia.
My question is to the Minister for Health and Ageing. How will the Albanese Labor government's record investment in bulk-billing make it easier to see a GP for free, and how will the investments that kick off this Saturday make a difference for Australians after a decade of cuts and neglect?
I thank the member for Richmond. For more than 20 years in this place, she has been one of the strongest voices for better health care for regional Australia. We're soon going to be able to announce together the location of the new Medicare urgent care clinic in the Tweed valley, which I know she is looking forward to enormously.
Like everyone else on this side of the House, at least, she's also looking forward to this Saturday, because 1 November is going to be a red-letter day for health care in this country. On 1 November we're listing the fourth contraception on the PBS in just 12 months. After 30 years of not a single addition, this is four in just 12 months. On 1 November, as the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government said, new Medicare rebates are going to save around 300,000 women $400 to access contraceptive IUDs and implants. On 1 November, as the member said, the largest investment in bulk-billing in the history of Medicare kicks off. It's an investment that's good for doctors and it's an investment that's obviously, and most importantly, good for patients.
The reason the member for Richmond is such a strong supporter of this investment is it's particularly good for regional Australia.
What about Maranoa? They've got nothing.
I'll talk about Maranoa. This week a standard bulk-billed consult in a beautiful town like Ballina gets about $42 from Medicare. Next week it will be $82. That's from $42 to $82 in one week. I do wonder, where are the Nationals, if it's so good for regional Australia? Where are the Nationals, I wonder? They stood by and did nothing when Liberal's, led by the Leader of the Opposition, ripped the heart out of Medicare by freezing the Medicare rebate, and it's the same story today. What about the leader of the National Party? There are 27 clinics that are going to be fully bulk-billing in Maranoa next week, but what do we hear from the Leader of the Nationals? Nothing. The member for Flynn up there, he's been pretty chatty over the last couple of weeks—he has 22 clinics going to bulk-billing next week. There are crickets, absolute crickets, from the member for Flynn and the chatty member for Fadden, who has 22 clinics as well—absolute crickets! They talk non-stop about everything except health care, everything except bulk-billing, everything except cheaper medicine. That's alright by us, because we've got even more members on this side representing regional Australia, and they're willing to fight for bulk-billing. They're willing to fight for the power of this beautiful little card, and they're willing to fight for a stronger Medicare.
You're running scared!
The member for Page, on that note, can leave the chamber because he was on a warning. A warning is a warning.
The member for Page then left the chamber .
I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
Pursuant to section 65 of the Parliamentary Service Act 1999, I present the annual report of the Department of the House of Representatives for 2024-25.
Documents are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable members earlier today. Full details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.
I have been misrepresented most grievously.
You may proceed.
Last night in the Federation Chamber, the member for Kooyong claimed I had failed to speak on the Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence) Bill 2025 or move my second reading amendment to the legislation. The member should be aware that I did speak on this very important bill 10 hours earlier at the dispatch box right here in the chamber, where I also moved the amendment. Thanks to the very fine work of the Hansard office, my remarks were published by 3 pm, four hours before the member for Kooyong rose to speak. If the member for Kooyong is so eager to scrutinise defence, perhaps she could start by scrutinising the Hansard.
The member for Hume did stray at the end there, but I didn't want to interrupt him. That's not the precise way of making a personal explanation, with commentary at the end. I'm sure that was an oversight.
I have received a letter from the honourable Deputy Leader of the Opposition proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:
How the Government's spending spree is being paid for by everyday Australians in their tax returns, electricity bills, mortgage statements and their difficulty finding a job.
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—
I'm disappointed that the Treasurer isn't here today for this debate on the Australian economy. I don't know why that is.
He's scared!
He could be scared. But this is an opportunity for the Treasurer, if he wants to get down here. He can have 10 free minutes talking about himself and showering himself with compliments, which he loves to do. To his staff, who are no doubt looking from his parliamentary office: can you drag him from the bathroom where he's looking at the mirror, blowing kisses to himself, and see if he can come and talk about the Australian economy. It was said that if one learns to love oneself, it begins a lifelong romance. I daresay the Treasurer, on that count, is probably the most romantic person in the parliament!
Yesterday, we had news on inflation. Inflation hit the highest rate it has in about 2½ years, which speaks to the pain felt by Australian households and dashes hope for those who were looking to next week's RBA meeting in the hope that they might get a cut in their interest rates. I thought I'd do the right thing on behalf of the parliament, and the Australian people, and ask the Treasurer a question about the inflation rate. You know what he did? He didn't even address it. He talked about himself. I've taken this from Hansard. He said that he takes credit 'when things go well in the economy'. When things go well in the economy, the Treasurer takes credit. He also said that he takes credit 'when inflation comes down'. But yesterday inflation did not come down; inflation went up, to 1.3 per cent over the September quarter. That's 3.2 per cent over the year. This breaches the band of the Reserve Bank of Australia. This exceeded the forecast. This was an absolute miss from what was expected, and it spells trouble for Australians.
This surge in inflation that we saw yesterday, as the ABS delivered the data, is a direct consequence of the Treasurer's spending spree. You only have to look at the data to see that this government is spending out of control. This is the highest-spending government in 40 years outside recession—40 years. This government has lifted spending as a percentage of GDP from 24 per cent to 27 per cent. And, this financial year alone, Labor is spending an additional $160 billion compared with the coalition's last budget—$160 billion. On a household level, that equates to about $16½ thousand extra that this government is spending.
What have we got to show for it? Well, a poorer country, a weaker country, and a country that's becoming more dependent on foreign supply chains. I don't know whether you know this, Deputy Speaker, but government spending is growing at four times the pace of the Australian economy. That says it all. When it comes to debt, as a result of this government's spending, an extra $100 billion has been added to the national credit card. So debt's going to hit $1.2 trillion by the time of the next election. And this government will pretend that that's fine. But if you think of the children of Australia, if you think of those who are yet to be born and will be citizens of this country, they are the ones who will have to pay for your spending spree. They're the ones who are indebted. Every single minute that goes by, $50,000 gets paid on Labor's debt—$1.2 trillion.
Government members interjecting—
The MPs can laugh, but we are talking about the next generation. You are saddling them with debt. This is more than just an economic argument. There is a moral obligation on those who are in charge of the treasury benches to not saddle the next generation with debt. So, scoff all you like, as a Labor government, but it is the next generation of Australians that the coalition is defending.
It might be fair enough to ask, how is it that this government has decided to just go and spend? Well, the government have been the beneficiaries of the greatest revenue windfall in the history of Australia: $400 billion. A responsible government would not have done what the Treasurer did—put his hand in the cookie jar and baked more spending into his budget. The problem is, once the windfall is over, you've baked in more spending, which is why now we have a problem. Not only is this government racking up up to $1.2 trillion in debt but its own plan is another decade of deficits. And people keep paying for this. As you spend more, as you pour more money into the economy, prices rise. That's what we saw in yesterday's figures. It is why the Australian people are the ones who pay. Money is not free. If you rack up debt, if you run deficits, it comes at a cost, and it's the Australian people who pay. They know they pay when they go to the supermarket. Food prices are up by 15 per cent. Australians know they pay when they pay their education fees. Education is up by 17 per cent. They know they pay when they look at housing prices and rents—up by 17 and 19 per cent, respectively. Australians know they pay for Labor's spending spree because insurance costs are up by 37 per cent. There's one thing Australians really know they pay for, and that's Labor's electricity bills. I don't know if you're aware of this, but Labor actually went to the election, before, promising a $275 reduction in household power bills. Bills are up over a thousand dollars. In fact, electricity prices have gone up 39 per cent under this government; gas, 38 per cent.
These are the real-life consequences of Labor's spending spree. When you are in the supermarket next and you're saying, 'My Lord, the prices have gone up,' that is due to the Treasurer's spending spree. When you can't pay the school fees, that is due to the Treasurer's spending spree. When you see that you, as an average mortgage holder, are paying an additional $1,800 a month in interest payments, that is due to the Treasurer's spending spree.
But, in the absence of a revenue windfall, what do you think the Treasurer can now do? There's only one thing he's now thinking about. It starts with T. It's a three-letter word: T-A-X—tax. We have the Treasurer now gunning for tax. We knew that, because the only plan he had was to tax unrealised capital gains, and I invite all those Labor members who thought that was a good idea just to stand in their places or give us a wave. Whoopsie-daisy! He didn't have much support for that—the taxation of unrealised capital gains. No wonder he got completely rolled. But, as a result, of course, he's got a black hole of about $20 billion. And you can be sure of one thing: he's coming after you. He's coming after you with more taxes. We are talking about not just Sir Taxalot but King Taxalot.
I remind the member for Fairfax—
This is the new 'Jimflation' effect.
Order!
This is what it's all about, you see.
Order! Order! Resume your seat. We've been through this before, you and I, and I have advised you that that is unparliamentary and that I would not have it in the House. You were about to ignore that, again, so I'm just asking you to withdraw those comments. Your time has expired, but I'd like you to withdraw those comments. It was an unnecessary addition to your speech.
I'm happy to withdraw those comments.
To call those opposite a clown show would be an insult to the hardworking clowns of Australia.
I don't think—
That—
Assistant Minister, I have just sat the member for Fairfax down for what I think is an undignified comment in the debate. I've previously ruled out whole references to circus performers, and I'd like you not to proceed with that. Please withdraw the comments, and let's get on with a dignified debate.
I withdraw, Deputy Speaker.
Thank you.
After going to the last election promising Australians they would have higher taxes, lower wages and bigger deficits, those opposite have proceeded to tear themselves apart over the last few months. As one of their most senior women, Fiona Scott, has said, 'You don't win elections by threatening to sack the bloke next door.' Whether it's their internal climate wars, their immigration wars or their T-shirt wars, those opposite are less a coalition than a chook shed in a thunderstorm.
We had the coalition split after the election—the comical break-up, which led, briefly, to the opposition leader saying that it would be a frontbench drawn exclusively from the Liberal party room. As one backgrounded a newspaper outlet, they were acting like kids. For a while, the entire 15-member National Party cohort was to be moved away from the Speaker's chair towards the backbench seats, when suddenly they realised that they were making a decision that might affect their hip pockets and decided to reunite.
Then we had Senator Price defecting to the Liberal Party, nearly leaving the Nationals as a nonparty in the Senate. Shortly after, Senator Price was dumped from the coalition shadow ministry, not only because she couldn't back the leader but also for her highly offensive comments about Indian migrants. But she isn't the only one that seems to want to go back on Australia's multicultural success story—a multiculturalism that, as Tim Watts often reminds me, is supported by nine out of 10 Australians. We've had the member for Canning saying that he believed Australians were becoming strangers in their own country due to what he called 'unsustainable' immigration levels. I don't know what he would have made of immigration levels under the coalition, which were 40 per cent higher than they are under us. We've had Senator Canavan telling ABC's Afternoon Briefing that crime is clearly linked with migrant communities in Melbourne. We've seen a shameful attack on migrants from the coalition, which has forced those like Alex Hawke to come out and to finally make the case—
Assistant Minister, you need to refer to members by their correct titles.
Indeed. The Leader of the Opposition in the House also made the case—surprising many—for multiculturalism. We have seen the resignation of the member for Canning from the front bench after attacking what he called 'muppets'. That was after being attacked by the former leader, Peter Dutton, who said the member for Canning went on strike in the last election and fumbled key policy work. The tearing apart of the coalition is extended to Senator Hume, who, in the discussion between the Liberals and the Nationals, said that, if she joined the Nationals:
I'd have to speak a lot slower and talk about the regions more often …
We on this side understand, represent and care about regional Australia. We don't see people in regional Australia as needing to be attacked in any internal party games.
The battle has become hottest over net zero—that policy so radical that it was made the policy of the Australian government by coal-wielding Prime Minister Scott Morrison, a policy supported by every state and territory in Australia, every major business group and most of our major trading partners. Those who oppose net zero are those like Advance Australia, which has been running campaigns threatening Liberal and National Party members if they don't back net zero. We've heard sensible conservatives such as Matt Kean, say:
… let me say, as the former Liberal Treasurer in the largest economy in the nation, that is a sign they are heading for electoral oblivion. The coalition needs to reflect the mood of the Australian public, which is clearly saying they want strong and decisive action on climate change that is in our national interest …
So if I'm—
A point of order on relevance. We are five minutes into the MPI response. It notes the government's spending spree. It doesn't mention the opposition. The minister has spoken for five minutes—
Sit down.
You don't have the call, member for Casey, and, if I were to apply a strict rule of relevance in an MPI, I can assure you there'd be a lot of silent moments. I often give people a bit of leeway, and I have been listening until I couldn't quite listen then—because somebody was talking to me—and I have no hesitation in saying there was relevance in this MPI.
Today we introduced into the House key environmental protection and biodiversity conservation reforms, five years to the day after the Samuel report was delivered to the then environment minister, the now opposition leader. We are doing so because we want business to have the certainty of quicker approvals and because we want to see the environment properly protected. Tomorrow, key bulk-billing incentives will take effect. Everyone who is bulk-billed will now see the bulk-billing incentive applied, and there will be additional practice incentives. In my own electorate of Fenner, we've already seen three practices approach the health department about becoming fully bulk-billing practices. We are working to address climate change, not only committed to net zero but committed to our target of 43 per cent emissions reduction by 2030 and a 62-to-70 per cent emissions reduction by 2035. This is good for the climate, but it's also good for jobs and prosperity. The nuclear madness that the coalition took to the last election wouldn't just have cost some $600 billion; it would also have seen Australia grow more slowly and emit more pollution.
Our productivity agenda sees us committing to get rid of non-compete clauses that are shackling millions of Australian workers from moving to a better job. Getting rid of non-compete clauses will be great for productivity, great for wage growth and great for innovation. We're dealing with supermarket price gouging by saying that supermarkets that charge excessive prices will be subject to multimillion dollar fines. We're getting national competition policy going again—policy that, in the 1990s, helped deliver a huge productivity surge, which was behind the best productivity decade in the post-war era. Our $900 million National Productivity Fund works with states and territories on things like planning and zoning reform in business, reforms that are going to see our national productivity increase.
We're cracking down on unfair trading practices to ensure Australians aren't paying inflated prices due to poor and dodgy business conduct. We're reviewing the right-to-repair scheme, which took effect under Labor. It provides more choice and lowers repair costs for Australian motorists. We are consulting on options to strengthen the Unit Pricing Code as a crackdown on shrinkflation, and we're making it easier for supermarkets to enter the market, to see more productivity in Australia. We are overseeing an economy whose unemployment rate is lower than many of our trading partners. Many other economies are seeing challenges with inflation, which is rising everywhere except the UK, where it is significantly higher than it is here. More than a million jobs have been created since we came to office—stronger jobs growth than any major advanced economy.
The coalition are a goat rodeo in suits. It's vaudeville without the talent, slapstick without the charm. But we are getting on with the job. We are delivering for the Australian people. We are focused on tackling the cost of living, boosting productivity and working collaboratively with the states and territories in order to deliver policies which are good for households, good for the environment and good for the prosperity of future generations.
In the face of some of the political rhetoric and game playing that goes on, particularly from that side, I want to talk about some real Australians, real people.
Hamish is a dairy farmer in my electorate. He gets up at 4.30 every morning and milks approximately 500 cows. In the winter it's icy cold in the dairy. It's dirty. There are a lot of flies in the summer. At 3 pm he gets the cows in and does it all again. It's tough work, but he loves it. He loves producing clean, healthy food for Australia. After the afternoon milking, he goes out again and irrigates his paddocks, sometimes well into the night. Hamish is really worried that the Murray-Darling Basin Plan changes by this government will reduce the amount of irrigation water and push prices up, making dairy farming even more difficult. Hamish pays a lot of tax, and the produce earns a lot of tax for Australia when it's exported.
Matt is a fruit grower. He pays a lot of tax. He works really hard, and he barely sleeps during the harvest season. The energy bills for his coolstores, required to run 24/7, are going through the roof. His employee is originally from India. He works long hours, earning good money, to get ahead in his new country, and he pays a lot of tax.
Tom is from Gunnedah. He manages an engineering firm that does a lot of work for mining and energy companies. He works seven days a week and endures a lot of stress, with the price of everything going up, and that's been getting a lot worse in the last three years. He pays a lot of tax.
When the government indulges in wasteful spending and threatens private enterprises, I want those opposite to think about Hamish, Matt and Tom and their employees, and all those people paying tax and doing difficult jobs that are essential to Australia's economic prosperity. The philosophy of this government is that everything is free. But nothing is truly free; someone has to pay for it, and often it's the blood, sweat and tears of Australians taking a risk, working incredibly hard in difficult conditions and paying a lot of tax. We should respect those people.
Our philosophy is that you grow the economy, and to grow the economy you've got to have a competitive private sector. There needs to be a culture in this country of enabling private industry to thrive and employ people. We should not create a system where more and more people are reliant on governments distributing taxes to get by. Every day in this place, in question time, all the government seem to do is brag about spending taxpayers' money as if it is theirs, but it was earned by other people.
Some of the spending we agree with. Some of it's good. A lot of it's wasteful. Who pays? And how are we looking after the industries that provide us with those tax dollars? Those industries are suffering because, when government spending gets unsustainable and it goes up four times faster than the economy is growing, we get inflationary pressures, and those put more pressure on business. The economic health of this country is in a really difficult place, and the trajectory is not good, because everything's going up. The inputs are going up, and I don't see policies to help bring them down—and energy is a classic example.
Energy is the economy. And, as I've said in this place before, renewable energy is good technology. It's great technology. But it needs to be part of a diverse mix in the grid. And, as I've talked about, the Centre for Independent Studies reports that it's good at about 30 per cent, but, when it gets near 60 per cent, prices go up. If prices are going up, businesses can't be competitive. And, if businesses can't be competitive, Hamish, Matt and Tom can't be profitable. And, if they're not profitable, they're not paying tax. And, if they're not paying tax, where's Labor going to get money to hand out and then brag about during question time? I would just like you to respect and think about the Hamishs, the Matts and the Toms of this world, who do hard jobs, pay tax, create private enterprise, employ people and keep this country going. Don't waste their hard earned dollars.
I see the coalition remained unencumbered by self-awareness as they provided that lecture on the running of the economy! They raised a number of topics in their MPI, including tax returns, from the party that proposed increased taxes at the last election; higher spending; higher debt; higher deficit—well done, coalition; and electricity bills, from the party that caused policy paralysis for nine years and continue to eat themselves over the very topic. The reason we have higher-than-desirable electricity bills is years of policy failure to ensure that the supply of electricity meets demand. It's a simple supply-and-demand problem. But, instead of having a coherent, consistent set of policies, we find a chopping and changing of 20 different policies over a relatively short period of time.
They talk about business. How on Earth can business invest in the clean energy future if there is no policy certainty? It is the worst possible thing you could do, no matter what direction you're in, to ensure there is investment in energy. They held up coal. They even wore coal as make-up in one case, but they didn't actually make any new coal-fired power plants. They didn't increase the supply of electricity. There were three gigawatts less of coal-fired power when they left than when they went into office. So, even as coal lovers, they were terrible at their job.
Now, we find ourselves in a situation where we need to rapidly deploy technologies to ensure an electricity supply that is sufficient in amount, that is low enough in cost and that we can rely on going into the future. So, instead of finding the policy that says 'renewables only'—they forget about the fact that we've got batteries that pump hydro and that are backed by gas. They go to war on a policy that doesn't exist, and then they promote a policy of their own that also doesn't exist.
We had an announcement of nuclear last night, but we don't know if net zero is there, because we're waiting for Matthew Canavan's no doubt independent and well-researched report on the future of net zero. We have to ask: what does that do for industries and households? That policy paralysis means that we are not getting the investment we need, and haven't had the investment we've needed, in this sector for a long time. Thank goodness a Labor government has been elected. We can provide policy clarity.
We, unlike the opposition, are not so arrogant as to think that we're smarter than AEMO, smarter than the Treasury and smarter than pretty much every other expert in the energy space—who confirm that the cheapest form of energy is renewable energy. We're deploying it at pace, along with the safeguards to ensure consistency of supply and reliability. We're investing in gas supply. We're making sure that pumped hydro is being rolled out. We're making sure that battery technology is being utilised, and households have voted with their feet: 104,000 homes have thankfully ignored the side show and decided to invest in battery technology. They know that storage of renewables is the cheapest way to power your home and the cheapest way to power your business, as long as the settings are right.
People are getting off the grid, and they're not paying higher power bills. People in my electorate, and in electorates all over the country, have been voting with their feet. It's exciting to see a government that is finally committed to a sensible energy policy that maintains coherence in the energy space and gives business the certainty it deserves.
In their MPI, the opposition talked about mortgage repayments. They are forgetting that inflation was sitting at about 6.1 per cent when we first came to office. It now has a three in front of it, and we've had, I think, three interest rate reductions in the last year.
Twelve rises!
Well, we have turned the inflation we inherited around. Now, we find ourselves in a position where our economic management is being compared with that of a government that, for nine years in a row—and after entering office with an action contract promising to 'end the waste'—brought in probably every rort in existence: sports rorts, car park rorts and every other form of rort you could possibly imagine. The colour spreadsheets were active! They were overspenders. They never delivered a surplus. They showed that all their rhetoric about being responsible was just 'reduce, reuse, recycle' from the Howard years.
They continue to lack credibility when it comes to jobs. We have seen 1.5 million additional jobs created in the economy since the Albanese government was elected. We've got one of the lowest unemployment rates for a new government in over half a century. We have an incredibly good record on jobs. We have an incredibly good record on real wage increases. It is not a deliberate design feature of our economic architecture to suppress wages. We want wages to grow. We want living to improve in our country, and we want to make sure we are readying ourselves for the future. We're going to have a 21st century energy grid that will power a 21st century economy. This means that young people can enter the future with a confidence they simply could not have under the coalition government. The coalition party room is where hope and common sense go to die. I'm so glad to be part of a government that is actually delivering the policy settings we need for the future Australians deserve. That is across policy areas.
As we've said, people are doing it tough right now. We take that incredibly seriously. The job is not done yet, but you can tell that this government is committed to making life in this country better. We will do what we need to do to support Australian workers, Australian businesses and Australian industries. It is important for the future of the country that they have at least one side of politics with its eye on the job.
Thank you to the member for Deakin. That was like a mini Chris Bowen: just as fast and just as divorced from reality.
I will remind the member for Cook to use correct titles.
Sorry, the mini energy minister. He's just as fast and just as divorced from reality. Perhaps a bit less well-read. I think the member for Deakin just said that the reason we've had higher electricity prices is the former coalition government. Is that right?
Nine years.
Nine years. Why is it, then, that coming into the 2022 election, your side of politics promised 97 times that bills would go down by $275?
That line worked for three years.
It worked. That line worked for three years. We've heard it here, Australia! The member for Deakin just said, 'That line worked for three years.' They've been repeating a lie. They say the coalition is the reason prices went up. But, before the 2022 election, they stood in front of you 97 times and said prices would go down by $275. Well, there are only two explanations for that. There are only two explanations: either you have no idea how energy markets work, or you do and you lied to the Australian public anyway. Which one is it?
Excuse me.
Sorry for the humour.
You know the standing orders around the use of that particular word. Withdraw and rephrase.
I withdraw, and I'll rephrase.
Thank you.
One of two things must be true. You either have no idea, none whatsoever, about how energy markets work, or you do and the opposition lied anyway. Which one is it? They're awfully quiet now! You could hear a pin drop in the chamber, because it's embarrassing. And you know what? What is happening is people in my electorate are living it. Just last week, I was out at FJP Manufacturing. This is a business—we have a few manufacturing businesses clinging to life in Cook. They have seen their gas and electricity prices both up by over 70 per cent in the last two years. As I said—and the energy minister liked to clip me up about this—you don't really care about TAFE. Do you know what's happening to people? They took seven apprentices three years ago—
Member for Cook, I'm taking a point of order, I presume, from the Chief Government Whip.
Yes, point of order, Deputy Speaker. The member persists directing his responses not through you but at people on this side of the chamber.
I will remind the member for Cook that, in an effort to depersonalise these debates, we have the standing order that directs the comments through me, so please—
I withdraw, and I'll adjust. FJP Manufacturing's bills are up 76 per cent. They had seven apprentices just at the start of the last term of government. They're down to three apprentices, and they're worried it's going to zero. These people employ 50 people in my electorate. Phill is the guy who runs the show there. He works incredibly hard bending metal, doing powder coatings and supplying businesses all throughout Sydney. Yet they are being crushed under energy prices. Only three weeks ago, I was out at Kareela shops, meeting a chicken shop provider there that's had its energy prices more than double. Just yesterday, I received an email from someone in my electorate screenshotting their bill. What did they screenshot in their bill? Even though they had solar, their home bill had more than doubled. Their rate per kilowatt hour had tripled. This is the reality Australians are living with.
So, when those on the other side stand up here and tell us, 'Oh, yes, the only reason we have electricity prices up is the coalition,' it's clearly not true. Why are these lies being peddled? Because it's a vulnerability. It is a vulnerability, and it's going to get worse. Why do we know this? Because we're seeing the bodies pile up—Whyalla steelworks bankrupt, Tomago about to be bankrupt and Mount Isa smelter bankrupt. The CEOs of BlueScope Steel, Cadbury and Mars are all coming in and saying that manufacturing and industry are at a crossroads, and they risk going offshore. The CEO of BHP said that in Australia energy costs are two to three times those of comparable economies. BlueScope Steel said our gas prices are three to four times those of the US. The bodies are piling up, and it's not pretty. Guess who's holding the gun? It's the energy minister of Australia.
A point of order from the assistant minister?
The allegation of violence by the member for Cook at the end of his speech was entirely inappropriate and utterly unparliamentary, and I ask you to ask him to withdraw.
It was a metaphor, but, to assist the House, I withdraw.
I appreciate that. I give the call to the member for Forde.
Thank you. When I gave my first speech in the House, I said that I don't have political heroes, but I've got plenty of sporting ones. One of my greatest heroes is Dean Jones, one of the greatest batters ever to play for Australia. There were times when you were watching him, where the poor bowler was being hit all over the park. They must have been thinking, 'There is nowhere we can bowl to this person.' That's exactly what it is like watching the shadow Treasurer bowl up to the Treasurer of this country at the moment. That's exactly what it must be like when they have to come up with an MPI every time. Where can they hit the government that is so focused on the Australian people, so focused on their game, while they're divided on themselves? Where do they hit it?
So today they've come up with the words 'spending spree'. Let's have a look at what is meant by a 'spending spree'. To me, a spree is something you do carelessly, throwing around money frivolously on things that don't matter. But, when the opposition say, 'Spend less,' what they really mean is, 'Invest less.' I've run a small business, and it's been an enormous privilege. You learn quickly that there are two ways to run a small business: either you invest in your plant and your people and build something sustainable, or you strip the profits out and run the business into the ground. Running a country is like running a small business: you can slash and burn, or you can build and invest in your people and your future.
Let's look at what we're investing in. We are investing $8.5 million in Medicare. One of the most profoundly moving experiences that I have had in politics was this week when we were ringing around the GP clinics in Forde. We have only got to about three-quarters of them so far but already we have found out that it is going from seven bulk-billing clinics to 15 overnight. I have never in all of the time that I have been either watching or participating in politics seen a single policy with such an immediate impact as this one. It saves Australians money, improves our health, helps the economy, supports families, but it costs money.
Let's look at housing. There is $43 billion invested in housing.
An honourable member interjecting—
That's right. That is what they are calling a spree. But in one year—and I will say it is in one year—we have built more houses in Forde than the opposition built in almost 10 years of government across the whole country. I say one year because they spent two or three years trying to hold it up because they saw it as a spree.
Finally, in skills and training, we have free TAFE, which the opposition said people would not value because it is free. When I was working on farms I learned that with the right skills you can fix everything. As I am sure the member for Riverina knows, with a bit of silicon and fencing wire, you can fix just about anything. And it turns out that with the right skills you can even fix the broken skill system that we were left with after the opposition gave it to us.
The thing that Australia has which is our most valuable resource is not underground but on top of the ground. It is the people of this country. With the right skills you can skill up and you can get a return on that investment and that is what all of these things are—they are a return on an investment. They are carefully calculated, methodically thought through returns on the investment that we will see for generations to come.
Do you know what really costs? Doing nothing. That is the bill that you do not get until after the election. Because when governments do not invest it is Australians who are left to pick up the tab. There are just some things that it is better to do collectively, for the government to invest in. Health care is one of them; otherwise, you end up with a health system like the American system, where it is every person for themselves. Public housing is another one of them. Skills and training is another one of them. While the Australian people are sick to death of privatisation and economic rationalism, for some reason the opposition wants to continue with that failed policy. There is a role for government investing in the economy, just as there is a role in the good management of a company investing in its plan and its people. The opposition say if you do not pay for it, you do not value it. But if you cannot afford it, you are locked out, and the country suffers.
I wholeheartedly agree with the member for Forde, who has just said when governments do not pay for funding, Australians are left to pick up the tab. When they do not fund something, Australians are left to pay the bill, and he is so very correct. Because what we have seen from this Labor government is a complete neglect of regional Australia.
We heard in question time today that Labor apparently has more regional members than there are on this side. Well, if that is the case—and I am not disputing it—then why aren't those regional members sticking up for their constituents? Why aren't they sticking up for their electorates, which are being left high and dry by the minister for infrastructure, who is from Ballarat, by the regional development minister, who is from Eden-Monaro, because they are not funding regional Australia, certainly nowhere near to the point where we were when we were in government, and roads are just full of potholes. We have civic centres, aquatics centres, regional hubs just being left behind, and this is just such a shame. When we talk about the difficulties of regional Australians in particular, we are talking about those people who during COVID carried this nation. We hear about the trillion dollars worth of debt. The member for Rankin, the Treasurer, goes on about all the time. ABC Fact Check have said it's nowhere near a billion dollars. What that trillion dollars—it was about $800 billion, but let's not let $200 billion get in the way of the Treasurer's remarks—did was it kept the doors of businesses open. We kept people alive during the worst global pandemic ever, certainly the biggest pandemic in a century since the World War I Spanish flu.
You doubled the deficit in your first budget!
I didn't interrupt you, Minister, so you might just leave me to make my remarks. All the minister at the table did, all the member for Fenner did, was just play the person. His whole 10-minute speech was just picking off coalition member by coalition member.
But let's not get personal. It's not about us in here in the House of Representatives; it's about the people out there who are hurting and paying electricity bills which are far too high. Those opposite promised, on 97 occasions prior to the May election in 2022, that there would be a $275 reduction in those power bills. The member for Deakin, in his contribution, belled the cat, because he said, 'That line worked for three years.' Well, he's going to regret that interjection, because it was a line—in fact, it wasn't just a line; you could leave the 'n' out of that word—and it was uttered over and over and over again, and it was not true. It might have worked for three years, but it's not cutting through now. People's electricity bills, their power bills, are 40 per cent higher than they were before Labor came to office. That's 40 per cent more on household budgets. That's 40 per cent more on farmers and factories and people who are keeping the lights on in this nation.
This nation is hurting. The transport industry is struggling. We've got the construction industry in freefall. We've got so many sectors—Tomago this week. Everywhere you look in every state and every territory we've got people who are struggling to make ends meet. This is simply not good enough. And it's simply not good enough from a government who said they would address these issues. For 18 months all we heard about was the Voice. For 18 months they took their eyes off the ball. Then, when they decided to get focused about the economy, it was too late.
The economy has tanked and it's getting worse. Inflation is up this week. It's such a struggle for people, particularly for people who are paying rent or trying to get into their first home. We've got a housing minister who talks about building a million homes. Good luck with that, because it's just not going to happen on Labor's watch. You can say it as much as you like and you can say it as convincingly as you like, but it's not happening. The people out there in voter land aren't fooled. They certainly are not fooled, because every time they get their power bill, every time they go to the supermarket and go to the cash register, and every time they go to the bowser at the petrol station they are paying through the nose for the follies of the Labor government, for the mistakes of this government and for the shortfalls of this government. This government will pay for this just like ordinary, everyday Australians are paying through the nose every day of the week.
I am one of those members that represents a regional community. Just this morning we announced that we are investing $1 million to address potholes and drainage in a road at Bass Point—which is a jewel in the crown of our community, not only for locals but for the visitor economy. So I wonder: is that to be considered an investment, or a spending spree?
The federal government cares about reducing cost-of-living pressures on individuals and families across Australia. More than that, we have taken practical steps to reduce those pressures. To begin, we've reduced personal income tax rates for Australians on lower incomes, and further tax cuts are coming. These are tax cuts that the opposition opposed. Of course, the opposition is good at one thing; it's good at opposing. We have taken practical steps to reduce the tax burden on people who have lower incomes, because Labor cares about ensuring people on lower incomes keep more of what they earn.
In relation to energy prices, we have been working hard to address the burden of energy costs, because we acknowledge that for many households and small businesses this remains a significant pressure. The federal government has extended the national energy bill relief program, offering every household and around one million small businesses automatic electricity bill rebates.
Beyond rebates, important structural reforms relating to energy are underway in the transition to renewable energy. The Australian Energy Market Commission projects that, with a coordinated transition to renewables and electrification, households could reduce their energy spending significantly over the next decade. With the transition to renewable energy, our government aims to create jobs, reduce pressure on energy bills, and lower emissions. These steps combine immediate relief with the longer-term structural reform of the energy system, which will be good for the environment and will reduce energy bill costs for Australians.
Regarding unemployment, average unemployment under the Albanese Labor government is the lowest of any government in 50 years. Our government has adopted a comprehensive approach aimed at not just lowering the unemployment rate but also addressing underemployment and labour market underutilisation. Our national employment rate is at historically low levels. However, there remains untapped potential within our labour market, and we are working to ensure that we are reducing barriers to work, increasing skills, supporting transitions to work, and ensuring secure, fairly paid jobs. These efforts are designed to deepen labour force participation, reduce underemployment and promote economic activity, thereby strengthening household income, reducing welfare dependency and contributing to cost-of-living relief.
The Albanese Labor government has employed a range of strategies to reduce cost-of-living pressures for Australians. Notably, in the area of health care, where many Australians experience significant cost pressures, we are making record investments in bulk-billing. Our investment will deliver an additional 18 million bulk-billed GP visits a year. This investment, as well as our reductions in the cost of medicines under the PBS and our investment in urgent care clinics, is designed to reduce cost pressures on individuals and families.
On top of that, as I mentioned, our government has cut taxes so that Australians can keep more of their earnings. We've subsidised energy bills, and we're reforming the energy system so that households will have lower power bills over time. We've supported economic conditions for lower interest rates through economic stability and labour market policies. We've supported lower unemployment rates and better labour market outcomes, recognising that secure work is one of the best ways to relieve cost-of-living pressures. More than 1.1 million jobs have been created since we came to office. That is stronger jobs growth than in any advanced economy.
In terms of supporting individuals and families with cost-of-living pressures, it should be acknowledged that no measure works in isolation. The macroeconomic environment, global energy markets, inflation and structural change all exert force on household budgets. But our government has made cost-of-living relief a priority, as reflected in our healthcare reforms, our energy bill relief and the tax cuts we have delivered. We are managing the economy in the interests of all Australians, and this continues to be our focus.
Today I rise to speak on the grave matter of fairness and fiscal responsibility. The reality is that everyday, ordinary Australians pay the price for a government that has decided to spend money as if it grows on trees. It doesn't take an economics degree to see that this government is addicted to spending taxpayers' money. That addiction has a price, and you—the police officer, the schoolteacher, the farmer, the retailer—are picking up the tab. Let me say it plainly. We are borrowing from our children's future, paying the interest today so that the debt will fall on our children tomorrow. The cost of living is soaring. Rent is up by 21 per cent, food costs are up by 16 per cent, mortgages are up by $1,800 a month on average, and power prices are up by 46 per cent and increasing.
You cannot separate the borrowing and the spending from the environment in which jobs become harder to find, wage growth stagnates and regional families feel left behind. In regional South Australia, farmers reel under generational drought—fishers destroyed by the algal bloom, and manufacturing on life support. Yet we see a city focused government pouring money down the drain for inner-city handouts and vanity projects. So when you look at your tax bill, your power bill, your mortgage statement or the difficulty you're having to find a secure job, it's not just the market, it's not just inflation, it's not just the cost of living; it's also a government that chooses to borrow and spend big rather than live within its means.
Let me walk you through the arithmetic of work debt servicing means in everyday terms, because regional Australians understand numbers. We are paying $50,000 every minute in interest on the debt. That's roughly $72 million per day—money that could have been spent on upgrades to regional hospitals, fixing the roads we rely on, supporting community housing in towns like Port Pirie and helping businesses hit by the algal bloom, drought and unaffordable housing prices.
So what do we see for regional South Australia? We see a government that is focused on inner-city spending and confusing tax grabs, while regions again miss out. We see schools that still need upgrades. We see roads that still need repairs. We see the government promising regional investment, but then redirecting the money to bailouts, handouts and vanity projects. And we see workers with only $30 left each week.
It is not just a policy failure; it is a broken promise for families in the regions saving for a home, paying off a mortgage or running a small business. The message they get is the government can't manage its own money, so it comes after yours. We must return to a government that believes in lower, simpler taxes; that lives within its means; that does not mortgage the future of regional Australians so that inner-city votes can be changed. We need fiscal discipline, not fiscal drag. We need spending that genuinely invests in a productive economy, in regions, in small business, in primary industries—not wasteful spending that piles up debt.
I return to the shadow government's matter of public importance. The government's spending spree is being paid for by everyday Australians in their tax returns, their electricity bills, in their mortgage repayments and in their struggle for jobs. Let me be clear: it is not the government who pays off the debt, it is not the bureaucrats who pay off the debt; it is the farmer, the teacher, the tradie, the small business operator, the regional family. That is who is carrying this government's burden.
I call on this government to stop the reckless spending, stop the endless tax fest and hollow promises. Give Australians the respect of knowing you will live within your means like everyone else has to. If government spending is a tool, spend it on value-adding initiatives, like hospitals, roads, schools and energy resilience in towns like Port Lincoln and Port Parham. Let it help our small businesses recover. Let it support jobs and growth in regional Australia. Let's do it in a way that does not leave our children paying the interest, because, simply, this big-spending, tax happy government seems incapable of making the hard decisions needed.
I rise today as both a teacher, who cares for children across Australia, and a representative of a regional community. Our test is simple: Are Australians better off today when they open their tax return? When they check their mortgage statement? When they search for a job? Those opposite are crying 'spending spree', but Australians are seeing the reality. They see a government that is delivering tax cuts, driving down energy costs over the long term, backing record job creation and helping ease mortgage pressure. That's not a spree; that's a strategy. That's not chaos; that's a plan. I understand that is unfamiliar to those opposite.
When we look at energy options, the choice could not be clearer. We stick with a volatile, ageing fossil fuel system, or we invest in clean cheaper renewables that cut bills over time. Griffith University research shows that if we had stayed reliant solely on coal and gas, the cost of generating electricity would be 50 per cent higher today. I really want that to sink in—every power bill would be higher; every family and small business would pay the price. Fifty per cent is a big difference. Numbers are tricky though.
The CSIRO confirms that renewables with transmission and storage included are the cheapest form of new energy generation in Australia. It's not ideology; it's engineering, it's economics and it's evidence. And households are feeling the difference. We know that the Australian Energy Market Commission projects that electricity prices could be 13 per cent lower over the next decade if our renewable rollout continues as planned. We know the Australian Energy Regulator reports that wholesale prices have been falling since late 2022, thanks to cheaper fuel, more renewables and decisive government action. This is real progress and, while we don't pretend a decade of neglect can be fixed overnight, we are doing the hard yards to build a secure and affordable energy future. That's what we do. We build for the long-term, just like we did with Medicare, and now we can't actually imagine an Australia without it.
The government's record on job creation and growth is also something that, like Medicare, we should all be celebrating. More than 1.1 million jobs have been created since we came to government, the strongest single-term job creation on record. It's actually also the lowest average unemployment rate of any government in 50 years. That's not a slogan; that is the ABS talking. More Australians are in work than ever before, and we're not stopping there.
We're backing fee-free TAFE, we're rebuilding advanced manufacturing and we're investing in those clean energy jobs, because these important and very well paying jobs of tomorrow can be done by people here, across Australia, in Burnie, in Devonport and in La Trobe, when we put in place the right training opportunities.
We've also delivered tax cuts for every single Australian taxpayer—one this year, another in 2026 and another in 2027. By the 2027-2028 financial year there's going to be an average of $2,500 extra in people's pockets every year. We're supporting people to earn more and keep more of what they earn, and we're doing it fairly. I do wish to compare that to those opposite, who actually made a vow—something that we do in marriage—to undo our tax cuts and take that money away from people.
Australians are doing it tough, and we know that there are many external threats that are impacting us right now. That's why rate relief matters. Our Reserve Bank has cut interest rates three times this year, and I can tell you that, on my schoolteacher salary, that is a huge impact to families. Depending on your loan, the cuts are actually saving households hundreds of dollars a month, and that would not have happened without the work and planning done by the Albanese Labor government.
We are delivering for the people of Bass. We are delivering for the people of Australia, and they know what this government stands for: cheaper power bills in the long-term; more secure, better paid jobs; tax cuts for every Australian; mortgage relief when it's needed most. We're not chasing headlines; we're delivering outcomes. It's not a spending spree; it's a nation-building plan.
The time for this discussion is now concluded.
I have received a letter from the honourable member for Fisher resigning from the Parliament Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security.
I present the explanatory memorandum to this bill and move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
This bill marks a significant step in our commitment to improve regulatory outcomes in the energy sector, by ensuring dedicated governance and accountability structures that are tailored specifically to energy market regulation.
The intention of this bill is to amend the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 to separate the Australian Energy Regulator (the AER) from the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (the ACCC), establishing the AER as a non-corporate Commonwealth entity with operational control of its staff, resources and governance arrangements.
The AER is the independent regulator of wholesale and retail energy markets and energy networks, mainly across southern and eastern Australia, under national energy laws and rules. Its key activities include energy network regulation, compliance and enforcement, and the performance monitoring and reporting of energy wholesale and retail markets as well as network businesses.
Taken together, that is an incredibly important function—as perfectly well expressed in the AER's purpose, which is 'to ensure energy consumers are better off, now and in the future'.
The AER currently operates as a constituent part of the ACCC. Both organisations are a single Commonwealth entity for the purpose of the finance law. The AER shares staff, resources and facilities with the ACCC—and as a result, the AER board, which is responsible for regulatory functions, does not have direct control over resources and staff, which remain under the ACCC's authority.
This proposed amendment to legally separate the AER from the ACCC will remove the governance risks that hinder the AER's ability to manage its increasing regulatory responsibilities effectively. It will enable the AER to operate effectively as an independent entity.
The bill will not change the key elements of the Australian Energy Market Agreement—such as the role and function of the AER as the independent energy regulator, the composition of the AER's board, the requirement for the Commonwealth to fund the AER, and the administrative law arrangements whereby the decisions of the AER will continue to be subject to judicial review by the Federal Court.
The national energy laws—which provide the AER with more detailed functions and obligations—will also remain unchanged.
It has to be acknowledged that several independent reviews have recommended an autonomous AER.
In 2015 the Review of Governance Arrangements for Australian Energy Markets, chaired by Dr Michael Vertigan, considered governance arrangements of the Australian energy markets and recommended that the AER should have full management and financial autonomy, which would most effectively be achieved by re-establishing the AER as a standalone regulatory body.
The 2017 Independent Review into the Future Security of the National Electricity Market, led by Dr Alan Finkel, noted the AER's role is highly technical and sector specific, and that by constituting the AER as a separate energy agency we would be mirroring the structures of other energy market bodies and comparable energy regulators in similar countries.
State and territory energy ministers have been consulted on the proposal, and, on 19 May 2023, agreed the AER should be established as a standalone Commonwealth entity.
It would surprise no-one to observe that the AER's operational environment has evolved significantly since its establishment in 2005. As the energy market becomes more complex, and with the AER's regulatory functions expanding, the AER needs the authority to manage its own resources and to set its own strategic direction independently from the ACCC.
The ambitious scale and pace of the energy transition requires the AER to operate with greater financial and operational autonomy. A distinctly separate AER will provide for greater management and financial autonomy, contributing to the overall effectiveness of the AER as Australia's energy regulator.
Creating a standalone AER will formalise its governance responsibilities, including for managing its budget, human resources and risk oversight. This change will allow the AER to better align its internal operations with its regulatory mandate and strategic goals.
This is essential for effectively managing the energy transition, overseeing wholesale and retail markets, and addressing issues like energy affordability and network regulation. In other words, this change will make sure the AER is better placed to do what we need it to do in the best interests of the Australian community.
The bill supports the broader energy policy of the government, enabled through the National Energy Transformation Partnership, a framework for Commonwealth, state and territory governments to work together on reforms to help transform Australia's energy system to achieve net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.
One of the priority themes of the framework is strengthening energy governance architecture.
The bill is a necessary and forward-looking reform that helps achieve this priority theme.
The government is committed to delivering affordable, reliable, and clean energy for all Australians, and the reforms contained in this bill will help make that vision a reality.
It's no wonder that the Minister for Climate Change and Energy didn't come into the chamber to speak on this bill, because, if you'd ever wanted an example of how out of touch this minister is, this is just another example of it. What we've seen since the election is that the government has had to walk away from their commitment to reduce Australians' power bills by $275. After looking the Australian people in the eye on it, on over 90 occasions, they've now had to walk away from it.
It was funny today in the MPI. They've got new talking points. Guess what the new talking points say? 'Every time you mention that energy prices are going to go down, you've got to say "in the long term".' These are the new talking points: 'Energy prices will go down in the long term.' People remember that it wasn't just a commitment to reduce power bills by $275 by the end of this year; there was also a further commitment. Now, obviously, you're walking away from that as well. That's why this expression 'in the long term' has come in.
Of course, the minister won't come in and speak to this bill because he knows that what it will show is how embarrassing the situation is that he has got Australia into. Energy bills aren't going down; everyone knows that. Everyone sees it every three months when they open their power bill. When they open their electricity bill, it's up by 39 per cent. Their gas bill is up by 38 per cent. They've heard the recent inflation numbers. What was the inflation number from yesterday? It showed that electricity costs rose by 23.6 per cent for the year to September, and the only reason they didn't rise further is that you had to subsidise those bills. Those are the facts. And yet here we are.
Given all of this—that prices are going through the roof—what is the first bill the minister brings into the parliament? Guess what it is. It's about shuffling the deckchairs in the bureaucracy. It beggars belief, seriously! We've got energy prices going through the roof, and Minister Bowen decides, 'What I need to do is shuffle the deckchairs.' That's really going to fix the issues!
We've had, just this week, the announcement that Tomago, sadly, is likely to close. Over 5,000 workers are going to lose their jobs. And guess what the minister is here doing, as his first bill? He's shuffling the deckchairs in the bureaucracy. So it's no wonder he sent another minister in to do it, because it would just show once again what a complete and utter farce this minister is.
As a matter of fact, the only job that should go from these higher electricity prices is the minister's job. That is the job that should go, not the jobs of those poor workers out there. We're going to keep reminding you every single day of that fact. This is just another example of why that minister should move on, given the crisis that we're starting to see with electricity prices, because here he is, shuffling the deckchairs of the bureaucracy. How out of touch can you get? It beggars belief.
It's complete silence from them, over there, because they know that they don't have anything to say in response. When they're out in their constituencies, what are they hearing? They're hearing that electricity prices continue to rise. Our No. 1 priority will be to reduce electricity prices, to put downward pressure on electricity prices. That is what we will do. The minister isn't here. He was too embarrassed to come in because this is the first bill he's put into this parliament on anything to do with energy since the May election, and it's about shuffling the deckchairs. I say to the minister: we will be focused on putting downward pressure on energy prices. We won't be issuing talking points which used to say, 'We will reduce your power bill by $275,' but now just say, 'Energy prices will come down in the long-term,' whatever that means. Is that by 2050, 2060 or 2070? Who would know?
When nuclear comes.
Well, in the end, as the premier—
Member for Wannon, I know it's Thursday afternoon, but let's get back to the relevance of the bill before the House.
Some might think I've been 'Laboring' the point, but this is the wrong bill for the wrong time. That said, what does this bill do? It changes the Public Service arrangement for the Australian Energy Regulator and the ACCC. When we were presented with the recommendation that we should do this, we looked at it and went, 'Well, what are our priorities?' Our priorities are focused on putting downward pressure on energy prices. So we thought, 'Okay. We can leave them shuffling the deckchairs while we make sure that we are putting downward pressure on energy prices.' And that was our focus because we wanted to make sure that that was our No. 1 priority.
We can understand that there does need to be some rearranging when it comes to the AER and the ACCC. We sat down with the department, the ACCC and the AER and made sure that there would be nothing in these changes that would lead to people's energy bills going up, because our No. 1 priority is to make sure that energy prices don't continue to go up. We sat down and sought guarantees that that would be the case, and we were given those guarantees. That's why we think that the minister's idea of shuffling the deckchairs is one that we should support.
Assistant Minister, a point of order?
After the fifth mention of 'deckchairs', I call your attention to standing order 75 on tedious repetition, which the member is clearly transgressing.
There's been a bit of latitude on this Thursday afternoon, but let's, in the remaining 90 seconds, perhaps get to the context of this bill.
He didn't take a point of order on the repetition of you driving energy prices higher and higher and higher. I can understand why you didn't, because you know how sensitive that is.
Direct your comments through me, please.
I will get back to the bill. This bill is about changes to the ACCC and the AER. We have made sure that these changes will not drive costs when it comes to putting pressure on energy prices. We have been given assurances that they won't do that. That is why we are happy to support this bill. I would say this: seriously, Minister, there are jobs at stake at the moment from the high energy costs that you are overseeing. There are businesses who are deeply, deeply worried about the impact of the cost of energy, and we want to make sure—
Today I wish to recognise two hardworking organisations in our electorate of Calare, who are at the front line day in, day out helping women and children escape domestic, family and sexual violence. This House can be in no doubt about the scale of the scourge we are confronted with. According to the New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, rates of domestic violence and related assault are double in remote and regional areas compared to metropolitan areas. In terms of these domestic violence related assault figures, in the 12 months to June 2025, per 100,000 population, Greater Sydney recorded just over 369 incidents compared to 623 in regional New South Wales—that's nearly double. The far western Orana region had the highest rate of domestic violence related assault in the past 12 months, with 1,543 incidents—more than three times higher than the average for New South Wales. The Central West region had a rate of 694. Data from 2023 shows that one in 10 victims of domestic assault are young people, three in five are women, and Aboriginal women are eight times more likely to be a victim.
These figures clearly demonstrate that regional and rural areas should be a priority for support to address this crisis. In the Central West of New South Wales, we are fortunate to have a number of organisations raising awareness and providing vital support for those escaping domestic, family and sexual violence. Housing Plus is one of those organisations. I recently attended the opening of the new Housing Plus emergency domestic and family violence accommodation in Mudgee. These are new units built for women and children escaping violence. This development was a collaboration which included Mid-Western Regional Council, the Glencore mine and service delivery partner Barnardos.
Housing Plus provides vital support right across the Calare electorate, including domestic and family violence services, homelessness services, employment pathways, post-release support, men's behaviour change programs and emergency accommodation through places like the Orchards. I was honoured to recently attend the Housing Plus White Tie Ball in Orange which helped raise $163,000 for the Orchard in Orange. I'd like to thank the Housing Plus team, including the CEO, Justin Cantelo, transformation manager Rochelle Monaghan and everyone who made this community event such a success.
Another organisation making a vital difference is regional advocacy group Birds in the Bush. Orange solicitor Vanessa Vazques founded the group in 2021 after witnessing the all-pervasive and commonality of domestic and family violence in the Central West. Vanessa saw a need to increase awareness of how prevalent domestic violence is and that it does not discriminate. I wish to recognise Vanessa's tireless work and acknowledge the Birds in the Bush committee members including Katie Baddock, Claire Fox, Kate Greenwood, Dan Cook, Amelia Morgan-Hunn, Karen Begnell and Zanna Christian.
During the past four years, Birds in the Bush have raised more than half a million dollars to support local services, refuges and victims of domestic and family violence. They've also raised enough funds through events and donations to commence a new education program called Bird Brains in high schools across the Calare electorate in 2026. In addition to fundraising and advocacy, Birds in the Bush are focusing on cultural change, raising greater awareness, education and fostering conversations, and promoting a more respectful and safer region and community.
This morning in this House, the Minister for Social Services tabled the yearly report of the Domestic, Family and Sexual Violence Commission. The statistics the minister referred to paint an extremely grim picture of the crisis in this country, including that one in four women have experienced intimate partner violence since the age of 15 and one in five have experienced sexual violence. Our communities, and groups like Birds in the Bush and Housing Plus, work hard to support women and children impacted by domestic and family violence, but there is a limit to what they can do on their own. The New South Wales and Australian governments must do more to assist organisations such as these in their vital work.
This has been a significant week for Australia's creative industries, with the announcement by the Attorney-General that the government will not create a copyright exemption to allow broad-scale mining of creative content by AI platforms. The proposal had been put forward by the Productivity Commission, who look at things from their angle, but any proposal to allow AI platforms to mine creative content without consent understandably creates anxiety amongst creatives.
The Attorney-General's decision has real consequences for Australia's artists, musicians and writers for the protection of their intellectual property and for how Australia positions itself to harness the benefits of the AI revolution ahead. As Special Envoy for the Arts, I'm so fortunate to meet regularly with artists and arts workers, and discuss AI and copyright at length. Artists are not luddites; they are innovators. They understand the potential of AI to support their research, experimentation and productivity, but we cannot expect them to welcome the AI revolution while their intellectual property is being stolen and their livelihoods are being undermined.
By ruling out this proposed exemption, the government has sent a clear message: we stand by our creatives. We will not allow their rights to be diluted or traded away. We will uphold their right to earn a fair income and to decide if and how their work is used by others. The Minister for the Arts was right to say that the unauthorised use of creative works for commercial gains is theft and that artists deserve protection from theft, as every Australian deserves protection from theft. As the Attorney-General noted, while AI brings significant opportunities for Australia and our economy, it is equally important that Australian creatives benefit from these opportunities too. Her decisions honours that balance, embracing innovation without abandoning the workers whose creativity drives Australian culture forward.
The arts community has welcomed this as a vital reaffirmation of the value of their labour. In ARIA's view, the decision:
… reinforces Australia's commitment to its artists and creative industries, ensuring that consent, control and compensation remain at the heart of copyright in the age of artificial intelligence.
APRA AMCOS called it:
… a significant moment for Australian creators and our cultural sovereignty.
The Australian Society of Authors described it as:
… a watershed moment—upholding copyright protections is a strong step towards setting a world-leading ethical and sustainable standard for AI development.
The National Association for the Visual Arts acknowledged:
This is an important win for Australian artists and the integrity of their work. A copyright exemption would have handed global tech companies free rein to scrape and profit from artists' work without consent, attribution or payment. We thank the government for listening to the arts community and standing firm in protecting artists' rights.
Our creative sector could not be clearer. Artists do not reject technology; they reject exploitation.
While this decision is an important step, it's not the end of the story. The capabilities of AI to ingest, analyse, synthesise and reproduce creative content are expanding rapidly. That brings extraordinary opportunity but also real risks. That's why we must keep communication channels open and ensure the arts community has a seat at the table in this policy discussion.
I'm pleased that the Attorney-General has reconvened the Copyright and AI Reference Group to examine the next steps and ensure that our copyright regime is fit for purpose in the digital age. Now that legalised scraping of creative content has been ruled out, the question is: what comes next? There are trusted, time tested mechanisms for licensing creative content and frameworks that ensure permission, recognition and payment is given. I'll continue to encourage the technology sector and the creative industries to work together to build and modernise licensing systems that foster innovation while upholding creators' rights.
Licensing systems can facilitate the legitimate, consensual use of content by AI and unlock new revenue streams for artists. But this decision is about more than dollars; it's about who controls culture, who tells our stories and who benefits from it. We must ensure Australia's creative voices are empowered, not absorbed into data sets without recognition or reward.
(): As a proud Victorian, it is a mixture of sadness, anger and frustration that I feel as I stand here and state one simple fact: the state of Victoria is broken. An old saying about democracy is that the government you elect is the government you deserve, but Victorians deserve much better than this. Victoria is in the middle of a social and economic crisis, and Labor is the guilty party that put us there. When you've been in government for 22 out of the last 26 years, you can't blame anyone else for the crisis we face in every corner of our state. The lawlessness and the violence are not limited to Melbourne. Premier Jacinta Allan has been there every step of the way, and, as a cabinet minister and now Premier, the buck stops in her office.
Every baby born in Victoria today starts their life with a $30,000 debt thanks to the Victorian Labor Party. Every major project in Melbourne today has blown out in cost, and Victorian taxpayers are picking up the bill for the CFMEU rorts and Labor's incompetence. Future generations will pay the price for Labor's failures in the once-great state of Victoria. Victorians deserve better. The Labor Party gave Victoria the most lockdowns in the world during COVID, against the advice of the Australian Chief Medical Officer. The Labor Party has allowed corruption to run wild on building sites and racked up a massive debt for future generations to pay. The Labor Party has introduced new taxes which target everyday Victorians, adding to the cost of living and making it impossible for people to get ahead. The Labor Party has divided Victorians based on race and failed to maintain social cohesion. The Labor Party has cut funding to regional roads, leaving us to navigate a minefield of potholes which contribute to car crashes and extra costs for motorists. The Labor Party has waged war on our traditional industries like forestry, fishing, farming and mining, which has cost thousands of jobs across the state. Worst of all, the Labor Party has failed to keep Victorians safe in their homes and on their streets. Victorians deserve better.
Everyone knows Victoria has a major crime problem—everyone except the Premier. The Premier has told the media, 'Melbourne's CBD is safe.' But just this month we saw graphic footage of a 36-year-old woman who was stabbed near the intersection of Little Bourke and Spencer Streets at 7.40 in the morning. The alleged offender was out on bail. Almost every day there is another report of a home invasion or machete attack, often occurring in broad daylight in our shopping centres or on our streets. Victorians deserve better. After the men and women in blue faced another weekend of violent street protests, Victorian police commander Wayne Cheeseman said what everyone knows—what everyone knows except the Premier, of course—when he said, 'I think Melbourne has had a gutful.' Even the new chief commissioner, Mike Bush, can see what the Premier refuses to acknowledge. He said:
We have a crime problem here in Victoria. The levels of offending we are seeing in our community are entirely unacceptable.
Victorians deserve better. Victorians are living with the consequences of Labor's weak response to crime, with 638,640 crimes reported in the year to June. That's one every 49.4 seconds—an increase of 16 per cent.
The men and women in uniform who serve our community deserve better than the weak bail laws, the soft magistrates and pathetic responses by an out-of-touch Premier and a Labor government that has run out of ideas. I have small-business owners in my electorate who are planning to close their shops because they can't afford to remain open, while shoplifters take whatever they want because they know they will just get a slap on the wrist. Victorians deserve better.
As a born optimist, I believe there's nothing wrong with Victoria that a good government can't fix. Victorians will have an opportunity in November next year to take back control of their state and get the government they deserve. They need a government which is focused on maintaining law and order. They need a government which is focused on keeping people safe. They need a government which is focused on reducing the cost of living and delivering the infrastructure and services we need. Victorians deserve better than the Victorian Labor Party.
I rise today to talk about the importance, from the perspective of the Anthony Albanese Labor government, of our investment in rural and regional communities. I stand here today, a proud regional member of parliament—more than that, a proud regional member of government. To give you an indication of how regional my seat is, just last week I left Cairns to drive through the cane fields up to the banana farms of Lakeland, out to where the Brahman are in Coen, and then back through the mighty Daintree. I stopped at small businesses, grabbing coffee, chatting to farmers and chatting to locals.
And it's not just me. Within this Labor government there are 24 MPs who represent rural and regional communities. We've more regional MPs than the opposition. So, clearly, the people in the regional areas are starting to understand who is standing up for them. The good news is, it's not only us in government who believe this; it's also coming from opposition. The member for Gippsland, who was taught with great care and passion by country teachers in country towns—and I know this because it was my parents who taught him—has said that it's great that we've got newcomers from the opposite side of politics and it's good to see people who understand regional communities in federal parliament. I will go so far as to say that many on this side are better representatives of the regions. We haven't had any representatives on this side yet say anything about the coffee, or how slow people might speak.
In fact, I'm happy to report that, across my electorate, from Cairns right the way out to Joey Laifoo's in the Torres Strait, and throughout the cape, we have some amazing coffee. We have batch-roasted coffee at Bektopia in Cooktown, powered by White Whale—another fantastic Far North Queensland local business.
So, while the members opposite continue with their infighting, we're just getting on with the job of delivering for Australia and regional Australia. After a decade of inaction from the LNP, there is a heap of investment flowing through to regional Australia. As a local member, I can tell you that that is fantastic news for Far North Queensland. Just recently, we have announced millions of dollars of funding for airstrips in Cape York and the Torres Strait, at Boigu Island, Horn Island, the NPA, Chuulangan and the Cooktown Aerodrome, allowing the mobility that people who get cut off every wet season require. This is good for health. This is good for education. This is good for all of the transport.
And the investment doesn't stop there. We've announced $245 million toward replacing the Barron River Bridge on the Kennedy Highway leading up to Kuranda; $210 million for the Kuranda Range Road upgrade; $24 million for the Cairns Western Arterial Duplication and $38 million for the Cape York Community Access Roads project, right amongst the region. We've also invested extra funding to build back better, to make sure that the roads impacted by Cyclone Jasper will not be as badly damaged the next time we face a cyclone.
In the last election, Labor committed to delivering improved mobile coverage through the Universal Outdoor Mobile Obligation. This is especially impactful for the northern reaches of Leichhardt within the cape and for the Torres Strait, which have been left behind for too long without reliable mobile coverage. Leichhardt currently has 97 per cent black spot. This is great if you want to go driving and not be bothered for six to 10 hours; it's not so good if you have a flat tyre somewhere on the Byers range.
Cairns is already home to one of the busiest urgent care clinics, in Edmonton, and the tenders have been closed for another one to be delivered on the north side. Cairns's north side gets cut off during disasters. The floods cover the roads, and we would be unable to get to the hospital. This urgent care clinic will allow the people in the north of Cairns to have that peace of mind. The next generation of healthcare workers to staff our new UCC—radiologists, physios and other health workers—will be trained in Cairns, with $27.5 million committed to the construction of the CQU university campus, building on the $50 million already committed during the 2022 election. There was an additional $60 million of federal funding that went to the Cairns Tropical Enterprise Centre, facilitating the training of the first cohort of doctors that will go from go to whoa at JCU in Cairns, because we know that, when we train them at home, they stay at home.
As I keep fighting for the people in my community, I have no doubt we'll continue to deliver the funding and the support people need. I'm proud to have grown up in the regions. I'm proud to represent the regions, and I know my fellow regional MPs on this side of the House stand with me, in the pride and the passion that I feel for regional Australia. What I've just gone through is yet another example of how the Anthony Albanese government is improving the lives of rural and regional communities and building Australia's future.
I will praise the previous speaker for being a regional member, and a tall regional member! He is a little bit taller than me, Mr Speaker, and I'm a little bit taller than you. The members opposite know the benefits of being tall in this game.
I rise, as I often do in this place, to speak on the issue of net zero, a topic that I've spoken on with furious abandon for quite some time. The first time I spoke on it was in September 2021, and I was quoted at the time as being one of only three MPs who raised their concerns about the implementation of this particular policy—quoted, I would say, as having absolutely no issue with acknowledging man-made climate change. I'm not denying anything, not questioning science; I'm simply questioning the ability of government to manage a budget on such a large and extensive policy setting. I raised the issue of costs back in 2021, and I've continued to raise it all the way through. I'm hopeful that the debate within my side of politics will come to an end, and reasonably soon.
The issue of cost is very important. We sit here in question time and see the line-up of ministers on the front bench, talking about their portfolios. Every single one of them can tell us the costs that are being undertaken in their various portfolios. Just today we heard '$43 billion for housing' proudly expressed by the minister. We heard very clearly what the cost was, and if we went through everyone else we could find the same. But when we ask, 'What is the cost of net zero?' we get no answer.
Fortunately, the University of Queensland, coupled with the University of Melbourne and Princeton University, got together and had a go at working out what that cost might be. There's a little bit of fudge factor they had to put in, but they got to a figure somewhere between $1.2 trillion and $1.5 trillion in capital costs for us to reach our 2035 targets. Amazingly, three outstanding universities—two great Australian universities—put their work together, and the minister accuses this of being misinformation. What a disgrace. What a shameful disgrace. Anyway, that can be dealt with later on.
Let's have a look at what those universities got together and did. If you look at what $1.2 trillion to $1.5 trillion comes down to, in a figure that we can understand, it's about $20 billion a month between now and 2035. That's still hard to visualise. It's still hard to understand what that looks like. How many hospitals, schools, aged-care facilities and road upgrades is that? These are things we need pressingly urgently in regional communities across the nation, as we just heard. In Toowoomba we're building a state-of-the-art hospital. It's going to cost about $1.9 billion, so, on these figures, we could build around 10 hospitals a month with the cost that we have to spend on net zero capital works. That's extraordinary. The Toowoomba range crossing was $1.2 billion. It was the single-largest road infrastructure project at the time. Goodness me! How many of those could we build across the country at the same time? The Inland Rail has blown out to $30 billion. We're told that's a huge blowout in costs for the Inland Rail, and yet we could pay for it in 1½ months with what we're spending on net zero. This is a significant amount of money, and we need to get the public's attention on exactly what that cost looks like.
Australia cannot control global emissions. This policy requires every country in the world to do the same thing at the same time, and they are not. That is not happening. For every tonne of emissions that we have reduced in Australia, China has increased its emissions by 35,000 tonnes. This policy is not working.It takes 12 days for China to emit the same amount that Australia does in a year. This policy is not working.
What can we do? I'm a child of the nineties. I remember 'Think global, act local'. I like acting on pollution. I like doing things that I can see in my local area—clean rivers, clean beaches, clean cities and clean forests. I've got the Toowoomba escarpment, which is full of lantana and wild dogs. I've got wonderful conservation groups trying to keep the koala populations alive in those areas. These are the things we should be investing in. I'm glad to be joined in this argument by such luminaries as Bill Gates, and it's going to be hard for those opposite to argue that I'm speaking to my base. Actually, I'm arguing on the same lines as Bill Gates right now. It's a good place to be.
I am of the firm view that I represent the best electorate in Australia, and I am pleased to rise today speak to some of the reasons why.
In the middle of fete season, one of the most exciting events on the Bean calendar is upon us again. SouthFest 2025 will be happening on Saturday 15 November in Greenway in the heart of Bean. SouthFest is a festival celebrating everything Tuggeranong. It's a celebration of the colourful and important parts of our local community. There are stalls of different varieties and offerings, delicious food and always some very engaging and entertaining musical and artistic offerings. But, most importantly, there are always exciting and fun activities on offer for the youngest members of the community. I have had a stall at SouthFest from its inception a few years ago, and for me there are few better and more effective ways to catch up with my community in a relaxed and engaging environment than through the SouthFest event. I extend my congratulations to the Tuggeranong Community Council and the SouthFest organising committee for all their efforts over the past few years and in anticipation of another successful huge day on 15 November.
Another exciting event on the Bean calendar will be happening this weekend, on Saturday 1 November. The annual Tuggeranong Arts Centre Battle of the Bands is on again, and I am very much looking forward to it. I've had the great privilege of supporting this amazing event over some time. Bands composed of young people aged 13 to 25 with a connection to Tuggeranong have been selected to attend and perform on Saturday afternoon. The application process is rigorous and requires highly developed organisational skills. Bands have to produce a one-minute video of their performances and prepare a short statement on their style and performance. They then have to essentially audition. I've always been impressed by the quality and cohesion of both the bands and the performances. One of the most fun parts of my job has been serving as a judge for the Battle of the Bands. It's a great opportunity to get out my favourite band shirt and embarrass my children. I would encourage everyone who has some time available to head down to Tuggeranong to listen to some of the great young bands emerging in our district and have some fun. There is certainly a fair amount of fun and interest coming over the next few weekends in Bean, so, for members who decide to stay in Canberra over the weekend, it will truly be the place to be.
I would like to turn now to acknowledging some hardworking people performing a critical function in Bean. Last month, on 25 September, we marked World Pharmacists Day. We all understand the important role our pharmacists play in our community. When I think of health care, I always think of pharmacists first. I know firsthand the good work they do every day, playing a critical frontline role in the provision of health care, and I well remember that, amidst the fear and uncertainty of the COVID-19 pandemic, the pharmacists in Bean performed with uncommon courage and bravery, providing health care and certainty right across our community.
One pharmacist who I have had the privilege of working with closely is Elise Apolloni. Elise is not just a healthcare leader but a community leader, leading the team at Capital Chemist Wanniassa and committed to delivering innovative, patient focused health care right across the Tuggeranong Valley and a voice for community pharmacy right across Bean. I want to thank Elise and her team for all their fantastic work in our community, and I want to thank all of our hardworking pharmacists in Bean and across Australia. The work you do improves health outcomes and saves lives.
So Bean is a wonderful community, clearly the best electorate in our country, and it's an absolute privilege to represent it and its citizens in this place.
House adjourned at 17:00
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Boyce ) took the chair at 09:30.
Raise Our Voice is an organisation dedicated to ensuring that young people are heard. It has created a platform to elevate the ideas and passions of young Australians and promotes our belief in their ability to shape our future. I have great pleasure in supporting Raise Our Voice in Parliament, and today I share with you the inspiration of Kooyong constituent Alannah, aged 16, who tells us what steps the government should take to build a better tomorrow for young Australians.
Alannah wrote:
As children, we would all ask questions like "Why is the sky blue?" or "How do birds fly?". Unfortunately, this curiosity often fades as we grow older. When we do not nurture and encourage this fascination, too many people become disconnected from the discipline that thrives on curiosity: Science.
A better tomorrow will come when we protect the curiosity and wonder of young Australians today. Science should be embedded within every system of our society, from schools to parliaments. It answers questions and creates solutions about the world we live in. It shouldn't rise and fall with the election cycle or be subjected to political fluctuations.
When we apply a scientific framework into every sector of our society, people become more educated, information becomes more accessible, research receives more funding—
That's very close to my heart, Alannah, thank you—
and decisions are made based on evidence, in a way that helps all Australians. Climate policy, healthcare, industry growth and education can all be strengthened by science.
Young Australians are ready to ask big questions, and we need a government that can answer them. Protecting science from politics, funding it consistently and fostering curiosity will build an Australia on the foundations of truth, flexibility and opportunity. This is the tomorrow that young Australians ask you to build today.
Thank you for those words, Alannah. They're absolutely inspiring. I believe every word that you said and I'm completely behind you. It was a great honour to raise your voice in parliament today. Thanks again.
It has been such a joyful few weeks in my electorate of Hotham. I recently helped open the new pavilion at Jack Edwards Reserve. This was the delivery of a 2022 Labor election commitment, and it was a hugely emotional moment for me and for my community.
The journey to getting this pavilion built started a very long time ago. My friend Ann Barker, one of the greatest champions for south-east Melbourne, asked me to go down to the Oakleigh Cannons and meet with their club president to hear their vision. Whenever Ann asks me to do something, I'm onto it immediately. I met down there with Steve Dimopoulos, our local state MP; our mayor, Paul Klisaris; and the club leadership. I vividly remember sitting in the kitchen at the Oakleigh Cannons' old building. The Cannons chair, Kon Kavalakis, pulled out these elaborate plans for the new stadium that they wanted built. There was no funding; there was no pathway. It was just a dream. Yet, from that moment, the three of us took away this project and said, 'We have to work together, across three levels of government, to make this a reality.'
Together with Kon, Cannons president Stan Papayianneris, Steve, Paul, Monash council and every club member, we achieved something truly extraordinary for my local community. Thanks to a $2 million commitment from the Albanese government, along with very significant support from the Victorian government, an historic commitment from our Monash city council and the support of the Oakley Cannons themselves and their community, we have just built the best football stadium in a suburban club in the whole of Australia. Mark my words on that. If you've got a better option, come and show me. But I actually reckon we've taken the cake there, so I cannot wait to spend so many fantastic evenings at the pavilion and cheer on the mighty Oakleigh Cannons and Chisholm United.
That's not where the celebrations end with Hotham. I am so lucky to represent a truly remarkable Vietnamese community in my electorate. This is a community of people, many of whom arrived in Australia in 1970s and 1980s with nothing but the clothes on their back, who are the backbone of entire suburbs in the south-east of Melbourne today. They've gone from a community of many people who arrived with very little education to a community that urges their children and grandchildren to take every advantage and opportunity that we have in our beautiful country. The doctors, lawyers, pharmacists and community workers of my patch of south-east Melbourne are, in so many instances, come from this beautiful, vibrant community.
I had the great pleasure of joining them for the Mid-Autumn Festival hosted by the South Eastern Melbourne Vietnamese Associations Council—or SEMVAC, as we know them locally. This is an amazing organisation, and I want to give a shout-out to Kim-Son Vu, Trung Doan, Tan Nguyen, Hue Linh, Thuy Tran and Anh-Dung Tran and thank them for all the work they do in supporting our community and sharing their beautiful culture with the rest of us who live in Hotham.
I want to talk about something that sits in the heart of the committee in Fowler, the 50th anniversary of Vietnamese settlement in Australia. There is no place where this story is more alive than in my electorate of Fowler, the heart of the Vietnamese Australian story. Just as we heard from the member for Hotham, the amazing Vietnamese contribution to rebuilding and building Australia has to be acknowledged. In my electorate, 18.9 per cent of residents identify with Vietnamese ancestry.
The significance of this milestone is never lost on me, a Vietnamese refugee who has the immense honour of serving as the first Vietnamese Australian federal member of parliament and re-elected to my second term as an independent in what was once Labor's heartland.
My own journey is a testament to the enduring promise of this nation. April this year marks 50 years since the fall of Saigon, a moment that began the journey of Vietnamese settlement in Australia. That date in April 1975 started my four-year odyssey journey. Like millions of others, my family became boat people facing the terror of the South China Sea. I still vividly remember boarding the escape with my mother and sisters. My mother was a typical Vietnamese mother: firm and never wanting to show emotion. She passed away two years ago. Her courage to make that journey is the reason I stand here today, and I'm grateful for that.
The story of the Vietnamese community is one of unrelenting resilience and undeniable contribution. When we resettled we didn't just survive; we thrived. Groups like the Vietnamese Elderly Friendship Association and the Vietnamese Community in Australia became vital platforms for advocacy and change. Just this past weekend, along with Mayor Frank Carbone, I was honoured to present council's commemorative banner to the organisers, the VCA NSW Chapter and their president Thang Ha, who held a grand festival to mark the 50th anniversary. The banner, flown across all 28 suburbs across Fairfield City, incorporated the Australian flag, the South Vietnamese heritage flag—yellow and three red stripes—and images of both Australian and South Vietnamese soldiers. It is a beautiful symbol of shared history and enduring connection. I want to acknowledge and thank the Fairfield City Council and the mayor for their acknowledgement and for doing this for our community.
In June, I also had the opportunity to be part of the Vietnamese Museum Australia fundraising event in Melbourne to raise funds to build this museum that will preserve the enduring legacy of Vietnamese-Australians, their boat journey and settlement here, for generations to come.
The shared history of displacement and new beginnings makes Fowler so special. Every face tells a story of perseverance, and my role is to continue to advocate for and champion our community that is built on hard work, sacrifice and opportunity. There are many others migrants and refugees who have come to call Fowler home, and I want to pay tribute to them as well.
by leave—I present a petition from members of the Cambodian Australian community in my electorate of Isaacs and across Australia.
The document will be forwarded to the Standing Committee on Petitions for its consideration. It will be accepted subject to confirmation by the committee that it conforms to the standing orders.
Thank you for that consideration. Hundreds of Cambodian Australians gathered on the Federation Lawn on Monday this week. I met with them and received their petition, which expresses deep distress over the recent escalation of violence along the Cambodia-Thailand border and appeals for greater action from the Australian government.
The petition also raises concerns about the detention of military personnel and the forced displacement of thousands of civilians, drawing attention to the serious humanitarian consequences of the conflict for civilians and communities who simply wish to live in peace.
At the rally, members of the Cambodian Australian community expressed their profound sorrow and offered condolences to the families of civilians and military personnel who have lost their lives during this tragic conflict. They also spoke of their hope for a future where the people of Cambodia and Thailand can live together in stability and mutual respect.
I recognise the time and care shown by those who prepared this petition and the thousands of Cambodian Australians and other Australians who signed this petition. It reflects the deep concern across Australia about the safety and stability of the region and a desire for Australia to remain actively engaged in promoting peace and human rights.
This conflict is not distant to many in my community. I've spoken with families and community leaders who are deeply anxious about the safety of loved ones in the region. Their concern is personal and heartfelt, a reminder that events abroad often have direct impacts here at home.
I reaffirm the Australian government's support for a peaceful and lasting resolution through regional dialogue and cooperation. Australia remains steadfast in its commitment to peace, the rule of law and the protection of civilians in times of conflict. I also want to assure the Cambodian Australian community that their voices matter and that they will continue to be heard in this parliament. I remain committed to ensuring that their concerns are recognised and that their hopes for peace and safety are represented in Australia's ongoing conversation about our region's future.
I'm delighted today to read out the speeches of two entrants in the Raise Our Voice initiative from my electorate of Flinders.
Matilda, who is 14 years old, from Padua College in Tyabb, says:
I write to you today as a young person in Australia, with concern for our education system. Over my two years at high school I have noticed time and time again that the modern classroom is only built for one type of student, someone who can easily focus in large groups or noisy classrooms, however this is not the case for over 570,000 students who suffer with neurological disorders such as autism, ADHD, dyslexia, dysgraphia and more, for majority of these students they have an extremely hard time remaining on task or focused when in loud classroom settings resulting in them not getting all the work completed and having piles of home work.
Furthermore, common issues with these disorders include zoning out even when your teacher is in the middle of explaining the task or concept, which results in the student being unable to complete the task and having to rely on his or her peers to get the relevant information, as unfortunately, the teacher cannot cater to everyone. This is not good enough.
I strongly believe some of these circumstances could be mitigated through better government funding for schools, higher pay for teachers and smaller class sizes.
I now go to a speech from Cooper, who is 16 years old, from Padua College at the Mornington campus, who, I am thrilled to say, is in the audience today with his mum and his sister. He writes:
We are in the midst of a crisis. Young people are facing a crisis. I'm Cooper, a 16-year-old from the electorate of Flinders. And I know that young people today are facing a serious mental health crisis.
These issues cannot be ignored any longer. We cannot pretend that they simply don't exist. If this parliament doesn't act now, we risk the lives of thousands of young people. If this parliament doesn't act now, we risk losing our next Olympians, our next doctors, our next ministers. My question is: if we can see the issue, why can't you? If we can see what needs to be done, why can't you?
Our parliament needs to invest further in supporting the mental health and wellbeing of young people. Whilst there are policies in place already, these are quite simply not good enough. We need this government to invest in better mental health education for both young people and adults, lower wait times for online and over the phone crisis support, and more youth advisory groups to shape Australia in terms of mental health.
These actions cannot wait. We need this to happen now. This is not about just feelings, this is about the lives of your fellow Australians. So please, I call on this government to make change and invest now in the mental health of young people in order to make Australia a better place for all not just today, but also tomorrow.
Thank you, Cooper and your family, for joining me here in parliament today. It brings these words to life would have such a critical program—the Raise Our Voices program—so that you can come here and express your views directly to the Australian people. What a joy and an honour for me—for all of us—to have you and your family here.
I love meeting with and hearing from young people in my community, as all of us in this place do. They remind us why the work we do matters, because it's all about building a better future for them. Today I'd like to deliver the words of two outstanding young people in my electorate: Kayla, who took part in the Raise Our Voices campaign, and Bailey, a high school student who joined me for work experience.
Kayla said in her speech:
I believe the government should create a new school subject that teaches real life skills like managing ourselves, money, and relationships.
First, managing ourselves. Knowing facts is great, but it won't help if we can't manage stress or bounce back from failure.
This skill helps us build good habits like going to bed on time, staying calm, and doing the right thing even when we don't feel like it.
It helps us take control of our time, our thoughts, and our actions which affects everything we do in life.
Next, managing money. We all need to learn how to budget, save, and spend wisely.
My dad is a financial planner, and he's told me many stories of adults who feel stressed because they never learned this in school.
Finally, managing relationships.
This means understanding others, working in teams, and handling conflict calmly.
Skills like communication and empathy are just as important as maths and English.
If we learned these life skills early … we'd be more confident, capable, and ready for the real world.
Let's not just learn facts, let's learn how to live.
That's how we build a better tomorrow for young Australians.
I agree.
Bailey, during his time in my office, also reflected on what it is like growing up in Australia today. He said:
Growing up in Australia right now feels like standing on the edge of something huge. I'm still a teenager, but I can already see how tough things are going to be as I get older.
Between school pressure, social media and trying to figure out where I want to go in my life, it's easy to feel overwhelmed.
There's this constant pressure to succeed, to look perfect, to know exactly what you want to do with your life—I'm still figuring it out and that should be okay.
But it doesn't always feel like it is.
I also worry a lot about the world I'm growing up in—climate change is a real problem.
It feels like my generation is expected to fix everything, but we don't even know where to begin.
Young Australians like Kayla and Bailey inspire me to work harder. They're smart, compassionate and determined to shape a fairer future and a kinder Australia. We need to offer them hope as parliamentarians.
I rise to speak about an extraordinary opportunity for our region: the proposal for Rockhampton to host the rowing and canoe sprint events for Brisbane 2032 Olympic and Paralympic Games. This is far more than just a sporting event; it's a generation investment in the Rockhampton region's future—one has potential to transform our city, strengthen our economy and showcase the incredible beauty and spirit of Central Queensland to the world.
Hosting Olympic events on the Fitzroy River will place not only Brisbane, Rockhampton and the wider Capricornia region firmly on the global stage; it will allow the world to see our stunning landscapes, from our pristine beaches and tropical islands to our rugged hinterland, and to experience the warmth, pride and resilience of our people. The 2032 Games are being designed with a strong focus on legacy and regional inclusion. The 2032 Olympics are about ensuring that communities like Rockhampton benefit for decades to come. Through upgraded infrastructure, improved connectivity, tourism development and support for grassroots support, the games will set up our region for lasting prosperity. For Rockhampton, this opportunity brings tangible long-term benefits.
The proposal includes a new athletes village within the railyards rejuvenation precinct, designed to be converted into permanent housing after the games; upgrades to the Fitzroy River and the Rockhampton Fitzroy Rowing Club, establishing our city as a premiere venue for elite level rowing and canoeing; improvements to the Rockhampton Ring Road as part of the $9 billion Bruce Highway upgrade between Brisbane and Cairns, a vital project enhancing transport, safety and economic activity across Queensland; and, access to the $250 million Games On! program, dedicated to upgrading grassroots sporting clubs, ensuring our local athletes, volunteers and communities benefit directly.
The economic uplift from hosting the Olympic events will be enormous. Independent analyst KPMG projects that Brisbane 2032 will deliver over $8.1 billion in direct economic benefits to Queensland and create more than 91,000 jobs statewide. If Rockhampton were to capture even one to two per cent of that impact, it would mean an injection of $80 million to $160 million into our local economy and would support up to 1,800 jobs over the next two decades. Visitors will discover our beautiful coastal communities of Yeppoon and Emu Park, explore the breathtaking Capricorn Caves, enjoy Australia's finest beef and savour an array of boutique cafes, restaurants and distilleries, such as the Reef Distillers. Better still, our rowing and canoeing facilities will become a national and international trading hub for the next generation of champions.
The Brisbane 2032 Olympic and Paralympic Games present a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for Rockhampton and Capricornia. This is about putting Rockhampton and regional Australia on the map for years to come.
As September came to an end, so did another incredible footy season across our region, and with that, the grand finals, the late-night training sessions, the nerves and the triumphs—and, yes, a few coaches were absolutely hanging on by a thread, not to mention those refs, as the member for Werriwa, who sits beside me, knows as she was a football ref in her time as well. But this year felt different. It was special. It was one of those years that remind you why community football and sport matter so deeply to who we are.
The 2025 Newcastle Rugby League final series was a showcase of pure local talent, and right at the heart of it were the mighty Maitland Pickers. The Pickers didn't just compete; they dominated. They were represented in those grand finals in three of the four grades: reserve grade, the women's league and first grade. That's an incredible achievement and a testament to the strength, depth and community spirit of this proud club.
I can't go without mentioning a friendly rivalry that played out in the men's grand final. The member for Hunter, Dan Repacholi, had his Cessnock Goannas take on my mighty Maitland Pickers—and, while the Goannas gave it a red-hot crack, they were no match for our Pickers. They played well, but I think the score, 30-8, kind of tells the story there. Well done, Pickers! Keep going, Goannas. Sorry, Member for Hunter. And just to rub salt into their wounds, it was the Picker's fourth consecutive grand final win. We are dominating! Four years in a row—that's not luck; that's hard work, belief and an extraordinary work ethic.
I have to say that it was the women's grand final that was really extraordinary. It's also being talked about across the region. For me, it was a battle across the electorate. The Maitland Pickers played the Great Northern Hawks, based in Port Stephens—and what a contest! From the first whistle to the final siren, both teams played with heart, determination and incredible skill. The game was fierce and full of passion. In the end, just a single point separated the two teams. It was just incredible. They played into overtime. You wouldn't have gotten a better game of footy anywhere else in the world. The match wasn't just about sport; it was about progress. It was about the power of women's sport.
For years, I grew up with girls playing footy with their brothers in the backyard, dreaming of pulling on the colours for the Pickers or the Hawks or the Kurri Bulldogs. Finally, those women are doing that. I couldn't be happier or prouder. Everyone in our community is proud of that—their brothers, their husbands, their mates. We're all so pleased to see women playing rugby league. It is a testament to how amazing and fantastic football can be. Today I congratulate each and every player, coach, volunteer, supporter and ref—yes, we do love our refs! Well done, and may the footy be just as great next year.
I've spoken on a number of occasions in this place about the dire situation that farmers face across much of South Australia with unprecedented drought, much of which nobody could recall in living memory. I thought I'd give an update. We've been blessed across spring with average to better-than-average rainfall across much of regional South Australia. In fact in parts of my electorate you couldn't imagine a better break. But, unfortunately and cruelly, that hasn't been experienced universally. There is a portion of my electorate that is now entering what could be the second if not the third consecutive year of drought. It's the Mallee in my electorate; the situation is dire. I've got farmers who are telling me they were hanging on for this season and, as every day passed and as every windy event passed, they have succumbed to a situation where they now realise that this drought hasn't left them. The concern for them is that the media and attention have moved on because, as I said earlier, much of South Australia—and indeed across Australia—has experienced really good conditions.
I want to take this opportunity to raise the flag on behalf of that district. The Mallee—the Coorong—in my electorate is still suffering significantly and what they need are some pretty basic supports. First of all they need carry-on finance, low to no-interest loans. We've got an incredibly popular premier in South Australia, but he doesn't do the tough stuff. What he needs to do right now is lean in and support these farmers in drought. We need to expand on-farm infrastructure rebates, we need increased and continued mental health and community supports and we need practical funding for fodder and water transport where required. In terms of the federal government, farm household allowance is a lifeline into these communities right now, as it is for every regional community that goes through circumstances—whether it's price commodity shocks or drought. Quite frankly the net asset test is far, far too low. Unfortunately $5 million as a net asset test excludes people. We need to review the test and deal with it. Quite frankly many of my farmers in drought are disqualified from activating farm household allowance because of it.
The speech I'm about to read was written by Noah Solomon, affectionately known as the work experience kid. In September I had the privilege of hosting Noah Solomon, a year 10 work experience student, in my office. Over the week they sat alongside my team and listened to the concerns of local constituents and joined me at meetings. Noah raised some important issues that young people really care about right now. The main concern he highlighted was climate change. He spoke about the problems caused by the climate crisis that affect young people directly like extreme weather events, damage to homes and communities and ongoing uncertainty about the future. He also reviewed the recently released national climate risk assessment, which shows these risks are already happening and impacting our health, economy and environment.
Fortunately our prime minister announced Australia's new 2035 climate target, at 62 to 70 per cent reductions in emissions from 2005 levels. This is a bold step for our country, giving young people hope and a clear goal to work towards as we push for real action both locally and across the nation. Noah was also interested in how young people could get involved in politics beyond youth councils, parliaments and advisory committees. I told him that volunteering is one of the best ways to start because it opens doors and creates opportunities for younger people. I also taught him how to work with constituents, how to listen, how to stay calm and how to do your best to help them. Spending the week with Noah reminded me how important it is to listen to young people. Their fresh perspectives often highlight what needs to change for a better future. Thank you for your time in my office, Noah, and thank you for preparing this speech for me.
Noah was a really great kid. He took the time to listen and learn, and he showed a real interest in the democratic process and what it felt like to be on the ground helping constituents. He travelled with me up to the tablelands to hold community offices. He sat with elders under the tree. He sat with me and former member Warren Entsch as we discussed some of the issues that were happening in the region. It's really inspiring to have a young person, at 15 years old, put their hand up like that and really show an interest in the future of their country and want to make a difference. He was a really great kid. He started answering the phone at one point, which—look, we weren't thrilled with that! But he did his best, I wish him all the best in the future, and, as he knows, he is welcome back in our office at any time.
I rise to condemn the actions of Telstra, which has announced that it will shut the doors of its Taree store on Monday 10 November—as if the Taree community hasn't already been through enough! In Telstra's eyes, catastrophic floods that've left people without their homes and livelihoods weren't enough of a kick in the guts. Telstra's decision doubles down on a community already doing it tough, withdrawing a vital service that hundreds of paying customers desperately rely on. Why are they doing this? I was advised that the decision was made following an internal review of its retail store strategy, which sounds a lot like yet another attempt to shore up the bottom line.
Telstra has tried to justify this move by saying that the Port Macquarie and Forster stores will remain open and that customers can continue to access support through online services, the My Telstra app or contact centres. Let's be real, Telstra: these are dismal attempts to replace face-to-face contact, particularly for a community that is the oldest in the country. Most people who seek assistance from in-store staff are there because they need face-to-face service, not an online bot or someone sitting in an overseas call centre that they struggle to understand. Louise, from my electorate, said that Telstra was unable to resolve her mobile issue over the phone. She was directed to the Taree store, where she received incredible assistance from a young man named Joshua, who, after significant efforts, was able to rectify the issue. By Telstra's own admission, the issue could only be resolved face to face. So why are they taking away this option for the people of the Manning Valley?
They expect customers like Louise to travel to the already very busy stores of Forster and Port Macquarie, which are at least 40 minutes to an hour away. And how long will it be before these locations follow suit and close their doors? If Telstra is anything like the big banks, which it is increasingly proving itself to be, it won't be long before these stores close, too. And what about the staff? While some of the employees will be relocated to other stores, not all of them have a job to go to.
I've entreated Telstra to reverse its decision. As yet, I have not received a fulsome response to this request. I am sick of Telstra and its corporate buddies raking in billions of dollars in profits a year at the expense of its loyal customers. The government must step in and ensure that consumer rights are no longer trampled on by corporate Australia.
Telstra seems to have forgotten for whom it works. Let me remind them. Telstra, you work for customers—the very people that put you in your position of unprecedented wealth and power. If you will not maintain a presence in Taree, then I'll be calling on the government to legislate that you must.
I rise to acknowledge some of the community groups in my electorate who I've had the pleasure of meeting with over the last few weeks. The Mid-Autumn Festival is an important date in the calendar for Chinese Australians. The festival celebrates the end of the autumn harvest and dates back over 3,000 years in Chinese culture. This was a very special mid-autumn festival for my family this year, as it was the first one for my baby daughter, Dorothy. I was able to join the Georges River Association for their celebrations in Hurstville alongside the member for Barton, as well as local Georges River councillors Leon Pun, Elaina Anzellotti, Gerard Hayes, Thomas Gao and Ben Wang. It was a fantastic celebration of Chinese Australian culture, including the unveiling of a mega mooncake—spectacular stuff! Congratulations to the Georges River Association for putting on a fantastic event.
The St George Australian Football Club have been playing Aussie rules football for nearly 100 years, now fielding eight teams across both men's and women's competitions each week at Olds Park in Penshurst in my electorate. It was my pleasure to attend their presentation night a couple of weeks ago in Oatley with the member for Barton and both state and local government colleagues. I would like to congratulate club president Angie Zissis—who does an amazing job—alongside Vice President Dale Widders and the fantastic organising committee for putting on an amazing evening.
In particular, I want to acknowledge the late Brendan Donahue. Brendan was involved with the club for many years, joining the committee when the club was on the verge of being removed from the competition as a result of its financial position. Today, the club is financially healthy and widely respected across AFL Sydney for the fantastic grassroots club that it is. This wouldn't have been possible without Brendan Donahue, and it is widely acknowledged that his efforts were instrumental in saving the club altogether. That is why it is particularly fitting that the club person of the year award is now named in Brendan's memory.
This year it was awarded to Sabrina Saez in recognition of her work in developing the club's social media presence, leading the way amongst AFL Sydney clubs. It would just about rival any professional club's across the country. I want to say, from the bottom of my heart, 'Congratulations, Sabrina and all the worthy winners across the club, for another successful year in AFL Sydney.' Congratulations to St George Australian Football Club for a fantastic season.
When I launched my inaugural McPherson Honours Awards, I did so to recognise the everyday people who make an extraordinary difference in our community—those who volunteer, lead and lend a hand not for praise or recognition but because they understand that an act of kindness, no matter how large or small, can change lives.
This year we received more than 150 nominations from right across the southern Gold Coast. With every nomination, I was blown away by the compassion, generosity and spirit of service that runs so deep through our community. Each story reminded me that the heart of McPherson beats strongest through its people—those who serve not for noise but for impact.
I'd like to place on the record the names of this year's category awardees: Community Organisation of the Year—Tugun Girl Guides, for their valuable programs for girls and young women; Community Safety Award—Trevor Taylor, who runs the Robina neighbourhood watch; Educator of the Year—John Costigan, who has made significant contributions in the area of training and education through the Currumbin Beach Vikings Surf Life Saving Club; Environmental Champion Award—Maria Bonnett from Varsity Lakes, who established Save Our Swans Gold Coast, with over 1,300 community members now caring for the swans of the Gold Coast waterways; Local Hero Award—Wayne Holmes of I Love Robina, a dedicated member of the southern Gold Coast community who helps with several charities and community support initiatives; Service Club of the Year—Currumbin RSL, who represent the gold standard of what community organisation should be; Small Business of the Year—Blackboard Varsity, where Dan, Nicole and the team bring the Varsity community together for some of the best coffee and hash browns on the coast; Employee of the Year—Carly Donkelaar, for her commitment and work ethic at the Lash Spa in Varsity Lakes; Employer of the Year—Melissa Bergen, also from the Lash Spa, who creates an incredibly welcoming environment for her employees and customers; Spirit of McPherson Award—Kath Koch from the Rotary Club of Burleigh Heads, for her work with the Rotary Youth Exchange program; Sporting Club of the Year—Varsity Vipers Basketball, who represent the essence of grassroots sport; Surf Lifesaver of the Year—Will Barwick from Bilinga Surf Life Saving Club, for his positive energy and eagerness to get involved in all aspects of surf lifesaving; Volunteer of the Year—Ian Sarow from the Currumbin Woodwork and Craft Club, which is also known as the Men's Shed; and the Youth Leadership Award—Mia Gillies, who, despite being too young to join, at 13, is a friend of the Lions in Burleigh Heads and volunteers at every opportunity.
Thank you, especially, to the Robina Lions, who put on the great barbecue dinner; local Burleigh business Mr. Consistent, who generously supported the event with their delicious mocktails; and Tarnya Khouri and the McPherson Community Connect team, who volunteered their time and energy. Together we are building a stronger, more connected McPherson—one act of service at a time.
It was a great pleasure to be invited to the CNA Multicultural Services New South Wales 10th anniversary event. CNA provides support for our Italian community in Werriwa. There are over 10,000 Australian Italians in our community, who have been working and volunteering for more than 60 years.
Established 10 years ago by Maria Giovanni and Marco Testa, CNA provides support to older Italian Australians, Italian pension information and language schools for everyone from children to adults. It also publishes the weekly newspaper Allora. On its website, CNA state that they aspire to be recognised as a leading organisation for services to the Italian and multicultural community in Sydney's south-west. I can say wholeheartedly that CNA and its volunteers do this and much further every day in our community. The 10th anniversary lunch also commemorated the life of Mr Franco Baldi, who passed away from motor neuron disease earlier this year. Professor Rowe from Macquarie University was a keynote speaker. He is an eminent researcher of MND and explores causes and treatments. All money raised at the event by the generous audience went towards funding treatment and causes. There are 3,000 people living with MND in Australia, and one in 200 are diagnosed every year. It is a dreadful disease with devastating consequences not only for those diagnosed with it but also for their loved ones, carers and family. Every fundraising dollar will help chip away at the mysteries, and provide hope and practical help for those impacted. Thank you to the board and volunteers of CNA for all your support of our community, for the lunch and for supporting this research.
I take the opportunity to recognise the wonderful community organisation Ladies Like To Lunch. Ladies Like To Lunch is a not-for-profit organisation that supports women affected by cancer in Sydney's south-west communities. Recently, it was my pleasure to attend the 2025 pink ribbon luncheon. It was great occasion, raising more than $150,000. A big shout-out to Antoinette Sulfaro, the founding director, who was inspired by her own family's experience and committed herself to working tirelessly in our community to help women on their cancer journeys. As a reminder, if you have that text message that says you should go and have that mammogram, make sure you make the appointment as soon as possible. Detection early is the best way of helping you stay around with your family.
In regional Western Australia communities are being hollowed out one essential service at a time. Whether it is losing their last bank or struggling to keep a doctor in town, locals are being left to fend for themselves as services disappear and costs rise. I've received an email from the CEO of the Shire of Cunderdin, Mr Stuart Hobley, following Bendigo Bank's announcement that it would close its Cunderdin agency. Sadly, that closure went ahead last week. Cunderdin is now without a single bank in the entire shire, meaning residents must travel more than 120 kilometres to Northam and back to access simple, basic banking services. Mr Hobley wrote: 'The decision came without consultation, and has left the community deeply concerned. It has hit the elderly, small-business owners and those of limited digital access the hardest.' The closure will also have negative economic consequences as locals are forced to bank elsewhere and will inevitably spend their money in those other towns. This hurts Cunderdin's long-term sustainability and erodes community confidence. Bendigo Bank, to their credit, stepped in after the withdrawal of Westpac from Cunderdin, promising it would not abandon Cunderdin as the big banks had done, yet here we are again: another regional town is being left behind.
Unfortunately, this is not an isolated occurrence, and while the Senate inquiry into regional bank closures did make clear, practical recommendations to protect access to financial services, the Albanese government has still not responded. I ask why: why have they not responded?
Sadly, the same story of neglect is playing out in health care across Durack. Ratepayers are being forced to pay twice for the privilege of seeing a doctor: firstly, when they go to see the doctor; and again through their local rates. Communities such as Northampton, Dongara and Meekatharra are digging into their own buckets just to keep their doctor in town. I recently wrote to Minister Mark Butler, our health minister, asking that regional Western Australian councils receive some financial support for the cost of keeping their local doctor. I received a very brief response—I received a letter. I didn't get a letter from the minister, though; I got a letter from one of his team members. Honestly, regional Western Australian councils are on their knees, trying to keep their local doctors in town, and all that minister can do is say to somebody else, 'Just send her some basic sort of letter that really says nothing.' Well, we deserve better than that, Mr Mark Butler. It's just not good enough. Local governments should not have to become the healthcare providers because Labor has failed to deliver the incentives needed to attract and retain doctors in regional and remote Western Australia. The people of Durack deserve much better, Minister Butler.
I rise to speak about acquired brain injury, also known as ABI. I recently met with a constituent, Nicola Harris, who bravely and generously shared her story with me, to advocate for better awareness and support for people with ABI. She gave me permission to share her story here today.
Nicola was nine years old when she was run over and sustained a brain injury. Later, when she was working at a hospice, she was groomed by the head of pastoral care. The abuse continued for 15 months and left her deeply traumatised. She disclosed the abuse to a friend. Two weeks later, she was dismissed. For many years, she believed it was her fault that she had been dismissed; she thought she was not good at her job because of her injury. It was only when she saw a psychologist 30 years later that she learned she had been groomed and that her dismissal was related to concerns that she might have reported what had happened.
This is her story, and she continues to live each day with the challenges that come from having something invisible to others but which has a profound impact. Her story is one of frustration at being constantly misunderstood, but it is also a story of incredible strength. Nicola not only shared her story but also strongly advocated for better understanding of her condition.
One in 45 Australians live with an ABI. It can result from trauma, stroke, infection or substance abuse. Yet, despite how common it is, awareness and understanding remain very low.
ABI is often called a silent injury. There are often no signs or symptoms on the outside. Because there may be no visible signs, this can lead to misunderstanding and stigma.
Unlike conditions such as autism or ADHD, ABI does not have the same recognition or public profile. Many people with ABI spend their lives trying to appear normal. Every day is spent managing fatigue, confusion and mental overload. It is exhausting, and yet they are too often judged as lazy or unmotivated. In reality, ABI can reduce executive functioning, making it harder to plan, to remember and to control emotions. For many, nothing feels automatic anymore. Every task requires effort and concentration.
ABI also increases vulnerability. People with ABI are more likely to be taken advantage of, manipulated or abused.
Inspired by Nicola, I stand today to raise awareness. ABI deserves to be better recognised in our national discussions on disability and neurodiversity. Awareness would reduce the social and emotional costs of exclusion and misunderstanding. We need education, training and public awareness, so that employers, teachers and health professionals can better understand ABI. Thank you, Nicola, for sharing your story and for your advocacy.
I recently had the honour of attending the National Police Remembrance Day service hosted by the Redlands branch of the Queensland Retired Police Association. Each year on 29 September, we pause to honour and remember the men and women of our police services who have lost their lives in the line of duty. It is always a solemn occasion—a time for reflection, gratitude and deep respect for those who served our communities with courage, integrity and unwavering commitment.
Redlands community members came together not only to mourn those we have lost but also to celebrate the lives they lived and the legacies that they leave behind. Those we honoured were more than police officers; they were parents, partners, friends and colleagues. They were people who chose a life of service, guided by a deep sense of duty and compassion. They wore the blue uniform with pride, dedicating themselves to protecting others, often in the face of great risk and uncertainty to themselves. Their courage reminds us of the selflessness at the heart of policing, and their sacrifice reminds us of the true cost of public service.
A total of 151 Queensland police officers have fallen in the line of duty since 1861. At the National Police Memorial in Canberra, down the road here, 832 fallen officers from across the country are now honoured. We owe a continuing debt of gratitude to each of them and to their families, who carry their memory with strength and grace. These families remind us that behind every officer is a network of people who also bear the weight of their service with quiet pride and unwavering support.
During the service in the Redlands, we also acknowledged the men and women currently serving in the Queensland Police Service and in police forces across our region. Their professionalism, their compassion and their dedication keep our communities safe and uphold the proud traditions of those who came before them. I'd like to thank Mark Stiles, the president of the Queensland Retired Police Association Redlands Branch and his committee, as well as Andy Young and other members of the local police command who assisted in organising this powerful commemoration. It has truly become one of the big days in the Redland community calendar. It has become one of the biggest services across Queensland, and I want to thank all involved who made it a tradition. We had it this year at the Champions Church at Thornlands, and I want to thank them for hosting the event.
As we reflected on the lives and legacies of our fallen officers we renewed our commitment to support those who serve today, to ensure their safety and wellbeing are never taken for granted. We honoured their memory, we thanked their families, and we remain deeply grateful for the courage, dedication and sacrifice of all who wear the blue uniform. With honour they served.
Every year Raise Our Voice invites young Australians to tackle the big questions shaping our future. This year's Macquarie winner is Rohan, and I'm delighted to read part of his speech, which focused on the challenges ahead of us domestically and internationally in trade, human rights and the environment. He says:
The future of young Australians depends on what we do today. It's our responsibility, as a global leader of non-major nations to rally against these challenges.
We cannot compromise on human rights, even when it is the most difficult option. We must defend the freedom of the press and the rule of law, which are so often threatened in the name of national security, to allow our youth to grow up in a safe, democratic and dynamic nation where rights and freedoms are protected.
However, all of this will come to naught if future generations inherit a destroyed world or, may it never be, that they fail to lead. The government must provide Australia's youth the education and opportunities needed to develop through enhanced critical thinking in the face of AI and misinformation, an understanding of basic principles of economics, history and culture, and a reduced voting age to empower those most at stake to defend themselves without their interests at heart. If we fail to act we leave our youth an unjust, unsafe and unprepared world.
Those are Rohan's words. I also acknowledge the efforts of Harper, Mieke and Bronte, who wrote about the importance of access to school sport, quality education and policies focused on the younger generation. I commend them all on their thoughtful and worthwhile contributions to this debate.
There was another young person's speech delivered in parliament this week. This one was by 11-year-old Theo Carson-Drevers from the Blue Mountains, who spoke with confidence to a room full of politicians. It's part of an annual event where children with hearing loss from across Australia and New Zealand come to parliament. This year's theme, 'the power of my team' highlights the life-changing role of early access and team based care in helping deaf children build confidence, communicate and thrive.
I introduced Theo, who was the New South Wales representative, to the health minister just before the event, and Theo assured the minister that he was not at all nervous. Indeed, his speech was delivered with humour and a maturity well beyond his young years. Theo is a powerful example of what is possible when you bring together technology like cochlear implants with multidisciplinary support including speech therapy and family support. I'm sure his teachers have also played a role, and thanks to Chris Rehn, CEO of NextSense, another mountains local, who was there to support young Theo
Each year, the Raise Our Voice competition invites young Australians to answer a powerful question: what steps should the government take today to build a better tomorrow for young Australians? In Goldstein, that voice belongs to Leonard Callegari, a grade 6 student from St Agnes' Primary School in Highett who lives in Hampton East. I had the pleasure of meeting Lenny and his mum in the Goldstein electorate office last week. His submission, titled 'An Australian opportunity', is a passionate call for action. Here is Leonard's vision for a better Australia:
The Australian youth crime rate has skyrocketed in these past few years. A proven way to tackle crime is by creating localised sport and community programs. Children and teens who participate in these types of programs are less likely to reoffend. Programs like this can change the outlook for these small groups of reoffending youths in our area and will in turn have a positive impact in creating safer communities.
Another reason Australia has been negatively impacted by crime is because of our weak bail laws. This is particularly in Victoria. It states in Bail Act 1977, If one is granted bail they must abide by the laws of probation. It seems that this is ignored. If we can't change the outcome at the root cause for these criminals, we must protect our communities by enforcing stricter probation and bail laws.
For a better Australia we also need cheap and reliable energy. Soon, kids from my generation will not have the same opportunities that previous generations had in Australia because of cost-of-living pressure. Energy bills keep rising and rising, and for some reason we are so focused on climate change that we rebut against nuclear power which provide safe and affordable energy.
That's my outline for a better Tomorrow for Australia, for the future of millions of kids.
Lenny's words are a call to action. Not only does he marry the challenges we face, but he looks to solutions. He's a reminder that the decisions we make in these walls don't just shape the present; they shape the future as well. Lenny has seen the challenges we face—rising crime, cost-of-living pressures and energy insecurity—but he also sees those solutions and believes we can see through them and lead through them, and that's our task. He believes in the power of community, in the importance of fairness and safety and in the promise of innovation. I'm so excited that he was part of this important program and that I had the opportunity to read out his speech. Most importantly, Lenny believes in Australia. He believes in its future, and he believes in its capacity to be part of building a better future for future generations. He believes that we can do better, not just for himself but for every child who dreams of a future filled with opportunity, safety and hope. Congratulations, Lenny.
Today, I am reading speeches written by two young people in my electorate as part of the Raise Our Voice in Parliament campaign. The first one is:
My name is Poppy. I'm 14 years old and my federal electorate is Cunningham.
It is a human right to be confident that drugs and other treatments recommended by medical doctors are tested on groups representative of the entire population.
Women experience many more accidental drug overdoses than men because recommended dosages are based on the average male body.
Women are also at higher risk of unwarned adverse drug reactions because more men are tested than women in clinical drug trials.
Women are at higher risk of serious and even fatal medical issues due to thoughtless exclusion from the drug development process, and are unable to trust prescribed drugs and other treatments.
The Australian government can help correct this injustice by improving the National Health and Medical Research Council's and Therapeutic Goods Administration's approval of clinical trials through implementing more measures to ensure trials are representative of the entire Australian population.
If this is enacted, women will be at a decreased risk of negative health effects from drugs and other treatments because they will be more informed of the correct dosages, possible adverse events, and even have access to drugs made specifically for women's health needs, ensuring safe healthcare for all Australians.
Thank you so much, Poppy, for that thoughtful speech on such an important topic.
My second one is from Audrey:
Hi, I'm Audrey. I am 12 years old, and my electorate is Cunningham.
I am the Business Manager, and founder of Sharkies Sharpening since 2021.
It's a knife sharpening business.
The experience of running a business has enabled me to become more confident, improve my communication with people, build resilience and gain a diverse range of general business skills.
I believe that the government should initiate classes committed to teaching young students about how to start and run a business and the benefits of doing so.
Being able to run a business at a young age is a major life advantage.
Operating a business can improve young Australian's skills like how to treat and serve customers, how to handle money, budget earnings and outgoing costs and eventually profit, at a young age.
This could open up new career opportunities, provide experience, improve life skills and make you generally more employable when leaving school.
Support youth business—teach entrepreneurship early, build brighter futures.
Well done Audrey on such an interesting take on supporting young entrepreneurs. I want to thank everybody who took part in this year's Raise Our Voice in Parliament campaign and acknowledge the work of the Raise Our Voice Australia team.
In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members' constituency statements has concluded.
I'm incredibly proud to be one of the 15 per cent of Australians of Chinese heritage in my local electorate on Brisbane's south side—Moreton. My family immigrated to this country from China in the late 1800s. My gong gong's family, the Moo family, came to Darwin first. We suspect that perhaps their name wasn't originally spelt or pronounced 'Moo', m-o-o. My po po's family immigrated again at the same rough time to Melbourne—the Lau Gooey family. We suspect that that name may not have been spelt g-o-o-e-y. This was the world that my family came into. It has been almost 150 years that they've been here, and there are so many different families with a similar story to mine. People from different multicultural backgrounds contributing to our economy, contributing to our culture, contributing to our society—that is something that continues.
But there was a break. Can I tell you—in 1901 the doors were shut to people who looked like me. The doors were shut to people who looked like my family. In December 1901, the Immigration Restriction Act came into law. It was among one of the first pieces of legislation that was introduced. It was designed to limit non-British migration to Australia, and it represented the formal establishment of what we now know as the White Australia policy. The act gave immigration officers the power to make any non-European migrant sit a 50-word dictation test—initially in any European language and, after 1905, in any prescribed language, with languages chosen at the discretion of the immigration officer. It was easy to ensure failure for migrants deemed undesirable—failure of people who looked like me. The test was administered 1,359 times prior to 1909, with just 52 people granted entry to Australia. After 1909, not a single migrant made to sit the test passed it. This is our history. It's something that we must remember.
After World War II, the Chifley government began to relax the policy to allow refugees from continental Europe to come to Australia. This included those who fit the image of White Australia and that ideal but also migrants from other backgrounds in regulated numbers. In the 1970s the Whitlam government, a Labor government, completely eliminated it.
The first piece of federal legislation to make racial discrimination unlawful in Australia was the Racial Discrimination Act. It was introduced by the Whitlam government and passed on 11 June 1975. Today and this year, we celebrate its 50th anniversary. It makes it against the law to treat someone unfairly because of their race, because of their colour, because of their descent, because of their national or ethnic origin or immigration status. It is rooted in the idea of fairness and that it doesn't matter what colour your skin is. You should be treated equally. For employment, it prohibits discrimination during job advertisements, recruitment, selection processes, training, decisions, promotions and employment terms. In services, it makes it unlawful for service providers, including banks, insurance providers, government departments and transport providers, to discriminate against someone based on their race. In housing, it makes it unlawful to discriminate in renting or in buying.
In 1995, we saw amendments to this act, amendments on racial vilification, to make it unlawful in section 18C. These laws, all of them, are important, but they are not enough, because laws are not enough to change something. Laws help us set the framework to get there, but it is all of us who must make them real, who must bring them to life, who must ensure that those fundamental values of fairness, of equality, are upheld every single day, not just when we put an act through the parliament. This act is underpinned by those principles, of equality, of fairness.
Australia has the world's oldest continuous culture, as well as non-Indigenous Australians, who identify with over 300 different ancestries. It is estimated that, before British colonisation, over 250 First Nations languages and 800 dialects were in use in this country. Over 29 per cent of Australia's population was born overseas and 48 per cent of Australians have a parent born overseas. The top five countries of birth in Australia by number in 2021? England, India, China, New Zealand, Philippines.
I am incredibly proud to represent the most multicultural electorate in all of Queensland. My electorate has 39 per cent of people who were born overseas. And can I tell you that Australia is absolutely a multicultural success story? It's a multicultural success story, and, whether you call that a melting pot or whether you call it a salad, we are stronger for it. We're stronger for it because our differences—our differences in terms of experiences, what we bring to the table—make us collectively better. They make us collectively better, because it's not only those differences that we bring that make us stronger; it's also the fact that we share fundamental values as Australians that sits behind that and drive us together as a country to make it stronger.
As I said before, legislation in this space is necessary but insufficient. We can never take for granted the tapestry that we have woven when it comes to our multicultural country. The concern that I have at the moment is that there are people who are pulling at the threads of that tapestry. There are people who are picking away at that and want to make the multicultural success something of the past. It starts as a dog whistle, but it ends with a drumbeat.
I grew up in the 1990s in Queensland. It was a time when Pauline Hanson and One Nation held 11 seats in the parliament out of 89. And, when you do the math, that's a lot. It was a time when I came to know what a dog whistle sounds like. And I think that, when you look like me, you do know what that sounds like. When you look like Minister Aly, you do know what that sounds like. So I did actually want to talk about something that the minister says, because I think it is a really important point when it comes to multiculturalism in this country.
The minister talks about going beyond the concept of food when we talk about multiculturalism. I want to explain this. It's the idea that, when you stand up for multiculturalism, you stand up against racism, and you stand up for that melting pot that we are so proud of. It is nice to talk about food and how good all of the different types of cuisine that we get from across the globe are, but it is not enough. It is nice to talk about colour and vibrancy and clothing from all of the many parts of our globe, but it is not enough. It is nice to talk about the beautiful dancing and music and culture that so many different communities bring to our community, but it is not enough. When we support our multicultural communities, when we stand against racial discrimination, we have to back them in, not just with words, not just with niceties, but with action. I say to our multicultural communities, to those who have experienced racial discrimination, to those who have experienced the hurt that can come from people treating you differently for the way you look: Labor stands with you. We stand with you not just today, as we celebrate an important milestone with the Racial Discrimination Act, but we stand with you every single day, and we will back you.
Anniversaries give us the opportunity to reflect. They acknowledge those, from First Nations people through to a myriad of ethnic communities, who have made a difference and a big impact on this country economically, socially and culturally. We all make a difference—individuals, community organisations and government. I see this every day in my electorate of Moreton. But this anniversary is also a reminder that we must continue to fight for what we believe in when it comes to racial discrimination.
I congratulate the member for Moreton on her excellent contribution on this occasion of the 50th anniversary of the Racial Discrimination Act. It is, indeed, an honour to serve with her in this parliament.
As the member for Moreton mentioned, today we mark the 50th anniversary of the RDA, or the Racial Discrimination Act 1975. It was the first law to recognise and protect the right of everyone in Australia to be free from discrimination based on race. Fifty years on, Australians take great pride in our free and democratic country, where all of us have the right to live without fear of discrimination and free from acts of intimidation and violence on the basis of race, ethnicity or cultural heritage. Modern Australia is a migrant nation. It is who we are. The Racial Discrimination Act underscores and protects this vital part of this proud nation. Our multicultural success belongs to all Australians, every single one of them, no matter where you came from, no matter where your parents came from and no matter how you came to be here. Half of all Australians were born overseas or have a parent who was born overseas.
My story is one of those stories. I'm an Australian, but I'm also a migrant. At the age of two, my family chose Australia, settling in the Western Suburbs of Sydney. We quickly became a part of our local community. We had neighbours from Britain and New Zealand, but also from China, Greece and the former Yugoslavia. My Australia is defined by my childhood, in the suburbs where we would gather under the hot sun to play a game of legendary Aussie driveway cricket. We improvised wickets out of garbage cans, pausing only intermittently to move the wicket to allow cars to pass by. There we played for hours under the hot sun, on the hot tarmac, interrupted only by the cry of parents standing on the front porch letting us know that it was time to come inside for dinner. And as each child's name was called out into the dusky sky, a different accent could be made out—Greek, Italian, English, Irish, Indian, Swedish, Chinese, Arabic, Australian. Nobody made fun of each other's strange names or the funny way our mothers or fathers would call out for us.
Under this 48th Parliament, our House of Representatives is the most diverse it has been in the history of this nation—and it is richer because of it. At the 2025 election, Australians across the nation voted overwhelmingly for a parliament that looked like the community it represents. A study by the Scanlon Foundation earlier this month found that 83 per cent of Australians think that multiculturalism is good for our country, and they're right. The Albanese Labor government unequivocally stands for multiculturalism reflecting our national identity.
I am honoured to be appointed as the first standalone cabinet Minister for Multicultural Affairs.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
An honourable member: You're a fantastic minister, too.
Thank you to my colleagues for their interjections there.
Make sure they're recorded in Hansard!
With the launch of the Office for Multicultural Affairs we now have a means to truly drive a cohesive and renewed approach to multiculturalism that fits in with our modern multicultural Australia. It's an opportunity not only to celebrate the richness of our diversity—the member for Moreton spoke so eloquently on what that means. She spoke about how we move beyond celebration and how we move beyond the valuing of food—as long as it tastes like chicken!—colours and festivities to valuing and acknowledging multiculturalism as a fundamental aspect of who we are. Multiculturalism is the mainstream. It's not a semicolon-and. It's not a postscript. It's not a nice-to-have. It's not an afterthought. It is Australia and it is Australians. Today it is woven into the social and cultural fabric of a modern Australia, from Lunar New Year to Eid or Diwali or Rosh Hashana. These events are celebrated in small towns and big cities from coast to coast.
For 50 years, time and time again, the Racial Discrimination Act has helped us strengthen our multiculturalism and strengthen our identity as a multicultural nation. The act has made enormous strides in improving racial equality, including shining a spotlight on wage theft of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and invalidating laws that discriminated against First Nations land rights. It also set the foundation for future antidiscrimination protections on age, sex and disability. In that regard it was quite revolutionary—a watershed moment in Australia's history. Unfortunately there are still those who are made to defend their very presence and belonging in Australia, which harms not only those directly involved but also our whole society. I want to go back to my first term in parliament—elected in 2016.
Hear, hear! A good year!
Says another class of 2016 person sitting next to me, the member for Bruce! One of the very first debates that I got to participate in in this place was the debate to protect section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act. Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act makes it unlawful to undertake any act that is reasonably likely to 'offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate' a person or a group because of their race, the colour of their skin or where they were born. In a country that prides itself on Australian values—the values of mateship, a fair go and equality—this should not be controversial. It should not be controversial that we take a moment to ensure that we are not offending, humiliating, insulting or intimidating our fellow Australians because of their race, the colour of their skin or where they were born. This should not be controversial.
At the time of that debate in 2016 the Attorney-General—appointed by Prime Minister Turnbull at the time—said that people have a right to be bigots, and those opposite mounted an argument against section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act. It was an argument that pitted Australian against Australian and rights against rights. They argued that the right to free speech trumped the right to feel safe and trumped the right to live your life without offence, without being humiliated, without being insulted, without feeling like the 'other' and without being made to feel like the lesser. I'm incredibly passionate about this, as is anyone who has been on the receiving end. If you have been on the receiving end of discrimination, if you have been insulted, if you have been humiliated and if you have been offended because of the colour of your skin or because of your race, then you know how deeply it cuts. You know how it carries you. You carry it inside you like a little piece of a broken bone your entire life. You know how much it impacts you.
So we went to that debate in 2016, I am proud to say that we won the debate and that section 18 remains a vital part of the Racial Discrimination Act. As I said in my first speech in this place, I will fight for every person's rights. I will fight for the right of free speech for every Australian. But I will not stand by and watch others get brow beaten into accepting second-class citizenship because of the colour of their skin.
This government believes in the right of all people to be protected from bigotry, from vilification, from discrimination and from hate. We will continue to foster respect, belonging, understanding and inclusion, and we will continue to create real change in the lives of Australians. Because while the Racial Discrimination Act has guided us for 50 years, we need to make sure we have the right measures in place to protect multiculturalism in Australia for the next 50.
I thank the Minister for Multicultural Affairs for that address. She may be often quietly spoken, but this parliament has been a better place from the moment she stepped into it. I know from our many personal conversations—she is also a friend—just how much racial abuse she has put up with every day, be it in direct messages, on social media, threats to her office or even to her face. I thank you for your service and I thank you for being an inspiration for so many people in my community. Thank you.
The 50th anniversary of the Whitlam Labor government's Racial Discrimination Act was a moment worth reflecting on for our entire nation. One of the Whitlam Labor government's last major acts was the Racial Discrimination Act, having earlier in its term abolished the last vestiges of the old racist white Australia policy. The Racial Discrimination Act stood the test of time for 50 years. It sets the legal foundation for modern Australia as the proud multicultural nation that we know and love today. It was an attempt to legislate for human dignity and equality of all people regardless of race, ethnicity or origin.
I listened carefully this morning in the chamber to the speech of the shadow Attorney-General earlier. There were nice words and noble phrases but it was also a whitewashing of the history of this law. The truth is in 1975 numerous conservative politicians rallied against the introduction of the Racial Discrimination Act. Contrary to this blurred historical vision and pretence that everyone embraced it in some kumbaya fest, the bill was hard-fought in the parliament then. The then backbencher John Howard stated, 'One does nothing towards reducing the incidence of racial tension by legislative coercion.' As we know from the 1980s, he has a lot of form on issues of race and migration. Some conservative MPs even tried to debate the third reading of the bill in April 1975 to protest its passage. But when the bill passed both houses of the parliament in June 1975, Australia was made a better nation. At the proclamation of the bill on 31 October 1975, 11 days before the dismissal of the Whitlam government, then Prime Minister Gough Whitlam described the aims of the act as to entrench new attitudes of tolerance and understanding in the hearts and minds of the people, saying the new act 'wrote it firmly into the legislation that Australia is in reality a multicultural nation, in which the linguistic and cultural heritage of the Aboriginal people and of peoples from all parts of the world can find an honoured place'.
The significance of the Racial Discrimination Act for modern Australia, or I could say multicultural Australia because modern Australia and multicultural Australia are the same thing, cannot be overstated. We are a better nation for the vision and courage of the Whitlam government. As has been said, of course the act has not cured all racial ills, no law can. A law cannot and does not seek to stop racist beliefs or determine what people think. This law focuses on behaviours and seeks to establish the legal and societal norms for how Australians relate to each other regardless of ethnicity, fostering mutual respect and social cohesion.
Now, an Australian, to me, is anyone committed to our country and our democratic institutions and to the principle of mutual respect for their fellow Australians, who are likely to be, or most certainly are, very, very different—be it their ethnicity, their identity or their beliefs. Overwhelmingly, I believe, Australians love and cherish our multicultural character. I love our multicultural nation. We see this in the research, in the Scanlon Foundation's work. We see it in the daily lives and the decency of the Australian people in schools, workplaces, sporting clubs and the community.
As I said, I love our country; I cherish our diversity. But still today the sad reality is there's a very small, loud—increasingly loud at the moment—minority who deny the basic reality of Australia as a multicultural nation or those who choose to play footsy with issues of race and migration. Some of them have long been here in this parliament—One Nation, of course, but not just in One Nation. Sadly, some are also amongst the opposition—not all of them, but too many.
We saw at the federal election, when Australians overwhelmingly rejected the politics of fear, division, discrimination and toxic negativity, that those leaders who operate in the echo chamber, pandering to their most extreme supporters, will fail. They failed nationally and they will always fail in our vibrant, diverse democracy. Real leaders cannot talk out both sides of their mouth. It's clear that the Liberals have still not yet learned the lesson of the last election. Some of them are trying; some very decent people are trying. But we saw it with Senator Price's comments relating to Indian Australians, for which she still refuses to apologise. We have, for decades, had a proudly non-discriminatory migration policy, and long may that continue.
The former opposition leader was never above a crack at groups of Australians if he saw a political advantage to try and divide Australia on issues of race—the Africans had a turn, Lebanese migrants 'shouldn't have come', Muslim Australians. There was the shameful failure to stand up for Australians of Chinese heritage experiencing shocking racism during COVID, including in my community. It's ultimately a matter for the Liberal Party of today—I don't say the 'modern Liberals'—to explain why they continue to get embroiled in a race to the bottom on issues of race and migration. Increasingly, it seems that some of them just don't love our country; they don't love the reality of modern, multicultural Australia.
As I said, this is not a new thing. In my first 12 months in parliament, back in 2016, I was bright eyed and bushy tailed, with ideas and things I wanted to do. I was stunned to discover, on arrival in Canberra, that the then government's main legislative priority—poor old Malcolm Turnbull had been dragged to the right by the IPA brigade, who'd come in; here he is, the member for Goldstein!—was to weaken the Racial Discrimination Act, to water down the protections of section 18C. That might have been a great, fun debate to have in Canberra, but the lesson I learned then was that leadership matters. The tone, the words and the propositions that political leaders put forward into the country impact daily life in the suburbs and communities. I saw it in my community, because, while that debate was raging, we saw a spike in public racism. We saw people abused on the bus, we saw hijabs ripped off, and we saw turbans ripped off, because of the debate on—as they said—the 'right to be a bigot'. I was incredibly proud of the thousands of people that we stood in front of when Labor stood with modern Australia, multicultural Australia in the Springvale town hall and right across the nation—including the Jewish community, most loudly and proudly—to stop the Liberals' attempts to weaken this law that today they say they love. I'm glad we did.
It's strange how the shadow Attorney-General this morning forgot to mention, amongst his fine prose, his steadfast advocacy to weaken the Racial Discrimination Act—the very law he claimed to support and embrace today. He gave multiple speeches in 2017 arguing to repeal section 18C and the protections against racist hate speech. I wonder if that remains his view. I wonder how many other Liberals will have the courage to come in here today to speak on the debate and state what they really think. I haven't seen anyone on the speaking list—maybe the member for Goldstein is here to speak. The question, though, in all of this debate and all of this footsy with weakening the law that they pretend to support today is that they've never actually said what racist things they think people should be able to say to each other that they can't say today—literally what? Be precise; be specific. They've never been clear on that. It might be an intellectual debate in the IPA. Maybe they could've drafted the law differently, but the fact is that it's stood the test of time.
When you unleash these debates, they have real world consequences in electorates like mine. That's just the truth of it. I ask the shadow Attorney-General if he still wants to water down section 18C of the act. Is that still the Liberals' policy? I also observe the sad irony that if the Liberals had their way in 2017 then the protections of section 18C would not have been available to the Jewish community, who brought a complaint with the AHRC in 2024 rightly calling out racist, antisemitic hate-preaching. The Federal Court upheld that case and said that the lectures were fundamentally racist and antisemitic, and offensive and insulting statements. This law would also not have been there to call out Senator Hanson's disgusting, racist remarks against a fellow senator, telling her 'to piss off back to Pakistan'—clearly a racist attack, as the Federal Court found. This 50th anniversary would be a great time for the Liberal Party of today to apologise for their carry-on and sustained attempts to weaken Australia's Racial Discrimination Act, and to promise never to try this again.
I will close on this: being diverse is not the same thing as being a successful multicultural country. We can all think of countries that are diverse but are not successful and not cohesive. Success requires legal foundations and norms which this act provides, amongst others. It requires investment, particularly to help people new to Australia to settle in and build their lives and build the nation, but it also requires leadership. It requires political leadership, it requires faith leadership, and it requires leaders from business communities and sporting clubs, but, perhaps most importantly, day in, day out, it requires the contributions of thousands of community leaders and multicultural communities who stand up for their communities and who speak up for these norms, and the overwhelming number of decent Australians who support our multicultural character.
I rise to speak in strong support of the Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence) Bill 2025. I do so mindful of the gravity of decisions that we entrust to our defence organisation and the Australian Defence Force, and respectful of the responsibility the parliament bears to provide both oversight and confidence on behalf of the Australian people.
A democracy must balance transparency and secrecy, and it must provide information security. Some of the contributions yesterday went to the genesis or the idea of this Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence, and, of course, success has many fathers. There were many names mentioned yesterday, but I acknowledge all those who worked in a bipartisan way to get this idea of a Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence to where we are today. I hope that bipartisan action, which is characterised in the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security continues on into this committee on defence. In a Westminster-style democracy such as ours, one of the foundational principles is that those who wield power must also be subject to scrutiny and accountability. As the government's second reading speech on the predecessor bill noted:
… parliament plays a crucial role … by scrutinising and debating the decisions by executive government and the implementation of them by departments and agencies.
At the same time, the very nature of defence work demands that certain information remains protected—operational details, intelligence methods, capability vulnerabilities and the like. These cannot always be publicly aired, for good reasons. The explanatory memorandum tells us that the existing oversight and accountability mechanisms for the Defence portfolio were found to be 'inadequate in balancing accountability and transparency and national security considerations'. That was from the inquiry of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade. This standing committee called for the implementation of a new joint statutory committee to request and receive classified information and briefings. Thus, our challenge now: to strike the right balance between transparency, oversight, accountability and secrecy, sensitivity, and security. This bill addresses that challenge. Our federal Labor government takes both transparency and security seriously, and we've done the work to draft legislation to achieve that balance between these two competing demands.
We must adopt a methodological, census based, non-partisan, deliberative process for the mature and responsible management of Defence matters. It is not enough for Defence decisions to be made in haste—do not make hasty decisions—nor behind closed doors, alone. In a democracy, prudent defence decision-making must be conducted in a deliberative, orderly and methodical way supporting multipartisanship, bipartisan confidence and sound parliamentary oversight.
This bill legislates for the establishment of a joint statutory committee, the new Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence, to review, monitor and report on the administration, operations and expenditure of Defence agencies. In doing so, it draws explicit model from the proven arrangements of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, PJCIS, under the Intelligence Services Act 2001. I referred to that act earlier and the strong convention of bipartisan operation within that act and within that committee.
This bill stipulates that the defence committee will consist of up to 13 members, drawn from both houses, government and non-government, and the appointments will be made by the Prime Minister in consultation with the Leader of the Opposition.
In short, this is not a cosmetic tweak; it is significant institutional reform to embed multipartisan parliamentary oversight of Defence capability, strategy and operations. In a democracy there exists a social contract between the people and their defenders. In this bill, of course, we're talking about the Australian Defence Organisation and the ADF. At the heart of this reform is what I believe is the deeper principle of democracy: the social contract between our guardian and defenders and the people and nation that they defend. We entrust our defence forces and institutions and agencies with extraordinary powers: the power to use force, the power to deploy capability and the power to make decisions that may risk life, liberty and national interests. In exchange, the people and parliament must have the opportunity and the means to verify the application of those powers.
This bill is a recognition of that social contract. It acknowledges that, while our defence forces and agencies operate in a demanding and often, importantly, secret environment, their work must nonetheless be subject to democratic legitimacy and oversight. The explanatory memorandum provides that the committee's functions will include reviewing white papers, reviews and other strategic planning documents, scrutinising capability development and sustainment, examining war or warlike operations and monitoring significant non-conflict operations domestically and overseas. By doing so the bill strengthens the link between the people's elected representatives and the guardians of Defence. Thereby it helps reinforce trust, legitimacy and that social contract.
The committee will have the ability to inquire into matters on referral by a minister or either house of parliament as well as, importantly, more inquisitorial powers that will enable it to act on its own initiative in the form of an 'own motion' power.
The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence will be modelled on a proven committee. We know the model works, the PJCIS that I previously had the privilege of serving on, has demonstrated that a statutory parliamentary committee with the capacity to receive classified information, conduct secure hearings that hold the executive to account can function effectively. The explanatory memorandum explicitly states that the new committee will be 'modelled on the PJCIS,' to ensure that it can request and receive classified information and briefings. This committee fills a gap in the current oversight framework by enabling scrutiny of classified matters in a secure setting. That is, of course, vital, because defence oversight cannot meaningfully occur only in public, unclassified settings. Some of the most consequential decisions—capability acquisitions, strategic deployments, operational commitments—will always involve sensitive intelligence, classified data and operational detail.
The bill provides for powers of the committee to obtain information and documents, to require persons to appear before it and to request briefings from heads of defence agencies, the IGADF and the Naval Nuclear Power Safety Regulator. By aligning with the proven PJCIS model, this bill improves parliamentary capability without reinventing the wheel.
The increased scale and gravity of defence investment that we have at the moment demands greater oversight. We know that Australia faces increasingly complex and evolving strategic challenges. We live in an era where Australia is undertaking what our government describes as the biggest peacetime increase in defence spending in our history: $70 billion for defence capability. The scale of investment, the complexity of capability procurement and the global geostrategic environment all compel us to ensure that our oversight is commensurate with that expenditure and that investment. As one commentator stated, some of the gravest matters are the decisions to commit our service persons to conflict. As the scale of investment increases, so too must the extent and effectiveness of parliamentary oversight. The more resources at stake, the greater the need for deliberation, transparency, methodical process and multipartisan input.
Parliament cannot outsource our accountability to the executive alone. The bill recognises this by giving the new committee the function of scrutinising major capability investments, including the Integrated Investment Program, the IIP, and acquisitions. Defence decisions are often among the most consequential a government makes—the resources committed, the lives affected and the strategic risks that must necessarily be taken. This bill ensures that our oversight architecture is up to the task.
While I have emphasised that the committee will oversee operations and strategy, it must be noted that the committee's oversight also extends to portfolio agencies like DVA, the Department of Veterans' Affairs, which will have a key role in implementing the recommendations from the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide; the ASA, the Australian Submarine Agency, which will lead us along the optimal pathway in delivery of nuclear powered submarines; and Defence Housing Australia, DHA, which houses our service men and women and their families, but also, due to previous legislation, our allies.
This will support and enable a biennial battle rhythm and adaptable policy settings. Another key merit of this reform is that it will support the government's move to a biennial battle rhythm of national defence strategies and refreshes of the IIP, the Integrated Investment Program. The second reading speech on the 2024 bill explicitly referenced that the new committee—that is, the defence committee we're discussing—would 'complement' existing oversight by enabling this deeper scrutiny in a classified setting.
By embedding the defence committee with standing functions to review defence strategies, capability development, sustainment and operations, the bill enables our defence policy settings to be more responsive, more adaptable and more aligned with a more frequent refresh cycle—that two-yearly cycle I mentioned. In a rapidly evolving geostrategic environment, the capacity to refresh strategy and investment on that biennial, two-yearly, rhythm is vital. This committee will provide parliament with the means to engage with that two-yearly rhythmic cycle—not simply in the traditional five- or 10-year cycle, but more dynamically. This committee will deliver trust, oversight and effectiveness during that two-year rotational process.
In summary, the Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence) Bill 2025 offers a considered reform, grounded in the needs of our democracy, the demands of defence oversight and the responsibility of parliament. It reaffirms the following. We balance transparency and the imperatives of secrecy and security. Defence business must be conducted in an orderly, mature, methodical, multipartisan and deliberative way. The social contract between our defenders—the ADF—the defence organisation and our nation must be acknowledged. We give them the means to act. We expect there is accountability in return, and we do have a proven model on which to base this in the PJCIS. This bill to focus on defence builds upon that, with the scale of investment increasing and the stakes rising in our geostrategic time. We must ensure oversight matches the gravity of the decisions made. This reform will support our move to a biannual defence strategy and investment, and support that rhythm to help our policy settings be more adaptable and responsive.
I encourage all members to support this bill. In doing so, they will be strengthening the connective tissue between our parliament, the defence of Australia, the ADF and the Australian people.
I am proud to stand up and speak on this Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence) Bill 2025. I want to start by acknowledging the previous speaker and the speaker before them, who was speaking on a different matter. Because when we are talking about the defence of our country we are talking about a social contract. We are talking about how we keep our country united, about how we keep our country focused and about how we lean into the future to make sure every Australian feels a sense of investment about the future of our nation, an equal sense of confidence about who we are as a people and that everyone feels an equal share of responsibility in whatever capacity it is to be able to stand up for the future of our country.
Whether we're talking about Racial Discrimination Act or any other piece of legislation, or of course in the context of the Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence) Bill 2025, we're talking how do we enliven that sense of responsibility for every Australian. One of the principles that sits behind a lot of the legislation like the Racial Discrimination Act is making sure all citizens are equal. All people should be treated equally before the law. This is one of the most fundamental principles that I believe in, not just as a Liberal but as an Australian. I fundamentally believe that nobody should get any legal privileges or rights based on their ethnicity, their racial background, their sexuality, their gender or anything else. All Australians are equal. Let's start with that proposition: all Australians are equal. I will never retreat from that position. I am proud stand for that; it is very important. When we have laws that give some people some coverage and the same is not extended to others, I will always have an issue. There is no protection like 18C in the Racial Discrimination Act that extend to the context—
Order! Is the member seeking to ask a question?
On relevance, the member was—
Resume your seat. There is no point of order because I have not yet asked the member if he accepts the intervention. Does the member—
It is not an intervention; it is a point of order. They are two different things under the standing orders. I am not being smart; that is actually true.
I will hear the point of order.
The point of order is on relevance. I understand the speech he wishes to make on 18C but he was in the chamber and chose not to speak on the previous motion. I'm sure we could reschedule it if he wants a chance to speak on that, but I suggest he speaks to the bill.
There is no point of order. The member explicitly made reference to the title of the bill in the first 50 seconds of his contribution. I'm sure in the remaining 12 minutes and 45 seconds of this contribution we will of course be hearing a lot about the relevance of the defence amendment bill, and with that the member for Goldstein has the call.
Thank you, Deputy Speaker Small. I'd like to thank the member for Bruce as well because the social contract goes to the heart of how we defend our country, whether every Australian feels an equal investment because they have equal rights and responsibilities. That was exactly what the former member who was speaking on the bill was enunciating, and neither I nor the member for Bruce sought to interrupt him when he was making this point, and I'm quite happy to do so as well. I simply say that I believe that every Australian should have equal rights, and, when we have other pieces of legislation which give different laws in different contexts, we believe that all people should have equal rights, and I will not resile from that debate. So, if special rights or special legal parameters are given to one section of the community, I believe it should be extended. If we don't, then how can every person have an equal investment in our community sufficient that everybody can have an equal interest in defending the future of Australia?
It's a principle of equality. It's one I believe in very deeply. I fundamentally believe in equality for all citizens because it goes to the heart of whether people feel an equal investment to defend the country, among other things. I understand this is a foreign concept to the member for Bruce, but it actually is central to our governing philosophy and actually what makes this country very important. We've seen too many times in previous debates where unfortunately the Labor Party has not risen to this occasion, from whether people have an equal right to be able to get married all the way through to, of course, other debates. But, when we come to this piece of legislation, we seem to continue to enliven it, because we also have a responsibility to make sure there is proper governance and oversight of how public money is spent.
Having served on the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security and having looked at the challenges of oversight of our intelligence agencies, often dealing with the issues of security, secrecy and the national interest, it remains of absolute importance that, whatever agency sits within the artifice of government, it has parliamentary oversight, because that's central to whether the public has confidence in the parliament itself in terms of making sure there's proper and bureaucratic oversight, but, in addition to that, they have confidence in the political process and the institutions of this building. Of course, in the intelligence and security space, it has been of paramount importance that the PJCIS does its work, particularly when there are topics or issues that can't be discussed in the public square, but we cannot let our intelligence agencies off without any oversight or accountability. The PJCIS, broadly speaking, does that well in a relatively bipartisan way, but it also, of course, does things like have closed hearings to receive information as is appropriate.
The same is also now emerging as one of the most critical issues in Defence—the volume of Defence expenditure, whether it's set by the coalition or by a Labor government or any other future government of any other stripe. It's important to understand that there is proper oversight to make sure that Defence and the ADF have that accountability about their expenditure, because the spending of billions of dollars, whether it's on submarine programs, long-range missile programs or any other type of technology which naturally has a certain veil of secrecy around it because of intellectual property and our relationships and treaties with other countries, must be done in an environment where there is still oversight and good use of public money.
This is about making sure that our defence organisations have accountability but also that they're kept in check so that they can get the maximum value for the taxpayers' money that they have, because they should be motivated—and I'm not contesting that they are—to do things in the best interest of defending Australia. There should be accountability, focus and attention on their work to make sure that there's a driving down of needless cost and to ensure there isn't waste, and they also need the backstop to say, 'We are going to have to report this to parliament.' That is just as important for them and for fulfilling their function as it is for the role of parliamentarians to be able to go out and hold hand over heart and tell the Australian public, if you want to have an equal investment in this country enough to want to defend it—which is a central pillar of a liberal democracy, despite the objections of the member for Bruce—that they need to be confident that there are proper processes in place.
Of course, this is the evolution of a long legacy of propositions put forward by the coalition from the late great senator Jim Molan, Linda Reynolds and David Fawcett, who all championed different forms of parliamentary scrutiny and oversight in their different capacities in these roles. That's important. As Jim Molan said in the 2018 Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade report Contestability and consensus: a bipartisan approach to more effective parliamentary engagement with Defence:
Defence is one of the most important priorities of any national government. Greater bipartisanship on defence, reached through debate and contest on this new committee, will help to produce better policy outcomes to develop the capability Australia needs to defend ourselves into the future.
I think that's a worthy and just contribution and shows that this has been a longstanding discussion—to get to a point where the ADF is brought within the fold of the parliamentary system to mutual benefit. I think it really is incredibly important that we also have continuity around oversight that builds up institutional capacity within the ADF as well as within the parliament, because electoral fortunes mean that, at any given time, some of us may or may not be here. The carriage of programs across parliaments, both on the ADF side and on the parliamentary side, is an important part of the institutional memory of both institutions—to build public confidence as well.
One of the most important things we need to make sure of is that this committee is focused on the core purpose, which is lifting the standard of the expenditure of public money and lifting the standard of the output of the ADF. That's why it's very important that those who are on the committee are focused on governance, not on grandstanding. We know, in the context of the PJCIS, that there has been a generally longstanding principle that there are representatives from the government and the opposition, because those are broadly the alternative choices for those who take responsibility of the Treasury benches. That has worked very well. I know there are always other members of parliament from minor or independently minded—hopefully temporarily—communities who like to find their way into close proximity into power, but never want to take any responsibility associated with it, to grandstand. Needless to say, I have a lot of views on that subject matter, but I'll reserve them for another day.
Now, all of a sudden, the member for Bruce wants me to go off topic!
I've been given an invitation to move off topic! However, the point is that great power comes with great responsibility. That's actually never lost. This is one of the things, genuinely, that I think is harder sometimes to communicate to the public: whatever the limitations of the parties of government, we understand and have our own institutional structures in place—even when we don't always agree on what we have on each side—to govern the country when our time or responsibility comes, if it is given to us by the good stewardship and judgement of the Australian people. It doesn't mean, of course, that we always sanction what the other does.
Whereas, when individuals or minor parties come along whose primary objective is to draw attention to themselves or to justify their relevance or continuation in office—because that's all, ultimately, they can do—that does not exist, because they don't have the institutional memory, the collective wisdom and the input and feedback loops necessary. So there is a proportion of 'rights without responsibilities' that takes over. That's why I think that these committees have a responsibility between the opposition and the government to be measured and to focus on people who are going to take those great leaps of responsibility in higher office and that it makes logical sense to have people from the alternative parties of government. Of course if any crossbenchers wish to become part of future governments, they have that choice in the future.
I do see this as a fundamental test. We shouldn't be having people who, on issues like national defence, don't sign up to the belief that Australia should have a defence force that, if necessary, has to act in Australia's national interest in a capacity which is sometimes challenging to project. We need to be very clear eyed about what Australia's national interest is and that some of us accept office because we pursue responsibility. Sometimes that's responsibility we don't want to exercise but must in the interest of our country and for its long-term conservation, even if it comes to personal cost. Again, I come back to it. That is what I think a lot of the people in this parliament do seek to do and, unfortunately, in previous parliaments have been called to do.
It is one of the most challenging things about this office from different times—coming to terms with the fact that we are in the most dangerous time since the Second World War for Australia. We've never had a time where the fear of contest is so clearly within our region. That brings out many challenges for us as members of parliament—those who may be key decision-makers, obviously, presently those members of the Labor Party. The decisions we make today will have a material long-term consequence about the world that our children grow up in and also the safety and security that every Australian will feel into the future.
We have to be clear eyed and mindful. We need to make sure that defence is investing in the technology we need for tomorrow. We have to make sure we have the technology, working with our allies, for this nation to be able to stand on its own two feet. That means a component of sovereign capability, from building out missiles, drones, cyber and undersea systems and sustaining our domestic capacity to building out the capacity of our allies and working through it.
It's also about understanding the broader strategic context in which we operate. Some of our competitors in the region and internationally operate increasingly in grey-zone activity, where they're neither in a permanent state of peace nor conflict. This is one of the greatest challenges because the traditional that we think of strategic rivalry is that we're in a state of war or peace, but, increasingly, through cyber conflict and other nefarious forms of activity, we have certain nations and non-state actors seeking to actively engage in methods of undermining and assault on our national institutions—financial institutions, payment systems, technology infrastructure. As we pass national security laws around securing institutions, we need to make sure that we get the best value for our buck because our resources will increasingly be stretched as we are required to engage further and further in a security premium as a country.
Having oversight of large programs like AUKUS will be an important part of our country's long-term capacity to defend itself and to, more importantly, integrate with our allies as appropriate. Whatever the issue is, we need parliamentarians who hold the ADF accountable. We need to make sure we're building up our own institutional capacity to do that, but the ADF needs to do that in sync with us. The future security of this country is of paramount importance to this parliament, and it must be for parliaments to come, and the role of this committee is to make sure there is a permanent state of affairs.
I'll put on the record that I agree with bits of the previous speaker’s contribution, and I thank him for bits of that contribution. I'm fairly sure that, having listened to the speech, he's suggesting that he may support the bill or that the opposition supports the bill this term. I didn't hear an unequivocal statement that they will vote for this bill this term, because they voted against it last term.
I will remain reasonably optimistic. It is a bit hard to know. You missed the point of order on relevance. I did invite him to take a detour into irrelevance, when he wanted to have an extended go at the crossbench. I thought that might be nice to have on the record. But there were some useful bits in the second half that I could agree with. That's the third speech in the last two days that I've endured from the member for Goldstein. We're a few months into this parliament, and it seems that we're seeing a pattern where he wants to speak on everything as part of his ongoing leadership campaign. I suggest that he provide a little more structure and purpose to the contributions. It might stand him in better stead. The first six minutes yesterday, as with today and as with the day before, were completely irrelevant. Yesterday, after 4½ minutes, he called relevance on himself before the deputy speaker pulled him up. But here we are.
I spoke very strongly in support of this bill on 24 July, and I do so again today. It's something that's very dear to my heart because, when I was chair of the defence committee, I did the work to put this forward. It builds, as I will acknowledge in a moment, on a legacy of many coalition members, including Senator Fawcett, the late Senator Molan and Senator Reynolds, who have advocated for this reform. The irony for poor Senator Reynolds, of course, was that, as chair of the subcommittee, she advocated for the reform and then they made her defence minister. Then she wasn't allowed to implement her own bill because the government wouldn't actually support it. But, anyway, here we are.
There is a clear and urgent need for this. It should have passed in the last parliament. We ended up in a very weird set of circumstances where the then shadow minister, who was strongly in favour—I read the quotes from media interviews where he was in favour into the Hansard when I spoke on the bill last term, and, to his credit, it was a principled view and a well-articulated view—got rolled at the last minute in the shadow cabinet, when the then leader, Peter Dutton, ambushed him. It was pretty shocking. That's a matter of public record now, all the entrails of the campaign. Peter Dutton also seemed to criticised the member for Canning for not doing the work as the shadow minister for defence, but that's their civil war that's ongoing in the bin fire that is the opposition. But I really pay tribute to those who've advocated in a principled way for this reform to have a standalone statutory joint committee on defence. The then shadow minister for defence then got appointed shadow minister for home affairs. Now he's the immediate past previous shadow minister for home affairs, if you don't count the interim shadow minister for home affairs, who was in the job for a week or two during Senate estimates after the member for Canning quit. He cut and ran from his post just before Senate estimates and he now makes car fetish videos—but, anyway, perhaps he will return to greater things one day.
The committee here is modelled on the longstanding Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, which has stood the test of time. This is a really important thing, and I'll draw the analogy. The PJCIS—I served on that committee for some years—has been critical to building the social licence for intelligence agencies and also to enhancing the parliament's ability to do its job. Inherently, necessarily, most of the work of the intelligence agencies is classified. That's the nature of their work. But it is still important, in a parliamentary democracy, that parliamentarians, not just the executive, can do two critical things: (1) hold executive government to account for their use and control of these agencies—the same parallel operates for defence—and (2) have appropriate forums in the parliament to interrogate and hold the agencies to account. The parliament's role, of course, as we know, is distinct from the executive. Having served on that committee, I think it does well.
There's an inherent tension in the security domain in particular—a little bit in defence but not so much. There's this inherent tension in a liberal democracy between our collective security as a society and notions of individual liberty. And, when the parliament considers natural security laws, in my view, that's actually the tension, the eternal tension, which we're reconciling and making judgements on. If the security agencies have more powers, they can be used covertly. That does impinge on individual liberty. If they have fewer powers, it can diminish our collective security. The ability of parliamentarians to interrogate legislation, to understand the need for it, to see the classified intelligence through the PJCIS, has been well established.
I pay tribute to the Hawke government, particularly to former prime minister Bob Hawke, for the creation of the then parliamentary joint committee on ASIO, as it was, which later morphed into the PJCIS. That was an act of courage, because those who've studied the history of this would know about the two Hope royal commissions—in the late 1970s and, I think, the early eighties. There were two royal commissions headed by Justice Hope to examine the intelligence agencies. The second of those Hope royal commissions explicitly recommended to the Hawke government that there be no such committee. The royal commission said to the government, 'Do not set up a parliamentary committee to oversight the intelligence agencies.' Prime Minister Bob Hawke and his cabinet made the right call—to reject that recommendation and say: 'No. Parliamentary oversight of this part of our national enterprise is important. It does matter.' It was legislated into being and, as I said, I think it's stood the test of time. This prime minister, Albanese, with the support and stewardship of the Deputy Prime Minister, the Minister for Defence, will, I think, in future years and decades to come, be seen to have made the right leadership call, finally, in doing what has long been called for, including by numerous Liberal MPs—yet their own leadership was too spineless to stand up to those in the defence establishment.
This is not a universally loved proposition, but it does have a lot of supporters in the defence establishment, once they've thought it through, because this committee has the potential to do a lot of good: to transform the institutional relationship between Defence and the parliament over time; to support our Westminster system; and to prepare, as the former speaker rightly said, the alternative government—because there are changes of government—to actually move straightaway into their critically important job in defence, because they will have had classified briefings. They will understand the threats that we face. They will understand the capability acquisitions and the rationale for them. They'll understand which projects are on track and off track, and they'll understand the job that they're walking into. That's been a function of the PJCIS for decades—senior members of the opposition serve on that committee and are better prepared to take on their roles if there is a change of government. Obviously, I hope, that's a long time away, but, of course, it will happen, in a Westminster system, one day in the future.
I acknowledge the point the member for Goldstein rightly made. He defined the core purpose as being 'to scrutinise public expenditure and raise the standard of the ADF'. He said that's the core purpose of the committee. I don't fully agree with that. I think that's part of the purpose, but there is more. There's another, broader purpose, which was actually the genesis for this piece of legislation. It was an inquiry that the member for Macquarie, here, and I served on—that I chaired—which was the first serious examination for decades of war powers, of how Australia goes to war. I think there is no graver decision which executive government could make than to take our nation to war, to commit to armed conflict, to enter into armed conflict and to put the lives of the men and women of the ADF and their service personnel at risk, and indeed, if the worst happened, to risk the future and survival of the nation. That is the gravest responsibility any government bears. There are legitimate questions, and there have been in the committee for a long time, about how those decisions are made and the transparency of them. Part of the point of this committee is to improve the transparency and accountability of how those decisions are made to provide a statutory, classified forum where parliamentarians from both sides—the backbench and non-executive members—can be briefed in order to understand the rationale of the intelligence and, importantly, to then have better oversight of a government's conduct of armed conflict operations in war.
There are appropriate restrictions and protections in the legislation for the secrecy of the information which would be provided to this committee, including criminal offences and jail terms for members who may choose to try and leak or misuse the classified information. Those provisions are built into the bill. I want to put on the record that the importance and the significance of this change for the relationship between the parliament and our democracy and the defence establishment shouldn't be underestimated. As the former government said and as this government has rightly continued to say in our statements but also the official documents—the Defence Strategic Review and our national defence strategies—we do face the worst strategic circumstances which our country has seen since the Second World War, and they're deteriorating. In response the government has sensibly and rightly increased significantly the investment in defence. That will continue at record levels and is set to grow.
I noted some of the backhanders of the previous speaker about the government's management of defence and their suggestion that it all had to be held to account. Of course it does. The audit office does its job; the new defence committee will be able to do its job. I would point out that it was not our government but the coalition that saw 28 projects run a collective 97 years late. It was the previous prime minister in particular who was all about announcing but never actually delivering on the capability. We'd all remember the press releases. You'd run out of Australian flags, often, for the announcement, but then, when you'd go and look in the budget papers, there'd be no money or it'd be underbudgeted. They'd announce the capability but they wouldn't put the order in. How many submarines did they announce? We had the Japanese, then we had the French and then they ripped them up—literally billions of dollars. You could have the ATMs whirring, flowing the cash right through the wind, out on the oval and out on the forecourt of parliament and everyone could pick up their money. Billions of dollars were completely wasted. They never placed an order for a submarine. They're the kinds of things that can and should be explored in a classified forum.
Then, of course, the former shadow minister for home affairs and former defence shadow minister the member for Canning—as I said, he makes car fetish videos now, but, when he wasn't doing that, he was putting out the one policy he was allowed to release at the last election, which was their genius idea to order another squadron of F-35s. You can argue the case for that capability. It hasn't been identified as a priority through the proper, thoughtful work, but that was their election platform: fighter pilots. Actually it wasn't fighter pilots; it was some planes. Because they hadn't budgeted for the fighter pilots, they hadn't budgeted for the sustainment and they hadn't budgeted for the petrol, so their genius idea was to order another squadron of planes that would sit on the tarmac and, I don't know, scare the enemy, knowing they couldn't fly. It was as clever as the press releases. They thought the ADF could run onto the battlefield waving press releases of capability that never actually came.
I'm just going to finish on the sticking point, if you like, which is the hand grenade that was thrown in at the last minute by the Leader of the Opposition for the shadow minister for defence's aspirations to support this bill last term. It was their venal, political outrage that their political enemies on the crossbench could ever be appointed to such a thing as the statutory committee of defence. The points that I've made in private—then, before then and since then, as this matter has continued to be talked about around the halls—I've said publicly, and I'll say them again. The composition of this committee is modelled on the tried and tested model of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. The composition of committees is a matter for the parliament of the day, rightly, and we put that in legislation here. This committee has an extra provision that the Prime Minister has to appoint them for obvious reasons, for extra safeguards so that they're appropriate to serve on the committee in terms of handling the kind of information that they handle.
The idea that we should write into legislation forevermore a requirement that large proportions of the parliament be deemed unsuitable or locked out from ever engaging in our national defence is offensive and ridiculous, but I'll finish on the point that it's also incredibly naive. The fact is that about a quarter of Australians now don't vote for the major parties. I'm a big defender of the party system. I know you. We were elected together. We've had this chat. We have different views on this. I think, in a Westminster democracy, political parties perform an essential public good. They bring together people of similar values, not always the same ideas, and they do the hard work of actually putting forward a platform for government, because you change the country for the better through being in government, not through sanctimonious press releases, nice speeches and media stunts. That's my belief. Others can have a different belief. I don't believe overwhelmingly in Independents in the parliament. I don't think they do the work of an opposition, and I don't think they do the work of a government. I respect the individuals and the nature of their service. But Australians have every right to make their own choices, and we need to respect the choices that are made.
If we're serious about arguing for greater defence expenditure, if we're serious about persuading that quarter—perhaps larger in some places—of the Australian people who don't vote for the major parties, then we shouldn't be terrified of the idea of having one appropriate crossbencher on the committee. I'm not speculating about the government's intentions; I don't know what the government's intentions are. It's not my portfolio. I'd just make the principled point that I can imagine multiple scenarios where it would be an enormous advantage for the parliament, for the government and for the defence establishment to have a skilled, experienced crossbencher on the committee who is able to talk persuasively, having been briefed in, to that part of the Australian polity to speak up for the need for defence or a contingency or an armed conflict. Those things do and can and will divide societies in the future. I just think the idea that was put forward and that some are still playing footsie with in the opposition, that somehow their political enemies have to be locked out, is actually not good for our national defence, and it's not respective of our parliamentary democracy. I make those points on a very principled basis. I believe in parties of government. That's where I choose to put my energy. But the idea that it should be rejected again for the same reason is frankly ridiculous.
The government's Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence) Bill 2025 is a welcome step towards meaningful parliamentary oversight of our defence. But, unless the committee guarantees crossbench representation, it risks becoming an echo chamber rather than an opportunity for scrutiny and oversight.
Defence decisions are among the most consequential decisions we make. They shape our security, our economy and our sovereignty for decades. When stakes are that high, Australians expect rigorous scrutiny. They expect evidence based decision-making and clear accountability. But, often when it comes to defence, we see the major parties unwilling to probe and much more likely to go along with the other side without asking questions. Why? No-one wants to be labelled weak on defence. This bipartisan alignment minimises sensible debate. AUKUS is a case in point—a multidecade $300 billion undertaking that will define our defence strategy for decades to come. That kind of commitment deserves rigorous testing of assumptions, trade-offs and alternatives, not silence. AUKUS may well be the best defence strategy for Australia to pursue, but the only way we can test those assumptions is through investigation and oversight.
The bill amends the Defence Act to establish a parliamentary joint committee on defence with powers to: review administration and expenditure of Australian defence agencies; scrutinise capability development and acquisitions; consider strategy and planning documents; examine operations in war and significant non-conflict operations; request briefings from the heads of defence agencies, the Inspector-General of the ADF and the Director-General of the Office of National Intelligence; inquire into other matters relating to Australia's defence agencies under the committee's own initiatives; and report to the minister and to both houses.
Let's start with the good things about these changes. This provides a secure statutory forum so the parliament can see classified material on capability, schedules and risks, something that Senate estimates cannot reliably provide. It provides an end-to-end remit across strategy, capability, acquisition and operation so the committee can trace decisions from concept to delivery. It provides continuity across parliaments for multidecade programs, like AUKUS and shipbuilding, with safeguards against inappropriate disclosure. It provides oversight of independent regulators, such as the Inspector-General of the ADF, so integrity and safety can't be sidelined.
There is a strong argument that this bill doesn't go far enough on transparency. Let's set that aside for now; it is at minimum a step in the right direction.
The bill has one serious problem. It has no guaranteed crossbench representation. The bill sets up a committee with 13 members, seven from the government and six non-government members, but there's no guarantee of crossbench participation amongst the non-government members. The nomination process also requires consultation with 'recognised political parties' but no obligation to consult independents. So, in practice, membership can be stitched up between the two major parties.
If parliament is serious about independent oversight, it must include independents in its membership. Let's remember that in the last election independents and minor parties received 34 per cent of the national primary vote—more than the coalition, on 32 per cent, and just slightly below Labor, on 35 per cent—so it's vital that our committees, which play a crucial role in scrutiny and oversight, reflect the composition of the parliament and the will of the Australian people.
The bipartisan bind on AUKUS is the perfect sample of why crossbench scrutiny of Defence decisions is necessary. Let's remember that when AUKUS was unveiled in September 2021 Labor's shadow cabinet backed it within 24 hours of the initial briefing. That is classic evidence of both sides rushing to avoid a political wedge rather than inviting open national debate. I have no problem with the major parties deciding to agreed when it's based on substance, but this was bipartisan support for political reasons not necessarily because AUKUS was the best way to go. Neither major party wants to ask hard questions on costs, delivery, feasibility, conditions attached by allies or opportunity costs—
A division having been called in the House of Representatives—
Sitting suspended from 11:51 to 12:03
Neither major party wants to ask hard questions on costs, delivery feasibility, conditions attached by allies, or opportunity costs. Crossbenchers are often willing to ask the hard questions and do the work. AUKUS may well be a good thing, but, to build public trust, rigorous review is needed. Your average citizen doesn't want or need to know everything about our defence strategy, but they do want and need to know that people acting in the public interest have made the best decisions they can based on the best information available—the right people making the right decisions for the right reasons. They need to know that people who are acting for them, not for political benefit or career progression, are having a good, hard look at it.
The Prime Minister's recent White House meeting secured a verbal confirmation from President Trump that it's full steam ahead on AUKUS. That reassurance matters. It lowers near-term sovereign risk and signals allied resolve, but it's not a reason to suspend scrutiny. Even at that meeting, the US Navy secretary said that there were some ambiguities in the deal. Let's consider how many uncertainties remain in the AUKUS Pillar I agreement that Australia is spending $300 billion on. These demonstrate why scrutiny is required.
Firstly, will the Virginia class submarines actually be effective? There are advantages in being much harder to detect than traditional submarines, but the detection technology will improve significantly by the time we start receiving these subs in the 2030s. How do we know the summaries will be effective if and when they eventually arrive? Some have argued that a larger fleet of traditional submarines may be as, if not more, effective.
Secondly, will the US have the capability to deliver the submarines? US Virginia class production is below target. Independent reporting confirms actual output at about 1.2 boats per year since 2022, with the plan not yet achieved to lift to 2.0 and then 2.3 to cover US needs and AUKUS transfers. That gap is material to our timelines. If the US does not meet its own capability, it does not have an obligation to provide us with our subs. There is a real risk that the US will not even meet its own targets let alone build the summaries for us.
Thirdly, even if the US has the capability to double its submarine production, will it deliver the subs to us? It feels really risky to have all our defence eggs in a single basket, especially when the basket is currently controlled by Donald Trump. We need to ask and answer these questions to have confidence that our $300 billion is actually being directed into a project that will support the defence of our borders. The major parties will not ask questions for fear of exposing their political party, but the crossbench will.
Beyond AUKUS, the Australian National Audit Office has found a range of concerning features in defence agencies and expenditure. That demonstrates why real oversight and questions are required. The ANAO has found persistent schedule risk. The 2023-24 NPR reports a 25-month average slippage across major projects. Slippage reduces capability availability and increases cost risk. It has also found procurement governance and probity gaps. The 2025 munitions audit found important governance weaknesses and probity gaps. Defence formally accepted the findings and recommendations. The ANAO has also found that domestic industry participation has not been maximised. The '25 audit concluded that Defence's arrangements were only partly fit for purpose and did not effectively implement or monitor industry participation commitments in sampled contracts, and Defence agreed to nine recommendations around this.
The ANAO also found that public reporting on the Integrated Investment Program was only partly effective. It found that gaps in the framework guiding public reporting on the Integrated Investment Program were a real problem and recommended stronger governance and transparency. These are not isolated blips; they are consistent weaknesses in one of the Commonwealth government's most important functions. This is why parliamentary oversight is a good thing and why this oversight needs to involve a genuine and constructive examination of the issues, something the major parties may not deliver for fear of being labelled weak on defence.
The opposition has proposed a second reading amendment of this bill requiring that membership of the committee be dependent on holding particular beliefs about spending threats and AUKUS. Even if I happened to hold these beliefs, I see this as being deeply problematic and really quite ridiculous—so much for the separation of powers! The parliament and parliamentary processes are meant to hold the executive to account. The questions that can be asked in these committees should be able to cover and express any range of views. Our big spending in this area should be able to stand up to rigorous examination, so I find this deeply, deeply problematic.
This is part of the broader political shenanigans that are going on in this place at the moment about committee roles. It makes a farce of the separation of powers and the accountability checks that we are meant to have in our democracy. Committee positions should not be used as treats or weapons for domestic political purposes but as a really important part of our system to ensure we are making good decisions. I would encourage the opposition and also the government to stop their silliness and take on their roles, and recognise that committees play an important and serious accountability role.
In closing, I support the creation of a parliamentary joint committee on defence. It is a necessary accountability measure. But who sits on it will determine what it actually does and the scope of its inquiries. So I think the government should guarantee crossbench representation and mandate consultation with Independents, when nominating members, not just recognised political parties. Our defence deserves proper scrutiny and examination. And this isn't a radical ask. There are other committees that specify that the crossbench should be represented on those committees. Putting Independents in the room would certainly be a step in the right direction to ensure genuine engagement—open-minded and fearless engagement—with the issues, and also honour the purpose of committees as an accountability measure in our democracy.
I'm very pleased to speak on this bill, the Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence) Bill 2025, which is coming before the parliament. It's very similar to a bill that we put forward in the last parliament, and I'm pleased that it's coming to the parliament again.
This bill is about establishing the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence, the PJCD. People who come in halfway through this will have little idea what we're talking about, I suspect, in these debates. But it's modelled on a committee we already have, which is the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. This one will provide a mechanism for classified parliamentary oversight of defence, and I want to talk about why it's needed before I get to exactly what it is.
We know that Australia faces an increasingly complex and constantly evolving strategic set of circumstances, and they're challenges. The new Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence will allow an enhanced transparency, an enhanced accountability, and a better oversight of defence decisions, capability, development and strategic planning. It really fills a gap in the current committee structure and oversight framework that we have, by allowing scrutiny of classified matters in a really secure setting. This is something that the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security already does for those matters.
I want to go into some of the journey I've had for the government to get to this point. It's been really worthwhile, being part of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, and the Defence Subcommittee, which did an inquiry, in our last term of government, into a range of matters relating to accountability and transparency, which were triggered by a desire to really look at war powers and what war powers—what the processes were; how they could work differently. In the course of that, one of the things that became clear was that there were some gaps that could be dealt with. I really want to pay tribute to the member for Bruce, who was the chair of that inquiry and thought very carefully about the recommendations that our committee put together as a result of the evidence that we took.
Things we learned led us to recommend that this sort of committee be established. We looked at the existing committees that were there: the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade; the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade; plus the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Intelligence and Security. They all have different functions, but none of those committees were specifically empowered to examine matters relating to major armed conflicts or war, or warlike operations, and neither of the two defence-portfolio-related committees were empowered or equipped to receive classified information. Instead, those committees are currently confined to examinations of the Defence portfolio via inquiries or consideration of the department's annual report, and, of course, via Senate estimates. So that was where we found ourselves.
We looked at the model that the PJCIS provides, which really is: how to ensure a balance of providing oversight and accountability while maintaining appropriate controls on sensitive material. The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security has a particular composition and functions that are laid out in legislation, just as this committee's will be, and it establishes limits to the committee's roles and powers. For instance, unlike most parliamentary committees, the PJCIS's enabling legislation does permit the release of classified information to its members in order to fulfil its legislated mandate, but it does place restrictions on members and secretariat staff regarding disclosure or publication of that information. Breaches of those restrictions are liable to attract a penalty of up to two years of imprisonment. That's the level of detail it has, and you'll see that it provides a model for how the government is moving forward with this this new Defence committee.
During the inquiry, a range of advantages and benefits which would flow from having something similar for the defence space were highlighted to us in the evidence that we took: improving parliamentary oversight of Defence related matters, which was a key benefit; providing a venue for Defence to provide and give classified briefings to the parliament, where it was required and appropriate; and an increasingly informed accountability and scrutiny by the parliament over Defence related matters, particularly by committee members, through the ability to interrogate issues which are otherwise difficult due to classification issues.
The subcommittee report put forward took this as a proposal and noted the importance of Defence oversight by parliamentary committees. One of the things we need to keep in mind is that, when the community is confident that there is deep scrutiny and transparency, it actually provides much greater support for the work that that agency or organisation is doing—so we see this as a really positive thing for the important work that our Defence Force does. There are things already that I learn in committee—which I obviously can't share with people—that give me confidence, and there are things that I want to ask more about, but there is only a certain layer that we can go to. All round, from the more transparency and the greater accountability we have comes greater confidence from not only parliamentarians but the constituents who we represent.
I should say that during our inquiry we absolutely recognised, respected and accepted that there are certain Defence operational, intelligence and security matters that should be classified and should have very reduced public disclosure. There is embedded into the way this committee has been designed an absolute recognition of that, for a whole lot of reasons, there are things that cannot be publicly aired.
This new committee we're putting forward, which I really hope will have the support of the parliament in this term of government—unlike the last time we put forward the proposal—creates 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 the functions of the committee, it includes the oversight of administration and expenditure; strategy; planning; capability development and personnel; war, warlike or major non-conflict operations; responses to royal commissions relating to Defence; and the performance of key statutory roles including the Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force and the Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Regulator. The committee will not have oversight on certain things. It will not have oversight of intelligence agencies in the Defence portfolio, which already full under the functions of the PJCIS.
It's also important to think about what the committee will be able to do. What does all that mean? What will the committee be able to do? It will be able to consider publicly released documents dealing with Australian Defence tragedies, and planning and contingencies such as the biennial national defence strategy. It will be able to scrutinise Australia's defence capability—that includes acquisitions and sustainment—on things like the Integrated Investment Program. It will be able to examine and be apprised of war or warlike operations and ongoing conflicts in the event of a decision by the executive to enter into armed conflict. It will also be able to monitor the involvement of Australian defence agencies in significant non-conflict operations both at home and abroad.
Obviously receiving access to classified information is crucial to carrying out these new functions and these oversight functions. Along with the opportunity to access information obviously come huge responsibilities for the members of that committee. Similar to the PJCIS, the Prime Minister, in consultation with the Leader of the Opposition, will appoint 13 members to the committee. That will be seven government members and six non-government numbers from both the House and the Senate. This gives the government the flexibility to appoint crossbenchers should it wish to do so. That was certainly a sticking point for the opposition in the last parliament, when this legislation last came to the parliament. I hope that they have moved on from their opposition to that, because that's what we would like to see in this bill.
As I mentioned, there will be strong protections on the information that parliamentarians receive, as it should be. The bill includes strict criminal offences for unauthorised disclosure of protected information, including operationally sensitive material and information that could prejudice national security or Defence operations. These provisions apply to committee members, their staff and any other individuals involved in the committee's work. Disclosure of such information—even for it be disclosed to the PJCD—will require ministerial authorisation, and the minister may issue binding certificates to prevent its release during committee proceedings. To uphold confidentiality and integrity, the bill introduces criminal offences for unauthorised use or disclosure of protected information. That applies to committee members, staff and attending members of parliament. These provisions will be modelled on the Intelligence Services Act 2001.
This is a really significant piece of legislation. Some people might go, 'Oh, it's just a committee,' but in fact the way our committees work in parliament is that we work across the parliament, often in an absolutely bipartisan or multipartisan way, as we're exploring issues and trying to understand what is really happening. You don't see in these committees what you see on the floor of the parliament in question time. These are not performance spaces; these are spaces where we diligently work through—
Opposition members interjecting—
The opposition is surprised that I would describe question time as a performance. It is a performance for us all, and we have a press gallery watching us very closely. The committee space is one where we work alongside each other rather than in an oppositional way. We don't always end up exactly on the same page, but we work closely together, collegiately, wherever that is possible. That applies equally to Independents and the minor parties.
As I said, when this bill was put forward last year, it was rejected by the Senate because of disagreement over committee membership. We were very disappointed to see that the Liberals—who were keen to support the concept of the committee—chose to vote against the legislation. I really urge them to not fall down that hole again.
I think this is something that will be significant. It builds on the work that Bob Hawke's government did in the 1980s—I think it came in just after I left the press gallery in Canberra back in the 1980s—to oversee ASIO. That was the first version of this we had. It was then worked on in the early 2000s, and the PJCIS became closer to what it is today. I think this is a really natural evolution that provides not only greater scrutiny but also greater confidence to the people of Australia that our defence organisations are transparent and accountable so that we know they are doing the very best for our communities. At that point, I would really like to commend particularly my Richmond and Glenbrook RAAF personnel and the other defence personnel who live in the electorate of Macquarie, and thank them for the work they do every single day to keep Australians safe.
I do thank the opportunity to rise on the Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence) Bill 2025. In accordance with the previous speaker, I acknowledge this is a very important bill, particularly as Australia faces the most dangerous strategic environment since the Second World War. That's an opinion shared by the Prime Minister, the defence minister and those on this side of the House. You only need to open the newspaper on a daily basis to see reports of conflict in Ukraine, the Middle East, and other activities including grey zone activities in the Taiwan Strait and recent events closer to home on our shores involving the Chinese defence activities in the Tasman Sea, the circumnavigation of Australia, the release of flares near the P-8 Poseidon and sonar activities impacting Australian divers. I recently returned from a bipartisan delegation to Taiwan, where we were given some further insights into the types of coercive activity being experienced in Taiwan from mainland China. So there is no question the strategic environment is uncertain, and the coalition does support the principle of this bill to strengthen the parliamentary oversight of defence, provided the government remains both bipartisan and serious in its intent. We are quite unique here in Australia by not having an oversight committee of this nature for defence among our AUKUS partners, so I think it is time for such an approach. The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence must build confidence in defence and not become another platform for political games.
There's a lot to be gained by increasing understanding in this place of our Australian Defence Force and how it operates. I really do need to note that this week we have the privilege of 47 Australian Defence Force personnel in the parliament as part of the Australian Defence Force Parliamentary Program. The genesis of that program was in 2001 when it was acknowledged there were not many members of parliament with direct defence experience. Coming out of World War II, members of parliament were likely to have served or had immediate family members who had served. But by 2001 it was not the case and the decision was made to establish the Australian Defence Force Parliamentary Program. That program allows members of parliament to spend some time embedded with our Australian Defence Force. It could be on patrol, it could be on exercises, back in the base or it could be internationally. That allowed members of parliament to have those experiences to increase their understanding of how the Australian Defence Force works on the ground.
The reciprocal of that is the opportunity for Defence Force personnel to spend a week in parliament. I think they get the rough end of the deal. We get out and about and have some time in incredible locations where they are based and they get to spend a week in Canberra. But nevertheless, from the conversations I have had with many of the participants this week, I have gained some additional knowledge. They have shared their insights into their jobs and what they are doing in the defence of our nation, and I want to thank them for that. I want to thank them for being so forthright but also thank them for their service to the country. The men and women who put on the uniform and sign up to place themselves in harm's way if required are doing that to secure the freedoms we enjoy today. I think this defence joint committee has the potential to add to that mutual understanding and to strengthen those links between this building, the Parliament of Australia, and the men and women who serve in uniform. But this new committee must not add to bureaucracy; it must enhance it. It must provide a trusted forum to scrutinise programs and delivery without undermining Australia's national security or strategic objectives.
I would hasten to suggest that if this joint committee was in existence already, we would have saved ourselves—we certainly would have saved the Minister for Veterans' Affairs and Defence Personnel—from quite an unseemly debacle which is unfolding in relation to his changes to the Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal. What we've seen with this bill could have been avoided if there were a committee in place to provide full and frank advice to government members before it got to the point of legislation being on the floor of the chamber.
Yesterday, the Minister for Veterans' Affairs suggested that my blood pressure was increasing and that I was particularly agitated about the issue. I want to assure the Minister for Veterans' Affairs that my blood pressure is the least of his worries. The people in our veterans' community and Australian Defence Force personnel are furious about the changes he's proposing through the legislation. If he had actually engaged with the veterans' community, ex-service organisations or current serving Australian Defence Force members, he would have known within a minute or two that this bill is unloved because it takes away the rights of veterans and ADF personnel to seek a review of Department of Defence decisions.
Yesterday, in the chamber, the minister accused me of creating anxiety and uncertainty. He thinks—I appreciate the flattery, Minister—that I have the power to concoct the action which is coming his way from the organisations which are opposed to his legislation. He flatters me enormously to think that I have that capacity, because there were 63 submissions to the Senate inquiry into the Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal changes, and 62 of those submissions were against it. If the minister seriously thinks that I have enough time to write 62 submissions and send them out to different organisations to sign and send them back in, he has a much higher view of my capacity than anyone in my office does. There were 63 submissions; 62 were against it. The only organisation that wrote in favour of the legislation was the Department of Defence. The Department of Defence wrote the legislation, so, thankfully, they still back their own legislation.
What we've seen in the context of the need for additional oversight of defence is that this legislation came to the chamber with no consultation, a complete lack of respect for current serving personnel and our veterans community and their families, and there is no support in the broader community. When the legislation made it before the chamber, the minister spoke and introduced the bill and those on our side spoke. How many of the 93 backbenchers for the Australian Labor Party in the House of Representatives were coming in, charging behind the minister and backing him up on this most important legislation? Was it 20, 30, 40? One—one member spoke in favour of the bill. The first term member for Sturt must have copped the talking points and was dragged in there to speak in support of the bill. But when it came time to vote, they all turned up. They all voted for it. I fear that they didn't really know what they were voting for. Because if they knew what they were voting for, they wouldn't have supported it.
Again, the minister suggests that I have the capacity to create anxiety and uncertainty in relation to this bill, but evidence to the tribunal from independent sources suggests that it's not just me who is frustrated and angry by the government's approach to this issue. The Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal, the independent statutory agency established by the Gillard-Rudd government, by the Labor Party, in 2011, submitted to the inquiry that these changes would—and I quote:
… abolish and curtail current and significant rights of ADF members, veterans and families and others to seek external and independent merits review of Defence decisions …
That's the independent statutory agency saying that rights are being stripped from current ADF members, veterans and their families.
RSL NSW said the bill is 'disgraceful' and gave evidence to the inquiry saying:
We feel this Bill [is] detrimental, not only to veterans' mental and physical health when seeking reviews, but also to the value placed on their service …
It goes on. I could read quotes to you all day. The tribunal made an important point in its submission in terms of the context of the bill about defence oversight. The tribunal highlighted defence overreach in relation to this issue. It said:
The Tribunal believes that the purpose of defence honours and awards is not just to make ADF members and veterans feel good about their service, or to provide solace to the families of deceased members and veterans, but to signify the nation's respect and appreciation of those who have served on its behalf—and especially those who have served with gallantry or distinction or conspicuously. Abolishing appeal rights against the refusal of defence honours in the manner proposed in the Bill would, in the view of the Tribunal, undermine that purpose and thereby detract significantly from the integrity of the defence honours and awards system.
This is the independent agency. The minister says that I'm capable of creating uncertainty and anxiety, but his own statutory agency is saying that the legislation before the House would detract significantly from the integrity of the Defence honours and awards system.
Instead of just pulling the bill in the wake of the Senate inquiry, in the wake of the submissions, where 62 out of 63 are against it, now the minister is doubling down. He's delaying the reporting date to 21 November. The Senate inquiry is meant to report today, but the minister, in what could only be seen as an act of complete arrogance, believes he's going to be able to convince people on the crossbench that he can polish this enough that it won't stink quite as much. We're saying to the minister to just bin this disgraceful bill.
His own backbench have started distancing themselves from the legislation because it is a solution looking for a problem. The reason I know his backbenchers are distancing themselves from it is that yesterday I asked the minister to name just one veteran who supported the legislation. As I sat down, I thought, 'Clearly, he's just going to name his own backbenchers,' but he couldn't even do that. He couldn't name the member for Spence or the member for Solomon, because I don't think they support the bill either. So the minister stood up and failed to name a single veteran in Australia who supports his bill.
The untruths are starting to catch up with this minister, because he also said yesterday that Teddy Sheean would still be able to get a VC under this legislation, which is not true. Under the legislation that went through the House of Reps and will get to the Senate at some point, there is no pathway for Sheean or Richard Norton or Harry Smith's troops at Long Tan to receive their medals for conspicuous gallantry.
I'm seeking the call to make a point of order. I very much appreciate the comments being made by the member for Gippsland, but I fail to understand how they are relevant to the bill that is currently before us, so perhaps he could advise the House as to what the relevance of that is to the bill before us. I would ask you to bring him back to the bill that's before us.
Are you making a point of order on relevance, Member for Makin?
Yes.
Thank you.
The point of order from the member opposite shows a misunderstanding of how this committee would work to provide oversight and prevent the Defence overreach which has occurred with this legislation. This legislation before the chamber and expected to go to the Senate is all about the Department of Defence overreaching into an area without consideration of how that bill would be accepted or denied across the chamber. Almost inevitably in this place, issues around defence and veterans receive bipartisan support. This bill is not receiving bipartisan support, because it was given no consideration by the coalition before it got to the chamber. If this defence committee had been in place, we could have saved the minister from this debacle.
The minister has to admit that there is now no pathway under his legislation for Teddy Sheean to receive the Victoria Cross, for Richard Norton to receive the Victoria Cross or for Harry Smith's troops at Long Tan to receive individual Medals for Gallantry. The reason there's no pathway is that they would be timed out by the 20-year rule that the minister is imposing on the Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal for reviewable actions. They would also fall foul of the legislation because family members are not allowed to initiate a review. The only ones who can initiate a review under the minister's legislation are people who are eyewitnesses or in the chain of command of the individual who committed the gallant act. The minister has stretched the truth to a point where I think his colleagues on the backbench realise now that he is selling them something that is completely unsellable to the general public. That is why, without any consultation, the veterans community is furious. The independent tribunal is scathing of the minister and his claimed consultation because they simply were not asked.
I want to end with four words: we will remember them. They're simple words: we will remember them. It's from the ode of remembrance. It's not 'we will remember them when it's in a convenient timeframe', it's not 'we will remember them when it suits us'. This minister has placed a use-by date on 'we will remember them'. On this side of the House, we will always remember them. The formation of this joint committee would allow this disgraceful bill to be eliminated from the parliament in first place. I urge the minister to come to his senses and act in a bipartisan way.
Security is the priority of government, and defence is at the pointy end of that duty. To this end, I am honoured to have Lieutenant Bijan Shekibi in my office as part of the defence parliamentary program to really get a great sense of appreciation of the type of work, the skills and the capacity that he brings to the defence forces and also to his colleagues, peers and, importantly, their families. The defence parliamentary program is a signature achievement, and I'm very proud to be part of it in terms of hosting defence personnel, and also to be part of the exercise program. Being part of Exercise Pitch Black in Darwin was an extraordinary highlight, so far, of my parliamentary career.
In terms of the Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence) Bill 2025, early in our first term the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade was asked to inquire into how Australia makes decisions to send our service personnel and their families abroad and, specifically, to send service personnel into armed conflict. That committee also regularly reviews the annual reports of the Department of Defence—although we already have parliamentary oversight via debates and estimates, and the committee's existing remit. That committee concluded, in the course of bringing down that report, that those processes are not sufficient.
In its report, the committee—then chaired by my friend the member for Bruce—recommended, in recommendation 6, that we establish a dedicated statutory committee focused on defence, to be called the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence, encapsulated by this bill and the virtually identical bill that lapsed in the last parliament. The coalition members of that committee in the last parliament supported that recommendation then but failed to support the bill—failed, notwithstanding that the same suggestion was made back in 2018 by the committee, then chaired by the late senator Jim Molan, who called it 'a sensible and critically important reform'. I concur.
I understand that the coalition will now support the bill, and I thank them for that, notwithstanding that their support is years late in an area of policy where delay, as the member for Hume suggested in his speech, is ill-advised. This bill complements the government's overarching work in defence, which finds its basis in the 2023 Defence Strategic Review by Professor Stephen Smith and Air Chief Marshall (Ret'd) Sir Angus Houston. From that flowed the 2024 National Defence Strategy, which directs that the Australian Defence Force shift from a balanced force to a focused force—more capable, more lethal, more integrated. It aligns with a denial framework for defence, to defend Australia and our region—to deter by denial—to protect our trade and economic lifelines, to invest in regional relationships, and to uphold the rules based order. This bill sits within that framework as does the excellent work done by the Prime Minister in his recent trip to the US and the generational treaty signed with Papua New Guinea earlier this month.
Looking at the bill before us, proposed clause 110ABB sets out the functions of this new defence committee. These are broader than the mandate of the current Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee; for example, proposed subparagraph 110ABB(1)(e) authorises the committee 'to examine and be appraised of war or warlike operations, including ongoing conflicts'. Decisions to commit our ADF to conflict will not shift from the government to a parliamentary committee—that remains a Constitutional prerogative of the executive. But this committee provides enhanced scrutiny, a mechanism by which this parliament can examine the decisions of the day, ask the hard questions and further ensure public confidence.
Members will note that the commitment of Australian forces to Afghanistan in 2001 and to Iraq in 2003 were contested decisions. Scrutiny might have produced better decisions in retrospect. This is not about second-guessing. It's about transparency and accountability in a democratic society. The committee will have other important functions: reviewing defence agencies and their budgets, scrutinising strategy documents and capability developments and acquisitions. On acquisitions, the defence minister has noted that defence contracting is the space where the government has the greatest private sector exposure. Defence contracts are large, high value and often span years in duration. They are, by their nature, high risk. Parliamentary oversight must match that reality. The committee will contribute to a more robust process and better public confidence.
When the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit reported on defence major projects from 2021 to 2023, including the Hunter Class Frigate Project, its recommendations emphasised the need for greater scrutiny and timely reporting. But that committee lacks the special access to classified information that this new defence focused committee will have. The proposed committee would have been a useful body to have in place when the coalition were trying and failing to make proper acquisition decisions during their decade in office. I've spoken previously in this place of the Battle of Rabaul in 1942 and more than once, and why? Because it is a largely forgotten defeat, yet a necessary precursor to the attack on Darwin. The lessons from Rabaul should shape the way we think about our forward posture today. Our interests extend beyond our borders and mingle with those of our neighbours. Preparedness for conflict is built on cooperation and with care, well north of Australia. The new defence committee will help ensure that we better understand these long-term imperatives.
The bill also provides functions in relation to personnel and veterans, because our preparedness always depends on our people. Our enlisted personnel must have the best support to fulfil their duty and love their career. Including veterans in the remit is vital. This includes the way in which we care for defence personnel and veterans' families. I was deeply privileged today to attend the veteran family support event—and listen to the stories of, particularly, women experiencing life as they support defence personnel. The truth of the matter is families are part of the service. I think the more we can think in that frame to ensure that they get the support that they need to support their partners in service is vital—both during and post service, might I add. We have a responsibility for this.
Under subclause (g) the committee may examine reports of any relevant royal commission, and it's all appropriate. Given all this, the bill does deserve passage. It was initially, as I said, supported by the coalition members of the committee. It was disappointing, in the previous parliament, to hear their late opposition and their misdirected amendments targeting a particular political party or Independents. A democracy cannot embed party labels in legislation about oversight nor are parties recognised under the Constitution. The safeguards in this bill mirror those of the intelligence and security committee and are robust, and this is a committee of which I'm a member. I can see how the process works so optimally. The member for Canning knew this in the last term and the member for Hume appears to know better now, and they should have treated the former identical bill, and the safeguards we place around the defence of our nation, with the seriousness it demanded.
It is in fact a travesty that Australians have had to wait so long for this committee to be created. The coalition failed to do so when their own committee recommended it in 2018. They then failed to support our bill in 2024. These are years—six years—over which time such a committee could have been doing extremely useful work. The member for Canning, when he was the opposition's defence spokesperson was bullish in his public support for this very reform. He told the Australian Defence Magazine in 2024:
There is no independent Joint Defence Committee where tough questions can be asked in a classified, protected space.
He was right. He said that such a committee would bring 'rigorous parliamentary oversight' to defence policies and the ADF. Too true. But, when the opportunity came to make these words a reality, when the bill came before the House in 2024, what did he do? He voted against it. He failed to support the very thing he demanded; so did the member for Hume, their current spokesperson, and other members opposite. That is the difference between conviction and convenience, between leadership and lip-service. The then shadow minister for defence stood at podiums and spoke of transparency and accountability, yet, when the time came to cast a vote, he sided with the same obstruction that had kept this reform shelved since 2018—even after his own colleagues, including Senator Molan, had called it sensible and critical reform. So let's be clear. This isn't about partisanship; it's about integrity. If you stand before the Australian people and declare that defence needs stronger oversight and then you vote against it, you are not defending the national interest. You are failing the Australian community, failing the defence community and failing your duty in this place.
It's true that real oversight is sometimes uncomfortable—that it shines light in places and at times that may be inconvenient. This is precisely why we need it.
The Liberals cannot posture about patriotism—something that the member for Canning bangs on about all the time—and yet then vote against transparency. You cannot talk about defending Australia while refusing to defend accountability. There is no point talking a big game on defence and security, and then delaying important reforms like this one. The coalition might want to choose better where it plays its politics.
I refer to the 2024 strategy: shifting to an integrated, focused force; acknowledging that conflict is now more complex than ever. Integration means that war is no longer just the province of the military; it touches every domain, and so greater scrutiny is needed. Today that need is greater than ever. Since the original review and strategy were set out, our strategic environment has continued to intensify. The national strategic review remains the cornerstone. It affirms that Australia faces its most challenging strategic environment since the Second World War. The government 's 2025-29 Defence Corporate Plan underscores the transformation of the ADF into an integrated, focused force, across maritime, land, air, space and cyber domains, and this new committee will have a role in seeing that those aims are met.
In the 2025-26 budget, the consolidated defence budget was approximately $59 billion, an increase reflecting the government's response to the deteriorating strategic environment. The Chief of the Defence Force, Admiral David Johnston, has reinforced that we must be ready for the possibility of launching combat operations from our own soil—a paradigm shift from our traditional posture.
Australia is accelerating moves in key capability areas. The government has committed to domestic production of guided missiles, long-range strike systems and enhanced undersea maritime and space capabilities. In my own state, a $12 billion investment into the Henderson Defence Precinct has been announced, directed towards ongoing naval shipbuilding and submarine support.
Given all of this—the shifting strategic environment, the technological leaps, the build-up of regional tension—now is not the time for half measures. Oversight reforms, like the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence, become even more essential. Without them, we risk having capability upgrades which are unseen, unexamined and unaccountable. Our democracy deserves better, and our Defence Force will be better off for the scrutiny.
One of the most compelling reasons for this reform is that our present system of scrutiny is, frankly, fragmented. The Department of Defence's own annual report lists an extraordinary array of committees that review one or another aspect of Defence: public accounts and audit; foreign affairs, defence and trade; treaties; intelligence and security; and the various estimates hearings across a dozen portfolios. Each does valuable work, but, as Defence itself acknowledges, the oversight is dispersed. No single committee holds the mandate, the expertise or the continuity to examine a whole system of strategy, capability, procurement, expenditure and operational readiness. That means parliament's focus can be episodic and reactive, not strategic and sustained.
Defence planning and investment operate on decades-long timelines, and billions are committed before the first hull is laid or the first system commissioned. A single, dedicated committee, armed with security clearances, cross-chamber membership and a clear statutory remit, will provide the continuity and depth that are missed today. We know that committees of this nature exist around the world, particularly with our partners and allies. Our allies have this oversight. Our experts have long recommended it. Our times demand it. I hope that, at last, this parliament, with this bill, will finally deliver it. I commend the bill to the House.
I rise in support of the Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence) Bill 2025, which will establish the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence. I think this is a really important move, and it's one that I wholeheartedly support. Let's look at why. We look at our strategic environment, and defence is only more important now, and it's only a more important consideration for this parliament and future parliaments than it has been before. We do live in uncertain times, and our defence community and our defence forces are absolutely integral to maintaining our security.
I must say that I was really surprised to see that defence was actually covered in the joint committee with foreign affairs and trade, and then foreign affairs and aid. I sought to actually join the defence subcommittee this term and have joined the bigger committee because I thought it was such an important area. But, again, I was very surprised, because defence is such an important part of our country and our security. It is such an important part of our budget. I'd just assumed that the parliament would have a standing standalone defence committee as partners such as the US and the UK have. So I think it's a very commonsense recommendation from the former committee that this be established, and I think it's very commonsense to actually establish it in this parliament. We need accountability and transparency, and we need a depth of examination of Defence because of the incredibly important role that it plays. I think we also need to recognise that to have proper scrutiny of Defence will, on occasion, require a different level of security clearance and different level of security disclosure than in the normal case of committees.
I want to then talk briefly to the composition, and I support the composition that has been outlined in the papers, but I'd like to make a few comments to it. It's going to be seven government members and six non-government members. I'd like to urge the government and future governments to reflect on the composition of the parliament and the composition of the votes in the country and make sure that the defence committee reflects that, because around a third of Australians did not vote for the major parties in the last election, and that's a similar level to the previous election. In important areas such as defence, if there are no voices to represent that third of the country that did not vote for the major parties, then I think that actually reduces trust in the system for all those people who were seeking to be represented by alternative members of the community. I think that the government should bear that in mind in relation to who it puts forward and who goes onto this committee.
I'd also like to note the opposition's concern that there could be crossbench members of this committee. I would like to note, from a security point of view, there have been various slurs, I would say, made of crossbenchers. 'Slurs' is probably a bit of a harsh term—'imputation'.
It is a little bit harsh. It's 'constructive engagement'.
Sorry, I'll withdraw that. There's been constructive rejection of crossbench contribution here. I would like to make the observation that I'm on the economics committee. Last term, we actually had a breach of confidentiality on the economics committee, and the only person who couldn't have done it is a member of the crossbench, because I wasn't present for that meeting. Members of both the major parties were. So, in that particular meeting—it was the RBA meeting. I'm saying this to a fellow member of that committee—oh, you weren't, actually, sorry; I'm confused, Gordon. But I think the point is made that, with the right selection of people, you can have a degree of confidence.
One final comment that I would like to make is actually about a broader issue on transparency. I note that in some of our partners, like the US, the committee for defence is a very public body as well as one that deals with matters of high security. I think we should consider that in this parliament, because defence should be more of a national conversation than it is, particularly in the times that we find ourselves. I think that the committee could act, in terms of how its hearings are developed and how it's held, as a way of opening the conversation with the Australian people about the needs and the priorities of our defence forces and how that affects and reflects the priorities and needs of the rest of our country. I think that is something that we should consider, because defence is not something in isolation; the country, including, particularly, businesses and also communities, are at the heart of national security. Therefore, they need to be engaged in this question of how we keep our country safe. I think they need to be aware, appropriately, of some of the challenges currently facing our country from a defence point of view.
It now being 1 pm, the member is interrupted and the debate is adjourned. Resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
I rise this afternoon to talk about the need for action when it comes to child care in my electorate of Wannon. We currently have a childcare drought in the electorate of Wannon, and we need urgent action when it comes to child care. The government has talked a big game about universal child care and various things that came out of a Productivity Commission report, but the fact of the matter is that what we actually need is just child care delivered into our region.
There are many, many quick ways in which the government could do this. It's for both federal and state government. For instance, one of the things that I campaigned for very heavily during the last election campaign was the opportunity for us to get a new childcare centre with a capacity of up to 120 at the Deakin campus of Warrnambool. My hope is that the state government and the federal government are working on that and we're going to get an announcement soon. This will be a game changer. If we can get that sort of commitment to numbers, in the 120 range, it would be fantastic. Not only that; it would then allow for research and development to take place in and around the childcare centre so we can make sure that we're continuing to do very important work when it comes to child care. We've seen this take place at Wollongong University, and it has been very successful. What it has done more than anything else is enable us to continue to have a supply of early childhood educators so that, when we have a childcare drought, we can make sure that we've got the workers that we need. The biggest issue that we have in our region is making sure that we've got the workforce.
I would love to see the Victorian state government and the current federal government commit to that site—commit to building that 120-capacity childcare centre at the Deakin campus in Warrnambool and also put the money in there so that we can do R&D and workforce development in and around that site. That would go a significant way to starting to address the childcare desert issues that we have in the electorate of Wannon. Once again, we've had a lot of talk; let's see some immediate action, because that's what we are really looking for.
Another significant issue that I want to talk about today is the need for us to get the provision of doctors, of GPs, in regional and rural areas right. The Prime Minister talked a big game before the last election when he used to pull out his Medicare card and say, 'That's all you'll need to go to the doctor.' Well, we all wish and hope that people can just use their Medicare card when they go to the doctor, but the reality is that, even though he campaigned with that little green card, saying that would be the reality, that's not what we're seeing on the ground. We're seeing more and more pressure on local GP clinics. We're getting to the stage now—and we've seen this happen, when it comes to dentists—where GP clinics are saying quite clearly, 'We can no longer see any more patients.' They're basically saying, 'We can carry our existing workload'—but, given the way that this government is funding GPs and given the pressure on the system at the moment, we are not seeing them growing, we are not seeing new GPs setting up businesses, and, sadly, we're not seeing an honouring of the commitment that all that you will need, when you go to the doctor, is your Medicare card. The Prime Minister has to come clean—he hasn't on the $275, which was meant to come off your electricity bill. He has to come clean and admit he's also got it wrong when it comes to Medicare.
Today I'd like to recognise, in this parliament, an outstanding medical professional and doctor on the Central Coast: Dr Colette Hourigan. Dr Hourigan's career has included a number of unique and fulfilling roles across her 42 years of medical service. I asked Dr Hourigan recently to give me some of the highlights of her amazing career. In the following is some insight into that tremendous professional life.
Dr Hourigan grew up on the Northern Beaches of Sydney and attended local public schools. She graduated from Sydney university and then went on to work at Royal North Shore Hospital, where the first two years of her working life as a doctor corresponded with the New South Wales statewide specialist doctors strike. Dr Hourigan then decided to help solo GPs working in remote areas, undertaking locum work to give them much-needed reprieve. Dr Hourigan tells me that she realised then that general practice isn't just about caring for individual patients; it's about improving the health outcomes of communities as a whole. She then spent 15 years working as a GP in Chatswood and Gosford before deciding to do more training to be a women's health GP and working out of a community women's health centre on the Central Coast.
Dr Hourigan worked for 20 years at the centre. During this time, she established the first GP led clinic to help women suffering from incontinence, ran community education sessions to promote better health in the community, assisted women and children experiencing domestic and sexual violence, trained GPs in women's health and IED insertion techniques, mentored GPs, ran clinics for adolescent girls at Gosford headspace for four years, did pro bono work to help women from different cultures who couldn't access Medicare and volunteered her time on a women's health board and on panels to promote better health services for women.
After all of this incredible work, Dr Hourigan still wanted to do more, so she moved back into mainstream general practice to support and train general practices on how to recognise family and domestic violence in their patients and how to respond to support the family. It became clear to Dr Hourigan after talking to GPs that many victims of family and domestic violence could not access general practice due to coercive control. The only solution was for her to go into three women's and children's refuges on the Central Coast and bring medical care to these marginalised and disadvantaged women and children.
Dr Hourigan volunteered her time to care for these women and children, who were experiencing severe injuries, advanced infections, sleep and behavioural disturbances, speech and developmental delay—in children—and poor mental health. She was able to treat the infections, treat the injuries, arrange counselling, get the children vaccinated and do preventive health checks—but, most of all, support them and give them hope. Dr Hourigan was supported by a nurse and had a very dedicated speech therapist to assess and help the children. This early intervention was invaluable to their engagement in education, and many of the women and children that Dr Hourigan treated were Aboriginal Australians. Dr Hourigan has said that her work during this period was very rewarding and that it meant a great deal to be part of a team that was helping Aboriginal women and children reconnect to country, spirituality and kinship. The strength and resilience of the women and children in the refuges never cease to amaze Dr Hourigan. When I found out about the refuge medical outreach service, I wanted to do everything I could to support that service. The service now has a paid doctor, a speech therapist, an occupational therapist and paediatricians working at that refuge. There have also been research papers published on this service's work.
Dr Hourigan also ran an outreach medical clinic for Aboriginal women undergoing drug and alcohol rehabilitation, provided trauma informed care for women with complex mental and physical issues, promoted better management of menopause and other hormone related conditions and worked to improve the outcomes of women experiencing endometriosis who can't afford therapy. Dr Hourigan says that she has been very fortunate to have been trusted by her patients and community and that it has enabled her to address health care inequalities on the Central Coast, but now Dr Hourigan is retiring. I place on the record my immense appreciation of a spectacular career dedicated to helping and supporting patients, particularly women and those in our community who are most vulnerable. Dr Hourigan leaves behind a legacy, and I wish her all the best in her retirement. You'll be greatly missed by the medical community. Thank you, Dr Hourigan.
Don't you just love it when the whip's office rings you up as says, ' Can you do an adjournment speech and gives you five minutes notice'? Anyway, it's called running the political ball up, and I'm quite prepared to do that. The subject I'm thinking about, that I'd like to make some comment on, is the recent announcements in respect of Tomago Aluminium smelter at Newcastle and how that might affect the alumina sector in Gladstone.
As you know, I represent the Flynn electorate in Central Queensland, which is Gladstone and the wider Central Queensland area. Gladstone is obviously the big port there—the largest multicommodity shipping port in Australia. We have the CSG industry at Curtis Island, the two alumina refineries and the aluminium smelter, Rio Tinto. We have the Gladstone NRG power station, two other coal fired power stations and the largest cement kiln in Australia, Cement Australia. These announcements recently in respect of the closure of Tomago—that will also wash through and possibly affect the goings on of the alumina sector in Gladstone.
Rio Tinto, as you know, has recently flagged the possible closure of NRG Gladstone Power Station. Under the AEMO guidelines, they have to flag this 3½ years out from the possible closure. The big question is: what does that mean for all of this heavy industry that goes on in Central Queensland? We know AGL has got a 42 per cent stake in that power station. They have had that advertised for sale for some time. We also know that they wrote off their assets to the tune of $1.4 billion couple of years ago. That all points to the question: how will the aluminium sector, and particularly the smelter in Gladstone, survive given the fact they have now flagged the closure of Tomago in New South Wales?
This all revolves around the whole renewable energy argument, the whole net zero argument and the cost of energy. It is the cost of energy that is the principal driver behind the closure of these huge industrial precincts and the loss of thousands of jobs, particularly in Newcastle with the forecast closure of Tomago. I ask the question: is the same thing going to happen in Queensland at Gladstone with the alumina sector and all of the other heavy industries that rely on reliable energy and affordable energy?
One of the problems with all of this is the whole push to renewable energy. In the Flynn electorate, I'm dealing with 96 renewable energy projects of various kinds. They are in various stages of getting their approvals and so forth. The biggest problem they have is that many of the projects do not have financial closure. The reason that they don't have financial closure is that the proponents cannot guarantee these investors a minimum return for their investment. Many of the proponents I've spoken to are looking at a 10 to 15 per cent minimum net return on their investment. For example, if it is a billion-dollar project and they're looking for 10 per cent return—$100 million a year. The proponents are busily trying to get the investors to sign up and commit the money, but the investors won't do that because they're not guaranteed that return. That is why the government has invented the Capacity Investment Scheme, where the Australian taxpayer will be asked to underwrite a minimum profitability for these projects. The problem I have is that we don't know what that will cost. If you go to the forward estimates in the budget, it's restricted information. I think Australians deserve to know exactly what they're signing up for in respect of the Capacity Investment Scheme.
The other issue is that many of these renewable energy projects, if and when they are built, are predicated on offtake agreements. The offtake agreements involve the big energy users, particularly places like Rio Tinto's smelter in Gladstone. With the closure or possible flag closure of Gladstone Power Station, how can the renewable energy sector, and the AEMO for that matter, guarantee a reliable source of energy for that smelter? There are thousands of jobs at stake here, and we need someone to answer these questions and guarantee their jobs.
On Friday 24 October, I was delighted to host my fourth Caroline Chisholm Volunteer Awards ceremony. My electorate is named for Caroline Chisholm, arguably Australia's most famous volunteer. This award ceremony was started in 2001 by my predecessor in Chisholm, Anna Burke. It recognises the difference volunteers make in our community through their service.
In 2025, we received 46 nominations from the community, and I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate all recipients here in the parliament. Thank you for all that you do. The recipients were Leanne Thomas, Jennifer Cameron, the late Ian Scholefield, Christopher Mar, Stuart Redman, Victor Huang, Gino Calandra, Keith Irwin, Barbara Donelson, Norma Shultz, Cao Dagong, Graham Bond, Enio Orlandi, Dr Satha K Sathananthan, Albert Toet, Matthew Hutchinson, Nancy Yang, Margaret Walsh, Elspeth Martin, Kanwal Verma, Subhash Chandra, Luci Haberfield, Clive Allan, Jag Bal, Stuart Amis, Gwen and Ted White, Robert Renshaw, Saleha Singh, Jenny Davies, David and Sandra Brigs, Kath Fisher, Elizabeth Davey, Margaret Panetta, Sam Daniel, Ashley Newell, Justin Wilson, Adelina Vanderzee, Bihong Wang, Trevor Huf, Maureen Balsillie, Janice Yu, Ann Findlay, Michelle Lawson and Scott Munnings. Thank you once again for everything you do for our community.
On Friday 10 October, I had the privilege of attending the Whitehorse Scouting District Annual Report and Awards Presentation night. With 14 groups and more than 1,000 members, including 1st Bennettswood group in my electorate of Chisholm, the Whitehorse District has been very active over the past 12 months. I'd like to put on the record my thanks and congratulations to Whitehorse District commissioner, Liesl Coulthard. Thank you to all involved in scouts and to all those who volunteer, parents and community members, for the incredible contributions made.
It's been a busy time for scouts. On Sunday 12 October, I had the privilege of attending the 13th Malvern Scout Group's annual review and party. The group, which meets in Malvern East, is strong, representing all sections of scouting from Joeys, who start at age 6, all the way through to the Rovers, who go up to age 26. They have around 100 members in the group, including 17 leaders and around 20 adult supporters. They are going from strength to strength. To group leader, Derek Youdale: thanks again for allowing me to share this evening with the group and for all your ongoing work. And thanks to everyone who gives their time to make Malvern Scouts such a strong group.
On Saturday 18 October, I was fortunate to attend the launch of East Burwood Care. I thank all the volunteers from the Burwood Heights Uniting Church congregation, who allow the projects that East Burwood Care undertake to go ahead, and the organisers who have given life back to the facility's over 50 years of service with the relaunch. In only a few months of being open, the volunteers have made an impact that has given faith and confidence to those who are struggling. Whether it be through offering food to those who might otherwise go without or being an ear to those who simply need to talk, you are changing people's lives. For that, you should all be very proud. I'm very proud of you. Thank you again.
On Tuesday 21 October, I attended the Yarrinup parenting program barbecue celebration in Chadstone as part of Children's Week. Children's Week is a national celebration that recognises the talent, skills, achievements and rights of children, and highlights the importance of play, wellbeing and protection. The Yarrinup parenting program is a 12- to 18-month supported accommodation program for young parents who are experiencing or may be at risk of homelessness. Yarrinup has been designed with a therapeutic focus on the importance of building strong attachment between parent and child. It provides a range of specialist services and case management to each family to further develop independent living skills and move out into independent housing at the end of their tenancy. It is quite a remarkable model. To Client Services Coordinator Carly Salter, thank you for all of your terrific work. I look forward to continuing to work together with you in our community.
As you can see, it's been a very busy time in Chisholm—it always is—and it's a great privilege to be able to recognise, here in this place, the achievements of so many.
I rise today to shine a light on the Camden branch of the Country Women's Association, which is proudly based in my electorate of Hume. Recently I had the pleasure of attending their 95th-anniversary luncheon at the Camden Estate Cafe. It was an absolutely wonderful celebration of the branch's rich history and the incredible work that they've done over many years. We had branch members from many of the surrounding branches, at Picton, Campbelltown and elsewhere, which made the day even more special. I can't stress enough how important it is across these branches that they network with each other, and they do that in a way where they share knowledge, lend a hand and work together on a range of projects.
Over the years, the CWA has made a well-earned reputation for wonderful scones and tea, and they do that brilliantly—but there's way more to the CWA than that. At its heart, it's about improving the lives of women and families, especially in rural and remote parts of Australia. But Camden, on the edge of Sydney, is one of those places where it has had an impact for a long, long time. Through fundraising and community service advocacy, it continues to make a real difference.
During World War II, the CWA, including the Camden CWA, stepped up in a really big way by knitting woollen garments, making blankets and preparing food supplies for service men and women on the front lines and elsewhere; and they even made camouflage nets to help conceal equipment and personnel from enemy aircraft. Many of the founding members had already been active in World War I through other women's organisations, and their legacy of service runs deep.
But their work didn't stop there. Beyond wartime efforts, the CWA has been a quiet force behind so many local initiatives: supporting schools and hospitals, and providing disaster relief during floods, droughts and bushfires. We've had our share of those in that area in recent years. They're always there when help is needed. This is an organisation that's the real deal. It's about genuine people taking real action and speaking with honest voices.
I'm thrilled to say the Camden branch is looking ahead, as well. It was fantastic to see a number of junior members actively involved in the anniversary luncheon. Their energy and ideas are vital and, of course, will be the underpinning of an organisation that has a great future. The branch isn't just about service; it's about a way to make new friends. New members are always welcome. They come from all walks of life and all age groups.
This week, it held its annual general meeting, and a big congratulations to Darlene Burkhardt, who was re-elected as president. She's backed by a passionate committee of volunteers who give their time and energy to keep the branch thriving. They meet on the third Tuesday of every month, and I encourage anyone interested to go along. I'm also proud to share that CWA Camden was recently nominated for the 2025 South Western Sydney-Macarthur Volunteer Team of the Year. That was celebrated at the Campbelltown Catholic Club just recently—a fitting tribute to 95 years of service.
I left the luncheon feeling genuinely inspired by the stories of resilience, the unwavering commitment to community, the positive mindset of the members—and the absolutely fantastic food, which is what you always get at a CWA. I'm really looking forward to joining them in five years time, looking ahead, to celebrate their centenary. The countdown to 100 is officially on. It's organisations like these that hold our wonderful community together.
Can I say what a leisure it is to be able to get up in this place and talk about mental health in our community, given that October is mental health month across the globe. It's really a time to raise awareness and promote the importance of mental health and wellbeing across the community. This month encourages open conversation and self-care and is a reminder to all of us to seek help when we need it.
This is something we know touches so many families, workplaces and communities right across the country, including the ones I represent in the electorate of Franklin. I hear from parents in our local community all the time about their children; their anxieties about their elderly parents, who might feel isolated or alone; and of just how hard it has been for people to be able to access services for mental illness support in Tasmania. It is becoming more and more difficult and has certainly been difficult for well over a decade now. We just do not have the health professionals required to support the number of Tasmanians living with mental ill health.
Around 11 per cent of Tasmanians are living with long-term mental health conditions, which is much higher than the national average. According to some of those statistics, around 43 per cent of Australians have experienced a mental disorder at some point in their life. Among young people from 16 to 24 that has jumped to around 39 per cent just in the past year alone, so this is a significant issue in our local communities right across the country. That's why, of course, our Albanese Labor government is taking some real action to make sure that mental health care is available when people need and that it's closer to home.
We're strengthening Medicare by putting some mental health services into communities. Already 50 Medicare mental health centres have opened across this Australia, and by 2029 there will be 91 of them. I'm pleased to say there will be one in my Franklin electorate, which will be in addition to the ones that are already open in Launceston and Devonport and a new one that will be opening in Bernie as well. That will take it from two to four in my home state of Tasmania.
We are also making the biggest investment in youth mental health in Australia's history, investing $920 million alone this year in headspace, the national youth mental health network. That includes more funding for headspace in Hobart, which supports young people from across southern Tasmania, as well as centres in other parts of the state. I have spoken previously in this place how pleased and proud I was to be able to deliver on a commitment to have a new headspace on Hobart's eastern shore. That will be located in 120 Cambridge Road in Bellerive. I know many young people in our local community are looking forward to that facility opening up in the coming weeks and months.
We know headspace provides support in key areas such as mental health, physical health, sexual health and alcohol and drug support. It's more broad than just mental health support for our young people; it's really a place where they can reach out and seek early intervention and support before their issues become more severe. This will play a really critical role in our local community.
Our government has also opened three Medicare mental health hubs across Tasmania, which are there to provide a service to children under the age of 12, and we've created 20 new youth mental health and wellbeing services across Australia. Again, there's going to be one in Tasmania, which I'm pleased to mention and will be really pleased to see. This is about young people with complex health needs, such as early psychosis or personality disorders, to make sure that they can get specialised care.
More Medicare mental health clinics, more headspace support in Tasmania and the early psychosis support are quite an addition to what is available in Tasmania. As I said, Tasmanians have been finding it particularly difficult to get the support they need. Your access to mental health support shouldn't depend on your postcode, but the reality is unfortunately that in Tasmania that has been the case. So I'm really pleased that our government is stepping up and supporting mental health services in our local community.
During World Mental Health Month, I want to thank all those people involved, whether it's your local Men's Shed, your community centres or the experts and the clinical people providing that care, which is so critical in my home state of Tasmania.
I want to take my last few minutes to acknowledge a special Australian woman Carol Mudford, who won the AgriFutures Rural Women's Award here in Parliament House on Tuesday night. She is doing some extraordinary work in the world of shearing, in shearing sheds, supporting people with their mental health and wellbeing. It was terrific to see that on the national stage on Tuesday night, here in Canberra. I want to say a big thankyou to all of those people who are raising mental health and its importance in our local community, and thank them for providing the supports that are available to so many across the community.
Question agreed to.
Federation Chamber adjourned at 13:29