I present report No. 5 of the Selection Committee relating to the consideration of committee and delegation business and private members' business on Monday 24 November 2025. The report will be printed in the Hansard for today, and the committee's determinations will appear on tomorrow's Notice Paper. Copies of the report have been placed on the table.

The report read as follows—

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SELECTION COMMITTEE

REPORT No. 5

Committee and delegation business and private Members' business

5 November 2025

MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE

Chair Hon M Dick Speaker

Members Ms J Ryan MP (Chief Government Whip)

Mr A Violi MP (Chief Opposition Whip)

Ms A Byrnes MP

Mr C Caldwell MP

Ms K Chaney

Ms L Chesters MP

Ms M Landry MP

Ms Z Mascarenhas MP

Mr H Pike MP

Ms T Roberts MP

Ms R Sharkie MP

Ms S Sitou MP

Ms A Urquhart MP

Ms S Claydon MP, Deputy Speaker

This committee is supported by staff of the Department of the House of Representatives

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

1. The Committee met in private session on Tuesday, 4 November 2025.

2. The Committee deliberated on items of committee and delegation business that had been notified, private Members' business items listed on the Notice Paper and notices lodged on Tuesday, 4 November 2025, and determined the order of precedence and times on Monday, 24 November 2025, as follows:

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

PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS

Notices

1 MR WILKIE: To present a Bill for an Act to amend the Interactive Gambling Act 2001, and for related purposes. (Interactive Gambling Amendment (Ending Online Wagering on Greyhound Racing) Bill 2025)

(Notice given 4 November 2025.)

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

Orders of the day

1 REPEAL NET ZERO BILL 2025 (Mr Joyce): Second reading—Resumption of debate (from 27 October 2025).

Time allotted 20 minutes.

Speech time limits

All Members 5 minutes each.

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

The Committee determined that consideration

of this matter should continue on a future day.

Notices—continued

2 MS BOELE: To move—That this House:

(1) notes that:

(a) south-east Australia is at risk of seasonal gas shortfalls by 2027 as result of prioritising our export market;

(b) there are several reasons for this upcoming shortfall, including:

(i) gas exports commenced from Gladstone, Queensland in 2015;

(ii) within a decade, 75 per cent of the total east coast gas volume demand was being exported; and

(iii) since 2017, successive Commonwealth Governments have introduced overlapping, interim measures to avert shortfalls;

(c) in June 2025, the Government announced it would conduct a review into gas market regulation; and

(d) Australians deserve, and it should not be difficult to achieve, a sufficiently predictable, reliable, affordable and transparent market; and

(2) calls on the Government to:

(a) only allow uncontracted gas to be exported after it has been offered to the domestic market at a reasonable price;

(b) end the cycle of changing government and regulator intervention in the gas market;

(c) conduct a thorough consultation process with key stakeholders for the purpose of reviewing the Future Gas Strategy, including to more deeply consider the impact of different gas users across the economy, the role of demand management and Australia's climate change policy commitments;

(d) establish a clear framework for the deployment of gas in the transition to a net-zero economy, to give suppliers, investors, and large gas users the confidence to invest in clean technologies and infrastructure; and

(e) anchor the approach to gas market regulation in two key objectives:

(i) impose an ongoing obligation on LNG exporters to supply the domestic market, by embedding it in their export licences; and

(ii) improve transparency, by transferring the gas market monitoring role from the Australian Competition Consumer Commission to the Australian Energy Regulator, with a requirement to regularly aggregate and publish price and contract terms, and market imbalances.

(Notice given 4 November 2025.)

Time allotted 20 minutes.

Speech time limits

Ms Boele 5 minutes

Other Members 5 minutes

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

The Committee determined that consideration

of this matter should continue on a future day.

3 MS CLAYDON: To move—That this House:

(1) notes that:

(a) 25 November 2025 marks the United Nations' International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women, beginning 16 Days of Activism against Gender-Based Violence;

(b) in Australia, it has been publicly reported that approximately 40 women have been killed by acts of violence so far this year;

(c) one in three Australian women have experienced physical and/or sexual violence perpetrated by a man since the age of 15;

(d) violence against women and girls impacts everyone, of all genders, ages, ethnicities, religions and socio-economic backgrounds, it does not discriminate and is almost always committed by men; and

(e) there is no excuse for violence against women and girls;

(2) commends the work that the Government has done so far in taking immediate and practical steps to support women and children to escape violence through significant investments; and

(3) recognises that there is still much more work to be done to prevent violence against women and children and create lasting change, which demands a whole-of-government and whole-of-society approach to prevention, early intervention, response, recovery and healing, alongside strengthening the justice system and addressing issues like financial abuse and online safety.

(Notice given 3 November 2025.)

Time allotted 20 minutes.

Speech time limits

Ms Claydon 5 minutes

Other Members 5 minutes

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

The Committee determined that consideration

of this matter should continue at a later hour.

4 MR PIKE: To move—That this House notes that:

(1) families across Australia are paying the price for the Government's broken promises on Medicare, with out of pocket general practitioner (GP) costs now almost $50 on average;

(2) the former Government left office with bulk billing rates at almost 90 per cent and lower GP out of pocket costs;

(3) the Prime Minister has broken his promise that Australians would only need their Medicare card, not their credit card, with costs continuing to rise and bulk billing continuing to plummet in 32 electoral divisions;

(4) only 13 per cent of metropolitan clinics have signed up to the Government's bulk billing program, with local GP practices struggling under the Government's rising cost of doing business crisis, including skyrocketing energy bills and rent; and

(5) the Government is using Medicare as a political football while ignoring the real pressures facing patients and GPs, leaving families in Australia saying it has never been harder or more expensive to see a doctor.

(Notice given 4 November 2025.)

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

Speech time limits

Mr Pike 5 minutes

Other Members 5 minutes

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

The Committee determined that consideration

of this matter should continue at a later hour.

Items for Federation Chamber (11 am to 1.30 pm)

PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS

Notices

1 MR T WILSON: To move—That this House:

(1) notes that small and family business insolvencies have exploded since the election of the Government, as its policies crush confidence and drive businesses to close;

(2) recognises that:

(a) the Government's industrial relations changes have replaced flexibility and fairness with confusion and compliance;

(b) the Government's energy policies have driven up power bills for shops, cafes, workshops and family enterprises; and

(c) small and family business are being forced to work longer hours for less return, while competing against government-subsidised sectors and ever increasing compliance costs;

(3) further notes that the voices of small and family businesses have been drowned out by union and big-corporate interests within the Government's decision making;

(4) condemns the Government for abandoning small and family businesses by:

(a) ignoring calls for tax relief and simpler regulation;

(b) pursuing workplace laws that punish entrepreneurship and flexibility; and

(c) failing to provide a clear pathway for small businesses to grow and employ more Australians; and

(5) affirms that the Opposition stands with small and family businesses who back themselves, create jobs and keep communities strong.

(Notice given 4 November 2025.)

Time allotted 40 minutes.

Speech time limits

Mr T Wilson 5 minutes

Other Members 5 minutes

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

The Committee determined that consideration

of this matter should continue on a future day.

2 MS BYRNES: To move—That this House notes that:

(1) October was Mental Health Month, and the Government is delivering more mental health services in the heart of communities; and

(2) as part of the Government's plan to strengthen Medicare, the Government is building a national network of mental health support services across the lifespan, with more:

(a) Perinatal Mental Health Centres for new and expectant parents;

(b) Medicare Mental Health Kids Hubs for children and families;

(c) headspace services for young people; and

(d) Medicare Mental Health Centres for adults.

(Notice given 29 October 2025.)

Time allotted 30 minutes.

Speech time limits

Ms Byrnes 5 minutes

Other Members 5 minutes

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

The Committee determined that consideration

of this matter should continue on a future day.

3 MS WATSON-BROWN: To move—That this House:

(1) notes that:

(a) the Queensland State Government has not meaningfully engaged with the people of Brisbane, or with urban planning and architecture experts, on its plans for the Brisbane 2032 Olympic Games;

(b) urban planning and architecture experts are calling for an independent oversight committee and panel of architects and planners to help set a cohesive and coordinated framework and list of goals, as well as the establishment of a master plan; and

(c) the Brisbane 2032 Olympics Games are an opportunity to leave a lasting and positive impact for the regular people of Brisbane, not just deliver profits for property developers; and

(2) calls on the Commonwealth Government to work with the Queensland State Government and Brisbane City Council to:

(a) ensure genuinely affordable and public housing is delivered as part of the Brisbane 2032 Olympics legacy;

(b) undertake a review of the entire Brisbane public transport network; and

(c) meaningfully engage with the people of Brisbane and with urban planning and architecture experts for the construction of a master plan for the Brisbane 2032 Olympic Games.

(Notice given 4 November 2025.)

Time allotted 15 minutes.

Speech time limits

Ms Watson-Brown 5 minutes

Other Members 5 minutes

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

The Committee determined that consideration

of this matter should continue on a future day.

4 MS CLUTTERHAM: To move—That this House:

(1) commends the Government for delivering on its commitment to cut student debt by 20 per cent for:

(a) apprenticeship support loans;

(b) the Higher Education Loan Program;

(c) student start-up loans;

(d) vocational education and training student loans; and

(e) the student financial supplement schemes;

(2) recognises that this will help more than 3 million Australians, whose student debt balances backdated to 1 June 2025 will begin to be reduced this month as the Australian Taxation Office implements the change;

(3) acknowledges that this will reduce the average student debt of $27,600 by $5,520, and when combined with the Government's 2024 changes to indexation, will cut approximately $20 billion in debt;

(4) welcomes the Government's changes to make student loan repayments fairer by:

(a) replacing the current repayment system with a new marginal repayment system; and

(b) raising the minimum income threshold for repayments from $54,435 in 2024-25 to $67,000 in 2025-26;

(5) acknowledges that reducing the debt burden for Australian graduates will help them build a better future for themselves and their families; and

(6) further commends the Government for:

(a) taking action on issues of intergenerational fairness;

(b) building a better and fairer education system; and

(c) supporting Australians with cost of living measures.

(Notice given 4 November 2025.)

Time allotted 40 minutes.

Speech time limits

Ms Clutterham 5 minutes

Other Members 5 minutes

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

The Committee determined that consideration

of this matter should continue on a future day.

5 DR WEBSTER: To move—That this House:

(1) notes that:

(a) under the Government two regional airlines have collapsed and the domestic aviation sector has become more concentrated with just two airline groups representing 98.3 per cent of the market;

(b) major airlines have centralised activities, withdrawing staff, service provision and investment from the regions, closing bases and maintenance facilities in Mildura, Tamworth, Hobart and Canberra;

(c) the Government has committed up to $160 million to extend the Regional Express airline in administration but remains unable to guarantee regional services or affordability, nor whether regional creditors will be paid;

(d) programs to support regional airlines investing in capital upgrades and security screening services have been withdrawn; and

(e) the Government has botched the transition of air services for Australia's island territories; and

(2) calls upon the Government to ensure regional Australians retain access to competitive, affordable, sustainable and safe aviation services.

(Notice given 28 October 2025.)

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

Speech time limits

Dr Webster 5 minutes

Other Members 5 minutes

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

The Committee determined that consideration

of this matter should continue on a future day.

Items for Federation Chamber (4.45 pm to 7.30 pm)

PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS

Notices—continued

6 MS JORDAN-BAIRD: To move—That this House:

(1) notes that the reforms to the low-income superannuation tax offset (LISTO) the Treasurer announced on 13 October 2025 will:

(a) increase the LISTO by $310 to $810; and

(b) raise the eligibility threshold from $37,000 to $45,000;

(2) acknowledges that these reforms will deliver a more secure retirement for 1.3 million Australians, of which around 60 per cent are women, with the total number of Australians eligible for LISTO increasing to 3.1 million;

(3) takes note of the legislation currently before the Parliament that ensures superannuation is paid on time to help more Australians get the secure retirement they need and deserve; and

(4) further acknowledges that only the current Government will protect Australians' superannuation because of our commitment for Australians to earn more, keep more of what they earn, and to retire with more as well.

(Notice given 29 October 2025.)

Time allotted 30 minutes.

Speech time limits

Ms Jordan-Baird 5 minutes

Other Members 5 minutes

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

The Committee determined that consideration

of this matter should continue on a future day.

7 MR BIRRELL: To move—That this House:

(1) notes the failure of the Government to deliver adequate aged care beds, with only 802 new residential aged care beds despite an annual need for more than 10,000 new beds;

(2) condemns the Government for forcing older Australians to remain in hospital beds with no medical need, leaving them 'effectively homeless' due to a severe shortage of aged care placements, at the expense of other patients needing urgent care;

(3) acknowledges the serious warnings from state health ministers, including from New South Wales and South Australian ministers, that this failure is blocking hospital beds, contributing to bed block in emergency departments, cancelled surgeries, and gridlock across public hospital systems; and

(4) further notes that the Government claims to be investing in aged care but the current approach is clearly failing older Australians, hospital staff and patients, and demonstrates yet another example of the Government announcing big promises without delivering the necessary outcomes.

(Notice given 4 November 2025.)

Time allotted 40 minutes.

Speech time limits

Mr Birrell 5 minutes

Other Members 5 minutes

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

The Committee determined that consideration

of this matter should continue on a future day.

Orders of the day

VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN: Resumption of debate on the motion of Ms Claydon—That this House:

(1) notes that:

(a) 25 November 2025 marks the United Nations' International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women, beginning 16 Days of Activism against Gender-Based Violence;

(b) in Australia, it has been publicly reported that approximately 40 women have been killed by acts of violence so far this year;

(c) one in three Australian women have experienced physical and/or sexual violence perpetrated by a man since the age of 15;

(d) violence against women and girls impacts everyone, of all genders, ages, ethnicities, religions and socio-economic backgrounds, it does not discriminate and is almost always committed by men; and

(e) there is no excuse for violence against women and girls;

(2) commends the work that the Government has done so far in taking immediate and practical steps to support women and children to escape violence through significant investments; and

(3) recognises that there is still much more work to be done to prevent violence against women and children and create lasting change, which demands a whole-of-government and whole-of-society approach to prevention, early intervention, response, recovery and healing, alongside strengthening the justice system and addressing issues like financial abuse and online safety.

(Notice given 3 November 2025.)

Time allotted 20 minutes.

Speech time limits

All Members 5 minutes each.

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

The Committee determined that consideration

of this matter should continue on a future day.

GP OUT OF POCKET COSTS: Resumption of debate on the motion of Mr Pike—That this House notes that:

(1) families across Australia are paying the price for the Government's broken promises on Medicare, with out of pocket general practitioner (GP) costs now almost $50 on average;

(2) the former Government left office with bulk billing rates at almost 90 per cent and lower GP out of pocket costs;

(3) the Prime Minister has broken his promise that Australians would only need their Medicare card, not their credit card, with costs continuing to rise and bulk billing continuing to plummet in 32 electoral divisions;

(4) only 13 per cent of metropolitan clinics have signed up to the Government's bulk billing program, with local GP practices struggling under the Government's rising cost of doing business crisis, including skyrocketing energy bills and rent;

(5) the Government is using Medicare as a political football while ignoring the real pressures facing patients and GPs, leaving families in Australia saying it has never been harder or more expensive to see a doctor.

(Notice given 4 November 2025.)

Time allotted 40 minutes.

Speech time limits

All Members 5 minutes each.

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

The Committee determined that consideration

of this matter should continue on a future day.

Notices—continued

8 MS COKER: To move—That this House:

(1) acknowledges with deep concern the ongoing persecution and discrimination faced by the Hazara people and other ethnic religious minorities under the Taliban;

(2) calls for the protection of all minorities in Afghanistan, as well and women and girls, noting no part of Afghanistan or Afghan society has been immune from violence or persecution; and

(3) recognises the valuable contributions of Hazara Australians to the cultural, social and civic life of our nation, and acknowledges that these contributions extend well beyond their own community.

(Notice given 28 October 2025.)

Time allotted 20 minutes.

Speech time limits

Ms Coker 5 minutes

Other Members 5 minutes

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

The Committee determined that consideration

of this matter should continue on a future day.

9 MR REPACHOLI: To move—That this House:

(1) recognises that men's mental health remains one of the most pressing and under-discussed health challenges in Australia;

(2) notes that every day, an average of seven Australian men take their own lives, lives that could have been saved with earlier support and connection;

(3) acknowledges the ongoing stigma that too often stops men from reaching out for help when they are struggling;

(4) calls on all levels of government, business, and community leaders to continue promoting awareness campaigns, education, and workplace initiatives that make it clear: asking for help is a sign of strength, not weakness;

(5) encourages men everywhere to check in on their mates, their workmates, and themselves and to make use of the great services available; and

(6) affirms that mental health is not just an individual issue but a community one, and that when men are supported to speak up and seek help, families and communities right across Australia are stronger for it.

(Notice given 3 November 2025.)

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

Speech time limits

Mr Repacholi 5 minutes

Other Members 5 minutes

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

The Committee determined that consideration

of this matter should continue on a future day.

THE HON D. M. DICK MP

Speaker of the House of Representatives

5 November 2025

I move:

That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the following from occurring on Wednesday, 5 November 2025:

(1) standing order 33 (limit on business after normal time of adjournment) being suspended for the sitting;

(2) at 8 pm, notwithstanding standing order 31, the adjournment debate being interrupted and government business having priority until:

(a) business concludes, if earlier than 10 pm; or

(b) 10 pm; or

(c) a later time specified by a Minister prior to 10 pm;

at which point, the debate being adjourned and the House immediately adjourning until Thursday, 6 November at 9 am;

(3) in the Federation Chamber, government business being given priority until the Federation Chamber adjourns at approximately 9.30 pm; and

(4) any variation to this arrangement being made only on a motion moved by a Minister.

For the information of members, what this means is that we schedule another late sitting tonight through to 10 o'clock. We've also got a late sitting scheduled in the Federation Chamber, but I expect, with the way we've been tracking, that we'll get through government business well in advance of the times that are speculated there. It's just to make sure we get through what we need to today. The usual thing—there'll still be an adjournment debate for the people who are scheduled for it. At the end of the adjournment debate, though, we won't adjourn and we'll return to government business. The normal principle that, after 6.30 pm, there'll be no divisions or quorums that will be counted at the time will continue.

Question agreed to.

I declare that, unless otherwise ordered, the VET Student Loans (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2025 and the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures No. 1) Bill 2025 stand referred to the Federation Chamber for further consideration at the adjournment of the debate on the motion for the second reading of each bill.

I declare that Federation Chamber order of the day No. 1, government business, Freedom of Information Amendment Bill 2025 stands returned to the House for further consideration.

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The Copyright Amendment Bill incorporates two important reforms to facilitate the use of copyright materials for public benefit, while also continuing to provide support to those working in the creative and media industries who rely on copyright for their work.

First, the bill establishes an Australian orphan works scheme. The scheme will support use of 'orphaned' copyright materials for which the copyright owner cannot be identified or located by limiting the remedies available for infringing use.

This will provide prospective users with greater legal certainty and will open up access to a larger collection of material held by our institutions for the benefit of the Australian community.

The scheme will also protect the interests of rights holders, including by providing a means by which they can assert their rights should they later be identified.

This bill also clarifies that the Copyright Act applies consistently to physical, online and hybrid classes. It makes clear that parents can assist students with their lessons and that persons other than a member of school staff (such as members of the local community) can be involved in classes without impacting applicable copyright rules.

This measure will provide greater legal certainty to those providing education, without disturbing the licensing frameworks that support the creative and media sectors' important contribution to teaching and learning.

The bill also makes minor and technical amendments to clarify and update the Copyright Act.

I turn now to each of the measures in the bill in more detail.

Orphan Works ( s chedule 1)

First is the orphan works scheme in schedule 1.

Current law

An 'orphan work' refers to copyright material for which the owner cannot be identified or located to seek their permission to legally re-utilise it. Copyright generally requires someone to seek the permission of the copyright owner before using copyright material. This cannot occur if the copyright owner is unknown or cannot be located, and it means that where copyright material has been 'orphaned' it cannot be used for socially and creatively beneficial purposes, without legal risk.

Introduction of an orphan works scheme

The bill proposes the introduction of an orphan works scheme that would limit liability for those seeking to rely on it, if the conditions in the bill are met. In doing so, the proposed scheme will facilitate the use of orphan works by providing greater legal certainty for users without unreasonably prejudicing the interests of copyright owners, and allowing more Australians to enjoy the important benefits of the large amounts of orphaned material held by Australia's cultural institutions.

There may be some circumstances in which, despite a reasonable search being conducted to try to identify a copyright owner prior to relying on the scheme, a copyright owner later comes forward. Given the nature of orphan works and the conditions that must be met prior to use of the scheme, it is anticipated that such instances will be rare. However, should this occur, the bill provides copyright owners with the ability to assert their rights following the use of an orphan work. This includes the ability to negotiate reasonable payment for the use and seek injunctive relief in relation to continuing use of the work.

Remote learning ( s chedule 2)

Current law

I turn now to the remote learning measures in schedule 2.

Section 28 of the Copyright Act currently permits teachers and students to perform or communicate copyright material in the course of educational instruction, without it being considered a public performance or communication to the public, as long as other relevant conditions are met.

The effect of this provision is that the performance or communication does not require permission or payment under the act.

With the rise of digital learning, uncertainty has grown over whether this provision extends to online and hybrid classes. Questions also arise about the application of the provision when parents and other community members are involved in the class.

Scope of amendments

The bill proposes to amend section 28 to clarify that it applies when:

The proposed reforms clarify that the rules in the Copyright Act apply consistently, regardless of whether a lesson is taking place in person or online. This recognises that not everyone involved in lessons may be able to attend in person.

They also acknowledge the educational value of parental and community involvement in classes. By allowing parents, carers and others to assist students with their lessons or deliver the educational instruction, the changes promote stronger partnerships in educational settings.

The amendments are not intended to impact current licensing arrangements, which also play a vital role in Australia's education system.

Other minor measures

Finally, I turn to the other minor measures in the bill.

The bill will make a number of minor and technical amendments to the Copyright Act to improve its operation.

These include:

Conclusion

The bill will strengthen and modernise the Copyright Act by:

Debate adjourned.

On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, I present the committee's Advisory report on the Strengthening Oversight of the National Intelligence Community Bill 2025.

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

by leave—The Strengthening Oversight of the National Intelligence Community Bill 2025, also known as the SONIC Bill, represents arguably the most significant reform to oversight of the Australian intelligence community since the 1980s. The bill realises important and long-awaited reforms that have been recommended by multiple independent reviews over a number of years. The bill will ensure that Australia's intelligence oversight framework evolves in line with the increasingly complex intelligence and security environment.

The SONIC Bill proposes to expand the oversight functions of the committee and of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security to include all 10 agencies of the national intelligence community. This includes the whole of the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission as well as the intelligence functions of the Australian Federal Police, AUSTRAC and the Department of Home Affairs.

The bill also broadens the own-motion powers of the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor and includes measures to strengthen the relationship between the three oversight bodies.

In relation to the committee, the bill will give statutory recognition to the increasing role the committee has had in recent years in reviewing counterterrorism and national security legislation. The bill will enable the committee to review proposed reforms to such legislation as well as existing sunsetting legislation on its own motion or on referral by the relevant minister, the Attorney-General or a house of the parliament.

The bill will also empower the committee to request the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security to inquire into an agency's operational activities and the committee to receive a response from the inspector-general after such inquiry has been completed.

Through the committee's review and through its review of the bill's predecessor in the 47th Parliament, the Intelligence Services Legislation Amendment Bill 2023, the committee held two public hearings and received 23 written submissions, most of which supported the bill's core measures.

As well as broadening the remit of the committee and the two independent oversight bodies, the bill contains important administrative amendments to the Intelligence Services Act 2001, affecting how the committee itself operates. The committee has ensured it has taken the time to carefully examine these amendments before giving them its support.

As a result, the committee's report includes a number of recommendations aimed at refining and building upon those amendments to ensure the provisions will be as effective as possible. These include a recommendation to give the committee a standing function to review its own operating provisions as required in the future.

The committee has also recommended changes to allow the chair and deputy chair of the committee to nominate a member of their staff to be provided with an appropriate security clearance that allows them to assist their respective principal in the performance of their duties on the committee. This reflects the increasing workload and the increasing responsibilities on the chair and deputy chair as the committee's remit has grown, as well as the strict disclosure offences in the Intelligence Services Act 2001, which limit the support that regular staff can provide.

Overall, the committee strongly supports the objectives of the bill to strengthen the operational, parliamentary and legislative oversight of the national intelligence community. Following consideration of the committee's other recommendations, the committee recommends that the bill be passed by the parliament. I'd like to thank the chair, the deputy chair and all the members of the committee that have been involved in the creation and publication of this report, as well as the secretariat and their support staff. They all work so hard in support of the committee, in support of the parliament, and I think it's absolutely vital that we give them our recognition in this place.

I commend this report to the House.

The VET Student Loans (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2025 is an uncontroversial bill. It's a bill on which I've worked closely with the minister. The minister's office has provided briefings with the department. The bill seeks to remedy an oversight in the original bill, which was introduced in 2017. There's a degree of retrospectivity within the bill. It seeks to offer protection to around 200,000 registered training organisations that, when applying for student loans for their vocational students, inadvertently picked up their tax file number. It would have been prudent to ensure that that tax file number was then no longer viewed by the provider. This anomaly was subsequently picked up by the department in a review. As a result, I want to offer my thanks to the department for the work that they have done in getting to the bottom of what was an oversight. It was picked up in a standard review, and, as a result, the extra funding that was required to address the anomaly has been borne within an internal machination of the department.

In seeking stakeholder engagement with a number of people who were affected, all are of the same opinion—none of them share any great concern. This is in essence, as I said, an uncontroversial bill. The government are to be offered the due compliment that they deserve for the way that they have worked cooperatively in this space to fix an anomaly. I notice that the bill has been referred to the Federation Chamber, where the minister will offer his kind remarks and, I dare say, acknowledge the department for finding the oversight.

Debate adjourned.

I rise on behalf of the shadow minister for veterans' affairs. He's been detained in getting to the chamber, but I'm sure he is on his way as we speak.

Absolutely! I'll share with the room that I'm of the opinion that the shadow minister has very strong opinions on the Veterans’ Affairs Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures No. 1) Bill 2025 and is keen to get to his feet and offer his comments. I think those concerns were around—is this the tribunal one? It may be the bill that affects the tribunal's decision to—

To assist the member, this is a law relating to the military rehabilitation compensation and for related purposes.

I thank the Speaker for his contribution in assisting the House. This bill is comparable with the human rights and freedoms declared in the international instrument listed. Mr Speaker, in the absence of our illustrious speaker, I think we just need to let this one go through to the House.

Debate adjourned.

I must admit it's nice that the Freedom of Information Amendment Bill 2025 has returned to the House today. The manager saw the light. The member for Fisher's speech yesterday no doubt convinced him that we needed to move the bill from the Federation Chamber back to the House. It is wonderful that the Manager of Opposition Business and the member for Fisher were able to convince the government to bring this bill back where it belongs—in the House.

This is an important bill when we look at freedom of information, democracy and the rights of our citizens, our media and our community to hold the government and parliamentarians to account. This is one of the fundamental challenges we face as a democracy—how we make sure we protect democracy by holding the government and the executive to account.

I want to quote a member of this House, a member of this parliament, who has been in this parliament for a very long time. They entered this parliament in 1996, so they will have seen a lot of the Australian journey and democracy. They said:

At a time where we have a global contest between democratic systems and authoritarianism, we need to do all within our power to ensure that our great democracy is trusted; that our politicians, our public servants are accountable; and that there is faith in the processes that overwhelmingly are conducted in good faith with people of integrity, with people who are honest.

Those are fine words indeed. Who delivered those fine words? It was the Prime Minister of Australia, the Hon. Anthony Albanese. This is another example of the Prime Minister saying one thing when he was in opposition and doing the complete opposite when in government. We've seen the continual degradation of transparency and accountability by this Prime Minister. Freedom of information is so important—to whistleblowers, to the Australian public and to the media—holding the executive to account.

But the Prime Minister did not stop there. He went on to articulate the very principles that he claimed define his government. He stated:

… the health of our democracy depends on the integrity of our institutions and the transparency and the fairness of our laws, and because the trust that is generated by that accountability and transparency helps to build national cohesion, bringing the country together, overcoming divides, finding common ground.

He concluded this assertion by affirming that integrity, transparency, accountability and fairness are 'the principles that drive the government that I'm proud to lead'. Now, let's hold those words up—trust, accountability, transparency and integrity—against the grim reality of the Freedom of Information Amendment Bill 2025. As my mum used to say to me, 'It's not what you say; it's what you do.' The Prime Minister has a dismal record of saying one thing and doing another.

This is not a blueprint for a stronger, more prosperous Australia built on trust. It is a monument to bureaucratic control and ministerial secrecy. It is the height of hypocrisy for the Prime Minister to preach about trust and accountability in the contest between democracy and authoritarianism, only to introduce a bill that actively entrenches secrecy and weakens the public's right to know. I wonder what those on the backbench of the government really think about this bill. I can imagine the speeches they would deliver if they were in opposition and it was the Morrison government or any coalition government that had delivered this bill. We should remind those members of the backbench that, in our democratic system, even though they might be in the same party as the executive, they too have a responsibility to hold the executive to account.

So let's look closely at what this bill proposes to do and why it thoroughly violates the spirit of transparency that the Prime Minister championed. The bill makes major changes to the Freedom of Information Act 1982 and the Australian Information Commissioner Act 2010. The coalition stands opposed to this bill in the House, the Freedom of Information Amendment Bill 2025, because it fundamentally weakens the rights of citizens to scrutinise government actions and reverses four decades of progress towards open government. The proposed changes are extensive, spread across nine schedules, and each schedule represents a fresh barrier erected between the government and the people it serves.

Firstly, let's consider schedule 1, which rewrites the objects of the act. This change signals the government's true intention, by prioritising the proper functioning of government over the public's right to access information. When the objectives of the law shift from facilitating access to protecting government machinery, the culture of secrecy is immediately validated.

Secondly, and perhaps most dangerous, is schedule 2, which bans anonymous requests. The bill requires FOI requests to be made with applicant identification, thereby banning anonymous or pseudo-anonymous requests. This provision is a direct attack on courage and integrity. It ends protection for whistleblowers, for advocates and for citizens who fear reprisal from their government or their employers. By silencing whistleblowers and vulnerable applicants, the government strips away the protection of those who fear retaliation. This is not building trust; this is instilling fear. We have pledged to retain anonymity and protect whistleblowers, because true accountability requires mechanisms that shield the brave individuals who speak truth to power.

Thirdly, this bill introduces a punitive mechanism designed to discourage all but the most well-resourced applicants: the truth tax. Schedule 6 creates application fees for FOI requests and reviews, except for requests concerning personal information. The Office of the Australian Information Commissioner will now be engaged to charge these fees, and, by imposing application fees and processing caps, Australians will have to pay for access to information that already belongs to them. This imposition of new barriers through fees is nothing less than a tax on transparency and severely reduces access to legitimate applications. This measure is designed to choke off access and reduce investigative journalism. I must say, given the work that Nick McKenzie and the Age have done when it comes to investigative journalism into the CFMEU and the links to the Australian Labor Party, we can see why this government wants to make it harder for investigative journalism to thrive in our country. The coalition will ensure any new fees are subject to parliamentary disallowance.

The barriers do not end with fees. Schedule 3 introduces a discretionary 40-hour cap of processing FOI requests. This cap allows agencies to stop searching once a request is deemed too difficult, effectively limiting agency workload and allowing them to simply abandon complex inquiries. Coupled with this cap, schedule 4 extends decision timeframes from 30 calendar days to 30 working days. Agencies already breech the FOI timeframes. Extending them will only make this system slower and less accountable, rewarding delay and dysfunction. The coalition stands ready to hold the government accountable for undermining transparency, but the mechanisms introduced in this bill make that essential work exponentially harder.

The Prime Minister spoke of ensuring faith in processes, yet this bill attempts to cloak the very heart of government decision-making in new layers of secrecy. Schedule 7 dramatically expands exemptions especially around cabinet and deliberative documents, making refusals significantly easier. New clauses allow agencies to block access to any document that describes or refers to cabinet material. Furthermore, they allow the classification of factual briefs as deliberative documents, keeping them hidden from the public eye. The expansion of cabinet and deliberative processes exemptions makes it easier to refuse requests without even searching for documents. Given we have the recent example of FOIs showing the Australian people that power prices will go up under this government, it is no wonder this government want to shield the Australian people from their incompetence and their mismanagement. That doesn't make it right.

This move expands ministerial and bureaucratic secrecy. Australians will now see only announcements, never the critical debates that led to them. This prevents Australians from forming informed opinions about their government. When you limit what citizens can know, you fundamentally limit what they can decide. Schedule 5 changes information commissioner review processes in a way that limits third-party participation, and schedule 8 allows a different minister or agency to respond if the original minister leaves office, clarifying that FOI responses can be provided by successive ministers or agencies. These are not merely technical provisions. They add complexity and reduce consistency, ensuring that new thresholds, exemptions and caps will lead to more disputes, more appeals and less transparency.

The opposition is not alone in its condemnation of this bill. The government claims it will modernise the FOI framework and improve efficiency, but the reality is that it weakens the public's right to know, entrenches secrecy and reduces accountability. The bill lacks public support. Every major integrity and transparency body has condemned this bill. None support it. Media and civil society are warning of increased costs and impeded investigative journalism. Apart from the bureaucrats who stand to benefit from reduced workloads and increased control, this bill does not have a friend in the world. This bill has been rushed. It was introduced without consultation, it ignored the 2023 Senate FOI inquiry, and it has not advanced any credible national security reasons for it.

The reality is that we know this bill has been introduced because, despite what the Prime Minister says, he wants to shield the Australian people from his incompetence. He wants to shield the Australian people from their ability to understand the failures of this government, and the failures of this government are many. Energy prices are up 40 per cent under this government despite them promising to reduce power bills by $275. Interest rates are up under this government. Inflation is out of control under this government. They continue to fail, and all they can do is not solve the problems of the Australian people but seek to hide from scrutiny of the Australian people.

There are some things in this place that we talk about that I think resonate even more strongly with our constituents than others do, and this particular topic of transparency and accountability is one of them. It's wonderful to see some schoolchildren up there in our parliament. Welcome, people in the gallery. They're here to observe, to understand, to listen, to see how this parliament works, to understand more about our democracy and to perhaps take away more insight into what the government, who sits on that side of this place, does in setting the tone and making decisions that affect every single one of them. This amendment bill that I'm speaking to today takes away some of the fundamental principles of democracy that we all hold dear; the accessibility to having accountability for decisions that are made by this government.

In preparation for this speech I printed out and reviewed the 79 pages of this bill. Given that it is titled the Freedom of Information Amendment Bill 2025, one would assume that transparency and accountability would be front and centre of this amending legislation. In actual fact, the word 'transparency' does not appear in this amending legislation. 'Accountability' does not appear anywhere in this legislation. It's a sad indictment on this government that they think that it's okay to hide from the Australian people, to put barriers between their decisions and the Australian people, and that's exactly what this bill does.

There's a bit of a theme to what we see from this government. For those of you who are here, you might be avid watchers of question time. Sadly, during the 47th Parliament and now the 48th Parliament, the opposition are receiving fewer questions than ever before. Just this week, in an hour and 10 minutes or so of question time, the opposition were granted only six questions. The Prime Minister and his ministers hide from the scrutiny that the Australian people deserve at every available opportunity. In question time, it's on very public display that they don't grant the opposition enough questions to genuinely hold the government to account on behalf of the people of Australia.

This amending legislation comes before the parliament less than six months after the Prime Minister and his Labor government were returned with a whopping majority. Is this what the Australian people signed up for in giving them 90-plus seats? I think not. The Australian people do not want a majority of this government in this place to be used to crush the very principles of government accountability and scrutiny, which is exactly what they are choosing to do, and at a time when Australians are struggling to pay the bills. We have seen Australians paying an average mortgage that's $1,800 more per month. We have seen electricity prices rise by 39 per cent. The ABS called it out specifically last week in their data that, in fact, in the last 12 months we have seen 23 per cent rises in power prices. Yet here we are, standing here debating a bill which is to provide cover to this government for the poor decisions that they continue to make.

I say that this is not how the government should be using their time in office. In fact, it's the very opposite. Much amending legislation is quite boring. Perhaps the schoolchildren up there will one day become lawyers and end up spending a lot of time reviewing legislation, so it's probably fair that, on page 11, item 21 makes an amendment that says, 'Omit "name of an", substitute "designation of the".' It's pretty vanilla stuff. It's what lawyers do. They write legislation, they read it, they interpret it. Sure, make that change, but the problem is that this legislation goes on to do so much more than make minor wording amendments.

I'm very proud to be here, representing my community. At all times, when I make a contribution in this place, the community that I represent and Australians are front and centre of my thoughts, and it's my job to highlight the failings of this government in what they do. I think about what the average resident of my electorate or Queensland or Australia would think about this particular piece of legislation, and I suspect that they would say that freedom of information is not a privilege; it is a right that is owed by the government to its people, the right that we all have to check, to question and to challenge. In a healthy democracy, the default position should be one of disclosure, and secrecy and cover-ups should be the rare event, not the status quo.

As I said, fundamentally, this amending legislation misses the point about transparency and accountability. Our job in this place and as an opposition is simple: we must defend the public's right to know about the government and what their plans are with this legislation to make it harder, slower and more expensive to try and seek the transparency and accountability that they fundamentally deserve. The parliament, in considering this legislation, faces one basic question: do we move from a position of openness to one of control? Australians deserve access to the reasons behind a decision, not just the press release that comes after the fact. The coalition, by its very nature, is one that doesn't enjoy a bloated bureaucracy; let me assure you of that. But modernisation and improved access should not be done in a way that will reduce people's right and ability to find out more information.

This bill—whilst completely overlooking some fundamentally important principles, in my view—has nine schedules. Schedule 1 rewrites the objects of the act. As I said earlier, minor administrative wording changes? Fantastic. Fundamentally changing the objective of the act that provides public access to information? It elevates the proper functioning of government over public access, completely flipping the freedom-of-information presumption.

Schedule 2, as my friend the member for Casey referred to in his contribution, is of particular concern. I think this is where some of the public commentary from a number of interested bodies, groups and representative bodies has come from. I think it's where much of the concern from our crossbench colleagues has come from. That is that protections for whistleblowers, journalists, advocates and citizens who have a genuine fear of reprisal will now have their protections lost, because they can no longer maintain their anonymity when they make these requests. That is extremely concerning, because quite often the types of people who are making these inquiries are the ones who are most vulnerable to having their identity shown. It is such a critical part of our democracy that we have proper third-party scrutiny—from whistleblowers, from the media—and I fear that this will discourage that scrutiny from occurring.

Schedule 3 is probably an example of how this could go very wrong. A 40-hour processing cap is now being proposed. That means that agencies can stop when things get a bit too hard, no matter the value, the importance of the issue: 'No, sorry: tools down; we've gone past the allocated time.' It's really not good enough. I mentioned that one of the fundamental problems we have with this legislation is the delay that will occur. We know that schedule 4 blows out the time frames, from 30 calendar days to 30 working days. We know that this system is already prone to delays. This won't help with efficiency or transparency; it will make things worse.

But possibly the most concerning aspect is the application and review fees—what we on this side of the House have described as a truth tax. Again, the action of this government, through this legislation, is not one of allowing the public to shine a light on its decisions; it's one of putting roadblocks in the way. That example of putting a financial disincentive in the system for people who will probably struggle to meet those fees—when all they're trying to do is hold their government to account—is extremely concerning.

Again, sadly, we have only a relatively short period of time to make a contribution in this place—and believe me, I could go on for a bit longer, and I would have loved to. But, in summing up, I think it's quite clear that what this government proposes to do, using the power it has in its large majority, in one of its first acts of this parliament, is shameful and will no longer provide the Australian people with the transparency and accountability they deserve.

I rise today to speak on the Freedom of Information Amendment Bill 2025, a bill that, despite its title, does not expand freedom of information in Australia. It does the opposite. It narrows it, it entrenches secrecy and it weakens the fundamental right of Australians to know what their government is doing in their name. This bill represents a profound step backwards for transparency, accountability and open government. The government tells us the bill will modernise the freedom of information framework, streamline processes and improve efficiency. But when you actually read it and you listen to those who understand the FOI system—journalists, integrity experts and transparency advocates—the truth becomes quite clear. The bill is actually about control; it's not about modernisation.

It proposes a long list of sweeping changes to the Freedom of Information Act and the Australian Information Commissioner Act. Among them, it would require all FOI requests to include verified identification, banning anonymous requests; it'll impose a 40-hour cap on processing requests, allowing agencies to simply stop searching if they decide a request is too hard; it'll allow new application fees for requests and reviews, except for personal information, which would effectively tax Australians for seeking the truth; it'll expand exemptions for cabinet and deliberative documents, making refusals easier and transparency rarer; it'll extend the time agencies have to respond from 30 calendar days to 30 working days, further delaying public access; and it will give the Information Commissioner the power to remit reviews back to the very agencies that made the decisions in the first place. These are not minor procedural tweaks; they're major structural changes to how Australians access information from their government.

There are nine schedules in this bill, each eroding openness in different ways. Schedule 1 rewrites the very objects of the act, shifting the emphasis from the public's right to know to the proper functioning of government. That's not freedom of information; that's freedom from scrutiny. Schedule 2 bans anonymous requests. This will silence whistleblowers, journalists, advocates and ordinary citizens who fear retaliation. Schedule 3 introduces a discretionary 40-hour processing cap, which is a bureaucrat's dream. Agencies can now stop once something becomes too difficult. Transparency should never depend on convenience. Schedule 4 extends decision timeframes, turning 30 days into 30 working days. In practice, that's a delay of two extra weeks or more in a system that's already plagued by delay. Schedule 5 changes review processes to limit third-party participation, weakening the independence of the Information Commissioner's role. Schedule 6 introduces application fees, which is the truth tax I was talking about, and citizens will have to pay for access to information that should already belong to them. Schedule 7 expands exemptions for cabinet and deliberative processes. Agencies will be able to refuse requests without even searching for the documents. Schedule 8 allows successor ministers or agencies to respond if the original minister leaves office, which is a seemingly technical measure that risks blurring accountability. Schedule 9 contains transitional provisions that mask just how sweeping these changes are.

The coalition will oppose this bill because it strikes at the heart of democratic accountability. The bill has been rushed. There was no genuine consultation, no serious engagement with the 2023 Senate FOI inquiry and no credible explanation for how these changes would protect national security or improve administration. We on the coalition side remain open to arguments about national security. We always have been and we always will be. But no-one has yet explained how making it harder for citizens to ask for information makes Australia safer. No-one has identified any instance of a leak or a breach that could only be prevented by banning anonymous requests or capping processing time.

This bill flips the presumption of the FOI Act on its head. For 40 years, the principle has been simple: that government information belongs to the public unless there's a good reason to withhold it. Labor's bill replaces that presumption of openness with a presumption of control. Australians will be left to see only what the government wants them to see—the polished announcements, not the messy debates that led to them.

By charging fees for applications and reviews, this bill creates a new barrier to access. Transparency will depend on your bank balance. The right to know will become a privilege for those who can afford it. By banning anonymous requests, this bill endangers those who seek to expose wrongdoing. Whistleblowers, journalists, advocates and even public servants who are acting in good faith will be deterred from seeking or sharing information.

The bill's new cabinet and deliberative exemptions are quite breathtaking in scope. Agencies will be able to classify factual briefings as deliberative, simply to keep them hidden. Agencies already fail to meet statutory deadlines, and this bill rewards that failure by extending timeframes and reducing oversight. Delays will become the norm not the exception.

No major integrity or transparency body supports this bill—none. Every independent voice from media organisations to civil society groups have warned it will weaken democracy and impede investigative journalism. This government came to power promising transparency. What have we seen instead? Secret estimates manuals, refusals to release departmental documents and non-disclosure agreements at every turn. This bill is just the latest step in a broader pattern of secrecy. When governments hide information, trust evaporates. Democracy depends on informed citizens. You cannot make informed choices if you are kept in the dark.

The coalition will vote against this bill, because it ignores the recommendations of the 2023 Senate inquiry, which highlighted resourcing and cultural change as the real issues within the FOI system, because it imposes barriers that discourage legitimate applicants and because it expands the grounds for refusal and secrecy. It has no credible stakeholder support outside the bureaucracy, and it reverses four decades of progress towards open government.

I'd also like to note that—I'm pleased to see many of the independents speaking out against this, but I do hope that the Climate 200 movement remembers this when we get to the next election, because they seem to exclusively target the Liberals—this is a clear example of the fact that it is the Labor government that lacks transparency. The Albanese Labor government is proving every day why they are the most unaccountable, secretive government in recent memory. Freedom of information was never meant to be comfortable for government; it was designed to make them accountable. This bill does the opposite. It shields ministers and officials from scrutiny, it entrenches secrecy and it weakens the rights of the everyday Australian citizen.

We welcome the fact that this bill is now before the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee. That inquiry will report in early December. Given the complexity of these changes, it's absolutely extraordinary that the government is pushing ahead with the debate before that report is even tabled. We in the coalition will continue to engage constructively through the committee process. We will support or move amendments that restore transparency, including retaining anonymity to protect whistleblowers, ensuring any new fees are subject to parliamentary disallowance and removing the most restrictive provisions in schedules 2, 3, 6, 7 and 8. Our goal is simple: to defend the principle that information belongs to the public not to the government of the day.

Even the way this bill has been handled demonstrates the arrogance of this government. This bill was not meant to be debated this week. It was not on the draft forward program. The government has brought it on suddenly, ramming it through without the courtesy of waiting for the Senate committee's findings. That is not respect for process; that is abuse of process. The government even withdrew a promised security briefing for the former shadow Attorney-General—first offered online, then cancelled and then never rescheduled. The new shadow Attorney-General has not been briefed at all. This is not how serious national security concerns are handled. This is political theatre designed to create an illusion of urgency when none exists.

The truth is this bill does not have a friend in the world. The coalition opposes it, the crossbench opposes it, every major stakeholder opposes it—everyone except, of course, the bureaucrats who would gain new powers to refuse information. Once again, the government is abusing parliamentary procedure, just as it's done with the environment protection and biodiversity bills. Debating this bill before the Senate report is finalised is a travesty. It shows contempt for due process and for the Australian people. Yes, the government was elected with a very large majority in the House, but that has emboldened them and that 'emboldenedness' has now turned to a sense of arrogance.

Freedom of Information is not a privilege granted by government; it is a right owed to every citizen in a democracy. Freedom of information exists so that Australians can hold their government to account, so that power cannot be exercised in darkness. Those of us on this side of the House know that when you limit what citizens can know you limit what they can decide, and when you limit what they can decide you limit democracy itself—something that we as a nation have worked towards for so many years.

Labor's bill puts secrecy before service. It puts control before citizenship. The coalition believes in open government. We believe in a free press and we believe in the people's right to know. Over the course of the election campaign in McPherson, I had the opportunity to speak to so many individuals across the southern Gold Coast who shared that view. They want representatives who are going to give them access to information because it is the information of the people. This bill erodes those principles and it must be opposed.

When the original Freedom of Information Act was introduced 40 years ago, it marked a turning point. It recognised that transparency strengthens democracy, that access to information empowers citizens. We on this side of the House know that that is true—that government must be accountable to the governed. This bill moved by the Australian Labor Party would undo that progress. It would make secrecy the norm and openness the exception. We here in the coalition stand firmly against it, and we will continue to hold the government to account. We will continue to fight for transparency, integrity and the public's right to know. Those of us on this side of the House that regularly engage with our communities, that regularly engage with the Australian people, need to be the ones to stand up against this government and what they're doing.

Freedom of information is not just a law. It's not just a concept that we talk about and give lip service to. It's a principle. It's a cornerstone of democracy. It's something we need to continue to fight for and advocate for on behalf of our communities. It's so disappointing that this government has chosen to go about this bill in the way it has. Once freedom of information is weakened, once secrecy takes hold, it is very difficult to restore.

I've outlined in the course of this speech a number of issues with this bill. I've taken the parliament through the various schedules and spoken about the issues and the ways in which this bill would compromise integrity, transparency and open government—the things that we in this place should be working towards. This bill represents a step backwards for Australia as a country, and the government should be absolutely ashamed of the way it's progressing this bill.

We here in the coalition will continue to make noise. We will continue to make sure that Australians have the right to engage with their government and to engage with the information that is owed to them. Where there are national security concerns, we on this side of the House will work with the government and we understand that. But, as I stated, there is no example that the government is able to provide.

It's for all these reasons that the coalition will oppose the Freedom of Information Amendment Bill 2025. I ask the government to take a serious look at itself in the way that it's gone about moving this legislation.

Freedom-of-information laws exist so that government decisions can be scrutinised and governments can be held to account. They are very important. They are an integral part of the commitment to the rule of law to facilitate access to information held by institutions and advice given to government. They are essential to hold power to account. In a representative democracy, the public and their representatives cannot make informed decisions without the best available information, and the public is entitled to know when government is not acting in the public interest.

My concern with the Freedom of Information Amendment Bill 2025, which is before the House, is that there's nothing in this bill that achieves those aims—in fact, to the contrary. This bill was drafted without consultation, introduced without transparency and designed in a way that rewards secrecy. At a time when public trust in government is already low, this legislation seeks to make it harder for Australians to access information and easier for government to hide it. This is not reform; this is regression.

The bill currently before us represents the biggest reform proposed to the freedom-of-information laws since the Hawke review in 2013. Freedom-of-information laws were introduced back in 1982 to give Australians the right to access government papers and documents and see how decisions are made and why—what the basis was, what information was available and what advice had been given. But, since then, we have seen successive governments erode those rights. We know that freedom of information is an area that is in need of reform. I don't dispute that. But it's really important, when you're talking about an instrument that holds government to account, to make sure that that reform is done transparently, with good consultation, and that we actually achieve the goals of creating a system that shines light on decisions of government, not one that increases secrecy.

The system remains characterised by significant delays attributed to extensive processing time, and it's shrouded in added secrecy. For the public, I would give you the comparison that it's as if there is a prima facie approach of blocking the provision of information: see if the request will go away, block it for as long as you possibly can, and then eventually papers might be released, but there's so much blacked out that it's ridiculous. The latest FOI annual report from the government shows that, during the first two years of the Albanese government, there were about 21,000 requests determined per year, the lowest rate since the Gillard government. And now, instead of addressing the issues—and there are issues in the system—the Albanese government has introduced sweeping changes that will tighten access even further and increase secrecy.

The government has raised concerns that the FOI regime is being overrun, and it has made allegations such as AI bots and foreign interference, but the documents provided in the inquiry in the other place show there's no evidence of this, so the justification that has been given for this legislation just has no proper foundation. The other reason the government has given is that the Public Service fears freedom-of-information requests and that this has a chilling effect on the advice to government from the Public Service due to fear that a freedom-of-information request will release documents or work done by the Public Service. Again, no evidence has actually been put forward by the government to substantiate this. In fact, that is contrary to the very requirements on the Public Service. The public Service Act requires frank and fearless advice in the public interest. In fact, the 2019 Thodey review, which quotes Peter Shergold's 2015 report, includes recommendations to strengthen the obligation on the Public Service to act and provide frank and fearless advice in the public interest. Neither of those two previous reviews has had its recommendations followed up, introduced or moved into that act yet. In fact, secrecy will do nothing to implement those recommendations or help meet that requirement on the Public Service, because in fact now there will be no way of checking that the Public Service is giving frank and fearless advice in the public interest.

The government has introduced this bill under a pretext that it will modernise the freedom-of-information system to enable more efficient and better-quality decisions or that it will help foster public trust in government decision-making through transparency and access to information. What a load of rubbish! Every group, from media to not-for-profit groups, has called the government out on that claim and argued that there is nothing in this bill that will achieve that goal. In fact, it's been unanimously rejected. Groups from the Centre for Public Integrity to the Law Council are all arguing that the government, through this Freedom of Information Reform Bill, is actually increasing secrecy and reducing accountability.

Instead, what this bill does is to impose new application fees that will deter ordinary Australians from lodging requests.

It expands cabinet exemptions, and that is the most concerning aspect because it will shield even more decisions of government from public scrutiny. I haven't heard a single member of the government give a valid reason why that expansion should go ahead—why we should be shielding more of the decisions and not having access to the underlying documents that are necessary to properly hold government decision-making to account. In fact, this directly contradicts the 57th recommendation of the robodebt royal commission, which specifically stated that cabinet confidentiality should only apply where it is reasonably justified in the public interest. Instead, the government here is expanding cabinet exemptions—in complete contradiction—to cover any documents that were shared in the drafting of cabinet documents, which is precisely the opposite of what Commissioner Holmes recommended.

Now, I was in this place when the Labor Party, then in opposition, cried blue murder around the coalition and the whole scandal of robodebt and did great work to then expose the horrors of robodebt. But now, seated on the government benches, it is doing the very thing that the commissioner has said not to do. Expanding the cabinet exemption is not going to result in transparency and accountability of decision-making; it will do the very opposite.

The government claims that the bill looks to better the balance between open access to information and the interests of protecting the proper functioning of government. But this legislation is adding new grounds of refusal, giving departments more power to withhold information. How is that increasing or improving the balance as to access and open information—as to holding government to account?

The bill looks to amend the objects provision to expand a level of discretion that explicitly recognises that the core reasoning for the Freedom of Information Act involves a balancing of the competing interests of open access to information and the essential interests of government. As to this change that the government is now proposing, the Law Council—we're not talking about some overly progressive organisation that shoots from the hip and makes outrageous comments; we're talking about the Law Council here, which is looking at the proper accountability of government and the proper functioning of laws—said in a submission to the Senate inquiry on this bill that safeguards to protect essential interests are good and required. But they already exist in the act. There has been no evidence put forward by the government to suggest that the current safeguards are not adequate and operating as they should. In fact, what is being proposed is really an attack on the underlying purpose of the freedom-of-information regime and its call to a responsible and representative democratic system of government.

The bill also prohibits anonymous requests, and it's done on the basis that somehow this is a national security issue—that we have foreign actors and foreign nations issuing these secret and anonymous freedom-of-information requests—but, again, no evidence of that has been provided. The bill, in prohibiting anonymous requests, could endanger whistleblowers and silence legitimate inquiries. We know whistleblowers laws still have not been fixed up to provide protection.

We know accountability matters. Australian voters care about transparency and accountability. It's just so disappointing to see the way the government is going about this legislation and what it is proposing to do with freedom-of-information laws. It's deeply concerning. The government has claimed this is important due to the increase of bots, automation and international interference, but no-one is buying that argument. The public is under no illusion—this is about increasing secrecy and decreasing government accountability.

Even the process of how this legislation has found its way to the House is telling. These reforms were developed without public consultation—no exposure draft; no engagement with civil society; no opportunity for media organisations, integrity experts or transparency advocates to comment, to really try and fix this, to actually build a freedom-of-information system that is genuine and has integrity. It's a secrecy that allowed robodebt to fester for so long and shielded wrongdoing. And that cost lives. Many in this place would have gone to their communities, calling out the horrors of that; yet now here we are, entrenching a system that will increase secrecy. We should have learnt, and government should have learnt, from that experience—from robodebt—that we need more transparency and more accountability, not less.

There is a better way to improve the freedom of information system. First, we can engage in an independent review and genuine consultation with experts and the public, before introducing reforms through a freedom of information bill. Second, we can remove the anonymous request provision and, instead, consider establishing a mechanism whereby an applicant can make an anonymous request through an independent intermediary, such as the Commonwealth Ombudsman. Third, we have to review cabinet exemptions, aligning them with the public interest, not political convenience. These are the kinds of reforms that would restore trust, reduce delays and promote transparency, and that's what Australians expect and deserve.

This bill, as it stands, sends a dangerous message: that secrecy is acceptable—that transparency is optional. So that is the message we will take from the Albanese government, from all the members of the government: that transparency is optional—that holding government to account on its decision-making on the advice it receives is optional. Already, by others—not even just those here in this place—the Albanese government has been described as one of the most secretive in modern history, refusing more freedom of information requests than it fully grants, and this bill doubles down on that trend. It is deeply disappointing, and I cannot, in good conscience, support this legislation.

Debate adjourned.

I declare that the Freedom of Information Amendment Bill 2025 stands referred to the Federation Chamber for further consideration.

I move:

The motion was unavailable at the time of publishing.

We have a fundamental problem at the heart of the Australian democracy right now, where we have a union that is operating beyond the law. This isn't my opinion; this is an opinion of the whistleblowers of the CFMEU. We know full well that the administration was established more than 15 months ago by the Albanese government, shortly after there were deep, serious allegations of cartel kickbacks from graft connected to Australian organised crime, criminal gangs and bikie gangs on public projects—that the government put the CFMEU in administration because they believed that there was something structurally wrong. There was something structurally wrong deep within the culture of the CFMEU for one reason: that the Albanese government took the CFMEU off the leash as a result of the abolition of the ABCC. Ever since then, we've had a continuing problem with the CFMEU. We have had issues of corruption directly at the heart of our democracy, and there needs to be proper accountability and responsibility.

We've seen this very directly in recent weeks, where there have been a number of whistleblowers who have come out publicly and said that the situation of corruption in the CFMEU has got worse since it's been put in administration. As a consequence, we now have a situation where we have referred the matter to a Senate inquiry to properly investigate the issues around CFMEU corruption. The minister has been blocking at every point an attempt for an inquiry—

I move, under standing order 45(c):

That order of the day No. 3, government business, be called on immediately.

The question is that order of the day No. 3 be called on immediately, as moved by the assistant minister.

I rise today to support the Environment Protection Reform Bill 2025 and cognate bills. I rise to defend nature and I rise to stand up for the engines of our nation's prosperity. I rise to speak to one of the most important topics in the country: the land itself. It is a land that my parents fell in love with more than 50 years ago. It is a land that I fell in love with and a land that I worked on, just like my old man. 'Stunning country' is how I describe the childhood hometown where I grew up, Kambalda, and my birthplace, Kalgoorlie. The goldfields of Western Australia are not just a source of mineral treasures; they are a source of natural treasures too. The ecosystem systems are complex and intensely alive, and anyone who has looked at our deserts and only saw red dirt and flies did not look hard enough.

One of the things that I would like to do as I rise today as a Western Australian engineer who has worked on the mines is dispel some myths and falsehoods. One of the myths is that people that take part in the resource sector do not like nature or the great Australian outdoors and also that being an environmentalist means that you're always anti economic prosperity. We live in a world where we need to both look after the environment and use our resources wisely for our prosperity. We need the critical minerals, and we need to look after the land, and the world needs Australia. Not only do we need this legislation; we need leadership. We need leadership from our government, we need leadership from the Greens, and we need leadership from the coalition. Our goal is to strike the balance and to safeguard what is precious and for Australia to continue to be an amazing nation.

So some might be surprised to learn of the love of the land from those that have worked on the mines. The mines, of course, run 24/7. When you work on the mines, you actually plug into the land more than you do in an air conditioned office. Imagine seeing a mob of kangaroos at the edge of a mine site at dusk or hearing at dawn the chorus of desert birds. I bring to this chamber 18 years of experience as a chemical engineer, as someone that was born in a goldmining town, who grew up in a nickel-mining town and who is the daughter of a fitter and turner. I am a woman who followed in my dad's steel capped boots into the male dominated resource sector, and I was determined to use my love of science and also harmonise industry with sustainable practices. In the town where I grew up, Kambalda, when the houses were built, they removed the footprint of where the houses would go, but what that meant was that everyone had gum trees in their back yards and their front yards. I also grew up learning how to rehabilitate mine sites. Mr Woolard was the environmental leader that worked on the mines there, and he taught us as students that you could heal the land after you extracted the minerals that you wanted.

So, as someone who has walked, driven and flown across the country to mine sites and commissioned and worked in continuous improvement and even energy efficiency and emissions reductions, what I would say is that I have seen instances where the resource sector has done best practice, and it has been very impressive at those times. I've been immensely proud to call myself an engineer that has worked on the mines. But there have also been times when there have been questionable practices and sometimes, frankly, sloppy work. The thing that we're trying to do today is lift the standards, have a new benchmark and set what we expect across Australia. This is what this legislation is doing, and we have important structures that we're putting in place. This includes the National Environmental Protection Agency, Environment Information Australia, the restoration contributions holder and also, importantly, a better, faster, smarter approval system.

This is a massive effort by a Labor government, prepared to do the work to safeguard what matters. Begun by the former minister for the environment, the member for Sydney—thanks to her hard work, the current Minister for the Environment hit the ground running and has not stopped. Forget the term 'fixer'; I think of him as an endurance athlete because this has been a marathon—a marathon of consultation, conservation and conversation. I am proud to be part of a Labor government that is determined to keep decarbonisation and housing and nation-building projects moving at the pace required, at the pace we need to safeguard not just our prosperity but our children's prosperity. And do you know what? Industry wants clarity. Take it from an engineer. Sometimes, that means a quick no, because the sunk costs of waiting on approvals are disastrous for a project.

Here's another line: if a project harms our most precious environmental assets, it won't get the green light. Don't waste your time. As the Minister for the Environment and Water put it, no, you can't mine Uluru, and it shouldn't take a bureaucratic run-around to say a quick no. We're also empowering industry to do their bit by setting standards based in science. Priority 1 is avoiding harm. For cases where harm is unavoidable, we have introduced the concept of net gain. This updated offset framework ensures that any environmental damage is more than compensated. Net gain means that projects that do harm must leave nature better off than before. Protection statements will make it easier for decision-makers and proponents to understand what is required.

This bill honours the deadly Australian bush, and, like the deadly bush creatures we all love, this legislation has teeth. Stronger penalties and enforcement powers will ensure that environmental harm is taken seriously. You will not profit from the destruction of nature in Australia. The incentive to move fast while breaking things, copping just a slap on the wrist, will be history. Put simply, if you wreck our environment, whatever you make from your wrecking, you will pay.

There was genuine constructive public debate about finding the right place for emissions, and I thank the Labor Environment Action Network, who, like many groups, came to the table in good faith. No-one on this side of the House is deluded about climate. Climate change threatens the planet. It is indeed anthropogenic, meaning it is caused by mankind, and we need to act on it. This bill requires the disclosure of emissions, both scope 1 and scope 2, and aligns with Australia's safeguard mechanism. Proponents will also be required to disclose associated emission mitigation measures and abatement targets, along with their estimated emissions. This supports our climate goals. Environmental approvals must be considered with broader decarbonisation efforts.

We attempted this bill once before, but the Liberals and the Greens teamed up and blocked its pathway. What a disappointment. The Liberal Party is supposed to be the party of business, but not supporting this legislation will bring business to a halt. It's one thing to stand by a future Ley government, or even a future Wilson government, but not standing by business—are the Liberals so far from their values that they can't even remember what to do for business? As for the Greens, in the last term we never saw a 'green for go' or even a 'yellow for go slow'; it was red lights all the way. What Australia saw was blockers, not builders, and at the last election Australia gave them the red light. I hope the Greens have left that blocking era behind them. It's getting a bit old and a bit like a broken traffic light.

I want people to recognise that the EPA is nothing to be afraid of. The US, Canada, New Zealand and the UK all have their own versions. An independent national environmental protection agency will ensure that rules are enforced fairly and transparently. It will educate and guide industry and communities. Companies will be held accountable for the damage they cause, promoting better compliance and deterring future breaches. This is excellent progress.

We also want Australians to understand the state of the environment. That's why we will also have the Head of Environment Information Australia, to improve access to reliable data. We want to support evidence based decision-making. This aligns with global best practice in environmental regulation, and our world-renowned natural wonders deserve nothing less.

A streamlined pathway will reward well prepared proposals and reduce delays, saving billions across the economy while maintaining strong environmental standards. We want an ecosystem of intelligence, not a pipeline of problems. This is a collaborative approach by a mature government, and we are working both with community groups and with industry. If industry does its homework and comes to the table in good faith, clarity will be rewarded with clarity. Efficiency means empowering awareness through our systems.

This is very exciting legislation. We can get the balance right. We can do right by future generations. Australians reject extremism and division, as we saw at the last election. Now let's show it in the parliament. Let's do the work for the country that we all love.

  (Quorum formed)

I rise to address the grave concerns that many constituents, stakeholders and industries in Capricornia and beyond have about the proposed changes to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. While reform may sometimes be needed, what is before us is crippling industries that are pillars of our region and our nation. It places too much power in the hands of ministerial discretion, it duplicates regulation, and it threatens fairness and productivity. I speak today on behalf of regions that rely on resource development, mining, minerals and heavy industries—companies like Boral, Glencore, BHP and QMAG. They are not faceless corporations. They are employers. They are economic drivers. They unlock the wealth of our nation and give back to the community through grassroots, community activities.

They are telling me clearly that the tighter green tape proposed under this bill is strangling their ability to operate in Australia—let alone compete internationally, where other countries offer far more favourable conditions. I back our mining companies. I back them because their success is our success, but under this bill we risk entering dangerous territory. We risk picking winners and losers by regulation, where those aligned with the government agenda are favoured with subsidies while others are left to struggle under burdens they never asked for. If we continue down this path, some may ask whether we are edging towards a system where government grants or regulatory favour determine what survives, rather than competitiveness and merit. That risks are chilling resemblance to state controlled economies, where approvals are less about fairness and more about who has influence.

One of my deepest concerns with the proposal is around 'unacceptable impact' as a legal test in the bill. As per the recommendations from the Graeme Samuel review, the intention may have been well meaning—to protect matters of national environmental significance more strictly—but the drafting we see is deeply subjective, loaded with ministerial discretion and lacking clarity. A project may be held up or refused not because it fails to meet clear standards but because someone considers the impact unacceptable. That test is open to interpretation, which could then attract legal challenges and lengthy delays. For mining companies I've spoken with, the fear is real. What happens when that test becomes a bureaucratic hammer rather than a guidance tool? What happens when companies are being held responsible for impacts outside of their control, which they cannot reasonably mitigate? That is not fairness; that is regulatory overreach.

Furthermore, in my consultation with the Queensland Resources Council, they flagged that the bill's establishment of a federal environmental protection agency with assessment, compliance and enforcement roles duplicates existing Queensland arrangements. That duplication will slow approvals, increase costs and reduce productivity in resource dependent electorates like Capricornia. In Queensland we already have a state environmental regulatory regime. To overlay a federal regime with parallel obligations—sometimes inconsistent, sometimes overlapping—is inefficient. It burdens project applications with increased compliance costs and delay. Energy-intensive or resource-intensive projects often depend on timeliness and predictability. When timing is uncertain, investment is re-evaluated, jobs are delayed, or lost, and growth is stunted. It is a bit rich for a Labor government that is big on talking up productivity to be tying down industry with this legislation.

In addition to reduced productivity, Queensland has more projects overlapping with matters of national environmental significance than any other state. Our Great Barrier Reef catchments, our threatened species, our migratory habitat corridors and our flood plains coincide with resource activity. That overlap raises the risk that even projects which meet high environmental standards could be refused or delayed because of new definitions, like that of 'unacceptable impact'. This is a risk to mining, to infrastructure and to the economic future of regions like Capricornia.

Let me also raise a concern around balance and fairness. I draw your attention to Noel Pearson's framing: 'It is not in the public interest to permanently deny regions such as the Bowen, Galilee and Surat basins their chance for economic development, while historically developed or urban areas retain privilege.' When legislation adopts blanket tests or criteria that don't consider regional equity, Indigenous participation or adaptive management, we risk entrenching disadvantage outside of our major metropolitan centres. That is why the Queensland Resources Council has recommended that the 'unacceptable impact' element be retained only as a case-by-case assessment, guided by standards that factor in regional equity and Indigenous participation and allow adaptive management, rather than imposing rigid definitions that may choke off legitimate investment.

Another critical point is that the bill gives the minister and regulatory authorities discretionary power to override or veto approvals. On paper that sounds like speeding things up—giving executive veto power—but in practice it concentrates risk in the office of the minister rather than in transparent independent criteria. That creates uncertainty for business. It invites political discretion rather than statutory predictability. Projects that comply with best environmental, safety, health and workplace standards and have robust rehabilitation plans may be delayed or refused if they do not align with some subjective view of 'priority' or 'unacceptable standard'.

Meanwhile, projects that have less community support but are more politically popular may receive prioritised treatment. I point to a concerning example: in my own electorate and surrounding regions, proposals such as the Clarke Creek Wind Farm have raised community concern. Unchecked renewable energy approval may be ticked off under this bill, while mining or infrastructure projects that follow industry best practice and rehabilitation standards may be delayed or blocked. That is not equitable treatment of economic development and environmental protection. The balance is wrong when greenfield renewable proposals are favoured over tried, regulated and best-practice industries simply because of political design, not merit.

The bill is supposedly intended to speed up approvals, improve environmental outcomes and provide certainty. But, as it is currently drafted, it may very well do the reverse: slow approvals, increase litigation risk, reduce investor confidence and deter capital from regions that most need it. Moreover, our industries are under pressure globally. Mining, energy, critical minerals and building materials must compete on cost, quality and timeliness. If other jurisdictions offer clearer pathways, fewer risks and more certainty, companies will invest elsewhere. That cost is paid by regional communities in terms of fewer jobs, fewer royalties and less growth.

This is not an argument against environmental protection. We want strong environmental outcomes, and resources companies in particular already adopt world's best practice. We want protections for habitat, for water quality and for threatened species. But protection must be fair, transparent and efficient. It must recognise that economic development and environmental stewardship can and must coexist. When legislation shifts the burden onto project proponents in ways that exceed reasonable control, when definitions are vague or subjective, when duplicate regulations slow things down and when approval power is concentrated in ministerial discretion, we undermine that coexistence.

I would like to see more consideration given to the following: clearer statutory definitions of unacceptable impact; adaptable management and case-by-case assessment so regional equity is built in; that, where possible, we avoid duplication of assessment regimes between state and federal, recognising existing approval frameworks rather than superseding them; that discretion be limited; that ministerial vetoes do not substitute for predictable, transparent statutory criteria; and that projects that meet practice, environmental, safety, rehabilitation and community engagement standards are not penalised simply because they are resource based or operate in regional Australia.

If we do not get that balance right we risk chasing an illusion of perfect environmental protection at the cost of real economic impact, real job losses and real regional decline. I urge the government to listen to those on the ground—to Capricornia, to resource communities, to First Nations and to industries—and to redraft this legislation so that it protects the environment and supports sustainable, productive economic development. I'd like to see balance and fairness restored to this legislation. I commend my words to the House.

Our environment is under pressure. Our laws to protect it are broken, and for too long those laws have not kept pace with the challenges we face. Whether it be safeguarding our iconic landscapes, protecting our threatened species or nurturing our unique ecosystems, our current laws are not working for our environment. Australians are concerned, and rightly so. That's why the Environment Protection Reform Bill 2025 and the others in this package are being introduced by the Albanese government. They are practical, evidence based reforms that deliver real, enforceable and meaningful protections for our environment. They ensure that development is handled responsibly while safeguarding our unique ecosystems. And they make decision-making faster, more predictable and more accountable.

This reform package is long overdue and, importantly, it responds to all the Samuel review recommendations handed down to the coalition government. In our last term in government the Albanese government made it a priority to: respond to this review; fix our environment laws; provide clear, nationally consistent guidelines; and establish enforceable penalties through a historic national environment protection agency. But on this journey the Albanese government has faced considerable roadblocks. When push came to shove, in the last term of government the coalition and the Greens teamed up to block reforms that would have delivered clarity for business and stronger protections for the environment. Despite this, the Albanese government was not deterred. We've pushed ahead, and now we draw a line in the sand. Today we champion these groundbreaking environmental reforms and we urge both the Greens and the coalition to be more constructive this time around and back in these bills.

The bills establish clear national environmental standards that must be adhered to. Whether you're mining in a culturally significant area or working to build new much-needed housing, the bills will give clarity and certainty while delivering better protections. These standards are not aspirational. They will be clear rules grounded in science and law. Most importantly, they cannot be weakened over time. The bill makes this crystal clear.

The reforms also include a new definition of 'unacceptable impact' specific to each protected matter. This will set clear and upfront criteria for impacts that cannot be approved, and provide a safeguard against impacts that cause the irreversible loss of Australia's biodiversity and heritage. The proposed reforms will clearly define what types of environmental harm must be avoided and cannot be offset.

The bills also introduce protection statements for threatened species, providing clarity for decision-makers and proponents. Moreover, the bills strengthen compliance and enforcement powers, making it clear that serious breaches will no longer be treated as just the cost of doing business. Importantly, they introduce the principle of net gain for environmental offsets. The reality is, the current offset regime doesn't work. It does not work for our environment and it facilitates irresponsible development. The Albanese government recognises this, and through these bills we're charting a different course. These bills introduce a new net gain framework which means projects are required to not only avoid and minimise impacts but also actively contribute to the improvement of our environment. The principle of net gain will ensure projects leave the environment in a better state than they found it. This can be achieved through direct offsets such as replanting degraded habitats, restoring wetlands or funding species-recovery programs. It can also be achieved through contributions to a central restoration fund which can then be strategically deployed to areas of greatest ecological benefit. Restoration contributions can be pooled strategically to achieve maximum environmental benefit, giving nature the chance to recover, regenerate and become more resilient.

These bills are about reversing decades of decline, and they're also about ensuring that when a species is listed as threatened, or when a habitat is identified as endangered, the law is equipped to protect it effectively. They are about ensuring that when development occurs it does so responsibly, and in a way that genuinely contributes to restoring the environment.

I know how important this is for my communities in Corangamite. They are passionate. They care deeply about improving our unique environments across the Bellarine and Surf Coast. To the Landcare volunteers whom I have worked with over many years, to the schoolchildren who ask me questions about the future of our planet, and to the surfers I met this morning who care so deeply about our ocean—this bill is for you. I know just how much they care, and they want our laws to work better for the environment and for future generations. They want environmental laws to work better to achieve responsible development and protection of flora and fauna.

The bills also introduce bioregional planning, mapping conservation zones and development zones in advance so that proposed projects can be assessed against bioregional plans and, where appropriate, can proceed while ensuring high-value areas are robustly protected. Bioregional planning will be a game changer. It will enable a coordinated, strategic approach across multiple jurisdictions, ensuring environmental gains contribute to a healthier, more connected landscape over the longer term. That is the essence of the first pillar of this reform: stronger environmental protection and restoration.

The second pillar relates to greater robust decision-making to tackle duplication and delays. The bills will streamline assessment pathways, reducing statutory timeframes for compliant proposals by up to 20 days. A new national interest pathway will also be created, allowing projects that are critical to Australia's future to proceed, under strict transparency rules, while still maintaining high environmental standards. The reforms also modernise reconsideration provisions, setting clear timeframes and improving certainty for business, while maintaining environmental safeguards.

The third pillar focuses on greater accountability and transparency in environmental decision-making. To achieve this, the Albanese government is establishing the National Environmental Protection Agency, Australia's first national, and formidable, independent environmental regulator. The EPA will oversee compliance; enforce the law; hold serious offenders to account; provide guidance and education to business; and monitor, audit and report, giving communities confidence that the law is being applied, enforced and taken seriously.

Alongside the EPA, Environment Information Australia will consolidate environmental data into a single authoritative source. For too long, environmental information in this country has been fragmented, inconsistent and hard to access. EIA will collect, consolidate and publish data about the state of our environment, improving decision-making for government and business. It will make it easier to identify emerging threats to our natural world.

The reforms also enshrine First Nations engagement in the system, ensuring that decisions affecting land, water and heritage are informed by those who have cared for these places for generations. First Nations perspectives will guide the protection of country, and their expertise will be recognised in decision-making processes, from species conservation to bioregional planning.

These bills will deliver tangible and lasting benefits. They will help protect threatened species, such as the eastern curlew, the Leadbeater's possum and the hooded plover. They will safeguard forests, rivers, wetlands and grasslands. They will ensure scope 1 and scope 2 emissions are reported by proponents. The safeguard mechanism will provide the necessary guardrails to achieve emissions reduction targets for our biggest emitters.

These are the environmental protection laws Australians have been waiting for, and they continue a proud Labor tradition. Labor has always acted to protect our environment. We have delivered landmark reforms throughout our history. Programs such as Landcare have empowered communities to restore and care for their local landscapes, from the smallest waterways to the largest forests, engaging volunteers, schools and local groups in the hands-on work of regeneration. It was Labor that saved the Franklin River from destruction. Labor protected Kakadu, the Daintree and countless other sites of ecological, cultural and historic significance. We have built the largest network of marine parks in the world. We have championed initiatives that address the urgent threats of biodiversity loss, habitat destruction and the broader impacts of environmental change. We have done this while balancing the needs of communities and the economy.

This bill is the next step in that legacy. So I say to the Greens and the opposition: will you stand in the way?

At the last election, the people cast their vote, and the message was clear. They want a system that works for the environment, for communities and for business. They want a national EPA that has teeth. Under these laws, serious environmental harm will carry serious consequences, and those who profit from destruction will be held to account.

These bills are not just about law reform. They are about restoring trust in the laws that protect our environment. They balance protection with progress, and they are built on many years of consultation.

In closing, I'd like to recognise our Minister for the Environment and Water, and the former minister, the member for Sydney, for all the work they have done to deliver these groundbreaking reforms. It's now vital that these bills pass and that, together, we leave a legacy that protects what we all hold dear: our nation's amazing coastlines, rivers, bushland and cultural heritage. I commend these bills to the House.

(Quorum formed)

Those opposite refer to the EPBC reforms in front of the House as 'groundbreaking'. But the very real concern that I have representing the electorate of Forrest is they'll lead to no ground being broken at all. Before we dive into the Environment Protection Reform Bill 2025 and the six associated bills in some detail, I want to outline to the House my three areas of primary focus when it comes to considering the legislation proposed by the government.

The first is what benefit there is for industry in these reforms. As much as we hear hyperbole from those opposite that this is a great thing for industry in our country, the devil is in the detail—and that is of grave concern to many stakeholders from the great state of Western Australia, because it is the mining and resources industry that underpins the prosperity we enjoy in this country today. Secondly, there are conflicting and uncertain statements on unacceptable standards within the bills, and these pose a grave risk to the ability of proponents to get a project up and established in this country—which, again, in an era of declining productivity and declining standards of living, is simply unacceptable for the coalition to support. Thirdly, when it comes to bilateral assessments and approvals, the great state of WA should receive both immediately and simultaneously. We can't afford for there to be delay, prevarication or consideration of the need for a one-stop shop when it comes to these approvals. Without diving into the detail just yet, they are the three areas of concern that mean I, on behalf of the electorate of Forrest, find myself unable to support the current proposals.

At the end of the day, the bounty that our nation enjoys stems from the investment and approval decisions through the 2000s—that is, the mines that were first explored, discovered and then progressed, through development to production, date back to the mid-2000s, in reality. Today we enjoy the bounty of decisions that were made under the existing laws some 20 years ago. The question on my mind is: will these current proposed EPBC reforms unleash a new wave of mining investment in our country? The reality is that they won't. What's the impact of that? When you consider that the mining and resources industry has spent some $242 billion of capital expenditure in the last decade and generated some $395 billion of taxes and royalties in the same period, it should be clear to every Australian that our ability to pay for a social security net in this country comes from industry. At the end of the day, without that capacity to pay as a nation, it is our most vulnerable and our most disadvantaged who pay the greatest cost.

Mining and resources aren't the end of the story, of course. Oil and gas as an industry, in the last financial year alone, paid some $21.9 billion in taxes and royalties, which is equivalent to the entire cost of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. When mining does well, when industry does well, Australia does well. Importantly, if we curtail the extraction of resources domestically, we're pushing that production of resources to overseas jurisdictions who have lower environmental standards than those considered by environmental law here in Australia and who have lesser safeguards when it comes to workplace health and safety and the use of labour. Ultimately, we don't change the consumption of resources globally but we move it. We move it away from Australia, we deprive Australians of the benefits of the taxes and royalties that are paid for the extraction of our resources and we see greater environmental harm, accordingly. What I'm looking for is legislation here in Australia that will help our industry 'dig baby dig,' because that's what benefits all Australians. When our industry does well, we all do well.

Let's turn to some of the main areas of concern that I have with the EPBC legislation in front of the House. Firstly, when it comes to accreditation, those opposite have been very quick to point to the benefits of streamlining approvals through, effectively, a one-stop shop in licensing state based EPAs to conduct approvals and assessments. The great shame, really, is that there are those opposite who are part of this government who had the opportunity to support such an important reform in this place in 2021. Imagine where we would be as a country if we had knocked the red tape, the restriction, the regulation that's contemplated by that almost five years ago. I won't be lectured by the government on the importance of this, because, like I say, they had the opportunity to get behind that almost five years ago and failed to do so.

In fact, just earlier this morning, upstairs in a committee room not far from here, we were discussing the Smokebush Gallium Project in Western Australia, which the Albanese government have been keen to trumpet as a great success story. As a brownfields project, it is not impacted by the EPBC Act. Importantly, the proponents of that project just articulated the reality that if it was impacted, this project would be some five to 10 years away. That's where we need to call out the failure of EPBC in Australia, because we are so bound up in red tape, regulation and restriction and so bound up in environmental 'lawfare' that our industries that generate the prosperity for us all to enjoy and benefit from are simply lagging behind. This bill in its current form does not suitably address that. I say again, Western Australia and its EPA should be accredited immediately and without delay under these reforms. That would be something I could certainly support.

In terms of the prospect of a net gain, which is principally what Labor used to call nature positive, until that became politically difficult for them, there's no clear guidance on how this would be applied and measured. It simply can't be put into legislation. Inevitably, we would discover there were unintended consequences or difficulties in the implementation, and the reality is that we would then have to be back debating the legislation once more in the House. If it were pushed off into the standards, we would see the ability for those net gain principles to change over time in a nimble and agile way, as I think, at its heart, the government really sees some benefit in.

What they need to do is listen to stakeholders and actually respond accordingly, because there are simply mad examples that abound in our country of offsets that are out of control—one tree with a couple of black cockatoos involved requiring the offset of some thousand trees elsewhere is in the way of housing developments, for instance. We wonder why we can't get housing supply to market. We wonder why the government's Housing Australia Future Fund is simply unable to do that. It's because of these sorts of restrictions and this madness.

When we get to unacceptable impacts, the criteria are just too low, and businesses from WA are telling me that it is a real risk to future projects. There are more than 5,000 FIFO employees in Busselton alone that depend on the mining industry for their jobs. I hear those industry participants telling me in private rooms that this is a key risk of the bill. I'm urging the government to follow the Samuel review and put those into the standards, not the legislation, for the same reasons I just mentioned earlier.

Importantly, in this place, we should use the powers of retrospectivity very cautiously indeed. It is unacceptable to me on a first-principles basis—and it is unacceptable to many that I talk to at home, in Western Australia—that conditions could be imposed under this reformed legislation retrospectively. You can't go shifting goalposts when it comes to capital investment decisions that amount in the billions of dollars. If the government is upfront and honest with Australians that there is no intention at all to retrospectively alter the environmental conditions attached to projects, they should be clear about that. It's very simple for them to say n-o—'No, we will not impose retrospective alterations on industry in Australia under these reforms.' They've failed to do so to date, and, until they do, I certainly could not vote for this legislation.

When we come to environmental protection orders, the threshold is too low in my view, but it's not the main issue with it. The main issue with the way the legislation is drafted presently is that there's no appeal process. There is no right to natural justice for someone impacted by an environmental protection order to seek remedy, to have their day in court and to be heard in that way. That is a severe failing of any legislation contemplated by this House. It would be quite simple for the government to fix. Whilst that single biggest issue is a barrier to the effective implementation of environmental legislation that would have the right balance between the environment and industry in Australia, again, I simply can't afford to support it, because my state's prosperity—and that indeed underwrites the prosperity of the country—depends on getting this stuff right.

It's worth reflecting on how we got here, because, yes, the Samuel review was commissioned under the coalition government, as we've heard. But the reality is that, since they came to power in 2022, the government have been shrouding this legislation in secrecy. Stakeholders have been forced to sign non-disclosure agreements. They've been drip-fed little bits here and there. Now it seems like the minister's in some sort of rush, because we've got extended sitting hours this week, and, all of a sudden, the government are using their numbers in the House here to move around the order of business and have us talk about this stuff until 10 pm each night. Yet, at the same time, the reporting date for the Senate inquiry is March next year. So if there's not some dirty deal at play here, if there's not some sort of stunt in the works, what is the tearing rush? The reality is that this legislation represents a quarter-century reform. It needs to be considered. It needs to get the balance right. In its current form, it doesn't.

Anyone that thinks that 1,500 pages of legislation could be suitably considered and scrutinised in this place in just a matter of weeks is honestly delusional. The reality is that the Australian people need to understand what these reforms mean. Industry needs to have the opportunity to have their say, as do environmental stakeholders. There are two sides to this, and it is a matter of getting the balance right, so what is the problem with allowing this process of inquiry through the parliament to take place to allow the issues and unintended consequences to be fixed through suitable amendments? That's ultimately what we are calling for. We're not being obstructionist; we have committed, of course, to being constructive where we can. There is a genuine desire on the part of the coalition to respond to feedback from industry that these laws do need improvement. But, in their current form, for the reasons I've just articulated, the reality is that we simply can't support them.

Colleagues have taken some time to step through the concerns and the issues that we're highlighting in the legislation, but what I'm hearing back from the other side of the chamber is that the government is determined to press ahead with this legislation. We're not hearing responses to the criticism; we're hearing government talking points just repeated ad nauseam, one member after another, chewing up time in this place without constructively engaging in what should be a really important national debate. I guess it reflects a government that says one thing and does another. I always urge people in this place to look at what Labor does rather than listen to what it says.

We can't afford to get this wrong. We've seen the consequences of legislation like this going wrong in the past, and then there's a mad scramble to try and fix it up. They crunched through all sorts of legislation in home affairs and made a terrible mess and then had to fix it up multiple times. This stuff, which underpins our national prosperity as a country, simply can't afford that sort of risky behaviour.

All we're asking for is the time to consider this legislation appropriately and responsiveness on the part of the government to genuine concern from environmental stakeholders, industry groups and project proponents themselves across the entire spectrum of activity in Australia, from housing development all the way through to our largest mining, oil and gas projects. That's what's at stake in this place today and, indeed, this week and that's why we can't support this legislation in its current form.

For our government, the six months since the election have been all about delivery—delivering the policies that the Australian people voted for on 3 May: cutting student debt by 20 per cent; making it easier to buy a home, with five per cent deposits; protecting penalty rates and overtime pay; delivering real help with the cost of living through cheaper medicines; and, of course, starting last Saturday, the biggest boost to bulk-billing since Bob Hawke's government created Medicare.

Right across the board, delivery is what drives our government, and these reforms are all about delivery—building new homes, connecting new energy, creating new jobs, providing the certainty to catalyse new investment, unlocking our critical minerals and rare earths not just to dig up and export but to refine and process and make more things here in Australia, and boosting productivity across our economy all while protecting and restoring our environment for future generations, because Australia doesn't have to choose between a strong economy and a healthy environment. We don't have to choose between creating jobs and cutting emissions. We can do both; indeed, we must do both because each one depends on the other. These reforms are central to meeting the challenges facing our nation here and now, and they're vital for Australia to seize the profound opportunities that are right ahead of us.

The starting point for this legislation is a simple fact that people across this parliament know, understand and have said is the case. And people outside the parliament know, whether that's environmentalists concerned about the state of our natural environment or business trying to get things done and create jobs. They all say that the current laws are broken. They were written by the Howard government for a very different Australia, and they haven't just become obsolete; they've become an obstacle. They're not working for the environment and they're not delivering for business. They are a barrier to jobs and investment across our nation, and in many cases they overlap with or duplicate state and local government processes.

All of this costs money, it creates uncertainty and it wastes time. Back in 2000, the median wait time for project approval was 48 weeks. Today it's 118 weeks. Far too often, those delays mean investors simply walk away, regional and remote communities miss out on good jobs, growing suburbs don't get the new homes they need, and business, industry and households miss out on cleaner, cheaper energy. Projects get passed back and forth between different levels of government or are tangled up in layers of process.

This problem isn't new. It has been five years since the Leader of the Opposition, the then environment minister, received the review that was commissioned by the former government into the EPBC Act. It was commissioned, of course, from Professor Graeme Samuel. Professor Samuel's review laid out a clear plan for changes that would deliver better outcomes for our environment and better outcomes for our economy. On receiving the review the opposition leader said this:

It is time to find a way past an adversarial approach and work together to create … reform that will protect our environment, while keeping our economy strong

That's precisely what this legislation does, and Professor Graeme Samuel has been very clear about his support for this legislation. He said this just last week:

At long last, almost five years to the exact date of delivery of the report, Minister Watt has produced legislation which implements the totality of the report in substance, in a way that I could not possibly have imagined back in 2020 … I cannot possibly imagine why anyone would want to now oppose it.

But, of course, we have circumstances where the now opposition commissioned a report, they received the report and we have legislation that's based upon the report, but now they're opposed to it. We got an insight, perhaps, into why that's the case from the member for Wright just this week when he said, in justifying not even having a housing minister or any housing policy for most of the period they were in office: 'Oh, it wasn't needed. It wasn't needed at that time.' They think that everything that happened prior to 2022 is just forgotten and that there weren't issues there until the change of government by the Australian people in 2022. In fact, Australians know, for example, when it comes to housing approvals that, if you have a major project that is delayed for year after year after year—and there are examples of projects that have been delayed for more than a decade—that increases costs, it reduces supply and someone pays the bill for that delay, because the asset is held but the capital is not spent in improving the value of that asset, and someone has to pay. And who pays? The consumer. Who pays? The entire Australian public, because that is one of the things that boost inflation.

Now, you can't say you're concerned about any of these issues and then vote against this legislation, because this legislation does deliver on the vision of Graeme Samuel. This bill is about driving better, clearer and speedier decision-making, making it easier to get an answer from government sooner—a quicker yes or a quicker no, providing that certainty. That is the key to encouraging investment in our economy.

Every bit as important as encouraging investment in our economy is ensuring there's a better system of protections for Australia's precious and unique natural environment—firstly, by giving the minister the power to make national environmental standards, which simply aren't there at the moment: clear, enforceable expectations around offsets, engagement with traditional owners and matters of national environmental significance. This isn't just about conserving our natural heritage and assets; it's also about repairing any damage that is done. The repair could be done either directly—through delivering an offset, such as planting more trees and providing essential habitat for unique Australian species—or by contributing to a restoration fund, managed by an independent statutory officer in the department.

This idea of an independent restoration fund, to build back not just what was there but to build back better and to make an improvement to our natural environment, makes enormous sense. It's a practical measure going forward. Rather than doing, for example, 10 trees here or 20 trees somewhere else to make a difference and alleviate the impact of a project, by having a national restoration fund managed independently you can pool the contributions and do something really significant that makes a much bigger difference to our environment: a net gain for Australia's environment.

This bill will give clear guidance about protecting threatened species and important habitats, which are not there in the current laws. It will impose tougher penalties for significant breaches of environmental law. In order to build confidence in these decisions and strengthen the enforcement of these laws, at the centre of this legislation is the creation of Australia's first national environmental protection authority, honouring a commitment that the Australian people have voted for not once but twice. The independent national EPA will have stronger powers to impose tougher penalties, but, importantly, the final responsibility will remain with the minister of the day, because in our democracy ultimate responsibility should belong to the elected representatives.

The government has worked tirelessly to consult about these laws across the community. The broad engagement we have undertaken is reflected in the broad support for these reforms, from the Property Council to the Australian Industry Group to the Smart Energy Council. The opposition and the Greens political party in the Senate both acknowledge that the current laws are broken, so their choice is very clear. We had legislation in the former parliament that couldn't receive support in the Senate, so the existing laws just carried on. I want to make this very clear: the government is determined to have this legislation carried this year. If that doesn't occur, the opposition and the Greens political party will both be responsible for the existing laws—that they themselves say are not fit for purpose—continuing on. That is what we are dealing with. That is the choice that people have.

We have said that we're up for dialogue and up for sensible propositions, if there are improvements that can be made. But this is the time. This has gone on for long enough. Five years after the reception of the report from Graeme Samuel, it is time to get things done. So their choice is clear. They can talk about the problem, or they can vote for the solution. That is the choice that will be before the Senate.

The government's position is clear. This week, we'll pass this legislation through the House of Representatives. We'll be voting for jobs, we'll be voting for housing, we'll be voting for new energy. We'll be voting for new projects and new industries across regional and remote Australia, and we'll be voting to pass on a better environment to our children and our grandchildren, for a stronger economy and a healthy environment. That's why it's not surprising that people are being asked to leave the House, to leave the chamber, so that political games can be played rather than actually engaging in debate. I say this to the opposition and to the Greens political party. This is good for jobs and good for industry, but it is also good for the environment. You have an opportunity to be part of the solution instead of continuing to be a part of the problem. The Australian people had something to say about the 'noalition' and their tactics of blocking—

Order! The Speaker has ruled that that term is not to be used.

Consistently, he has not. He has said the 'noalition' can't be about a specific party, and it's not. It's about all of them. It's not about any individual, and the 'noalition' is when you have people combining from different ideological perspectives to form something new, something that's about blocking, not about advancing. And that is precisely the opportunity that people in the coalition or in the Greens have. Either of them have the opportunity to be a part of something positive, being a part of going forward rather than simply blocking. I say it is time. The Senate will have the opportunity to pass this legislation in the last week or move on, and it will be the responsibility of those people who don't support this legislation, the consequences of it, and they'll be held to account, just as they were held to account for the actions of the 'noalition' on 3 May.

I rise to speak on the government's latest attempt to rewrite the approvals framework that underpins jobs, investment and certainty in our economy. In 2024, I had the honour to deliver the Garfield Barwick oration. Barwick is a hero of mine, a former member of this House, former Liberal attorney-general, former chief justice of Australia and the founding president of the Australian Conservation Foundation. In my address, I spoke about Barwick's approach to the environment, which was balanced, prudent and realist. Recognising the complexities of modern life and the demand for raw materials, it envisaged that advanced development and conservation could exist peaceably. When Barwick was president of the Australian Conservation Foundation, he commended the foundation at that time for doing a great deal to introduce a sense of balance into the consideration of the protection of the environment. Explaining what he meant by 'balance' in 1970, he said, 'We realise this generation must have access to resources and must use the technologies which are available to make the life of the ordinary man better, but resources can be used and technologies employed without doing avoidable damage to the environment.'

This balance is what the Environment Protection Reform Bill 2025 should be about, but unfortunately it's not, and it gets the balance wrong. This bill doesn't make small changes or amendments. It's almost 1,500 pages of legislation and explanatory materials that reaches into every corner of the economy that builds, digs, grows and manufactures. It will determine whether projects are approved in months or in years. It will determine whether capital comes here or goes somewhere else. It will determine whether Australians get a system that's workable and provides certainty to the private sector or one that is slower and more complex.

What has the Albanese government chosen to do with something that's this significant? We heard the Prime Minister say it just then. They want to rush it through the parliament in one week. The bill was introduced into the parliament on 29 October. Stakeholders have immediately asked for more time to consider the bill. The Senate has already had to step in and refer it to an inquiry reporting on 24 March next year. According to the Prime Minister's timetable, the bill will be passed in the Senate before the Senate has had a chance to even consider this properly. This is outrageous, because 1,500 pages takes time to read, weigh and consider.

The member for Watson has carriage of the bill in this chamber, and he knows this. When he sat on this side of the chamber, he regularly decried rushed legislation. In 2014, in relation to a piece of legislation, he said:

The timing of this bill has precluded members of parliament from doing their job …

Is the timing of this bill precluding not only the parliament but stakeholders from doing their job to ensure the final bill passed is in the best interests of all Australians?

Or should we look to 2019, when Minister Burke said, 'There's only one reason the government have decided that they want this legislation to be rushed through tonight, and it's because they've decided to play the game.' So, this is now the game that the Albanese government is playing: acting in the same vein that they accused the former government of doing. Today they're doing precisely what they used to decry, and on such a large and far-reaching piece of legislation from their own government.

This matters because rushing this legislation will have real consequences for Australians. This bill updates the 1999 EPBC Act. As environment minister, the Leader of the Opposition commissioned Professor Graeme Samuel to undertake an independent review. The former coalition government introduced reforms, including streamlining pathways. It's no surprise to anyone that Labor, in opposition, blocked them at the time. The Labor government now has presented its own model, but at what cost? Minister Plibersek attempted to make these reforms in the last parliament. They were withdrawn under internal pressure.

Labor promised an environmental protection agency at two elections, and four years on it hasn't delivered what it promised. This is all too familiar from those opposite when it comes to energy and the environment. Let's not forget that they promised that Australians would see a $275 reduction in power bills. Four years on, they haven't delivered. The Prime Minister said that life would be cheaper under his government. Four years on, the government hasn't delivered.

The issue I particularly want to speak about in relation to the bill is very simple. It's about the transparency that this government is allergic to, and it's about scrutiny. The bill, as I indicated at the start of my remarks, is the perfect exemplar of this government's approach to transparency, scrutiny and allowing the parliament to do its job. Dumping 1,500 pages of legislation sight unseen, with economy-wide ramifications, and then demanding that the parliament pass them without properly looking at them is not the action of a government that wants the parliament to do its job. Indeed, we as legislators would be failing in our job if we didn't scrutinise the legislation properly.

Many of my colleagues have already made this point. The legislation contains a range of extraordinary changes that need to be properly weighed. Instead, we heard this petulant demand from the Prime Minister just a few moments ago to pass this bill—more reminiscent of a toddler than of a government acting in the national interest. More importantly, this bill says something very important about the government's approach to transparency and accountability. This is a government that talked a big game on transparency before they came to power. They promised to be so much better. Prior to the election, the Prime Minister promised the Australian people that, if they elected him and the Australian Labor Party to office, he and his ministers would deliver transparency, integrity and accountability in everything they did. Those are the standards he told the Australian people he would uphold and that he wanted them to judge him by if he was elected as Prime Minister of Australia: transparency, integrity and accountability.

Now we know that these standards are not the standards that the Albanese government and the ministers are holding themselves to. The former Attorney-General, the member for Isaacs, loved preaching about accountability and integrity, but his government has done the exact opposite. He said that :

appropriate, prompt and proactive disclosure of government-held information informs community, increases participation and enhances decision-making, builds trust and confidence, is required and permitted by law and improves efficiency.

The point they made in opposition was that transparency actually promotes better government. But that's not what we're seeing in the bill.

What about the Minister for the Environment, who's responsible for the procedural mess we're dealing with today? What did he say when he was in opposition? He said, 'We deserve answers and transparency.' He also said it was not negotiable, and should not be negotiable, that the Prime Minister comply with the standing orders and properly answer questions. Clearly he's changed his tune in government.

And what about the Prime Minister? In his foreword to a Code of Conduct signed personally by him, we get this sort of sanctimony:

Australians deserve good government.

The Albanese Government is committed to integrity, fairness, honesty and accountability and Ministers in my Government (including Assistant Ministers) will observe standards of probity, governance and behaviour worthy of the Australian people.

In making all the fanfare that he did in relation to his Code of Conduct, at clause 4.4, under 'Responsibility and accountability', he said:

Ministers are required to provide an honest and comprehensive account of their exercise of public office, and of the activities of the agencies within their portfolios, in response to any reasonable and bona fide enquiry by a member of the Parliament or a Parliamentary Committee.

That's exactly what we should be seeing with the bill. Instead, we've seen a very different tune from this government. Instead of transparency, accountability and openness we've seen the approach demonstrated by this bill, where we have a government that is demanding that it be rammed through without proper consideration. More important than that, the approach to this bill is part of a very disturbing pattern around secrecy and opposition to scrutiny. There's overwhelming evidence that the resistance to scrutiny that we are seeing in the approach to this bill is endemic.

We've seen it in other areas, such as the surge in FOI refusals. The Office of the Australian Information Commissioner, the watchdog of the FOI system, said that the proportion of FOI requests being completely refused shot up to 27 per cent in the December 2024 quarter. By 31 March this year the proportion of requests that had been completely refused by government had, according to the OAIC dashboard, shot up to 31 per cent. We've seen it in this government's approach to consultation, which, extraordinarily, made nondisclosure agreements a condition of participation in too many areas. We saw it in the secrecy in relation to workplace relations reforms. They gagged small business, employers and industry groups that were directly targeted. They got people to sign legal gags and tried to enforce them because they wanted to lock them out of consultation.

This government should hang its head in shame. This is the same government that drafted a secret manual directing officials on how to avoid answering questions in Senate estimates, called 'Approaches to SEQoNs asked of all (or multiple) agencies'. The government was exposed because of a leak. The document was circulated among agencies, and the involvement of the Prime Minister 's Office is very murky.

This is a government that has repeatedly flouted orders for the production of documents. In fact, this government is now so egregious that the Senate has been forced into extraordinary procedural steps, like extending question time just to ensure basic standards of transparency. The Centre for Public Integrity has made clear that compliance with Senate orders for the production of documents has fallen to the lowest level since 1993. For whole generations of Australians, no government has been worse than this one in actually producing documents for scrutiny. Claims of public interest immunity, a claim that is used to oppose the release of documents, have tripled among this government, and we're seeing them made every single week.

We're seeing this in the malicious and petty slashing of staff from all those in opposition and on the crossbench, whose job it is to help hold this government to account. This government broke with decades of bipartisanship to reduce the number of staff. And we're not talking about electorate offices; we're talking about staff whose job it is to help us scrutinise the government.

That brings me back to this bill, which, as I've said, is just one more data point in a long line of data points that illustrate this government's addiction to secrecy. It's the sort of petulant approach that, as I said, you'd expect from a toddler. This government has now brought this bill into this House. The Senate, rightly, sent it to committee. Stakeholders want time to look at it. They want time to consider it. They want the chance to tell us, as legislators, how it will affect them. Instead, this government tried to rush it through. The Business Council of Australia has been clear:

… without significant changes … we risk embedding a system that's even slower, more complex and lacking the clarity and certainty needed for investment.

That's the Business Council, not the coalition. It's a serious concern. We should be examining those concerns in committee. Are those concerns borne out by evidence? Are changes required? What do the changes look like? Does this bill actually provide a solution to a productivity problem, or does it do the opposite, as industry has been telling us? I want to be clear: there are reform options that the coalition supports, but there are also serious issues with the legislation that we're being asked to consider. My colleagues have spoken at length to those issues.

I want to talk about scrutiny in this government's approach. As I said, this bill has already been referred to committee. Those opposite should be well aware of the importance of the committee's procedures and why we have committees in this place. It's worthwhile reminding people what Practice says about the importance of committees in the function of our parliament. It says:

The principal purpose of parliamentary committees is to perform functions which the Houses themselves are not well fitted to perform, that is, finding out the facts of a case or issue, examining witnesses, sifting evidence, and drawing up reasoned conclusions. Because of their composition and method of procedure, which is structured but generally informal compared with the Houses, committees are well suited to the gathering of evidence from expert groups or individuals. In a sense they 'take Parliament to the people' and allow direct contact between members of the public and representative groups of Members of the House. Not only do committee inquiries enable Members to be better informed about community views but in simply undertaking an inquiry committees may promote public debate on the subject at issue. The all-party composition of most committees and their propensity to operate across party lines are important features. This bipartisan approach generally manifests itself throughout the conduct of inquiries and the drawing up of conclusions. Committees oversight and scrutinise the Executive and are able to contribute towards better government. They also assist in ensuring a more informed administration and policy-making process, in working with the Executive on proposed legislation and other government initiatives.

So, this is what the purpose of the committee is in our system. This is why a committee inquiry into this bill has been established. This is why, because of the complexity of this bill, a reporting date for this committee has been listed as March next year.

Instead, as the Prime Minister said, we have a rushed attempt to bring this bill into this House and have it debated today, without the benefit of a committee inquiry. The Prime Minister is standing over the Senate and saying to the Senate that they will pass the bill in the next week of parliament sitting without the benefit of that sifting and weighing process which is vital to the committee processes of this parliament and vital to the legislative scrutiny that all of us who are not part of the executive—and this includes members opposite—have an absolute responsibility to do in regard to a bill with such economy-wide ramifications as this one. It is about whether the parliament should be allowed to do its job and whether all of us should benefit from the deliberations of the committee process and the weighty consideration that such a committee would give to a bill as complex and economy-wide as this.

What we have, in this bill, is an arrogant government that is instead trampling all over the committee process. It's clear that, by suspending standing orders to rush the debate today, the government has abandoned the longstanding position of the importance of proper consideration of legislation. It has also abandoned due process that must take this matter through a committee process. It has ignored the community benefit and the national interest in scrutiny and transparency and the use of the parliamentary process to deliver the best possible legislation in the national interest. Labor has taken this silly and entirely political approach, attempting to ram 1,500 pages of law and explanatory materials through the parliament without notice and with urgency.

I want to make a couple of closing comments to put the bill in context. Australians are dealing with a productivity problem. We can't afford to hardwire delay, confusion and litigation into our approvals system. The bill before the House is being sold as a productivity measure, but there are clear and present concerns that, far from improving productivity, this bill as presented would actually do the opposite. Parliament's duty is to write laws that work. Australians expect us to have genuinely considered the legislation that the government has put before us. They expect that laws are clear, proportionate and practical. This government does not respect that understanding. It does not respect the parliament and it does not respect the Australian people.

I rise today as the federal member for Newcastle, a city deeply proud of its historical heart which sits alongside our world-class beaches and our internationally recognised wetlands, to speak in very strong support of this Environment Protection Reform Bill 2025. This bill is about far more than legislative reform. It's about the kind of future we want to choose for our children, our grandchildren and the generations to come.

Newcastle is no stranger to transformation. We've evolved from our foundations in steelmaking, shipbuilding and heavy industry to a city of innovation, creativity and resilience. We know what hard work looks like. But we also know that the health of our environment underpins everything. Our harbour, our wetlands and our coastline from Merewether to Stockton are not just beautiful backdrops; they are part of our city's identity. They sustain livelihoods, tourism, recreation and community wellbeing. They provide the critical habitats for biodiversity and shorelines for threatened migratory shorebirds and, of course, the green and golden bell frog. Every worker who clocks on early in the morning, every family that walks the foreshore and every child who plays in our parks and on our beaches deserves clean air, clean water and a safe environment. This bill offers that better future.

The Environment Protection Reform Bill 2025 is the most significant overhaul of Australia's national environmental laws in a generation. It creates a streamlined, efficient and effective framework that cuts duplication, reduces the delays and restores trust in the system. For too long, approvals have been bogged down by complexity and inconsistency, frustrating businesses and communities alike. This bill replaces that patchwork with one clear, strong set of rules that are legally enforceable national environmental standards. They are the first of their kind in Australia's history.

Let's not hear this nonsense that these laws are not profound enough or that they're too profound for some members opposite. No longer will polluters be able to shop around for the weakest rules. No longer will Australians be left guessing which government is responsible when things go wrong. It delivers one system, one set of rules and one national approach underpinned by a tough, independent national environment protection authority with the powers and resources to enforce the law and hold offenders to account.

For Newcastle, this reform means real, tangible outcomes. It means a cleaner harbour and waterfront. Our port activity is vital to our regional economy, but our community also deserves clean water, safe recreation and restored shoreline amenity. Stronger standards and a tougher EPA mean better monitoring, less pollution and healthier waterways for everyone. It means stronger protections for our industrial zones as they undergo transition. The Hunter is at the forefront of the clean energy revolution with green hydrogen and ammonia, battery manufacturing, a clean energy precinct at the Port of Newcastle and a net zero manufacturing centre at Tighes Hill TAFE. We need a framework that supports that transition, not one that rewards inaction or delay.

It means investment certainty for the renewable energy and clean technology sectors. Investors want clarity. I do not understand how the coalition does not get this point. Investors want to know that environmental approvals will be handled efficiently and transparently. This bill gives them that confidence by unlocking new projects, cheap and clean energy, and new jobs—very important in regions like Newcastle and the Hunter. It means safer, healthier communities; stronger air quality standards; better land-use planning; and cleaner waterways as well as greater resilience to the growing impacts of climate change.

But this bill doesn't just tighten rules; it streamlines processes. For too long, approvals have been mired in duplication. This bill creates a single consistent framework with efficient, transparent decisions. For too many builders, it takes a longer time to get approval for a home than to build one. Building on the Australian Labor government's ambitious $43 billion housing agenda, the government announced in August that it would fast-track 26,000 homes currently under environmental assessment. But the measures in this bill tackle the underlying cause of delay while delivering stronger protections for nature.

In crafting these reforms, we have looked to three pillars: firstly, stronger protection and restoration; secondly, efficient and robust assessments and approvals; and, thirdly, accountability, including the National Environmental Protection Agency.

When it comes to housing, the Greens choose politics over progress every single time. They worked with Peter Dutton in the last term to block progress here in Canberra, they block housing in their local communities and they offer fantasy fixes that make the housing crisis worse. The Australian people have shown the Greens that they have a pretty dim view of opposition for opposition's sake. It's time they heeded the message and worked constructively with government. You've got an option. We can work this way, or we can work that way. You all should be on board, quite frankly, in the national interest to begin with.

But review after review has told us that these laws, our current environment laws, are not fit for purpose. We all know that. If you were all honest you would all admit that yourselves. In 2020, Professor Graeme Samuel delivered that review and made it very clear to all that the current system was broken: it's too slow, too complex and too weak. He called for strong national environmental standards and a tough, independent regulator to enforce them. Yet, since then, we've seen delay after delay after delay, and that is fuelled not only by community but by people who take advantage of political games.

Graeme Samuel himself has warned that the ongoing obstruction by the coalition and, disappointingly, by the Greens is a betrayal of the Australian government—and he is right. This is our one shot for a once-in-a-generation opportunity to fix a system that has failed both business and nature for far too long. The Greens want to frame this legislation as a tug of war between the environment and the economy. They assert a false choice: that you can have one but not the other. And that is simply wrong. You don't have to choose between the environment and jobs or business. You can protect and grow both. Rather than petty political stunts, the Greens should learn their lessons and work with the government to deliver what the Australian people want. The Australian people have voted not once but twice for this legislation. Let's get this done.

This is the same Greens party that teamed up with the coalition to block the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme in 2009, setting the stage for a decade—indeed, decades—of climate inaction. They also teamed up to send more of Australia's rubbish overseas, missing an opportunity to create jobs here and protect our environment. Whether it's the climate, housing or environmental reform, the Greens have too often put their own political interests above the national interest. If the Greens now choose to block this legislation, they will only have themselves to blame for the lack of progress on environmental law reform.

This bill is not about choosing between the environment and the economy. The two are inseparable. Strong standards provide certainty for investors and fairness for responsible operators. In Newcastle we've always understood that balance—prosperity through innovation while protecting our coast and waterways. This bill reflects that legacy.

This is nation-building reform. It creates a modern, trusted system of environmental protection. For the first time, the environmental information will be public in real time; for the first time, the Commonwealth will set binding standards; and, for the first time, there will be an independent, national EPA—a strong cop on the beat. This is what Australians expect, and it is what Labor is delivering.

This is a moment of decision. The people of Newcastle expect us to protect both jobs and the environment. We can deliver the renewable energy and the housing we need while safeguarding nature. Let's pass this bill. Let's protect our environment and build our economy at the same time. I commend this bill to the House.

It's a pleasure to follow the member for Newcastle, because—while we differ on a number of aspects of the Environment Protection Reform Bill 2025—as a new person to this place I do appreciate the real sense of collegiality that she has shown towards me in the last six months. I'd like to record my sincere appreciation for that.

It's a pleasure to rise to speak on this bill. I want to reflect—next week is the 50th anniversary of the dismissal of the Whitlam government and the subsequent election of the Fraser Liberal government. Some milestone achievements that were part of that government have been reflected in the parliament this week. We have, of course, the Freedom of Information Act, which was a crowning achievement of the Fraser Liberal government. It is disappointing to see the watering down and undermining of that bill this week, but it was a crowning achievement of a Liberal government.

And there were many milestones that the Fraser government implemented in respect of the environment. We had, of course, the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 1975. The Great Barrier Reef was declared a marine park. We ended sand mining on Fraser Island. We had the declaration of Kakadu National Park. We ended whaling in Australian waters and prohibited oil exploration and drilling on the Great Barrier Reef. And there were a number of internationally important conservation agreements, including a convention against trading endangered species, a convention on the conservation of seals in Antarctica and a convention on the international importance of wetlands.

I come from the Monash electorate, which is part of the great Gippsland region—which is the size of Switzerland. If you look at that entire regional area, there are some very important biodiversity and environmental aspects to that place. In my good friend the member for Gippsland's area, we've got the largest inland lake system in the Southern Hemisphere around Lakes Entrance. My good friend the member for Leichhardt has some family connections to Central Gippsland, which is known for its clean, green horticultural produce. We've got, in my electorate, Phillip Island, which, prior to COVID, attracted over a million international ticketed visitors a year, which I'm very proud of. It is right up there with Kakadu National Park, the Great Barrier Reef and other attractions. We also have some very special biodiversity and native wildlife species. We've got the orange-bellied parrot, which has its migratory flight path from King Island in Tasmania through our region to South Australia, also known as the Neophema chrysogaster. So environmental conservation and protection is something very dear to my heart.

I turn my remarks to debating this bill, the Environment Protection Reform Bill 2025, the first in a series of seven bills now being considered separately as part of the government's overhaul. From the beginning of this process, the shadow minister for the environment, the member for Moncrieff, has said one thing very clearly, and that is that environmental reform is too important to get wrong. As I referenced earlier, the Liberal Party have a very proud history and heritage on this issue. Australians deserve reform that really tackles a number of imperatives: it protects our environment, and it supports jobs, investment and productivity. There should be room for all of those imperatives in the way that we approach policy and legislative reform. Unfortunately, this bill falls short on those areas. In fact, we've seen three years of promises and delays. The government has now finally brought forward—

You delayed it.

a 1,459-page legislative package, and it's expecting industry, stakeholders and parliamentarians to digest it in just three weeks. That's not consultation; that is chaos. We've seen far too many examples of that recently. We've seen the rushed approach to the FOI legislation. We've seen the underresourcing, for example, or cutting of opposition staff members, who play a really important role, I think, in making sure we can respectfully and robustly have a contest of ideas in this place that lands somewhere on balanced, reasonable legislation.

Even the minister himself has, at one point, said that these reforms would take 12 to 18 months to finalise. That's a pretty reasonable approach, to take a considered, methodical way forward. I have to ask: why the rush before Christmas? Why force through some of the most significant environmental reform in an entire generation with barely enough time to read through it? I don't think that that's good for the democratic process. I don't think that that helps us mould a better legislative and regulatory reform process. And I really don't think that's doing justice to Australians, to regional Australians, who I represent, and to the environment. Stakeholders have been pretty clear on this. This legislation, in its current form, is completely unworkable. Business groups, environment groups and local communities are all saying the same thing. This process is rushed, it is inconsistent, and it is overly complex.

What about Graeme Samuel? What did he say? What about Ken Henry? What did he say?

We've seen too many examples right now of state and federal governments, Labor governments, just riding roughshod over local communities, over regional communities. At the moment, we've got yet another rushed renewable project in West Gippsland, in Darnum. I'm very proud to represent a region that contributes 23 per cent of the nation's milk output and 26 per cent of Victoria's beef. We've got the best soil out of anywhere in Australia. It's prime agricultural farmland, and yet we've got a big battery energy storage project that's just being lumped on paddocks in that community. Lily D'Ambrosio, the Victorian energy minister, has scant regard for the views and other productive activities of regional Victorians. That's an example of where Labor, again, are just riding roughshod over local communities.

I also have real concern about the productivity that this bill will undermine. The government loves to talk about productivity. It had a talkfest—it took the idea from Kevin Rudd's 2020 roundtable—on productivity recently. It certainly talks about productivity, but it's not really serious about implementing steps that are practical and enhance productivity measures. In fact, this bill will take productivity backwards. We've already got a serious productivity problem. We're ranked second last in the OECD, just above Mexico. Australia used to be near the top of the pops on productivity across the OECD, but, under successive Labor governments, we've seen that decline and be whittled away. This bill is just another spoke in the wheels of productivity in this country.

In their first term alone, more than 5,000 new regulations were introduced. I don't think this government has ever met a regulation it didn't like. I talk to a lot of businesses in my electorate that are drowning in a quagmire of green tape. It does not serve the environment, it does not protect regional jobs, and it does not enhance productivity. This is not reform; this is regression. Economists have been tolling the bell on this. They have warned that underinvestment in research and development is already dragging our productivity down. We invest a lot in research, particularly in the agriculture sector, in my region. I'm very proud that Monash hosts the Darnum research facility on dairy. We are trying our best to lift up productivity and kickstart innovation, and this bill really runs counter to all of those principles. Without balanced reform, we're going to risk pushing that investment offshore. That means fewer jobs, less growth and a weaker economy.

Let's not forget Labor's history in this area. Under former minister Plibersek, the government promised a complete EPBC overhaul by the end of 2023. That failed to be delivered. It was a friendless proposal that collapsed under its own weight. Minister Watt, the Prime Minister's so-called Mr Fix It, has inherited a mess, and, to his credit, he's tried to work through that mess. He claims that this new package is 'balanced reform', but stakeholders have been telling the coalition otherwise, and those stakeholders include environment groups and local community groups from metropolitan areas and regional areas like mine. They tell us otherwise. Western Australia's premier even had to step in to stop Labor's last attempt at this bill. That's how bad it was. There are a number of Labor premiers at the moment—from Chris Minns in New South Wales, who's very sensibly had some words to say about excise tax, to the WA Labor premier—who really are running counter views to a number of things that this federal Labor government are trying to achieve. After three years and two ministers, the government has produced a reform that's really worse than the 26-year-old law that it's seeking to replace. The key reasons for that are that it's unworkable and it's massive overreach.

There is a glaring issue, and that is the environment protection authority itself. This government came to its administration saying that it wanted to streamline regulation; that, where possible, it's always preferable to harmonise and streamline regulation; and that, where you're able to meet the intention of an agency, a bill or a piece of regulation, there's no point asking businesses, community groups and environment groups to have to grapple with overlapping state and federal regulatory burdens. That's what we've effectively got with two levels of EPAs at a state level and at a federal level. The Graeme Samuel review, which was commissioned by the coalition, never recommended an EPA, because we've got that state based compliance structure. What it recommended was a compliance commissioner, not an approval authority.

I speak to a whole range of businesses in my electorate, mainly small to medium businesses, from agriculture, meat processing and dairy processing. They are really up against it right now. There's a whole lot of uncertainty in international markets. Productivity is declining, but red tape and green tape are just killing regional businesses. This is going to be another spoke in the wheel for those businesses. There are no clear performance indicators. There's no binding statement of expectations. There's no ministerial accountability for the CEO. So, under the bill, the CEO can be dismissed only by the governor-general, and that's just absurd. Any government body wielding this much power should answer directly to the minister—that is respecting the primacy of that office and the parliament as well as the function and role of the executive.

We also have duplication, and that really is a huge point of frustration for many businesses that I speak to. The bill needlessly repeats existing scopes 1 and 2 emissions reporting requirements, and that's already covered under the Safeguard Mechanism. Labor claims to be cutting red and green tape, but this bill is creating more of both. It also contains 37 separate definitions of unacceptable impacts. How can a business possibly operate under that kind of confusion? I address my remarks particularly to small- and medium-business operators because, unlike big corporations, they don't have a whole compliance department. They don't have a whole HR department. If you're a small-business owner, you're the compliance officer, you're the HR officer and you're the marketing manager, and you've got to find time at the end of the day to be able to for your customers. With respect, I just don't think that's a concept Labor understands, respects or can relate to.

I've got a number of issues with this bill. I do not think that it in any way meets those ambitions of protecting the environment or addressing productivity issues that we have in this country in a really reasonable way. I was quite pleased to listen to the previous contribution respectfully, and I'd encourage others to perhaps reflect on doing the same.

I thank all of my colleagues who clearly have given up a bit of time in their day to come and listen to the contribution on the Environment Protection Reform Bill 2025. I'll start my remarks by saying that I'm very fond of the member for Monash and hold her in high regard, but her comments about rushing this bill through the House is actually quite ironic. A bit of history for the member for Monash is that when the Leader of the Opposition was the then environment minister, she too brought a bill that was meant to be the then federal government's response to the Samuel review that they commissioned. What did the Leader of the Opposition do? She brought in a bill that undermined the key principle and the key recommendation of the Samuel review, which is that the federal government and this place need to have strong federal, national environmental standards that are upheld by the federal government and by the parliament. What did the then minister for the environment, now Leader of the Opposition, do? She brought in a bill that would have given all of the powers to the states, completely taking the federal government away from environmental standards and away from environmental decision-making.

There's worse than that. When the member for Monash talked about rushing through, I looked at this speaking list, and there is ample opportunity for any single member on that side of the House to contribute their views to this debate. In fact, we welcome the contributions of those opposite and we have extended the sittings to ensure that every member of this place gets a chance to contribute to this debate. Of course, that wasn't the approach of the former government. That wasn't the approach of the Leader of the Opposition when she was the environment minister, or when Christian Porter, who was the then Leader of the House, used the numbers of the Morrison government to crunch debate and to ensure that members didn't get a say on the government's environmental approvals and didn't get a say on the government's proposed environmental laws, which were completely ignoring the Samuel review that they commissioned. Thankfully, the Senate decided to throw those environment laws in the bin where they belonged. But never forget that their attempt to ram through environment laws was a last-ditch attempt by a government that was on its last legs, by a person who's now the Leader of the Opposition and who ignored the very recommendations that her government asked for.

But that is not the approach that we have taken. This set of bills sets out a strong regime of environmental protection that this parliament should absolutely vote for. The EPBC reforms contain a number of huge steps forward, including setting out federal, national environmental standards—something that will be made possible by this bill.

This bill also creates an environmental protection agency. This bill responds to a number of the recommendations of Professor Samuel. This bill also creates a whole range of different policies that will ensure that the environment benefits from potential applications, including a net gain principle. This bill will speed up approvals. This bill will ensure that there is transparency and accountability in environmental decision-making including, for the very first time, that proponents submit the amount of emissions that will be included as part of any proposal in any application for federal environmental approvals.

This bill seeks to do the genuinely difficult thing of balancing the interests of businesses with the absolutely essential responsibility that we all have as custodians of our environment to adhere to and uphold our great national traditions.

The EPBC reform package that is before the House is one that every single member of this parliament should be voting for. I know that those opposite are in disarray. I know that the Liberal Party and the Nationals don't know whether they're Arthur or Martha at this moment. One thing that would be a great signal for the people that they are clearly making absolutely no sense to now is to say that, instead of walking away, just saying no and killing off the environmental protection reform bills, they are actually willing to be sensible and deal with the government to ensure that these bills can pass both houses of the parliament. But I am not hopeful. I am not hopeful that the Liberal Party and the Nationals are coherent or cohesive enough to actually form a position on anything, let alone something as important and complicated as environmental approvals.

Obviously, we will engage in good faith with the coalition and the Greens to try and ensure that there is a strong set of bills that pass through the parliament, but I am not hopeful, given the state of the Liberal Party and the Nationals coalition today, where lots of clandestine meetings are happening at restaurants in Kingston as opposed to actually coming together and forming some sort of coherent policy on this bill.

I represent the wonderful people of Macnamara. Everyone in this place knows that the people of Macnamara stand for strong climate action and that the people of Macnamara stand for protecting our environment. I have some of the most extraordinary environmental and community groups which I am so proud to represent, and we even have our own nature project—one of the largest projects of urban renewal in Australia's history inside a city, where we turned the old Elsternwick golf course into the Yalukit Willam Nature Reserve. We are seeing endangered species coming back. We're seeing growling grass frogs, come back. The community is building habitats for them and seeing the natural wildlife develop around this incredibly beautiful part of our local community. It's just inspiring.

We have the Port Phillip EcoCentre, which, of course, were proud to support as well. It is a hub of citizen science, community engagement and environmental lessons in education, which engages a lot of our local schools and so many different parts of our community. The people of Macnamara want to see John Howard's old environmental reforms updated. I want to see John Howard's old environmental reforms and EPBC bill updated.

The recent state of the environment report found that most indicators for the state and trend of plants and animals show a decline and that the number of threatened terrestrial and marine species has risen. We have a responsibility to act right now. That is why we have picked up the recommendations made by Professor Samuel, which were completely ignored by those who asked him to do that work, and put together a set of reforms that will improve the environmental protection and that will ensure that businesses have timely responses. If it's a no, it's a quick no. If it's a yes, it's a yes and work through those conditions. More importantly, it's to ensure that the environmental standards that we want to leave for the next generation are strong and adhered to and that the federal government is right in ensuring that there are national standards.

Professor Samuel's recommendations were important and he said himself:

There is no variation in any significant or indeed in any small way from the recommendations of the review. That's why I'm satisfied … after five torturous years.

We are going to set up the National Environmental Protection Agency, one that is going to be a tough cop on the beat to ensure that environmental standards, and the conditions in environmental approvals are adhered to and that, if someone is doing the wrong thing, there will be consequences. I take this opportunity to give a shout-out to the incredible activists of the Labor Environment Action Network, who championed the EPA. The National EPA is an agency that LEAN members have fought for for many years, and they have been critical in ensuring it didn't fall off the agenda. When the Liberals and the Greens teamed up to block a federal EPA last parliament, it was LEAN members who fought hard to ensure we recommitted to the EPA in these bills. When these bills pass through the parliament, as I hope they will, LEAN members will have cause to be very proud of themselves, having made this fantastic contribution to our environmental agencies and to our environmental regime.

There are so many other parts of this that I'm very proud of. Having national environmental standards for the first time, prescribed by the minister, is something that these bills will make possible, and hopefully we will see it become reality. I also take this opportunity to reaffirm the Minister for the Environment and Water's commitment that the RFAs, the regional forestry agreements, will have to adhere to our national environmental standards. That's something that has also been fought for for a long time by activists, and it will ensure that our RFAs are held to federal standards.

It's pretty simple: these bills are an opportunity that doesn't come around very often. Last parliament we saw the Liberals and the Greens team up to block the EPA time and time again. Last parliament we saw the Liberals and the Greens team up to block a whole range of policies. Right now, they can work together to block these environment bills. It would be unsurprising if the Liberal Party did that, and it would be a complete neglect of our environmental standards if the Greens were to work with the coalition to block this set of reforms that includes strong environmental approvals.

This parliament has a chance. Yes, there can be negotiations and amendments to bills, and that is what will happen, but right now we as a parliament need to take this opportunity to update our environmental protection. We need to ensure there are strong environmental standards, and we need a partner in doing so. I say to all members of this place and the other place: now is the time to improve our environmental regime. It'll be a great reform that we leave to the next generation. As Professor Samuel said, it is bitterly disappointing to see posturing and political games being played. We should put political games aside and get this done for this generation and generations to come.

Debate adjourned.

The question now is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Curtin be agreed to:

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

"the House declines to give the bill a second reading, and calls for an independent review of the Freedom of Information Act 1982, with terms of reference to provide recommendations on how best to:

(1) encourage greater proactive disclosure of information to the public, and thus reduce the need for formal freedom of information requests;

(2) maximise accessibility, transparency and efficiency for genuine and lawful freedom of information requests, including through setting an appropriate fee structure;

(3) improve the timeliness of dealing with freedom of information requests, including review processes;

(4) ensure that exemptions to disclosure requirements do not go further than is required for good government;

(5) create a robust system for the resourcing, training, auditing, and oversight of authorised officers responsible for freedom of information decisions;

(6) manage vexatious and frivolous requests;

(7) address the potential impact of artificial intelligence, both to improve freedom of information processing and to mitigate the impact of its use in generating vexatious and frivolous requests; and

(8) provide structural support for public servants to provide frank, honest, timely and evidence-based advice".

Question negatived.

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

I declare that the Freedom of Information Amendment Bill 2025 stands referred to the Federation Chamber for further consideration.

We must balance the economy and the environment. The member for McNamara previously said that his side is allowing debate on the Environment Protection Reform Bill 2025 and related bills, and I thank him for that. But our environment deserves more than slogans; it deserves action that's practical, balanced and accountable.

In the electorate of Cook, we know this better than most. From the seagrass beds of Botany Bay to the dunes of Cronulla, our community treasures its coastland and its bushland. We see firsthand what happens when environmental policy loses touch with local realities and industry. Yes, we want policies that protect our coastline, not bureaucracy that strangles investment or paralyses progress, and we certainly don't need another 1,500 pages of red tape from a government that's all talk and no delivery. I remember Winston Churchill once said, 'This report, by its very length, defends itself against the risk of being read.' Well, this 1,500-page bill, by its very length, defends itself against the risk of being read. That's unfortunate, because, right now, this government has actually alienated both industry groups and environmental groups, and that's hard to do. Trying to ram through this bill, all 1,500 pages of it—something that the parliament cannot possibly engage in, in such a short time—without proper consultation with either industry or environment, is actually hurting democracy and risks hurting the environment and hurting industry.

During the last term, the environment minister promised to deliver a full overhaul of the EPBC Act by the end of 2023. The environment minister missed that deadline, and, nearly two years later, we're still debating a bill riddled with uncertainty.

Industry and environmental groups alike agree that this bill fails both business and the environment. It won't—

An honourable member interjecting—

I'll take the interjection. I know a fair bit about business. What do you know about business, over there, in your unionised spot?

Order!

What's your business experience?

Order! I remind the speaker to address people by their appropriate titles.

Thank you—and maybe they would like to do the same. Industry and the environment groups agree, alike: the bills fails—

You looked better when you were up the front!

Order! Again, speaker—

Industry and environment groups alike agree: the bill fails both business and the environment. It won't speed up approvals or create confidence. It will simply tie up investment in process, while doing little to improve outcomes.

The coalition supports strong, clear environmental standards, but they must be practical. The concept of unacceptable impacts should sit within the environment standards framework, as the Samuel review recommended, not be buried in legislative grey areas.

An honourable member interjecting—

I'll take that. What was the interjection? I'll enjoy this!

Sorry, I can't hear you, you're so far back! I think you've been bulleted to the back of parliament. It's hard to hear you from back there.

An honourable member interjecting—

Order!

Well, you could stop the interjection or you could sit me down.

Order! I just remind the speaker at the dispatch box to address people by their appropriate titles. Continue with your contribution. I would remind members of the House that the speaker will be heard in silence—

Thank you.

as we afford the courtesy to all members of this place when they are speaking—including from the dispatch box.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker; understood. Industry and environmental groups alike agree: this bill fails both business and the environment. It won't speed up approvals or create confidence. It will simply tie up investment in process, while doing very little to achieve practical outcomes.

The coalition supports strong, clear environmental standards, but they must be practical. We have a proud history of doing this, whether it was John Howard creating the marine parks that surround our beautiful continent and keep our sea life and coral reefs protected and enshrine them for generations to come, or whether it was the Morrison government or the Abbott government actually bringing this government to sign up to Paris—

That was Turnbull!

It was Abbott, actually. I thought you might know that, having spent so much time here.

An honourable member interjecting—

If you're going to interject—if they're going to interject, Deputy Speaker, I'll be responding to it.

The coalition supports strong, clear environmental standards, but they must be practical. The concept of unacceptable impacts should sit within the environmental standards framework, as the Samuel review recommended, and not be buried by legislative grey areas. We also believe the new Environmental Protection Agency must be accountable to the minister, not be another layer of unchecked bureaucracy. When unelected officials make decisions that affect jobs and investment, someone in government must answer for them.

In Cook, my community lives on the front line of environmental change. Locals care deeply about our beaches, our dunes, our bushland and our marine life. We're surrounded by the Hacking River in the south, the Georges River in the north, and the beautiful beach of Bate Bay in the east, and we're surrounded by national park. We care about this area, and we've seen what can happen when pollution and erosion go unchecked: beaches narrow, ecosystems decline and our coastal identity suffers.

That's why I support strong action in building up our beaches We've got a fantastic local organisation there called C Care, which started with just three local surfers who had watched our beaches erode. They came together to form community around my local electorate in Cook and lobby the federal, state and local government to stop erosion action. I'm pleased to see—and I congratulate them—the Sutherland Shire Council listening to these grassroots community groups and the almost 1,000 people who signed up to the petition we put out. They have started to rebuild those dunes. But, unfortunately, Bate Bay needs long-term solutions. In storms, this sand will continue to erode, and we need to do more to protect the beaches.

We also need to do more to get strong action against plastic pollution. The Sutherland Shire has been a leader in this area. They had plastic-free Cronulla, where the business community self-organised to rid Cronulla of plastic—plastic plates, plastic cutlery and plastic takeaway containers—practical, industry supported measures that keep plastics out of our oceans and out of our food chains. I'd also like to acknowledge Councillor Kal Glanznig for his efforts in doing that, as well as Surfrider Foundation Cronulla and Joe Glendinning. My community wants rules that protect the beauty of Bate Bay, Cronulla Beach, Port Hacking and the Georges River as well as our bushland. We want beauty that protects Towra Point, Botany Bay and the UNESCO wetlands that surround my beautiful electorate. What the community don't want, though, is new layers of bureaucracy that delay the restoration of dunes and local habitats or that penalise industry.

This government talks big about biodiversity but has ignored the basics. While it might fund activist groups—such as the Environmental Defenders Office, which was judicially criticised in a Federal Court case for witness coaching and presenting evidence that was found to lack integrity—39 species have gone extinct under this government's watch, including the Christmas Island shrew.

That's a failure wrapped in self-congratulation. Under the coalition, Australia has led the world in rooftop solar, and I'm pleased to see that the government is still pushing this forward. In waste reform, our recycling modernisation fund helped transform the recycling sector, some of which is also in my electorate of Cook, as the Breen group looks at recycling and waste disposal. We looked at cutting plastic litter as well as expanding batteries and food waste recycling programs. We backed ReMade in Australia, the initiative to give consumers confidence that recycled products are made here, at home, in Australia—because we really do believe in a future made in Australia, not a future bailed out in Australia.

When it comes to coastal care, our focus has always been on local action: dune restoration, habitat grants and community clean-up programs—and there are a number of community clean-up programs every weekend in the electorate. Whether it is the community-organised ones, the Surfrider-organised ones or the Sutherland Shire Council organised ones, these programs are fantastic.

That's the balance we believe in: protecting the environment. But, critically, we must support jobs, tourism and recreation. The coalition wants an environment law that actually works, that protects our beautiful beaches across Australia and across Cook, that protects our beautiful bushland—like the Royal National Park on my electorate's doorstep—and that supports local jobs and the tourism that exists in Cook, as well as the local businesses, many of which have gone plastic-free, and restores the confidence of investors as well. We'll fight for a bill that's simple, that's strong and that's workable—one that cuts plastic pollution and safeguards our coastline but doesn't punish the people and the businesses that build Australia's and my electorate's future.

In Cook we are proud to be coastal custodians. We need a government that can match that pride with policy that works. Until it does, we'll keep holding it to account.

Some of the issues that we have in particular with this bill are that the CEO of the EPA must still be accountable to the minister and that the definition of net gain needs greater clarity, with guard rails in place to ensure certainty not just for industry but also for the environment. Labor is completely divided on whether they support jobs or the wealth created by our nation and its resources sector. They put off the decision on the North West Shelf until after the election, and then they sacked the minister responsible. Now a new minister has come in, providing preliminary approval for a project, while the Prime Minister has recruited a Greens defector who was vehemently against the project. Industry and business need certainty so that they can invest in Australia with confidence, to create jobs and boost our economy.

Earlier I spoke about the 39th extinction. We've got that extinction but also a growing number of animals now on the endangered list that previously were not. The 39th extinction came only months after the government's international commitment to prevent extinctions. It's a monumental government failing. It's a truly sobering statistic to have lost Australia's only shrew, and it's the latest in a litany of broken promises by this government.

Australia should be disappointed with the Albanese government's failure to act on the algal bloom that has been blooming for months and has significantly affected the South Australian coastline. The Albanese government failed to listen to scientists as long as 18 months ago. They failed to listen to scientists four months ago, when dead fish were washing up on those beaches. Today, more than 14,000 marine animals have died because of the Albanese government's failure to listen to these scientists. Today, local fishing and tourism businesses are hurting because the Albanese government failed to respond sooner.

South Australians, all Australians, should be disappointed by this Labor government, because all of this should have been addressed much sooner. If only they had listened to the advice. When Minister Plibersek tried to introduce these reforms into the last parliament, they were seen as too left wing for the Labor government, which is why the Western Australian Premier had to step in and contact the Prime Minister—and just like that, overnight, the bills were stopped on the eve of the election.

Labor have promised in two elections to deliver an environmental protection agency, and, after four years, they have still not delivered on that promise. Labor have now introduced the proposed reforms into this chamber. In trying to ram through these bill that have already been sent to a Senate inquiry that's due to report back on 24 March 2026, Labor wanted it to report back within seeks to allegedly try and pass the bills this year. That is not scrutiny; that's scandal. This set of bills and the explanatory memorandum are too long for us to consider in that time, and the Senate inquiry needs to be given the time to run. The minister is looking to do a deal with either the coalition or the Greens by calling these back from the Senate inquiry process to rush these through by the end of the year.

Thank goodness that speech is over and done with. What a bunch of rubbish was coming from the member for Cook. I believe the Moreton Bay region is the very best place to live in the world. Moreton Bay, just north of Brisbane, is home to native platypus, turtles, frogs, lizards, snakes and many species of birds. We have flying foxes, native eels and a significant koala population, as well as powerful owls, which we know are vulnerable to extinction.

Recently I was talking to students at a school in Lawnton. I looked to my right and up there in the tree was a koala—right outside the classroom. There are very few places in this country where this could happen. Moreton Bay is also home to one of only a handful of urban platypus populations in Australia, and it's found right on the South Pine River. We have wet and dry eucalypt forest, rainforest, creek systems and coastal and wetland ecosystems. Nearly 30 years ago our local council had the foresight to preserve some of our precious Moreton Bay rainforest ecosystems, after local residents petitioned the council to save the land around Eatons Hill from residential development. Kumbartcho Sanctuary is now a wonderful place to discover and appreciate Moreton Bay's rainforest ecosystems. The sanctuary is an important wildlife highway, providing a safe place for wildlife to move from the state forest to the river. This rare pocket of untouched rainforest has six kilometres of walking paths throughout the forest and near the river.

Saving this land is the only reason we have a unique urban platypus population. That is why the Albanese Labor government has committed $1.6 million for new, improved facilities at the sanctuary to ensure that this important land holding is maintained for future generations. I also acknowledge the support of local councillor Cath Tonks in ensuring that the sanctuary is a priority for the council and the Moreton Bay region. At the mill in Petrie, koala populations have grown by 22 per cent annually since 2017. But we all know that overall our koala populations have been severely impacted over time by development and much-needed housing. The message from my community and across the nation at the election was clear: we want laws that protect the environment, our unique habitats—our koalas—while giving certainty to those who invest, build and create jobs.

For far too long, Australia's environmental laws have been broken, outdated, complex, and failing both nature and business. Today we have the opportunity to fix them. The EPBC Act is last century. Those laws were introduced in 1999—more than 25 years ago—and do not reflect modern environmental science or community expectations for nature, protection and sustainability. It is clear that the need for change is urgent.

The Environment Protection Reform Bill 2025 represents the most significant overhaul of environmental law in a generation. It is an opportunity for important change, and I urge the opposition and the Greens to take up that opportunity. You may not get everything you want, but I think we can all agree that the current laws are archaic and do nothing to protect the environment. This bill delivers strong protections, faster approvals and greater accountability through the creation of Australia's first ever independent National Environmental Protection Agency. This bill is about getting the balance right between protecting our environment and delivering fast approvals for good projects, particularly for housing and transport infrastructure, in fast-growing regions like mine.

Moreton Bay is one of Australia's fastest-growing regions. It is expected that in the next 20 years there will be 210,000 new residents. That's almost the size of Hobart. From young families priced out of Brisbane to those who are looking to retire or those coming from the south to a greater weather and lifestyle, outer urban centres like Moreton Bay are and will continue to be the most impacted by growth. It's only fair that we deliver a strong framework that will protect communities like mine from development in the wrong places while encouraging it and making it easier in the right places.

For too long the grey area between federal and state systems has meant confusion, delay and frustration for communities and businesses. The measures in this bill will tackle the underlying cause of delay while also delivering greater protections for nature. Under these reforms we will remove duplication through new agreements between the Commonwealth and states. There will be faster approvals for good projects, particularly in housing, clean energy and regional infrastructure, while ensuring that environmental safeguards are not compromised.

The National Environmental Protection Agency will be an independent environmental watchdog with real teeth. The new laws will introduce national environmental standards—clear, enforceable rules that cannot be ignored or watered down. And they will empower an independent regulator to act when those standards are breached.

Five years ago, the Samuel review, commissioned by the opposition leader, found the current EPBC Act benefited no-one—not business, not the environment. The review gave the then government a framework for these laws and they promptly shelved the recommendations. Those opposite claim that these laws are too rushed, but they have been aware of the scaffolding and the road map for these laws for five long years. They have had five long years to consider these issues raised by Dr Graeme Samuel.

The member for Cook mentioned 'all talk and no action'. Well, the member for Cook should take a look in the mirror. He talks about protecting the environment while, at the same time, his coalition wants to dump net zero and opposes these bills. Everyone in this place has known that we made a commitment at the election to establish a federal environment protection agency and undertake national environmental law reform. Labor is the party for major environment reform but we are also the party for workers, for jobs and for housing. The bills are about getting the balance right—laws that are good for business and good for the environment. We can and we must do both.

From the beautiful Great Barrier Reef to the rare platypus in the South Pine River, our natural environment is too important to risk. These bills will deliver on thousands of jobs in construction, agriculture and tourism and on clean energy projects, our renewable energy transition and a future made in Australia. We cannot afford to wait for another review, another inquiry or another election cycle; our environment and our economy are too important. The time to act is now because every delay not only costs us precious biodiversity but also costs us jobs—jobs that could be created today in the outer suburbs and regions, where economic opportunity must be matched by decisive leadership.

It is possible to grow our economy, build homes and create jobs while protecting the natural wonders that define our national identity. Only the Labor government will deliver this important change. I commend these bills to the House.

I rise to speak on the Environment Protection Reform Bill 2025 and the six associated bills. After having years to approach the matter of a much-needed overhaul of the EPBC Act, we're here in this place, forced to deal with this extremely complex piece of reform in a pre-Christmas flurry. Perhaps the Albanese government is hoping that we don't have enough time to dissect the 1,500 pages and take a close look at the fine print. This is a piece of work that Labor promised would be finished by the end of 2023. This shows a lack of respect from Labor, who first tabled these seven bills separately to make up what is the revised EPBC Act. And then yesterday, when the debate started, the first order of business for Labor was to gag debate and use their numbers to bundle all the bills together so we could have a faster debate. This is for no other reason than to rush this reform through by the end of this sitting week. This reform is far too important to all Australians to rush. Even the Environmental Defenders Office, in a media release less than a week ago, issued their first impressions, while their lawyers pored over the details in the hundreds of pages.

These are very important bills—they will have an important impact, eventually, on all Australians—and they require thorough examination. This should not be done at the end of years of delay in such a big hurry. One thing that just about all stakeholders, from the environmentalists to the developers, do agree on is that they do not like what they've seen in this piece of reform. Part of the concern is the amount of control that falls into the states' and territories' hands. Through the net gain clause, along with the federal government, now the state and territory ministers can write their own increased cheques on the cost of biodiversity impacts. This will have devastating effects. How is it better, how is it cheaper, and how is it fairer? How can anyone embarking on a development have any certainty about what they can or can't do when the rules change from case to case and from state to state?

Let's get to the crux of another matter. How on earth are we able to measure and implement the increasing escalation of biodiversity offsets that will now be calculated by some mysterious formula called net gain? How can we debate the issue when we have no clarity on what 'net gain' means? Net gain is a concept that will take more agricultural land out of food production and will cause biodiversity offset costs to skyrocket even further. We also have no clear definition on what makes up the 'unacceptable impact'. If we don't know that, how can developers? How are they able to go and work out what it is for them? The concept of 'national interest' is another pitfall waiting to swallow future development that will never see the light of day due to these reforms. The Albanese government claim they want to speed up approvals and get productivity moving. We're going in the wrong direction.

Nobody denies that people are doing it tough right across regional Australia, particularly in my area of the seat of Parkes. Our country is in the grip of a cost-of-living crisis. We are in the grip of a housing crisis as well. The Albanese Labor government has committed to addressing the housing shortage by building new houses. The National Housing Accord target is 1.2 million new homes over five years. And yet here we are, with the Labor government trying to dress up the unworkable act by not only failing to impress those who have environmental concerns but also shackling developers even more. This is another move that is not cheaper, not better and not fairer.

Already across the Parkes electorate I'm hearing horror stories of the unwieldy monster that is called the Biodiversity Offsets Scheme. Let me tell you a story of the Wilcannia Weir, the much delayed and very necessary piece of infrastructure needed to ensure the water supply of a remote town with a majority-Indigenous population. The new weir was originally costed and funded at $30 million back in 2022. Now, just three years on, the cost for that same weir has blown out to over $100 million. I'm advised that $17 million of that price is going to biodiversity offsets. That's more than half of the original cost for that project. Again, it's not cheaper, not better and certainly not fairer, and there is still no weir.

Here are some more eyewatering examples of the Biodiversity Offsets Scheme at work. These are projects that have not gone ahead or have been seriously downscaled, with the offset costs being a major contributing factor. The first is a new residential subdivision of 600 homes planned for Moree Plains Shire to capitalise on the Inland Rail project. This carried a Biodiversity Offsets Scheme price tag of $120 million. That is more than the $90 million value of the entire project. Another project in Moree, a 300-student agricultural college with an offset price tag of $3 million to $5.5 million, was stopped. The project was lost. A 40-home residential subdivision plan for Armidale had a $3 million offset. The project was reduced down to 10 homes. In the Parkes Shire, 40 new homes attracted $2 million in biodiversity offsets, and that project didn't go ahead. In Tamworth—this is an extremely sad story in a housing crisis—a 46-lot residential estate was lost because of a $16.2 million offset cost. A 96-lot residential subdivision was lost to a $19 million offset cost. A 24-lot subdivision was lost to a $3 million offset cost. A 50-lot subdivision north of Tamworth was lost to a $6 million offset cost. A 28-lot subdivision was lost to a $2.8 million offset cost. That's a total of 244 new homes lost to offset costs in the Tamworth area alone, and it will get worse under this revised act because of the net gain clause.

Where is the transparency behind this enormous offset price tag and what is the cost to our housing, jobs, infrastructure and so much more? Where is the evidence of all of this wonderful environmental offset that has been paid for by the other millions and billions of dollars that have come from the offset schemes right across our great country? We have a government that is committed to approvals and committed to productivity, but who is taking oversight of a scheme where the offset costs are sometimes higher than the value of the actual project? Something here doesn't add up.

In addition, the Inland Rail, a critical driver for investment, growth and job creation, is facing an offset cost of $1.375 billion. Something's wrong. In Narromine shire, a requirement to build a small part of a new road under the Newell Highway, disturbing a minimal 36 hectares, carried a $20 million offset cost that somehow was revised down to $10 million. There is a $500 million biodiversity offset on a project to raise the wall of Wyangala Dam, to droughtproof and flood-proof the whole of the Central West. That project is still under assessment. And the Transgrid project is looking at a $1.2 billion cost for biodiversity offsets for the HumeLink transmission line between Wagga and South Australia—a massive amount that will increase power costs even more.

This change to the act will not improve it; it will make it worse. This is not a matter of not caring about the environment. As I've said, there are voices from each side of the debate chiming in over these reforms. This is a case where reforms are long overdue. This is a complex case where reforms are being crammed through before Christmas. They have far-reaching implications for housing, productivity, the cost of living and livability in regional Australia. More time, more consideration and more transparency are needed in this place.

Better, cheaper, fairer? Labor's proposed reforms to the EPBC Act will have long-lasting negative impacts if the Albanese government continues to ram them through this House. These reforms are not better than what we've got now, and they're certainly not fairer.

For people who care about our natural environment, there is always an origin story, a time when they were struck by the awe and wonder of nature, and that moment came for me later in life. My husband and I were working in Samoa in our late 20s. Many of our Samoan colleagues at the time told us to go down to a local village to do some snorkelling and see the giant clams. I was sceptical about these clams—how magnificent and great could they be? We snorkellled out to the marine sanctuary, and it was there that I was struck by the wonder of these creatures because they were truly spectacular. They were really big, but what struck me most were the iridescent colours, which almost glowed through the water.

It's an awe and wonder that I shared with my son, Max. So, when I read last year that the conservation status for giant clams had moved from 'vulnerable' to 'critically endangered', it brought home the fragility of our environment and the urgency to protect it. I promised that, once Max learnt to snorkel, we'd take him to see the giant clams in Samoa. I've now brought forward that trip. I was struck by the wonder of nature because of those giant clams. I think, for my son, it was the trip to the Great Barrier Reef two years ago. He was blown away by the sea life and coral and became very fond of a big parrot fish called Wally, who swam alongside us as we snorkellled in the reef. Sadly, our much-loved Great Barrier Reef is facing severe threats.

Even in my own inner-city electorate, my community is surrounded by some of the most incredible natural environment. The wetlands in Sydney Olympic Park and Homebush Bay are home to 400 native plant species and 250 native animal species, including the endangered green and golden bell frog. I know how important it is that we protect and cherish our natural environment. It's what Australia is known for.

I'm the patron of the Labor Environment Action Network, something I'm incredibly proud of. I want to thank all the members and the leadership of LEAN, particularly Felicity Wade, Louise Crawford and Penny Pedersen. They have helped me better understand these bills and how this will help protect our environment. I think the entire labour movement are indebted to them for their extraordinary advocacy, because they know we owe it to our children to do what we can to preserve our natural environment for them and future generations.

We also owe it to them to build critical projects for the nation, like more housing, public transport and the renewable energy projects that we desperately need. The current environmental approvals are too slow, complex and expensive. For far too long, our environmental protection laws have been unable to protect the environment or deliver on critical projects, and that is why the Labor government has introduced the Environment Protection Reform Bill 2025. The reforms we are proposing are about striking the right balance.

It's built around three key pillars. The first is stronger environmental protection and restoration. We will establish Australia's first-ever national environmental protection agency and set national environmental standards. The EPA will be an independent regulator that will make sure our environmental laws are enforced fairly and transparently. The national standards will protect and restore environmental areas and species by ensuring projects don't just offset their impact but leave the environment better off.

The second pillar is more efficient and robust project assessments and approvals. Australia's current environmental laws are slow, unpredictable and riddled with duplication. It can take longer to get an approval for a housing project or a renewable project than it does to actually build it. These reforms will change that. We will make decisions about approvals faster, clearer and more consistent. By improving cooperation between the Commonwealth and states, we can cut red tape and streamline assessments without cutting standards.

The third pillar is greater accountability and transparency in decision-making. Every Australian deserves confidence that, when projects are approved, they meet clear environmental standards and are assessed openly and fairly. These reforms will shine a light on environmental decision-making, ensuring communities know what's being approved, why it's being approved and who's responsible for upholding those standards.

We desperately need these environmental law reforms, and I thank the Minister for the Environment and Water for his engagement with me and so many stakeholders. It's thanks to his hard work and the work of so many people in the Labor caucus that this bill is being introduced with the backing of experts, environmental groups and businesses. Professor Graeme Samuel, the author of the Samuel review, has been unequivocal in his support. He said that the bill introduced by Labor implements the 'totality' of the recommendations he made in his report and that it is a 'quantum leap forward' for both environmental protection and business certainty. Environment groups have also engaged constructively with the government, and the Business Council of Australia has said the reforms 'present an opportunity to fix a broken system'.

Despite the broad support from experts, environmental groups and the business sector, those opposite continue to stand in the way. It's been five long years since the Samuel review was delivered, and who was the Minister for the Environment at the time? The Leader of the Opposition. She gave her support then, but what did she do with the report? Nothing. It stayed sitting on her desk for 500 days. Under the coalition's watch, the environment suffered, and we are paying for it. Professor Samuel himself described the opposition leader's opposition as a political game and said that it made him feel 'frankly, a little angry'—and, after half a decade of coalition negligence, who can blame him?

That criticism isn't just limited to those opposite; it also extends to the Greens, because they have a history of blocking sensible reform that would deliver stronger protections for nature and certainty for business. Here we have an opportunity to deliver better outcomes for the environment, and the Greens are refusing to support it. Australians hate it when political parties play politics instead of making progress, and, given the choice between politics and progress, the Greens always choose politics. They teamed up with the coalition in 2009 to block the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, setting back climate action for over a decade; they teamed up again with the coalition to prevent Labor's improvements to the Recycling and Waste Reduction Act; and now, again, they're standing in the way of strengthening our environment laws.

They're also making disingenuous arguments that it's a choice between certainty for business and the environment, and they're wrong. We don't have to choose, because Labor is delivering this bill to do both—to provide cleaner energy, more housing and stronger protection for the land and wildlife that we love. Australians have made it clear, twice, that when it comes to the environment they want progress, not politics. We can protect what makes Australia special while building the homes and clean energy projects that will shape our future by passing this bill. Every day we wait is another day our environment slips further behind. Every day we wait is a day we could be building the renewable energy projects and the housing our children need. Let's get this done to deliver on what Australians sent us here to do: to build a cleaner, more livable future for future generations to come.

I rise today on behalf of the people of McPherson—from Clear Island Waters at the top to Coolangatta, and from Burleigh Heads across to Tallebudgera and Currumbin—to speak against Labor's deeply flawed environmental protection and biodiversity conservation reforms in the Environment Protection Reform Bill 2025 and related bills. These reforms, some 1,500 pages long, have been rammed into parliament without the consultation or the balance that our communities deserve. It's another example of this government's emboldenedness, as a result of its election result, turning into arrogance—1,500 pages! Does the government really believe, in dropping the bills on us at five minutes to midnight, that five days during a sitting period is adequate time to meaningfully review 1,500 pages? This just reeks of arrogance. With an underresourced opposition, they are once again running away from scrutiny. Why are the Prime Minister and those opposite so allergic to accountability?

Let me be clear: we all want strong environmental protection. We live it every day on the Gold Coast—in our beaches, our hinterland and our estuaries. But environmental protection must go hand in hand with economic sense in order to maintain its social licence and sustainability. Labor's plan fails that test. Under these reforms, the new Environmental Protection Agency CEO will be granted sweeping powers to issue stop-work orders, with—and here's the catch—no end date. There's no clear timeline, no defined process and no guarantee of review. For our local industries, from small marine operators at Currumbin Creek to construction firms building new houses near Elanora, this means a single bureaucratic decision could halt work indefinitely. These orders could hang over projects for months, even years, without compensation or procedural fairness. In my electorate, where small and family owned businesses drive our economy, this isn't environmental management; it's regulatory paralysis. It risks turning compliance into punishment.

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

I rise today to note the very sad passing of former US vice president Dick Cheney from complications relating to pneumonia and cardiovascular disease at age 84. A staunch supporter of the Australian-US alliance, I do so as perhaps one of the few who will mark his passing in this place, but I had a high opinion of the George W. Bush administration and his service to America and indeed the world. Former vice president Cheney enjoyed a meteoric rise within the notoriously burdensome US political staffing system. From a congressional internship to White House chief of staff and long-time supporter of presidents Forde, Rumsfeld and the George W. Bush administration's vice president. In line with that, he was seen most clearly in effect in Kuwait where, as secretary of defense, former vice president Cheney organised the US-led coalition, which, alongside Australia, liberated Kuwait from the evils of Saddam Hussein's regime.

Recognising his talent for foreign affairs and national defence, George W. Bush would go on to ask Cheney to serve as vice president in his administration, something that came to the fore at the most defining event of our time, the 9/11 attacks, which attacked America, attacked Australia and the attacked west. This was a great time to have serious figures that administration who understood the score and knew what to do about it. With the military campaigns that followed, there was controversy and difficulty with them of course, but it was good to have sound people in place at the head of America at such critical times understanding what needed to be done and why freedom needed today be defended.

On a personal note, I had the opportunity to work in the Bush administration— (Time expired)

Labor governments have always believed in education as the vehicle to lift living standards and improve the lives of all Australians. The Albanese government is no different in upholding Labor's traditions and record in this public policy. Who else would have been bold enough to offer hundreds of thousands of free TAFE courses? And who would provide a discount for HECS debts for hundreds of thousands? It was also our Minister for Education who negotiated and signed fair funding agreements with all of the states.

A number of schools in my electorate are celebrating significant milestones this year. Fifty years ago the prime minister and local member, Gough Whitlam, opened St Francis Xavier's Catholic Primary School at Lurnea. In addition, my former high school—Lurnea High School—is celebrating 60 years of excellence in teaching and learning. A highlight of their celebrations will be a large function on the afternoon of 28 November, an event I wouldn't miss for all the world. Hopefully, we won't be still sitting.

Finally, Miller Technology High School is also celebrating its 60th birthday. To each of these schools—in fact, all of the schools in Werriwa—their staff, students, past and present, I give genuine congratulations and best wishes, and I thank them for what they do.

Today is brought to you by the number 5 and the letter F—F for fail—unfortunately, because power prices for businesses in WA are up by 58 per cent in just three years. I have a struggling small family-run commercial property business in my electorate whose owner has opened their books to me, and the numbers don't lie. Their power prices up are by 58 per cent in three years. For anyone who doesn't know how a commercial lease works, it is the tenant who pays for the power that they use. So if your barber shop has been whacked with a power price increase of more than 50 per cent, guess who is paying for that? You are. If your local cafe has been whacked with a power price increase of more than 50 per cent, is it really a surprise that the coffee you were paying $4 or $5 for three years ago is now $7 or $8? The reality is that you are paying for this increase. Businesses really are the canary in the coalmine. Speaking of coal, why is power cheaper in Japan than it is in Australia today? You heard right. Japan, which imports LNG and coal from Australia, has cheaper power than Australia, where the LNG and coal is in the ground here. It's time that we put Australian resources to use for Australians first and cheaper power prices will just be the start.

The Shire of Mundaring put in an application for the Brooking Road extension and the Falls Road bridge replacement in Parkerville in my electorate of Bullwinkel. They submitted that in January 2025. The successful outcome of this project was announced on 6 August, and the council was informed of that decision then. I'm pleased to clarify that the Australian government has committed nearly $1½ million towards the project under our Safer Local Roads and Infrastructure Program. This was a direct request from the Shire of Mundaring to this program. It's federal funding based on improving bushfire evacuation routes and emergency vehicle access, making our communities safer for existing residents. The state government is also contributing, along with the shire's contribution of $690,000, a great example of governments working together at the three levels.

There has been some miscommunication circulating about this project that it is somehow linked to the state based North Stoneville urban development proposal, and this is untrue; it's completely unrelated. I want to reaffirm my longstanding opposition to the North Stoneville urban development proposal as it is. My voting is on the record, and it's a matter that is publicly available and has been consistent. As federal member, I continue to engage with community and councils.

In 2007, the National Party turned the first sod on the Bells Line of Road expressway. This kicked off a golden age of broken promises, delays and funding raids on a fast road over the Blue Mountains that all major parties are guilty of. The Bells Line of Road expressway was abandoned by the National Party when city people objected. So much for standing up for the bush! When they had the chance to build it, they squibbed it—12 years in power in New South Wales, nine years in power federally, and nothing's ever been built. Then, when it came to power, the current government grabbed $2 billion that the previous coalition government had allocated to the Great Western Highway, and we never saw it again.

Not one of these major parties has any vision for an expressway to Sydney—not one. The federal National Party, for all its talk, has not put forward any plans for an express road to Sydney. They are going to be out of power for years and have been reduced to a complaints desk. The state and federal Labor parties have no plan either. While the major parties dither, the traffic jams from the Central West to Sydney are worse than ever. Country people deserve better than this. We demand better from the major parties. We demand an expressway to Sydney.

I recently joined players, families and volunteers at Princes Park in North Carlton for the FC Birrarung end-of-season presentation. FC Birrarung is a true community club. More than 550 players, most of them children, pull on their boots each week with pride and excitement. I saw that joy as they cheered for their teammates, accepted their medals and ran back to their friends, clutching trophies almost as big as they were. I spoke with the president, Marie-Liesse Labat, whose pride in the club was unmistakable. She spoke about the sense of belonging the club has built. It's a place where every young person feels supported, included and part of something bigger than themselves.

It was also special to celebrate coach and mentor Julie Ryan, who has given 10 years of her time, patience and heart to the club. Her dedication shows what grassroots sports is all about: shaping not only better players but better community.

Earlier this year, FC Birrarung received $4,560 from the Albanese Labor government Volunteer Grants program, helping them with new gear, training and small essentials that keep a club strong. Sport teaches more than skills; it teaches community. FC Birrarung is proof of what happens when people come together and build something worth cheering for.

Youth homelessness is a crisis across Australia. Nearly 40,000 children and young people aged 15 to 24 are alone and homeless every year. I'll just let that sink in—40,000 kids with no parental support nor a roof over their heads. This crisis is growing. I recently met with delegates from Home Time, a national campaign advocating to fix this crisis. They alerted me to the youth housing penalty: flaws in our social services system that make it even harder for young people to access social housing.

There are three problems. Firstly, community housing providers are disincentivised to house young people. This is because the youth allowance is lower than other support payments. Community housing providers charge rent based on an applicant's assessable income, so providers receive significantly less rent if they house young people. Secondly, Commonwealth rent assistance is also calculated on income, compounding the financial disadvantage for providers to house homeless youth. Thirdly, youth housing projects struggle to compete for funding under the Housing Australia Future Fund, making them rare and underresourced.

If we want to give young people a fair chance at housing, we need to fix these problems. The minister has informed me that the government is reviewing the issue, but that's not good enough for the kids that are currently sleeping rough. We must act now to remove the penalty and give our kids a chance.

My electorate of Hughes has some of the most incredible natural landscapes in the world: the second-oldest national park in the world, the Royal National Park; the Heathcote National Park; the Georges River; and the Hacking River, in which we have a thriving platypus population after a 50-year absence.

Labor is the party of environmental reform. Those on this side of the chamber have delivered every single major environmental reform in Australia's history: Landcare, saving the Franklin, protecting Daintree and Kakadu, building the largest network of marine parks in the world and meaningfully addressing the threat of climate change. While those on the other side can't remember whether they believe in climate change from day to day, we on this side of the House are getting on with the job of addressing the clear and widely accepted need for environmental law reform to support productivity and deliver stronger environmental protections.

Our government has introduced real reform to the outdated legislation of the Howard government era to provide stronger environmental protection and restoration, more efficient and robust project assessments, and greater accountability and transparency in decision-making. We need to get these laws working to achieve other national priorities, like delivering the homes, jobs, clean energy and economic prosperity our country needs in the future. This is about getting the balance right: laws that are better for business and better for the environment. Those opposite need to get on board.

This morning, there's been a very interesting poll running in the MorningBulletin. They've been asking, 'Should build more coal-fired power stations?' So far, the response is 9,300 yeses and 132 noes. The world is moving on. Australia is moving on. A sense of sanity is coming back into the debate, and people want us to bring down power prices.

We have it reported in the AFR that they're about to spend a billion dollars on getting the COP to Adelaide—a billion dollars so we can have more parking bays for corporate jets. If you don't believe that that is just wasting a billion dollars, then you should get out of the Paris Agreement, because the Paris Agreement and the COP are linked hand in glove. I do not believe in the Paris Agreement. I want to look after pensioners. I do not believe in spending a billion dollars and putting a billion dollars up against the wall so corporate jets, billionaires, grifters, bureaucrats and politicians can whoop it up in Adelaide. I believe you should be putting that money into hospitals, into schools, into research—looking after people.

The priorities of this government—it's beholden to the billionaire scam, which is the intermittent-power swindle; to the COP conferences; and to the Paris Agreement. It's beholden to a loss of logic, and it's incredibly selfish. Look to the poor. Look after them. Don't worry about COP.

Today, Australia's largest steelmaker, BlueScope, has announced the retirement of its CEO and managing director, Mark Vassella. For eight years, Mark has led BlueScope through a transformational period with integrity and a determination to redefine BlueScope's role in our community.

Mark's leadership has helped change the face of local steelmaking. His admirable legacy includes a 14 per cent reduction in emissions intensity, a 25 per cent uplift in female workforce participation and a focus on First Nations inclusion. He led the $1.15 billion relining of the No. 6 blast furnace, improving environmental outcomes of local operations and creating jobs. He was instrumental in one of the biggest land transformation projects in the world, which will secure thousands more jobs in the long term, creating space for new industries and positioning Port Kembla on the world stage of innovation. BlueScope's impact on the Illawarra cannot be overstated; it's our biggest employer and a key player in Australia's critical manufacturing industry. I thank Mark for his passion and commitment to our community, and wish him well in the future.

I also congratulate his successor, Tania Archibald, another demonstrated steel leader and BlueScope's first female CEO. We are fortunate to have effective and capable BlueScope leadership from individuals that value our community and the continued importance of Australian steelmaking in our clean-energy future. I am confident Tania will be another visionary leader.

I wish to speak about what is really happening with health care under this government. Last week Caringbah Family Practice, a longstanding clinic in my electorate, issued a statement explaining why they won't be joining Labor's new bulk-billing program. Their message was simple: the government's promises do not match reality. Even with the new incentives, the rebate still doesn't cover the cost of providing medical care. When you add up staff wages, rent, equipment and compliance, the clinic is losing money on every consultation.

To qualify for Labor's incentive, a clinic must bulk-bill every single patient every single time. That all-or-nothing rule might look good on paper, but in the real world it makes full participation impossible in my electorate. These are small community practices, not bureaucracies. They can't survive on wishful policy and underfunded promises. As Caringbah Family Practice put it, 'No business can survive losing money on every transaction.' That's the real truth behind Labor's so-called $8.5 billion Medicare reform, a policy that sounds generous but leaves local doctors footing the bill. Our GPs deserve respect and support, not empty slogans.

Everyone has a role to play in ending domestic, family and sexual violence in our homes, workplaces and communities. Last week, hundreds of Territorians came together in the Darwin CBD to march and 'reclaim the night', standing shoulder to shoulder for safety, respect and equality. Their voices were joined by those of survivors and advocates, whose courage reminds us that real change begins when people speak out and stand together. Among the speakers was Schyler Kennedy, who shared her story with remarkable honesty and strength, reflecting the resilience of those rebuilding their lives with dignity and hope.

Events like Reclaim the Night and National Survivors' Day, which we recently hosted in Darwin, remind us of our shared responsibility to replace silence with compassion and shame with understanding. In my own office we're developing a domestic and family violence action plan, a DVAP, as part of No More's campaign to establish 90 plans in 90 days, honouring the more than 90 women in the Northern Territory who have been lost to family violence since 2000. Together we can take a stand to end all forms of violence, and I call on everyone to do just that.

I rise today to encourage the move away from net zero and expose the dark truth behind Labor's reckless rush to renewables and their unrealistic net zero target, a plan that is destroying the very environment it claims to protect. Across regional Queensland, untouched landscapes are being bulldozed in the name of green energy. Leading conservationist Steven Nowakowski has warned that Australia's push to net zero is fuelling a wave of environmental destruction. He said, 'We can't destroy biodiversity to save the planet.' This reckless rollout has no transparency and is driven by ideology. Labor's reckless renewables aren't clean or green, and they certainly aren't humane. Contained within the Clarke Creek Wind Farm Biodiversity management plan is one of the most disturbing admissions I've ever read. When it comes to unviable injured animals like koalas, it states:

Euthanasia will be conducted using blunt force trauma … a hard, sharp blow to the base of the skull with a blunt metal or heavy wooden bar.

This is the reality of Labor's renewable agenda: blunt brutality disguised as progress. We need an energy policy that moves beyond net zero and towards a policy that is cheaper, better and fairer for all Australians.

Today I had the privilege of launching the Parliamentary Friends of the Royal Flying Doctor Service on the front lawns of Parliament House. This is an organisation close to my heart. It was a deep honour to be joined today by Her Excellency the Hon. Ms Sam Mostyn AC, the Governor-General of Australia, who announced that she will be a patron of the organisation. Thank you, Your Excellency, for championing this wonderful organisation, led ably by federation chair Tracey Hayes and CEO Emma Buchanan.

The RFDS is an organisation that I am deeply passionate about, as many Australians are, and that's why I was determined to bring the RFDS into the heart of this parliament and establish the friendship group, to share the incredible work of the organisation with my parliamentary colleagues from all sides of the House here in Canberra. I am grateful to all my parliamentary colleagues who have joined the friendship group and who attended Plane in the Paddock today, where they had the opportunity to go inside and have a look at an RFDS plane kitted out to carry out aeromedical retrievals and deliver the finest care to the farthest corners of this great country.

So to all the doctors, nurses, LAMEs, pilots, engineers, dentists and administrators who work for the RFDS: thank you. They're the most dedicated and motivated cohort I've had the privilege to meet, all united by a common purpose—to do what they can for their fellow Australians. So let's keep the royal flying doctor flying.

The Berowra electorate is what it is today because of the people who dedicate their lives to making it a better place to live. Nan Horne is one of them, and next week she celebrates her 100th birthday. Born in Albany in 1925, she grew up near Cranbrook, Western Australia. A scholarship took her to Albany High, where she found her passion for teaching—a profession which she pursued until her retirement in 1980.

In 1962, Nan and her husband, Ray, moved to Cherrybrook. In the eighties, a meeting about what is now Greenway Park drew Nan into the progress association and then public life. When parents needed early learning, she also led the effort in 1987 to establish the Cherrybrook Community Pre-School.

That same year, Nan was elected to Hornsby Shire Council. For the next 21 years, Nan guided a place of dirt roads and green-belt paddocks into a thriving suburb for families, with open space and amenities the community needed. During her time on council, Nan was the first and is still the only woman elected President or Mayor of Hornsby Shire Council. Nan carries a strong local story through her husband's family connection to Samuel Henry Horne, the ex-convict turned hero-policeman after whom Hornsby is named.

Nan's legacy is still visible today, from Cherrybrook preschool to Greenway Park. Public life is never easy, but Nan Horne made such a difference to our community. Happy 100th birthday, Nan. Our community is the great place to live, the great place that we love, because of your legacy.

Well, as the member for Goldstein was home, sooking about having to work four days this week, on the weekend we were celebrating the Whittlesea Show. The Whittlesea Show has been going since 1859, and it's run by a great bunch of volunteers who deliver a fantastic show that's close to Melbourne but gives you all the elements of a country show and all the elements of a fair.

Every community group is there, whether they're selling food or goods or even just presenting animals. Of course, you get the custom—you've got to have a wood-chop at a good show. There are the vintage machines, the cars. Whatever you want, there is something there. The SES and the CFA put on some fantastic examples. The Whittlesea Men's Shed and Whittlesea Women's Shed were also heavily involved, selling their wares or just opening their doors so that people could see what great organisations they are. Wherever you looked across the showground, it was just a fantastic day. You had kids on horses and kids on motorbikes; there was the grand parade—a whole heap of things happening. No matter what you were into, whether it be crafts, photography, history or whatever, there was something there for everyone.

This show, as I said, has been going since 1859. It was the Labor Party's 23rd year of being at the show. Our Liberal mates haven't been there for 16 years, but we still turn up, rain, hail or snow.

I want to congratulate President Jayson Munro, Vice President Celina Mott, Secretary Wally Mott and of course Treasurer Sarah Foggie, who just put this whole thing together, with a bunch of volunteers. It really just shows how great it is to live in the seat of McEwen and why we love it so much.

There is a cheaper, better, fairer plan for Australia's emission reductions and energy system than Labor's $9 trillion plan. Labor's net zero by 2050 plan is an economic disaster inflicted upon the Australian economy reflected through the multihundred-million dollar bailouts that have been requested from industry across Australia. It's also reflected in the fact that people are struggling to pay their own electricity bill. The other thing that Labor's reckless renewable-only plan is inflicting is 60 million solar panels that are inflicted upon regional Australia and the 20,000 wind turbines that are inflicted upon regional Australia from Labor's reckless renewable-only plan. We also have the 20,000 kilometres of new transmission and poles-and-wire systems that have been inflicted upon regional Australia through Labor's reckless renewable-only plan. The other thing that's happening already in regional Australia, from Labor's very expensive plan, is that thousands of jobs have been lost directly through industries who aren't getting a bailout and dismissing people like Tomago, as they may well do in a couple of years. Labor's $9 trillion plan is sending Australia broke. It has to change.

What has the Albanese Labor government been doing over the past six months? I'm glad you asked. We've legislated payday super. We've set a climate target of 62-70 per cent emissions reduction by 2035. Over 111 large-scale renewable projects have been approved, and a further 29 projects are in the pipeline. We expanded the five per cent home guarantee scheme to make it easier to buy your own home. We cut HECS debts by 20 per cent. We legislated to protect penalty rates and overtime rates. We've introduced the home battery subsidy scheme, and now over 110,000 additional Australian homes have a battery. We announced the solar sharer scheme so all Australians can benefit from renewable energy. We delivered dignity into our aged care system and made the system sustainable. We put $8.5 billion into bulk-billing, and from 1 January you'll only pay $25 for a prescription on the PBS. And today we're debating the EPBC Act to fix our broken environmental laws. Meanwhile, those opposite squabble amongst themselves. They split, get back together again, threaten to split again and discuss the PM's T-shirt choices. I know some of my colleagues here are Swifties, but I'm an eighties girl. On this side of the House, our theme song is Queen's 'Don't Stop Me Now'. On that side, it's The Clash's 'Should I stay or Should I Go'.

To lower the temperature in this place, I want to recognise that today we launched the Parliamentary Friends of the Royal Flying Doctor Service. I want to thank my colleague the member for Sturt for her leadership and for approaching me to be co-chair with her. We did coordinate very well today, I think, in wearing our blue suits. The RFDS is such an incredible service that regional and remote Australia has. At today's launch I noted that this time last year I was recovering from a very serious ride-on mower accident. I broke 14 ribs. I had a compressed lung. But I was only 20 minutes from a hospital. So many Australians are hours—thousands of kilometres—away. Who do they rely on? The Royal Flying Doctor Service. I also mentioned the story of a young mother who went into labour. If it wasn't for the RFDS, that child, Indi, would not be with us today. I just want to say what a wonderful launch event it was—the best event we've ever had at Parliament House was what the RFDS delivered today—and to thank you all for the service that you give to regional Australians. May you prosper and support Australians for many, many decades to come. Thank you.

What's the definition of courage? It's the ability to do something that frightens you. I see it in Jeanene Williams, in my electorate of Hasluck, who brought our community together for the first Pride in Swan festival. Jeanene stands up proudly for equality and inclusion, even while facing vile attacks from extremists emboldened by those opposite. I see it at the Stirling Arms in Guildford, where the staff acted without hesitation when a Neo-Nazi white Australia group infiltrated their venue. Owners Jesse Casserly and Dave Elder showed courage and moral fortitude when they stood up to the very Neo-Nazis that those opposite fail to condemn when they march in our streets. What is it to have the courage of conviction?

The member will resume her seat. The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order?

Withdraw the remark and move on.

I withdraw. Having the courage of conviction is having the strength of character to uphold what is right without being afraid of the consequences and external pressures, and I see no courage in the Leader of the Opposition. She has all of the facts—the science—right in front of her, yet she is cowering to political extremism to save her own political skin.

To the opposition leader: come to Hasluck, raise a glass with us at the Stirling Arms and thank those workers who stared hate in the face— (Time expired)

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

My question is to the Prime Minister. Labor has been in government for almost four years. Inflation is rising, businesses are closing and Labor's policies mean there will be no Christmas interest rate relief. This Prime Minister promised no-one would be left behind, but, because of Labor's failures, today's Foodbank report reveals that 50 per cent of renting households and nearly 70 per cent of single parent household are going hungry. Prime Minister, will you take responsibility for the fact that under your watch millions of Australians cannot afford food?

Well, our economy is continuing to grow. Inflation is half of what we inherited. Real wages have increased. Interest rates have started to fall. But we understand that the work of good government and addressing cost-of-living pressures is never done, which is why we continue to act on cost-of-living measures.

We understand that people are under pressure, but they would have been under more pressure had they not got an income tax cut, which was opposed by those opposite—except for at the higher end, of course. People would have been under more pressure if inflation still had a '6' in front of it, which is what we inherited. They would have been under more pressure if the more than one million jobs that have been created on our watch had not occurred. Women in particular would have been under more pressure if the gender pay gap wasn't the lowest it has ever been. Workers in aged care would have been under more pressure had they not got the substantial pay increases that were funded by this government. Workers in child care would have been under more pressure had they not got the pay increases that childcare workers have now got in order to be sustained. Workers would have been under more pressure had the four increases in the minimum wage not been advocated for by this government and had the Fair Work Commission not listened to this government.

The easy task is to identify a problem. The difficult task is delivering a solution. My government is committed to delivering solutions right across the board, whether it be addressing people on the minimum wage or whether it be the increases in payments that we've made—the energy bill relief, the cheaper medicines, the cheaper child care, the tripling of the bulk-billing incentive for Medicare and the delivery of urgent care clinics.

I tell you what: the over 650,000 Australians who've benefited from free TAFE understand that that doesn't just skill them up for a better job and that it doesn't just improve the national economy by providing employers with the skilled workforce they need; it is also cost-of-living relief—cost-of-living relief that was dismissed by the Leader of the Opposition, who said that people don't value it if they don't pay for it. We make no apologies for that fact. We make no apologies for the fact that we've delivered when it comes to increased support for rent assistance and that we're delivering increases in support for social housing as well. (Time expired)

My question is to the Prime Minister. How is the Albanese Labor government delivering on its commitments to ease the cost of living, get wages up and strengthen Medicare? Are there any risks threatening these plans?

I thank the member for Bonner for her question and for her strong advocacy for her local community. Campaigning with her in the lead-up to 3 May, I understood how connected she is with that local community and how passionate she is about making a difference to people's lives, by easing cost-of-living pressures, by getting wages up and by strengthening Medicare—and there'll be an urgent care clinic in the member's electorate very soon.

At the election we promised to keep acting on those things, and they're certainly our focus right now, such as the 11,385 cheaper home batteries installed since 1 July. The last time I was in the electorate of Bonner we stood in a backyard there and looked at the real difference it was making—the solar panels on the roof, the battery, making sure the energy is stored, reducing bills permanently for that family. And there are the $10,000 bonuses delivered for construction apprentices—delivering them, along with free TAFE, with a bonus and an incentive to go into construction, backing up our original plan, delivering for energy apprentices, for the new economy.

We have cut student debt by 20 per cent—promised and delivered, flowing through. As the Minister for Education has said, in coming days and weeks there'll be that little button they'll press on their phones, getting that information, that detail, through to all those students—a benefit of, on average, $5½ thousand. We've opened five per cent deposits for every first home buyer as well. And last Saturday there was the largest investment into bulk-billing in Medicare history. We want 90 per cent of GP visits to be bulk-billed by 2030 and to make sure more GP clinics bulk-bill every patient. As of Friday, the number of GP practices committed to bulk-billing was 1,600. It's now Wednesday, and already more than 1,000 GP clinics have been added to that list.

That's the sort of positive action that's been delivered by our Labor government. Those opposite are defined by what they're against. They're against Medicare, they're against cost-of-living help, and now they're against reliable energy and action on climate change as well. We know what they're really against: they're against each other.

My question goes to the Prime Minister. Given the RBA's decision to keep interest rates on hold, millions of Australian mortgage holders will start wondering whether interest rates are as low as they'll ever go under this government. The Treasurer's spending spree is at the heart of the problem. Government spending is running four times faster than the economy. Given that the Treasurer repeatedly refuses to take responsibility for this, Prime Minister, will you take responsibility?

Honourable members interjecting—

Order! No, we're not having this. The Leader of the House?

Mr Speaker, there are lots of things in the standing orders that are described as disorderly. Continuing to interject when you're out of your seat, as the member was, is described as highly disorderly, and I just draw your attention to behaviour that he was warned about yesterday.

I'm not particularly enamoured with people asking a question—and you know the primacy of the question that I believe it's important for every member to be heard in silence—and then having another go when they're sitting down. I don't think that's fair, and if we go down that path all the time it's going to lead to a pretty bad question time. That means the member for Fairfax is now on a warning, because of that behaviour. Everyone, we want to do things respectfully, follow the rules and follow the proper processes for everyone, so there will be no more of that behaviour. I thank the Leader of the House for raising it, but I'm not particularly enamoured when people don't follow the rules.

I'm pleased that the member for Fairfax has taken a brief break from undermining his own leader to ask me a question about the budget and about yesterday's decision by the Reserve Bank to keep interest rates on hold, partly because it gives me a welcome opportunity to point out an egregious lie that was being pushed around the gallery this morning on morning media by the Leader of the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition said, completely untruthfully and dishonestly, that the Reserve Bank yesterday called out the government's spending when it came to the decision that they took independently at the board level. That never happened. In fact, government spending wasn't mentioned by the Reserve Bank governor yesterday. It wasn't mentioned in the board statement. The only mention was in the detailed forecasts which were released, which would downgrade their assumptions about government spending going forward.

From time to time, reluctantly, it's on us to point out the egregious lies being told by those opposite about our economy. If they were honest, they would say that the Reserve Bank governor drew no link whatsoever between the government's budget position and the decision that they took yesterday. But the governor, on earlier occasions, has made this point about the government's budget:

… we have got relatively low compared with many other countries, relatively low debt-to-GDP ratios. Our deficits aren't—we've had a couple of surpluses and the most recent deficit, in fact, is they're quite small as well.

That's what the Reserve Bank governor actually said about the government's fiscal position.

While we're on the topic of being honest about the fiscal position, if the shadow Treasurer were honest about the budget position, he would acknowledge and admit and confess that they ran nine budget deficits and we have run two budget surpluses. He would point out that he had average real spending growth at 4.1 per cent; we've got it at 1.7 per cent. He would acknowledge that there were no savings in their final budget, when inflation was absolutely galloping; we found $100 billion of savings, because we see that as part of responsible economic management. If he were honest, he would point out that debt is $188 billion lower, because of our efforts over recent years, than it was under the trajectory that those opposite left us with, and our efforts to get the Liberal debt down mean that Australians are saving tens of billions of dollars in debt interest. So I welcome the question from the shadow Treasurer. I hope he asks me a number of questions about this, because the contrast between our responsible economic management and the mess that they left us couldn't be clearer.

Point of order, Mr Speaker: in his answer, the Treasurer accused the opposition of—

No, resume your seat. I'll give you the call, but you've got to state what the standing order is. You can't just say you didn't like the answer.

It goes to order in the House. In his answer, the Treasurer accused the opposition of telling lies. It has never been in order to say that. I would ask you—

Honourable members interjecting—

Order! The Leader of the House?

There's a whole lot of precedent in characterising an individual as a liar, which was not done. In referring to a comment—

You can resume your seat, and then you will get the call.

You'll be able to make that point when the leader finishes. You will get the call.

Honourable members interjecting—

Order! Just take a breath. I'm going to hear from the Leader of the House.

To use the term with respect to a comment is different. Secondly, the Practice makes clear that the point of order is meant to be taken immediately, not at a later moment.

Government members interjecting—

Order, members on my right! The manager is entitled to take his point of order now.

No, no, no. You are hopeless. You are hopeless and a liar, lying to the Australian people. If 'lying' is in order then 'lying' is in order, and this is a liar. That's what we're debating here, and I'm happy to debate it.

The manager, resume your seat for a moment.

Honourable members interjecting—

No, just hang on. Hang on, everyone. The Leader of the House raised his point of order. I was giving you the courtesy to raise your point of order. I want you to do it again and state what your point of order is rather than just starting to—

Honourable members interjecting—

Hang on. I'm going to ask you to restrain and to state your point of order.

Unparliamentary terms—it's well trodden. The Treasurer, on several occasions in his answer, as the leader said, used the word 'lie'. It is well trodden in this House. He accused her directly of being a liar, and when that was raised, as the Leader of the House knows, it's unparliamentary language and it should be withdrawn.

Okay. We'll get through this. The Leader of the House.

On a separate point of order, the comments that were made, in the earlier moment when I stood up, by the Manager of Opposition Business are seriously disorderly under every definition, including his own. He knows it. He only did it for the purpose of disrupting the House. He did it for the deliberate purpose of being disorderly.

Okay, this is how we're going to handle this, because I don't want anyone called a liar and I don't want anyone to be accused of lying. The Practice is crystal clear on that. The Treasurer didn't accuse an individual. He called the party—

Honourable members interjecting—

Order! I didn't hear him accuse an individual of being a liar. But I'm going to get you both to withdraw, because what you did was completely unacceptable.

I withdraw.

I thank the manager. I'm going to get the Treasurer to withdraw.

Thank you, Speaker. I withdraw.

And I'm going to remind everyone that that word is fraught with danger. Please don't use it. Use other words. Now we're going to move on.

My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. How is the Albanese Labor government focused on delivering the benefits of renewable energy to Australian families? Why is focusing on the needs of Australians so important, and what are the risks to affordable and reliable energy?

I thank the member for Bennelong for his question. The Albanese government is focused on delivering for the Australian people not only through the 111,385 batteries that have been installed since 1 July but also through the Solar Sharer program, announced yesterday, which will give Australians the chance to get free power in the middle of the day. Given how assiduous the member for Bennelong is and what a fantastic local member he is, I'm sure he saw the letter in the Sydney Morning Herald this morning from John from Bennelong, who wrote:

Congratulations to the federal government for introducing three hours of free electricity. My household receives free power for two hours … from our provider. We charge our car, do our washing and charge household batteries during this time. As a result, our power bills have been slashed.

John from Bennelong gets it, Jerome from Bennelong gets it too, and members on this side of the House get it, but those members opposite don't get it. Of course, around 14 to 15 per cent of this country work shift work—people who are at home at odd hours and who might have the opportunity to use their power in the middle of the day and do so for free. There are also the 36 per cent of Australians who work from home, who have the support of this side of the House in that choice. They will be able to shift their power use to the middle of the day and get it for free. In addition to the big reductions in energy bills for those 111,000 Australian households who now have a cheaper home battery, this is what delivery looks like. We're able to do these things because we're not distracted, we're not divided and we're not fighting ourselves. That's why we're able to deliver these things.

The member asked me why focusing on the needs of Australians is so important. It's important because it's all about delivery, something the other side wouldn't understand. Remember, our friend the Leader of the National Party was asked how he would respond to Barnaby Joyce, the member for New England, leaving the National Party and he said, 'Well, we'll be focused on ourselves. You know, the reality is we'll focus on ourselves.' Well, I've got to say—I'll give credit where it's due—promise made, promise kept. They focus on themselves, just true to their word. We've had the Liberal Party say of the National Party:

They are terrorists—

and—

The first rule of being a parasite is not to kill your host.

It's all going swimmingly over there, which resulted in the shadow minister for climate change, on 7.30 last night, not being able to rule out the Liberal Party, the once-great Liberal Party, supporting the construction of coal-fired power stations in Australia. The party of Harold Holt is now the party of Andrew Bolt. That's how the National Party's calling the shots over there. It's all a reminder that, as the great Bob Hawke told Australia:

… if you can't govern yourselves, you can't govern the country.

That was true then and it's true now. What we're seeing of those opposite is a group of parties who clearly cannot govern themselves and certainly cannot govern the country.

Before I call the member for Bradfield, I've got a few people I need to acknowledge. I'll break them up into a couple of groups today. First, I'd like to acknowledge Ms Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya, the head of the United Transitional Cabinet of Belarus. We have a group from the Canberra Fellowships Program visiting from Indonesia, Thailand, Malaysia, Vietnam and the Philippines; Dr Tanzil Rahman, a member of the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory; the Hon. Paul Scully, the Minister for Planning and Public Spaces in New South Wales; and also the executive and committee members of the Isolated Children's Parents' Association of Australia, which works to improve the educational opportunities and outcomes of geographically isolated children. Welcome to you all.

Honourable members: Hear, hear!

My question is to the Treasurer. Foodbank Australia's Hunger report2025 reveals that one in three Australian households have experienced food insecurity in the last 12 months. This means that 3½ million Australian families could be going without food tonight. Foodbank has a proposal that would make it cheaper for food producers to donate excess food to those in need, reduce food waste and save taxpayers' dollars. Will the Treasurer commit to legislating a national food donation tax incentive which would achieve these aims?

I thank the honourable member for her question. I think this is the first opportunity that I've had to congratulate her on her comprehensive victory in Bradfield, and I thank her for her question about a very serious issue and a seriously terrific organisation, which is Foodbank. I am aware of the report—the analysis and the ideas in the Foodbank report—that has been put out today. I take the opportunity to thank them for the tremendous work that they do in communities right around Australia, helping people who are doing it tough. I'm aware of that specific idea about the tax incentive. I think, from memory, there was also a Senate committee that looked into a similar idea. We take those kinds of suggestions seriously. We also know that a lot of businesses are already doing the right thing, absent the implementation of a tax incentive like that, and I thank those businesses who are making those donations to Foodbank and other like organisations for the work that they do.

I want to shout out, as well, the Assistant Minister for Productivity, Competition, Charities and Treasury. We've already done some substantial reforms to support charitable giving, including a new DGR category to support community focused giving. We also know that there is more than one way to help these wonderful organisations doing the right thing by people in our local communities. It is a source of some pride to me—and, I think, to Minister Rishworth, who did the work on this in the last term of the parliament—that this government is providing an additional $20 million each year to help food and emergency relief organisations. We took that decision in an earlier budget. Some of the organisations in the member for Bradfield's electorate are benefiting from that—the Salvos, Vinnies and Lifeline, I think, just to name three—and it means that our total investment in these services has gone up to $460 million over five years.

The Leader of the Opposition also asked about Foodbank, I think, in her first question to the Prime Minister. But what was missing from the opposition leader's question was that, when those opposite were last in government, they cut $20 million a year from these programs. They actually cut these programs for Foodbank. They also opposed our tax cuts and our efforts to boost wages. They opposed our cost-of-living help. So the point that I'm making, in considering the idea put forward by Foodbank, is that we have restored the funding that those opposite cut. That's because we know the important work that Foodbank and others do. We've also found other ways to help people who are under pressure: energy bill relief, permanent increase to working-age payments, rent assistance, tax cuts, boosting real wages and the like. We're a Labor government. We're always looking for ways to help people with the cost of living—especially the most vulnerable. Foodbank is the same. It sounds like the member for Bradfield shares our interest too. (Time expired)

My question is to the Treasurer. What is the Albanese Labor government doing to make the most of the global transformation to cleaner, cheaper and more reliable energy? How does this compare to other approaches?

Thanks to the member for Sturt for the question but also for the helpful role that the member is playing already in our climate and economic policies as a relatively new member of this place. The member for Sturt understands, and we understand, that the transition to cleaner and cheaper, more reliable energy is a golden economic opportunity for our country, for our economy and for our people as well. Our economic agenda is all about making the most of this big economic transformation to net zero.

We know that what's making the electricity network less reliable is the ageing coal fired part of the network. As it becomes less reliable and as more and more of those generators come out of the system, the onus is on any responsible government to replace it with cleaner and cheaper, more reliable energy. That's why, when we released our 2035 targets, we put out the Treasury modelling that supported the decisions that we have been making to get that cleaner and cheaper, more reliable energy into the system.

We know that, when you provide that certainty and you provide that clarity, then investors can invest in the energy that we desperately need in our economy and in our communities. That's what an orderly transition is all about. The Treasury modelling concluded that the only thing worse than a disorderly transition to net zero is the policy position that those opposite will now adopt. The least responsible course of action would be to abandon net zero. The Treasury said:

Not pursuing net zero by 2050 risks lower economic growth, reduced investment, missed export and employment opportunities, and higher electricity prices.

They said:

The economic costs to Australia of not pursuing net zero would be significant and consequential …

They said:

Australia is likely to face a higher cost of capital in international … markets if it does not pursue net zero.

This is the economic insanity that those opposite look likely to adopt. What they are proposing is absolutely insane in economic terms, and that's what the Treasury modelling document has made very clear.

The shadow Treasurer used to support net zero. In fact it was only last year he told this House 'there is bipartisanship when it comes to achieving the goal of net zero by 2050'. But what has changed and the reason he's now undermining his leader—as we read about in today's media—is that the economic vandalism, the right-wing extremism and the opportunism now infects every member of those opposite. To be fair to the opposition leader, they have all gone mad. They have all gone, as my predecessor would have said, troppo. And the Australian people will pay the price for their extremism. (Time expired)

My question is to the Prime Minister. Released today Foodbank's hunger report reveals that nearly 200,000 Queensland families went an entire day without eating in the past year. Prime Minister, why are people going hungry under Labor when the Prime Minister promised 'no-one held back and no-one left behind'?

I thank the member for his question. As the Treasurer has just told the House, it's somewhat perplexing how, in tactics committee, when someone came up with the question to ask about Foodbank, someone didn't go, 'Actually, what might be a little bit uncomfortable is the fact that we ripped out $20 million per year out of funding for Foodbank.'

Opposition members interjecting—

The members on my left are going to cease interjecting. There's far too much noise in the chamber. The Prime Minister's been asked a question. He's going to be given the respect of being heard in silence.

Of course, you've got to listen; sometimes it's the interjections where you get the 'unplugged' views of those opposite. This is about a report from Foodbank, from the Leader of the Opposition: 'Don't worry about the fact that we ripped money out of Foodbank'—unlike this government, which have provided additional money for services to make a difference.

It is just like in my previous answer, when the member for Durack interjected that paying people in aged care to look after our oldest Australians better and in child care to look after the youngest Australians is unsustainable. That was the interjection by the member for Durack. She nods correctly there. That was the view. And it's just like yesterday, when the member for Wright interjected that funding public housing, looking after people in the housing sector and increasing rental assistance wasn't necessary under the former government because there wasn't an issue—we didn't need a housing minister under them!

Opposition members interjecting—

The Prime Minister will pause and I'll hear from the Leader of the Opposition.

I raise a point of order on relevance. Sledging the opposition does not answer the question.

Oh, resume your seat. I've been trying to deal with points of order precisely. That kind of language is completely unacceptable. When a broad question about 'no-one held back and no-one left behind' is part of the question, of course the Prime Minister is going to go pretty broad with his answer. These questions all week have been completely broad. If you're asking a very broad question and then you want me to do relevance, but you want me to do relevance on a narrow question as well—the Prime Minister is being directly relevant, and if you ask a very broad question, you're going to get a very broad answer.

Sometimes they're a bit beyond help from the hints. What we hear from those opposite, when they get off the script that they stand up and read and when they interject across the chamber, it's their real views. Their real views are contemptuous about the needs of the Australian people. Whether it's about housing, whether it's about Foodbank or whether it's about paying aged-care and childcare workers properly, they're contemptuous of the needs. Then they come in here—having voted against every cost-of-living measure that we have put forward—and pretend to care.

The truth is that the Australian people are onto them. That's why on 3 May they voted for a government that would actually protect people and look after people's living standards, not just oppose every cost-of-living measure. (Time expired)

Before I call the member for Bass, I'd like to welcome a parliamentary delegation from the Pacific family, Tuvalu, who have just joined us, led by the Speaker, the Hon. Sir Iakoba Italeli, together with honourable members of the Tuvalu parliament. I'd like to acknowledge the High Commissioner, His Excellency Samuelu Laloniu. A very warm welcome to Parliament House. And thank you for my peace necklace—I hope it works!

Honourable members: Hear, hear!

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Industry and Innovation. How is the Albanese Labor government's approach to delivering reliable energy helping to secure the future of the Australian manufacturing industry and jobs? What are the risks to manufacturing jobs?

I thank the member for her question. I know that manufacturing is an incredibly important part of her local economy. Her community will be relieved to hear that the Tasmanian government, Hydro Tasmania and Rio Tinto have come to a 12-month in-principle electricity agreement for Bell Bay Aluminium—a business that employs 550 staff and supports nearly 300 local businesses through its supply chain.

Opposition members interjecting—

I hear the contempt from those opposite about an aluminium smelter getting assistance on an electricity contract. It demonstrates what they think about manufacturing in this country.

This is a short-term deal but it provides breathing space for Rio and the state government to negotiate a long-term energy solution that ensures the smelter's viability. This is important because Bell Bay is a cornerstone of the local Tasmanian economy. The Albanese Labor government recognises the importance of smelters like Bell Bay, not only to the economy but to the workers and families in the community and that is why we are building a reliable energy system that will secure Australian competitiveness for decades. That is what Future Made in Australia, the capacity investment scheme and the CEFC all do. They make sure we have cheap power and in turn a vibrant and world-class industrial sector that delivers good jobs.

Opposition members interjecting—

Again, I hear interjections over there about our efforts to save manufacturing. Again, it demonstrates their contempt for manufacturing and the communities that rely on these well-paid secure jobs. Their opposition to intervention demonstrates their unfitness for government.

We are getting on with the job of supporting manufacturing in this country while those on the other side demonstrate their contempt. We saw it when they were in government as well, where they delivered 22 failed energy policies. Under their watch, 24 of 28 ageing coal-fired power stations announced they were closing within a decade when they were in power. You would hope they had learned from the past. The fact is the only way to keep the lights on and reduce power bills is to accelerate the rollout of renewables, firmed for storage and backed by peaking gas.

The member for Lyne is now warned.

It is the cheapest approach as well. All those opposite do is oppose and obstruct the rollout of renewables. The truth is the Liberals and Nationals aren't listening. They have no new ideas. All they have got is contempt for manufacturers, continued opposition to our efforts to make power cheaper through rolling out renewables, continued opposition to our support for industries through tailored packages. In the end, all we have from over there is obstruction, contempt for jobs and contempt for the communities that rely on those well-paid, secure, highly skilled jobs.

My question without notice is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, and I refer to Labor's disastrous solar sharer program. Senior energy analyst Saul Kavonic has slammed Labor's thought bubble as 'another poorly thought-through market intervention' and warned, 'The window of free electricity during the day will have to be offset by higher prices at other times to cover the fixed costs.' Minister, how much will other electricity users have to pay to subsidise this folly?

Thanks to the member for the question. I think I do need to advise the honourable member, my friend, that he could have found a better expert than that. Last I saw that individual, he was cutting videos against me in the seat of McMahon. That is how impartial he is to support an independent candidate in McMahon. I am not sure he is the sort of person I would be quoting. Maybe you could have quoted the chief executive of the Climate Energy Finance, who said, 'This is excellent, Minister'.

Opposition members interjecting—

It doesn't take much to trigger them. You mention 'clean energy' and away they go. Yesterday, we mentioned the Business Council of Australia and that set them off. You can't win. We had Bran Black, the chief executive of the Business Council of Australia, former chief of staff to Dominic Perrotet, the Liberal premier of New South Wales, and they said he is not credible. Now I quote the chief executive of Climate Energy Finance, who said, 'This is excellent, Minister. This means many more consumers will benefit from free power at zero cost to the market, a massively incentivised demand load shifting to the middle of the day'. Or Stephanie Bashir, a private sector advisory company, who said, 'This policy will incentivise consumers to move their energy consumption to cheaper times of the day, that is good for their bills and good for the network. Crucially, it will force big energy to fix their systems and to innovate.' Or—this will set them off; I apologise in advance, Mr Speaker—Solar Citizens CEO Heidi Douglas, who said this 'is a great start—it's smart, fair policy that helps renters and apartment residents tap into our rooftop solar advantage'.

But enough of organisations; let's go to individuals' feedback on the government's policy. Paul Mitchell, who we saw on social media, said:

This is a fantastic initiative by the government. It just makes sense. We have panels and a battery. Over a year we export two thirds of the power our roof generates. It's good that some of that excess power we export will be used by others. Particularly people in units and who don't have panels yet.

We agree. We agree with Paul Mitchell. This is a good thing. Tiffany Meek said:

This is policy that genuinely helps the poor and the disadvantaged. It's policy for the Aussie battler, for stay-at-home parents, for the elderly, and for people living with disability.

Shall we go on? Fran Pearce said:

Thats an excellent option. One thing we have a lot of in Australia is the sun. Great to share the excess energy, especially until battery storage improves.

This is how Australians who understand the energy market, people who actually participate in it, whether they be chief executives of groups or individuals who participate in the energy market, understand that this is actually a policy in the best interests of Australians. (Time expired)

My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister. How is the Albanese government delivering key naval capabilities to keep Australians safe, and what barriers has the government had to overcome?

I thank the member for her question and acknowledge her service. In Sydney this week is the Indo Pacific International Maritime Expo, Indo Pac 25. In conjunction with that is the chief of the Royal Australian Navy's sea power conference, at which there are 58 nations represented, including 35 chiefs of navy—everyone from the head of the Spanish Armada to the chief of the Chilean Navy and Admiral Koehler, the commander of the United States Pacific Fleet.

Building our own sea power is a key part of the Albanese government's increasing Australia's defence capability. It's no coincidence that our most recent decisions have been focused on our navy—the decision to pursue the Mogami class vessel by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries as our future general-purpose frigate; the $1.7 billion that we are investing in Ghost Shark, a unique long-range underwater autonomous capability produced by Anduril Australia; and the $12 billion that we've committed to the Henderson defence precinct, which will be the home of continuous naval shipbuilding in Western Australia and the place where we will maintain our future submarines.

This is our government doing what we say and fulfilling our promises. It is also part of a $70 billion increase in defence spending over the decade, spending which is also happening in the here and now. In each of the last two financial years, we have set records for the amount that has been spent on defence procurement, the vast bulk of which has been spent on Australian defence industry. Together, this represents the largest peacetime increase in Australia's defence spending in our history.

It could not stand in more stark contrast to what we see from those opposite—not just when they were in government, but in opposition as well. When it comes to defence policy, they are lazy. They have gone on strike. Their shadow minister has been described as a terrible retail politician. These are not my views. These are the views of Peter Dutton, the former leader of the opposition who, until recently, sat in that seat for three years and, as such, on this topic, could rightly claim to be an expert witness. While those opposite have gone AWOL when it comes to defence, our government is delivering for our nation to keep Australians safe.

My question is to the Prime Minister. Yesterday on Sky News with Kieran Gilbert, the member for Solomon promised a 20 per cent reduction to Australia's power bills. The member said: 'It's pretty clear. There's going to be—from what the national market commission is saying, there's likely to be over the next decade a 20 per cent decrease in power bills.' When asked if he stood by this claim, he said, 'Absolutely.' Prime Minister, is a 20 per cent decrease in power bills now your government's policy?

I thank the member for Cook for his question but I'm somewhat sceptical of the premise there. The premise is that a non-coalition member was on Sky News yesterday!

The member for Cook has asked his question.

One by one, every member of the National Party and the Liberal Party are queueing up to be on Sky News to attack each other, to point out the issues. Kieran Gilbert is a very good interviewer indeed, I've got to say. I missed his interview yesterday but I am aware of what the member for Cook has said about the issues when it comes—

The Prime Minister is one minute in, and he is referring to the person who asked him the question. It's going to be hard to take a point of relevance—

Order! Let me finish and you will get a full say, trust me. In light of the standing orders, if you ask a question the person answering the question is going to refer to you in your question.

Point of order on relevance. He was only asked about the member for Solomon's comments and the 20 per cent decrease—nothing on the opposition.

I don't know what the Prime Minister was going to say because he was going to mention you. The point of order on relevance has now been taken. There can be no more points of order on relevance. The Prime Minister has the call and I am going to listen carefully to make sure he is being directly relevant.

There were a range of issues in the question. One was about Sky News, and I've said I'm surprised there is any room for anyone but members of the coalition! I was then asked about Kieran Gilbert, and I've praised Kieran Gilbert.

The member for Forrest!

He did a terrific job coming to APEC and to ASEAN on the weekend.

The member for Forrest will leave the chamber under 94(a). If I call you to stop interjecting, that's a really big clue to stop interjecting.

The member for Forrest then left the chamber .

Kieran Gilbert travelled because he was actually interested in engaging with Australia's relationships in the world. The issue of climate change was one of the focuses of APEC, of how the region transitions to a clean energy economy. That was very much part of the debate. I did an interview myself with Kieran Gilbert on the Sunday program; I recommend it to the member for Cook.

I'm also asked about policies when it comes to energy and power. I am aware, given I was asked by the member for Cook, that when he was working at McKinsey he produced an article titled 'Carbon light: how Australia can power ahead in a net zero world.'

The member for Cook will remain silent for the remainder of the answer.

I recommend it to his colleagues who are going through 'the hunger games' over there. What he said about prices was that McKinsey analysis estimates that these opportunities would add about $75 billion to the Australian economy each year through to 2035 as well as an additional 130,000 direct jobs over the period.

If I can give the member for Cook a bit of advice: back in the former member for Cook's policy of net zero by 2050, circulate that article and then do a bit of a multiple-choice question in the next party room meeting. (Time expired)

My question is to the Minister for Communications. How is the Albanese Labor government's world-leading social media laws helping to support parents keep kids safe online?

I thank the member for Bendigo for her question and for her genuine commitment to delivering future-facing policy for all of the young people that she represents in her beautiful part of the woods. Protecting children in a digital age is a challenge that is confronting the world. Predatory algorithms, harmful content and toxic popularity meters are targeting children at a critical stage of their development. The Albanese government understands the need to be on the front foot on this rising threat with decisive and comprehensive action. We are implementing world-leading reforms to reduce online harms experienced by young Australians, including delivering historic legislation to delay access to social media until the age of 16.

Today, alongside the eSafety Commissioner, I confirmed for parents the nine platforms that must take action to remove underage accounts from 10 December—YouTube, Snapchat, Instagram, TikTok, Facebook, Reddit, Kick, X and Threads. We know social media is doing social harm, and we are calling time on it for kids. We want kids to have three more years to build resilience in the real world. We are not chasing perfection; we are chasing a meaningful difference. This law is world-leading, and now countries across the world are following our lead. Denmark, Greece, Romania, France and our friends across the pond in New Zealand are all introducing a minimum age for social media.

At Australia's United Nations event, the European Commission president, Ursula von der Leyen, said she was inspired by Australia's bold move to introduce the ban and has created a taskforce to see how that same law could apply to the EU. As the president said, parents, not algorithms, should be raising our children. The Republican Governor of Utah, who I met a few weeks ago, said he is cheering on Australia. Even Piers Morgan has backed our laws, saying, 'The Aussies have it right.'

Online platforms can target children with chilling control, and now we are mandating that they use that same technology to give children three more years to build resilience. The Albanese government will never back down from this fight. We are on the side of parents, not platforms. There is a place for social media, but there is not a place for predatory algorithms, harmful content and toxic popularity meters to continue to cause our children harm.

Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, over 25,000 square kilometres in north-west Queensland, Australia's cattle heartland, is now overrun by the prickly acacia weed tree. In contrast, buffel grass now covers vast tracts of what were once barren wastelands. Buffel is restoring riverbanks and deepening streams, many of which are now flowing again. Wouldn't you agree, then, with prominent Queenslander and AgForce president Shane McCarthy, a fifth-generation farmer, that only a government official cloistered in the Canberra kindergarten could ban buffel grass? For heaven's sake, Minister, will you put a stop to this urgently, otherwise won't you preside over a seven per cent drop in Australia's fifth-largest export industry, beef?

I thank the member for Kennedy, genuinely, for his interest in this issue. He has raised it with me personally, and I am well aware of it. He also understands how critical the beef industry is to Australia. It is a very significant industry. Just a few weeks ago we had a conversation about the buffel grass. On the matter of buffel grass raised by the member, what I would say is that we recognise that buffel grass is a valuable pasture for cattle in northern Australia, particularly in Queensland and the Northern Territory. The process that is under way is identifying national weed priorities and it's assessing the buffel grass in targeted areas where there is potential adverse environmental impact, such as in national parks.

Any recommended management action would not adversely affect buffel grass in agricultural production areas where it's deliberately planted, not considered a weed, and continues to provide benefit to livestock. Any future decisions on weed priorities, including a decision on this particular one, would be made collaboratively by all state and territory governments along with the Commonwealth, because, as the member will be aware, states and territories are responsible for the management of pests and weed invasions in their local jurisdictions.

The member will also understand that this industry is significant for regional jobs across Australia and for our national economy as well, and we do understand the importance of the beef industry that the member referred to, and the need to seize the opportunities that are there for the beef industry. As the member would know, I have been up to Beef Australia in the great state of Queensland—his home state—as has our assistant minister. Indeed, in the last budget we provided $12 million for Beef2027.

Beef is, as was quite rightly pointed out, a significant export for Australia; indeed, it's our most valuable agriculture export. Beef exports are currently up 62 per cent since we came to government to $16 billion last financial year. It's a significant industry that we value and that we are working with to ensure it reaps the opportunities of the hard work it has been putting into providing a great Australian product and exporting it across the globe.

My question is to the Minister for Health and Ageing. How is the Albanese Labor government strengthening Medicare by investing in bulk-billing after a decade of cuts and neglect? Is this investment reaching all corners of the country? What has been the response to these changes?

Earlier this year those opposite were telling any journalist who stood still for five seconds that they were going to romp in at the last election in Aston. But they didn't reckon on the fighting spirit of this member. They didn't reckon on the energy that she brought to campaigning for our plan to build Australia and strengthen Medicare. She knows that is right plan for her community in Melbourne's east. She knows that. The Maroondah Medicare Urgent Care Clinic in her electorate has already seen thousands and thousands of members of her community across seven days a week, delivering high-quality urgent care, fully bulk-billed, completely free of charge. In just the first week of our record investment in bulk-billing, the number of GP clinics in the electorate of Aston that are bulk-billing all their patients all of the time has tripled, and that number is just going to keep growing.

This investment, as the question indicates, has obviously been very broadly supported by patient groups. I know that, as a cancer survivor, this member is particularly focused on the response of a group like the Cancer Council, who have said:

This is a significant step forward for cancer care in Australia, saving patients hundreds of dollars, and strengthening the integral involvement of general practice in cancer care support.

GP after GP that I have met have told us how much they appreciate having the investment from us that allows them to bulk-bill more of their patients, even if, I do acknowledge, some doctors continue to argue as they have for 40 years that they would prefer the investment to go to them without strings attached around patient outcomes.

Then there is the coalition. The day before our record investment—which, apparently, they supported in the election campaign—had even started, the shadow minister already said it was unravelling, which is about as funny as I remember John Howard saying that Medicare was one of the Hawke government's greatest failures, not to be outdone in the comedy stakes. The Leader of the Nationals said this week that 'the best friend of Medicare at the moment is the National Party'. This is the guy who, every time we mention health care, like Pavlov's dog, whips out the credit card—he whips out the AMEX every time we say 'Medicare'. I thought this: in a week where those opposite could barely come to a single position on a resolution that says the sun rises in the east and sets in west, the one thing that always unites them is how much they hate bulk-billing.

My question is to the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister agree with the member for Solomon there will be a 20 per cent decrease in power bills over the next decade?

Opposition members interjecting—

Order! Members on my left. The member for Mallee has asked her question. The Prime Minister has the call.

Page 8 of the Climate Change Authority's 2035 targets advice says this:

Expert analysis by the Australian Energy Market Commission projects residential electricity prices will fall by 13% (about 5c/kWh) and average household energy costs will fall by about 20% (around $1,000/year) over the next decade under a coordinated renewables rollout.

That's the direct quote. So it's an entire representation to pretend that that is the member for Solomon's view. He is quoting the advice which is there and is something that the member, I'm sure, knows.

No, Member for Wannon. As I said yesterday, if the Prime Minister is directly answering the question, I'm not taking the point of order. I'm not taking it. Resume your seat. I gave examples yesterday. I made it crystal clear yesterday, if a minister or the Prime Minister is being directly relevant with an answer—he was asked about a figure from the member for Mallee. I'm sure she is interested in the response. The Prime Minister is quoting the figure and the report he was asked about. He couldn't be more directly relevant. The Prime Minister is in continuation.

I'm being directly relevant in pointing out that when the tactics committee geniuses chose to get the member for Cook—of all people—to ask the first time and the member for Mallee to ask this question, they knew full well that the member for Solomon was quoting a report in the interview with Mr Gilbert.

My question is for the Minister for Housing, the Minister for Homelessness and the Minister for Cities. How is the Albanese Labor government delivering for first home buyers to help them to get into a home of their own? What other approaches are the government being asked to consider?

I thank my friend the member for Gellibrand for his question. In part because of his strong advocacy, 2,060 Australians in his electorate alone have purchased their first home with the support of our government. I know there will be many more to come after our government's historic expansion of homeownership opportunities which took effect on 1 October.

Our country is in the midst of a housing crisis that's been building for 40 years. After a decade of neglect, our government has built the most ambitious housing agenda that a Commonwealth government has had since the postwar period: $43 billion to build more homes, to get renters a better deal and to get more Australians into homeownership. We are delivering on those promises. We promised we'd back in first home buyers, at the election, and not only did we deliver that promise we did it three months earlier than we said we would.

The member asked me about alternatives. There is an alternative sitting opposite. But, I have to say, on housing, I am starting to find it really difficult to know what it is that the coalition stands for. This is a party that says it supports homeownership. It does not have a single policy to support the young people of this country to get better housing opportunities. We've got a coalition here that opposes our government's expansion of homeownership opportunities to young Australians. When did the Liberal Party of Australia give up on homeownership for Australians? It might be around the time they gave up on the idea of lower taxes—remembering that this so-called lower taxes party went to the election saying they were going to increase taxes on every single Australian.

They've given up on budget discipline. They gave us nine budget deficits and a trillion dollars of Liberal debt to manage. They've given up on environmental conservation. They support government-funded nuclear power plants, not the cheap renewables that the market prefers.

I increasingly find myself looking on that side of the House and thinking: what on earth is it that connects this disarray? Now, they may be in total dysfunction. We are focused on delivery. Our government backs first home buyers. We have now helped 197,000 Australians get into a home of their own, and I want every single one of them to know that, if it were up to the coalition, they would still be renting. I want the member for Wright to say to the 2,256 Australians in his electorate that he would prefer that they were still renting, not having the home ownership opportunities they're getting under our government.

Those opposite might have given up on the great Australian dream, but our government hasn't. To Australia's first home buyers: we see that you are struggling. You face a big challenge, but we are on your side, and we always will be.

My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, I welcome your record Medicare spend, having long called for expanded bulk-billing access. But with mental health the No. 1 reason people visit a GP in Fowler, doctors tell me that cutting items 2712 and 2713 removes the flexibility to provide longer, meaningful consultations for complex mental health cases. Can you guarantee that cutting items 2712 and 2713 won't deter GPs from offering the mental health care that families in Western Sydney depend on?

Thank you, Prime Minister, for giving me the opportunity to respond to that. I haven't had a conversation with the member over the last several days, but I'm very pleased to report to the member and to the House that, as far as I can tell, every single general practice clinic in the member's electorate has indicated that, as a result of our investment on Saturday, they will be 100 per cent bulk-billing. That's every single GP clinic in the electorate of Fowler.

Order! The minister was talking about Medicare, but I'll listen to the member for Fowler on a point of order.

Thank you, Speaker. I was very specific in asking if the minister or the government will guarantee that about cutting items 2712 and 2713. I understand that Medicare spend. I know that that's what the government has been talking about and that you have spent millions—$8.5 billion. But I'm asking specifically about 2712 and 2713.

The member for Solomon is warned.

Speaker, just to the point of order, there's a practice that has developed in points of order on relevance where people consistently quote only a small part of a longer question. You have given ruling after ruling, making clear that the relevance rule applies to any part of the question. If people don't want there to be parts of the question that deal with anything other than their final few words, they should only ask the final few words.

Yes. It places me in a difficult position when you ask a question about Medicare and you include things—it's okay; resume your seat, Member for Fowler—and then the minister refers to that part. He has two minutes and 29 to go. He may be going to address that part of the question; I don't know. He may be focusing on that part, but you've only got one shot at taking a point of order on relevance, and I would just remind members that it's probably best to keep that point of order till the end, because once that's gone, it's gone. It's very difficult now, because I don't know what the minister is going to refer to in terms of mental health. He may do that. I understand your point: you'd like an answer specifically regarding that end part of the question. But under the standing rules, he's entitled to talk about the question he was asked. Anyway, I'll listen carefully and I'll make sure he is being directly relevant, and I'll make sure he continues to be directly relevant.

I must say I'm a little surprised at the member's minimisation of the impact of the biggest ever investment in bulk-billing in her electorate, given that, as far as I can tell, no electorate represented in this place has got the sort of result that I just reported has come from Fowler. The relevance of that, if you read the annual report from the college of GPs, is that increasingly they say—about 70 per cent of GPs report this, I think—that the No. 1 issue that GPs are consulted about is mental health. It is their bread-and-butter work, and the affordability of access to GPs is more important for mental health support than probably any other condition we can think of. I'm surprised, frankly, that the member would minimise the impact of the record investment we rolled out on Saturday for the access and affordability of mental health support from GPs. That was one of the overriding priorities when we designed the system we rolled out on Saturday. I can tell the member for Fowler that constituents in her electorate will have more affordable access to mental health support from their GP than any other electorate represented in this chamber.

My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government. How is the Albanese Labor government helping regional communities—

The member for Lindsay and the minister—if everyone can just remain silent during the question, on both sides, it will help question time. The Minister for Health and Ageing and the member for Lindsay can perhaps have a conversation outside the chamber but certainly not during the member for Gilmore's question; I couldn't hear what she was saying. The member for Gilmore will start her question again so I can hear it.

My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government. How is the Albanese Labor government helping regional communities stay connected by keeping Rex Airlines flying? What has been the response?

I thank the member for Gilmore for her question. I particularly note that when the Minister for Health and Ageing was giving his response he referred to the wonderful member for Aston and her fighting spirit. You couldn't get a better matched pair than with the member for Gilmore. People have written her off, and look at her! She is absolutely amazing and we are delighted to have her here all the time with us.

For towns like Moruya in the seat of Gilmore, Coober Pedy in the seat of Grey and Winton in the National Party leader's seat of Maranoa, Rex is the only airline that connects them to the biggest city in their region. Forty-five towns in Australia rely on Rex to get them where they need to go. Our government has been crystal clear from the start: we know Rex is essential. When Rex hit financial turbulence, we stepped in to keep it flying. This government made a commitment that it would support Rex and the regional towns that rely on the airline.

I'm pleased we've made significant headway on this commitment, with administrators securing a way forward with Air T, subject to the upcoming creditors meeting next week. Air T have significant experience in maintaining aircraft such as the Saabs that connect our regional communities and serve Rex's essential routes. The government will be, as I announced yesterday, supporting Air T in restructuring Rex's existing debts. In exchange for this support, Air T have agreed to a range of commitments that will preserve regional connectivity, including returning more aircraft and increasing the frequency of those profitable flights across the Rex networks. The government will be retaining security over the aircraft and the simulator, and that will ensure the fleet of Saabs cannot be sold without this government's permission, making sure that guarantee is there.

We announced yesterday that we are also establishing a new $5 million program for local government owned regional and remote airports that supported Rex throughout voluntary administration. We know many of them have had to forgo money they would have been able to spend on other things because of that administration. This government is stepping in and supporting those local councils, and making sure they are able to keep those incredibly important regional airports going.

This government has been determined to support Rex from the start. I have to say, some of the comments at the time from those opposite, particularly when we were told that, frankly, what we were doing was a bridge too far—I think the shadow minister said we were going to crowd out competition from smaller regional airlines, warning us to break Rex and Rex's routes up. This has been an important process, for the government to systematically and seriously work through what has been a difficult problem, and I'm pleased we now have a pathway forward for regional aviation in this country.

on indulgence—I congratulate the minister on this. This is an outstanding achievement. I also acknowledge the backing up of what the government did by the member for Riverina during that period as well. This is an outstanding result. People in regional communities—many of them—ran the risk of being without aviation services, which is about the economy but also about access to health services and education. I acknowledge that. On that note, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.

on indulgence—I want to give a shout-out to the wonderful pilots and crew of Rex Airlines around the country and say what an outstanding job they do, as do many other smaller regional airlines, many of whom, as the shadow minister correctly said during this debate, were prepared to step up, step in and do what they do better than anyone else in the world.

Pursuant to the National Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2022, I present the annual report for 2024-25 of the Inspector of the National Anti-Corruption Commission.

Document made a parliamentary paper.

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

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

This Government's betrayal of regional Australia is hurting family budgets and businesses.

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—

A cheaper, better, fairer plan for all regional Australians—indeed, for all Australians—in relation to energy prices, cost-of-living pressures and emission reductions has been released, and I can tell you right now that this plan is much cheaper than Labor's $9 trillion net zero 2050 plan, it's better than Labor's $9 trillion net zero 2050 plan and it's certainly fairer than Labor's net zero 2050 plan. Deputy Speaker, you would know that every household in this country is struggling with its power bills. You know that there have been a lot of government bailouts, which I will go into. Industry and business are struggling in this country.

But, Deputy Speaker, there's more to it than that. I'd ask you the question: should regional Australians, as an example of Labor's reckless renewable-only plan, have to absorb 60 million solar panels for that plan to work? I would say no. Should regional Australians, because of Labor's reckless renewable-only plan, have to absorb 20,000 wind turbines in regional Australia? Again, I would that say the answer to that is no. Should regional Australia have to absorb 20,000 kilometres of new transmission lines or poles and wires through pristine forest and important agricultural land, dividing communities about those? I would say again that the answer to that is no. But there's more than that as well. We are seeing job losses being announced—thousands of job losses have been announced already—because firms in regional Australia, especially heavy industry, cannot afford their power bills. But, again, there's more just in regional Australia that's been very damaging. Because of Labor's plan, thousands of hectares have been locked up. Productive agricultural land has been locked up, unable to be used for agriculture because of Labor's plan. Right now, this is all occurring every day, and it has to stop.

One of the problems, I believe, in this plan that was released is that Labor's emission reduction ambitions are much faster than the rest of the world's. They're certainly much faster than China's, India's, the US's and those of many other countries. The pace of what they are proposing is sending us broke. I have a map of Australia here that I want to go through. They talk about Future Made in Australia. I can tell you right now that, if Labor's plan continues at the rate that it is, we won't have anything made in Australia. The whole Future Made in Australia plan will be a fantasy land because no-one will be able to afford to compete with anyone in the rest of the world with what they're trying to do. Here's a map of Australia. I certainly won't hold it up, but I'm just going to refer to it while I go through some of the examples here. These are companies or industries that either have shut down or are looking for assistance because they otherwise will shut down. In Western Australia, you've got the nickel smelter in Kalgoorlie. In Kwinana, in Western Australia, you've got a nickel refinery and an aluminium refinery. In South Australia, you have the steel mill in Whyalla and you have the lead smelter in Port Pirie. In Hobart, you have an aluminium smelter and a zinc refinery asking for assistance. In New South Wales, just in the last couple of weeks, you have Tomago, an aluminium smelter, needing assistance. In Queensland, you have a copper refinery and a zinc refinery in Townsville and a copper smelter and a lead smelter in Mount Isa.

In anyone's language, when you have all this happening in a very short space of time—most of those have all happened over the last few months—you have to ask yourself: what is going on? what is the problem? There's a link, and it's not a very difficult link to draw. The problem all of them have is their energy bills. Our energy bills in Australia are now higher than in Japan—and we export energy to Japan. Work that out! This is linked to the emissions reductions in Labor's net zero 2050 plan. You might say, 'We should do our bit for emissions reductions.' I agree. We agree that we should do our bit for emissions reductions. But let's not fool ourselves; Australia contributes one to two per cent of global emissions. The three biggest emitters across the globe are the United States, China and India. And none of them—not one of those economies—has signed up to this government's aggressive emissions reduction targets.

They may feel very righteous. They may feel like they're going to save the globe, but I can tell you right now that you could shut Australia down today—turn off every light and every electrical appliance and stop driving any car or any vehicle. You could do all that and what would that mean? That would do nothing to the temperature of the globe. China's emissions go up by more every year than the total emissions of this country, but this government is hell-bent on an ideology to cut emissions at a rate that, literally, is going to mean we're not going to be exporting anything except jobs. Jobs will be the biggest export in this country with Labor's emissions reduction targets.

We released a plan on the weekend with emissions reductions—a very sensible plan, I believe, for doing our fair share. We actually took China and India out of the modelling because we thought, 'If we kept them in, we could still keep raising our emissions.' We looked at OECD countries—like-minded and similar economies to ours. We said, 'Let's match them. Let's not do what they say they're going to do; let's do what they are actually doing.' The modelling would show that, with the ideological obsession that this government has, we would not be racing ahead. But we would certainly slow down this government's exporting of jobs. I commend that report to those opposite.

While I'm talking about the disregard of this government toward regional Australia, I have to go over a couple of other issues as well. During the last parliament, some of the most damaging things for regional Australia were announced in this chamber. The one I always have to mention—because it's gutting communities in the regions—is the fact that this government took water away from our communities through the Murray-Darling Basin plan. They have this obsession that the River Murray can never be shut. The mouth of the River Murray used to be shut all the time before the locks and weir system, because locks and weirs hold the water back. But this is an obsession by the Labor Party. The other thing I have to talk about is the live export industry, which has been gutted by this government.

I was hoping to get a question up in question time today on this, but the other disregard that this government has for regional Australia is its solution for the roads problem—I'm glad the minister is here at the table. They have been ripping money out of local roads and the regional roads program. They say: 'We're not going to give you the road funding that we currently give you. We're not going to give you Roads of Strategic Importance. We're going to close the local roads and the community infrastructure program.' Do you know what their solution is to the fact that they're not giving us any money for roads in regional Australia? Their solution is to make you drive slower—that's their solution. The minister is also reported as saying that this only relates to unsealed roads. I'd like the minister to confirm that it's only unsealed roads, because that's not our understanding. If we've got a sick child or we've got a family emergency and we're 100 kilometres from the hospital or 100 kilometres from a GP, guess what? 'Sorry. We're not going to give you money to fix up your roads; just drive slower to the appointment.' If you've got a 100 kilometre drive to work every day and you've got family commitments, bad luck! Just drive slower! That's this government's response to that.

The other thing that I need to talk about, because this government talks all the time about health and talks all the time about its commitment to Medicare, is the health issue. This government again made the decision very early in the last term of parliament that the thing that was going to change was the distribution priority area. So good on them if they think they're doing a good job by putting money into Medicare. The problem when they changed the distribution priority area for GPs was that a lot of our communities lost their GPs. So, if you can get to see a doctor or drive a long way to see one, you hypothetically, through Medicare, may not be paying as much as you were, but we've been gutted. Our health system, our GP system, has been gutted by decisions of this government.

I encourage those opposite to read the plan. I encourage those opposite—because their net zero 2050 plan is killing regional Australians. It's going to export jobs. The infrastructure spending that you've taken out of this is also doing a terrible thing to regional Australia, and shame on all of you.

I must admit I can't believe the member for Page had time to pitch that MPI, because of the amount of time that is being chewed up by the internal fighting between the Nationals and the Liberal Party. I'm sure it has taken up a huge amount of time. He has the absolute gall to accuse this government of abandoning regional Australia and hurting household budgets and businesses, when the Nationals spend more time talking to each other and the media than they do talking to people in their local communities. The last point that was just made by the member for Page, which was backed in by a bunch of people behind him, was so misleading. It's deliberately misleading the public on the issue of speed limits.

It was the previous coalition government that determined that priority action No. 1 was to review speed limits in rural and regional Australia. In fact, it was the former deputy prime minister, the member for Riverina, who made the commitment. It was priority action No. 1. The communique that was released following that has his name attached to it along with a bunch of Liberal and National state counterparts. I'm just going to table that. So, when the Nationals are out there on some folly about how reducing road speed limits has somehow got something to do with carbon emissions, please know that the Office of Road Safety is following through with a priority action plan that was devised under their former government. I know that might not seem important, but, to us, telling the truth in local communities is important.

The other truth that's incredibly important is that road funding has increased under this government. Not only has it increased for every local council across the country, but road blackspot funding has also increased. We have created the new Safer Local Roads and Infrastructure Program. Member for Page, you might be interested in this. It means an increase of $461 million across councils in New South Wales—over $1.2 billion in road funding to every single council—and that's not some beauty pageant grant contest. It's money that automatically goes to every single council; no colour coded spreadsheets needed. Every local council is getting more money for local roads than ever before, because we know how important it is to travel safely to your school, to your sporting events, to medical appointments, to work—

Invite-only grants programs.

Invite only? No.

Member for Gippsland!

Roads to Recovery is for every local council. I suggest you read up on it.

Member for Gippsland, if you are going to ignore me, you can leave. It's your choice.

I'm really glad to be here talking about regional Australia. I come from a small town. Right now, my husband, who employs members of our local community, is doing his job as a small business owner, providing services to people where we live.

We have over the weekend made an incredible change, where bulk-billing came into effect for every single Australian, regardless of what their status is. Investing in bulk-billing changes lives in regional communities. People no longer have to make a decision about whether they can afford to go to the doctor or not. For regional centres, this is very important. More than a thousand GP clinics were signed up to the new program before it even started. There are a thousand more clinics who are bulk-billing communities right across the country. I want to personally give a shout-out to Jindabyne Medical Practice, Bega Valley Medical Practice and the Goulburn Health Hub, who have all announced that they will sign up to bulk-billing every person that comes through their doors. For so long, Medicare rebates were frozen by those opposite. What we're doing instead is supporting more doctors into regional, rural and remote Australia. Why are we doing that? Because it's really bloody important. Those opposite talked about GP shortages but didn't do anything. Did they incentivise anyone?

Minister, I'd like you to withdraw that expression.

I withdraw the words.

Thank you.

It is really important. Those opposite could have incentivised GPs to go into our regions, but did they do it? No. Instead it look a Labor government to do that.

On this side of the chamber, we've made the largest investment in health care in our regions ever, with 90 urgent care clinics around the country, 31 of which are already delivered in our regions. We're investing in rural medical schools to help ensure more medical students can train and live in regional and rural communities, because we know, and the data tells us, that if they train in our regions they'll stay in our regions. There's a $90 million investment to help address healthcare shortages right across our regions. We are providing incentives for doctors and nurse practitioners by waiving their HECS fees, as I said.

Speaking of HECS, how are we helping more people to earn more and keep more of what they earn? Well, we're giving students across our regions a 20 per cent reduction in their HECS bills and we're making sure that more people are eligible for tax cuts than ever before—14 million taxpayers across our communities. Why do we want more people in our regions to keep more of the money they earn? It's because when they do they go and support local small businesses, which is incredibly important.

They were big businesses when we were in government!

God! While those opposite are trying to work out which side of history they want to be on, we are talking about regional families and looking at how we can ease the cost of living. They're already upset, as I said, because we've doubled Roads to Recovery, whereas they sat idly by and did nothing when local councils asked for more money. What they did was freeze financial assistance grants, which took a billion dollars from local councils in all of our communities.

I want to remind them of what they did when it came to the supermarket code of conduct: they introduced a voluntary code. That was great for our farmers, wasn't it? 'Let's ask the supermarkets if they'll be nicer to farmers.' Were they? No. On this side of the House, we said, 'That's not good enough; we're going to introduce a mandatory code.' But what did those opposite do? Did they vote for a mandatory code of conduct to protect farmers? No, you didn't. You wanted to leave the supermarkets to let rip and do whatever they wanted to farmers and other primary producers. On this side of the House, we said, 'Not good enough—we are going to protect farmers and small businesses with a mandatory code of conduct with multimillion-dollar penalties for those who breach it.' On big business versus farmers and families, I know who I stood with: I stood with farmers and families. I made sure there was a mandatory code of conduct to protect people.

We are investing in people, in skills and training and in services. These are the investments that regional communities are calling for, and that's exactly what we are doing. We delivered prac payments because we know it's important to support people when they are training to deliver services in our regions.

Our Cheaper Home Batteries Program has been so incredibly important. Ray from Braidwood in my electorate got in touch. He said his home battery system has already lowered his electricity bill. In the first month since he installed his battery, his bill dropped to $22—22 bucks. High-five, Ray. It's also really helped him to change his views and his habits on how he uses his electricity during off-peak periods. I want to make sure that in this House we are supporting regional communities and regional Australians just like Ray, and those opposite are fighting climate wars which should have been dead 20 years ago. They're out of touch with regional communities and they're out of touch with reality.

Speaking of utilities, let's talk about the NBN, which is incredibly important for driving productivity in rural and regional Australia. Whether you work from home, you have a small business, you want to access health care or you are studying, it's important to have connectivity. Under those opposite, when they were in government, there was a deliberate underinvestment in communications. Instead of narrowing the technology divide, they widened it.

It is so important to keep our communities connected. Just 15 minutes away from here, half of a suburb called Jerrabomberra had had fibre to the premises. Those opposite, when they came to government in 2013, ripped up the contracts and said, 'That's not important enough to us,' so for more than a decade the other half of the suburb was still dealing with copper—copper dropouts. It took another Labor government to come back and finish the rollout.

It took a Labor government to deal with the data caps that were on Sky Muster satellites. During COVID, I had members of my community who were trying to learn and work from home saying, 'We got 10 days into the month and we hit our data cap,' because those opposite had data caps on satellite plans. Does that make sense in a regional community? It took us to come to government and say: 'That's not on. We're not having that.'

There has been a massive investment to expand full-fibre NBN to more than 2.1 million premises across the country. It is so important in our regions to make sure we're connected.

And, while I'm on it, there's the Universal Outdoor Mobile Obligation. We went to an election saying: 'This is incredibly important. The technology is there. Let's make the telcos do it.' Those opposite couldn't even get on board with that, for regional communities.

It has been highly entertaining, listening to the minister—my counterpart, in point of fact. I first want to address how this government is devastating regional communities—effectively, abandoning regional communities.

I particularly want to point out that the minister's statement regarding the lowering of default speed limits is actually not accurate. I have in front of me the department of infrastructure consultation that we are referring to, which clearly says that—as to this consultation on potentially lowering the default speed limit on sealed and unsealed regional roads which are unmarked—one of the benefits is to reduce fatalities. Nobody is going to dispute that we all want to see fatalities reduced. Also it's to reduce fuel consumption costs. I didn't know they cared! And, thirdly, it's so that emissions from fuel consumption will be lower. Now, seriously! I've heard them say, 'This is not a climate change issue at all.' I'm sorry—as I have said several times this week, this has the Minister for Climate Change and Energy's fingerprints all over it.

What this consultation actually shows is that the cost to those who live in the regions is going to be about slower travel time. Really? Is that actually accurate? Yes. Parents will take longer to get their kids to school. Parents will take longer to get their kids to sport. Parents will take longer to take their children to the doctor. This is the cost of this ridiculous notion.

Now, I have spoken to the member for Riverina about this very consultation, which, I would like to clearly say, we did not implement, because it is so foolish. I will be very interested to see what the consultation paper—and we called for it to be extended, because it was brought out under the cover of darkness; nobody knew that this consultation was taking place until this last week.

It is an incredibly ridiculous notion—to make people in the regions just simply drive slower, rather than expending money on roads. On that point, I would speak to the minister again, although she has left the chamber, and say that, while Labor continually say that they have doubled the dollars to Roads to Recovery, the fact of the matter is that it hasn't happened yet. Like everything, we have a great announcement, but where's the follow-through? The money has not happened. The roads are still broken. And everybody in regional Australia knows it. In terms of how this government has betrayed those who live in the regions, I have to talk about the 3G shutdown. What a debacle! Twelve months ago, on this government's watch, the 3G shutdown occurred. Telstra, Optus, TPG—everybody was involved, but the minister approved the shutdown. The problem was that the promise was made that there would be no harm done and everybody would be fine. The reality is that many, many people—we don't know how many—have no service. They cannot connect. Forget about calling triple 0. That is absolutely not available. People are now putting Starlink on their roofs and finding other ways. They're going back to ham radios—is that what we call the ones truckies use, ham radios? You know what I'm talking about.

We get the idea.

That's right, everybody knows what I'm talking about. They're going back to those because they haven't got connectivity. This is a huge problem and it's on this government's watch. What are they doing about it? They've got Accenture doing a report and a review with some mapping using Australia Post trucks. That'll be excellent! The report will come out in 2027. Thank you for that. In the meantime, three years will go by and people won't have connectivity and will have to find other means and ways to call their loved ones or call 000 when they need it. It is seriously and absolutely not good enough, and it is completely on this government's watch that these failures have taken place.

Lastly, I want to briefly reference the hopelessness of the 'reckless renewable rollout'. Brett Hosking of the VFF, whose farm is in the line of TCV, is featured in theWeekly Times. I don't have time to quote him, but I tell you what: Labor should look his story up.

You've got to be kidding me! The opposition talking about betrayal of regional Australia? Come off it, everyone! Every time I drive around the Hunter, from Cessnock to Singleton to Muswellbrook to Lake Macquarie, I see locals working their guts out in the country, and I see this government backing them in. The last mob, who had nearly a decade in charge, had plenty of time to show regional Australia some love. Instead we got cuts, closures and photo opportunities in borrowed hi-vis gear. Roads crumbled, services disappeared and jobs went overseas. They talked a big game but delivered bugger-all, and now they want to talk about betrayal. The truth is that this government is standing with regional Australia.

Member for Hunter, you'll need to withdraw those comments.

Sorry, Deputy Speaker. I withdraw. We're about people, not politics. We're about putting money back in the pockets of families and creating good local jobs. We're investing in the things that really matter: roads, schools, TAFE and industries that will keep the Hunter powering the nation.

Let's talk about the cost of living. We know some families are doing it tough right now. That's why we rolled out energy bill relief for every household. Whether you're in Branxton or Kurri Kurri or out at Laguna, that is real help for real bills. We have made child care cheaper for over a million families so that parents can work more hours if they choose to. When you need to see a doctor, there are more bulk-billing clinics right across the Hunter. You can walk in and not worry about having to pay the bill. That's Labor investing in Medicare. It's the biggest boost to Medicare in 40 years. We have made medicines cheaper and tripled rent assistance. We have helped older Australians with cheaper power and prescriptions. That is what helping families looks like.

Now let's talk about jobs. I'm a fitter by trade. I have worked with miners, tradies and power station workers my whole life. I know what a good local job means to a family. It pays bills, it builds pride and it keeps people in the towns that they love. That is why we are backing the next generation of workers in the Hunter. We're investing in the clean energy, critical minerals, hydrogen and battery industries. We have set up the National Reconstruction Fund to rebuild Australian manufacturing and to create secure work right here at home. And let's be clear about net zero: it's not about shutting things down. It's about doing things smarter and keeping people in work while building new industries alongside traditional industries. The Hunter is showing how this is done. We are cutting emissions with new technology and creating new opportunities in solar, wind, gas and battery projects.

We are fixing the roads and infrastructure that our region needs. Through our regional programs, we are funding projects that really make a big difference. We are upgrading roads, building community facilities and getting shovels in the ground. We are improving mobile coverage, and broadband too. Anyone out at Bucketty, Laguna or Murrays Run knows how bad it is has been when the signal has dropped out. We have pushed hard to get those black spots fixed, because you cannot run a business or call for help without a decent signal.

We are investing in people, too. Fee-free TAFE has opened the door for more than 600,000 Australians to learn a trade without a debt. I have met many young people in Singleton who have gone straight from TAFE to full-time apprenticeships. That's how you build a future. And, unlike the other mob, we don't just roll into town when there's an election; we actually live there, in the Hunter. We work here. We represent these communities every day. When floods hit, we are there. When bushfires came through, we were there. When communities needed jobs, roads or health care, we delivered.

So let's call out this MPI for what it is. It's a headline grab from a mob that ignored regional Australia for years. This government is not betraying regional Australia; we are backing it in. We are backing the miners, the farmers, the small-business owners, the nurses, the teachers and the barbers. We are backing all the industries in the Hunter to make sure we are looking after them. We are backing people who get up early, stay back late and give everything to their communities, because when the Hunter does well, the whole country does well.

That's what Labor stands for, that's what this Albanese Labor government is delivering and that's what I will keep fighting for every single day. Thank you to the amazing people in the Hunter for the hard work you all do in helping keep this country really running and alive as it is. Keep up the great work. I look forward to working with you more in the future. Cheers.

The Albanese Labor government has certainly betrayed regional Australia. Labor's renewable-only approach to energy has smashed regional Australia. Those opposite believe that solar panels are best placed in good-quality agricultural land—land that should be used for growing food and fibre—and that wind turbines are best placed when you wipe out the whole of the tops of hills and put them there. Koala habitats, native vegetation, virgin vegetation—all wiped out for this renewable fantasy that we see all the time.

How is the renewable fantasy going?

You're going to tell us.

I take the interjection. Electricity prices are going through the roof, by 39 per cent under Labor's watch. We hear from the Minister for Climate Change and Energy that prices are lower. They're simply not. Surely those opposite must get a power bill? The price of gas has gone up by 46 per cent.

Australians cannot afford this Labor renewable-only approach. The Nationals have a better way. We've adopted a cheaper, better and fairer energy plan. Cheaper: lower energy prices by using our resources. Better: by protecting our environment, by protecting our waterways, by having better land use and by using soil carbon sequestration. Fairer: in line with other countries—we don't need to shoot ahead, we don't need to be further than all these other countries; we want to be in line with the OECD countries—and we want cities to do their fair share, where you can put solar panels on rooftops, on top of the Woolworths and the Coles and on top of airport parking lots, so they can have shade. Why do you always want to put them out in rural and regional Australia?

We have a commonsense approach. The Nationals are always bringing common sense to Canberra. We want to keep industry within this country. We want to keep our jobs and keep our living standards, and that's simply not happening with those opposite.

And it's not just about the energy. On Medicare, we were promised at the last election—the Prime Minister held up his little green card—'This is the only card you will need to see a doctor.' But in my electorate of Dawson, in Mackay—which is the biggest centre in my area, with 130,000 people—there is not one bulk-billing clinic. So you need way more than just your Medicare card. Unless you take in your credit card, you don't get to see a doctor.

But it is not just in Mackay. Let's go further north to Bowen and the Burdekin—not one bulk-billing clinic. As a matter of fact, the closest one is in Townsville, so my main population base, located in Mackay, has to drive four, 4½ hours—an eight- or nine-hour round trip—just to see a GP. That's burnt up in fuel costs alone.

But it's not just that. The Albanese Labor government has betrayed regional Australia yet again on their rural roads. Those opposite want to reduce the speed limits. I can't believe it. Rather than actually investing, spending the money on upgrading the roads—'Oh, no, let's take the lazy approach; we'll just cut the speed limits.' It's absolutely unbelievable.

And what about the Bruce Highway? Those opposite promised $7.2 billion for the Bruce Highway, our main arterial road. But, no, it was revealed in Senate estimates that there was only $232 million available over the next three years—another Labor untruth. Then we saw, just recently—I don't know whether the money's there or not; again, we'll have to prosecute this through Senate estimates—an announcement of $2 billion for the Bruce Highway south-east corner. It's another betrayal of rural and regional Australia.

Let's recap. The Labor government has betrayed us on energy prices, betrayed us on Medicare, betrayed us on rural roads, betrayed us on the Bruce Highway and betrayed the farmers. Unless Labor starts looking after regional Australia, very soon every Australian will be naked, sober and starving.

I enjoyed listening to the member for Dawson. I just think that the hypocrisy that I hear sometimes is simply unbearable. They want to run around proclaiming to stand up for regional and remote Australia when they are far more interested in the walls of their party room. The member for Page—and I'm glad he's come back—should know that his electorate wouldn't take up one local government area in the bush of Lingiari. The Barkly Regional Council could fit 10 areas the size of the member for Page's area inside it.

I know regional Australia and I know they have a government that is working hard to address the cost of living. The Nationals don't care about the bush, and they should just be honest about it. I was in the Northern Territory government when John Howard, as the Prime Minister, launched a savage attack on remote Australians under the Northern Territory intervention. I've watched the circus roll in and roll out, and I've watched the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government alongside their mates Joyce, McCormack, Joyce and Littleproud systematically underinvest—or should I say their electorates—

You need to use correct titles when you're talking about them.

Sorry—New England, Riverina, New England and Maranoa. They systematically underinvested in bush communities in my electorate. The social and important infrastructure challenges we face today were paved at the time of the previous Liberal-National government.

If the opposition did its work, it would understand that our government, the Albanese government, is working hard to address the cost of living in regional and remote Australia. Across the country we have 106 remote stores who are receiving subsidised freight, meaning cheaper groceries and essential items for people out bush. We are driving jobs and economic development through a massive infrastructure boost not only in the Northern Territory but across the country. We are driving jobs by scrapping the inefficient and wasteful CDP and replacing it with a much-improved employment program, which will mean real jobs for people. We are investing in roads, making it easier to move freight around the country. We are progressively increasing the Roads to Recovery Program to $1 billion per year. We have invested a further billion dollars through the Growing Regions Program and the Regional Precincts and Partnerships Program.

In regional health, we are making it easier and cheaper for people to visit a GP or get the health care they deserve. We have rolled out 31 urgent care clinics in the regions. In my home town of Alice Springs, the urgent care clinic is going extremely well, and I acknowledge the Minister for Health for his support, lowering the strain on the Alice Springs Hospital and saving families a visit to the GP. And, if they need to visit a GP, we are also making sure clinics can bulk-bill. Over 2.5 million additional visits have been bulk-billed.

We are cutting costs across the board, and we are delivering on those tax cuts. We're providing 10,000 incentives for apprentices, which we need in the construction industry, meaning we can build more houses. We are committed to strong government for regional and remote Australia that delivers the support it needs.

The Nationals are all hat and no cowboy when it comes to delivering for regional Australia. If they want to get some dust on their RM Williams, they should come out bush with me. I will show them lower costs for essential items. I will show them roads that are getting sealed and urgent clinics in regional Australia. I can show them what investing in community really looks like. The Liberals and Nationals had a long time to address issues in regional Australia, and instead of going forwards we went backwards. Maybe that's why the member for New England is getting a bit tired of them. Well, Labor is here to fix up their mess. We are investing heavily in regional and remote communities, but I do urge them: come on a trip with me and I'll show you how good the bush is in Lingiari.

I'm more than happy to come to the member for Lingiari's seat any day of any week. She knows full well that, but for me, her seat would not exist. She is nodding—yes, she knows that—because I supported the Northern Territory having two seats. Capital city people don't get that. I acknowledge the work that she has done, particularly with Aboriginal women and particularly in remote communities. I also want to acknowledge the member for Hunter's contribution to regional Australia, to sport and to the Olympics—thank you—and I want to acknowledge the former mayor of Bega Valley Shire Council and now member for Eden-Monaro for her contribution to local government and now federal politics. Why are we being so nasty? Let's get to the nub of the matter.

The nub of the matter is regional people. I think we can all agree that regional people punch way above their weight when it comes to doing the right thing by this nation.

That's true.

Yes, thank you. They keep the lights on, don't they? Yes, they do. They provide the food and fibre for our nation, and we should be thankful. Every time we tuck our knees under the table for breakfast, lunch or dinner, we should say thank you to a farmer. By the sweat of their brow, by the hard work that they do, they put food on the table and clothes on our backs, not just for Australia but for many other countries besides. As Senator McKenzie leaves the chamber to go to the other place, I thank her, too, for what she's doing in the shadow infrastructure role.

As we are all here, we should be exalting and praising the people of regional Australia, but there are a few facts that we need to consider. One is those is the fact that regional Australia is not getting the funding it once received—funding that it was granted by the coalition government. Where is the Building Better Regions Fund? That fund enabled local government councils—like those in the Bega Valley, in the member for Lingiari's seat and in all of our regional seats—to build an aquatics centre, work on the Main Street upgrade or whatever the case might be. Where is the Safer Local Roads and Infrastructure Program fund? There are 537 local councils across Australia, many of them in regional Australia, and that fund gave them the autonomy to decide to spend the money where their community needed it, wanted it, demanded it and expected it. It gave them the autonomy of local decision-making, which has been stripped away by Labor, because they've taken the fund away. If you take the fund away, you can't put asphalt on the road. What our communities want is not a discussion about whether the speed limit should be dropped from 100 to 80 or 70 kilometres per hour. What they want to see is hard cash for hard asphalt, and they're not getting it at the moment—they simply aren't.

We had the health minister before. He's has trotted off, but that's okay. We were hearing from the Minister for Regional Development, Local Government and Territories in an earlier contribution about health. I think we would all agree that country people do it tougher than those in the leafy suburbs and under the bright city lights of metropolitan areas. They really do. We as regional members should do everything we can to make sure there is equity in health. We as opposition need to keep the government accountable. Those in government, those people opposite, what they need to do is make sure they champion health outcomes for regional people.

If you're not getting it, then tell your ministers—as part of the expenditure review committee process, as part of the cabinet process—to lift their game, because at the moment unfortunately they are not. The first order of business for Labor was to take away the distribution priority areas, so many of those country doctors took their shingle off and they moved to the Gold Coast or they moved to Newcastle or they moved to Wollongong. I'll tell you where they weren't: they weren't in regional Australia. They weren't in the remote areas of Lingiari in the Northern Territory and elsewhere in Australia. That is such a shame, because we need more doctors.

What we did in government, and what I did as the deputy prime minister was to put in the Murray Darling Medical Schools Network: $94.5 to get those wonderful medical precincts. I agree with the member for Eden-Monaro when she said that a doctor trained in the bush is more than likely to stay in the country areas, because they fall in love with the area. Moreover, they usually fall in love with somebody from that area, and they stay in the area.

Let's all agree we need to do more for regional Australia. To those Labor members, who are in government: lift your game.

I rise today to speak on the matter of public importance, borne to the chamber by the member for Page. The MPI is really a load of rubbish. Honestly, it's not worth the paper it's written on. The Albanese Labor government understands that families in our region are doing it tough. Whether it's rising grocery prices, energy bills or housing costs, the pressure is real.

I come from regional Australia. I travel to regional Tasmania regularly. I see the difficulties that people face. That's why the Albanese Labor government is focused on responsible, targeted cost-of-living relief and relief that makes a real difference to the lives of people, particularly those living in regional Australia. We're not here to play politics with issues facing those Australians; we're here to deliver on the promises we made, and that's exactly what we're doing. Since 1 July, a suite of measures rolled out right across the country, and I've seen firsthand my electorate how they're helping households in regional Australia.

Wages are up. The national minimum wage and award wages have increased by 3.5 per cent, a direct boost for thousands of workers in regional areas—workers in our factories. The previous speaker spoke about the farmers, we have lots of farmers in our region, and they support the workers in those factories that, now, many of whom will get the benefit of the wage increase we have provided to them, which is a direct boost for thousands of workers. It's money in their pockets, not promises on paper but money in their pockets.

Superannuation is stronger. The superannuation guarantee has risen to 12 per cent, helping to secure a better retirement for locals who've worked hard all their lives. We have introduced that payday super for workers to get a better deal so they don't get ripped off. Families are better supported. Paid parental leave has increased to 24 weeks and, for the first time, superannuation is paid on government PPL. That's a gamechanger for young families planning for the future. Energy bill relief is real. Another $150 is on the way before the end of this year, to help households manage rising costs and keep the lights on.

We are backing apprentices. Many of those apprentices work and live in regional Australia. With the $10,000 incentive payments for those entering housing trades as well as fee-free TAFE, again in regional communities, we are supporting jobs and helping build the homes that our communities desperately need.

We're cutting emissions and costs. On the Cheaper Home Batteries Program, we hear the energy minister almost every question time tell us about the areas where the cheaper home batteries are actually being installed. That will make a huge difference to people. I've heard directly from constituents in Spreyton and Devonport, who are already seeing the benefits of those batteries. We're easing student debt. Student loan balances have been cut by 20 per cent for three million Australians. These are issues that are meaningful for people right across the country but in particular those in regional areas. This support is targeted, it's responsible and it's reaching people who need it most.

But we're not stopping there. More relief is rolling out through the remainder of 2025. Tax cuts for every taxpayer kicked in last year, and there are more rounds coming next year and the year after. That's long-term relief, not short-term spin. Medicare is expanding. I hear often from people that this is the best thing that government has done. The urgent care clinics, the Medicare walk-in centres for mental health—these are the things that make a difference to people who live in Devonport, in Burnie and in places around regional Australia where they can walk into an urgent care clinic. Regional people in my community can get that care when they need it, without having to pay for it on their credit card. Another 50 urgent care clinics will open this year, and bulk-billing will expand in November. We're already seeing practices take up that bulk-billing incentive, and I think that will continue to keep rolling out.

We're not chasing headlines; we're delivering outcomes—that's what we're doing. We're delivering for regional Australians. We're backing workers, families, students and retirees. We're investing in our future while easing the pressure today. We'll keep working every day to make sure no-one in regional Australia is left behind, because on this side that's what good government looks like. That's what leadership looks like and it's what our regional communities deserve. I'm proud to represent the Albanese Labor government in the electorate of Braddon to deliver for regional Tasmania and people in my region.

In response to the member for Lingiari, the government seem to be obsessed with size. If size matters, look in the mirror. Have a look at the size of your PM's electorate. It's smaller than a farm in my community of Bute, while my electorate is bigger than New South Wales. This month, thousands of young Australians will be sitting down for their end-of-year exams. As such, it is only fair that the government faces an examination of its own—an examination into the results for rural and regional Australians. The report card does not read well. There are fails in economics, science, agriculture, technology and health. If this government was getting an ATAR score next month, it would be a big, fat zero.

Failure No. 1: the Albanese government's mismanagement of our energy markets and power prices. Not only have our power prices not reduced by $275 but, importantly, these policies have a major impact on communities which make things, like Whyalla and Port Pirie, and on our farmers and small businesses. The policies are threatening our sovereign capabilities, damaging prime agricultural land, dividing our communities and increasing energy costs. By constructing tens of thousands of kilometres of transmission lines, solar panels and wind turbines across rural and regional Australia, this government is industrialising fertile rural farming land and the natural environment on a massive scale.

Failure No. 2: Labor's reckless and out-of-touch approach to fixing our regional roads. In the country, we want safer roads, not slower roads. This government threatens to cut speed limits to 70 kilometres per hour, which shows us yet again that Labor doesn't get rural and regional Australia. Rather than fixing the problem, they want to create more red tape. Why is Labor fixated on making our lives harder? Under this government, regional roads have severely deteriorated, with Labor cutting the levels of Commonwealth funding for regional road projects from 80 per cent down to 50 per cent, following its 2023 review of the infrastructure investment pipeline. Labor's rural and regional report card is a disaster.

Failure No. 3: the Albanese government's shameless attack on farmers' superannuation—an unworkable, half-baked tax on unrealised gains. It was a move that could have destroyed farming families. Under Jim's plan, farmers' self-managed super funds would have been taxed at 30 per cent, up from the current 15 per cent, without indexation. This policy was one of the clearest indications that Labor is only focused on the city and that the policymakers in this government just do not get it. This report card is getting worse and, if grades don't improve soon, they might get expelled. After all, next week is the 50th anniversary of the dismissal of Whitlam.

Failure No. 4: Labor's inability to tackle the childcare deserts impacting rural and regional families all across Australia, particularly in Grey. Despite the proven lifelong positive impacts of early learning and education, my electorate of Grey has the worst childcare access in the country. Around one-third of families don't have access to child care. Given this Labor-fuelled cost-of-living crisis, where you need two incomes to raise a family, it is impossible to employ young parents. This alone is a problem, but, combined with already widespread severe workforce shortages in regional and rural Australia, it makes for a dangerous ticking time bomb for already struggling towns. Not only has the Albanese Labor government refused to deliver any effective action on addressing this childcare crisis; they have made it worse.

Failure No. 5: the Albanese government's aged-care nightmare. More than 230,000 older Australians have been left stuck in limbo, waiting for access to home-care packages under Labor—and it's true that you'd expect an 18 per cent higher risk of death compared to those who receive support within 30 days. Imagine being on this waitlist if you're a rural and regional Australian—hundreds of kilometres from help, with only your friends and family on hand. These elderly rural and regional Australians built this country, fought for this country, produced food for this country and worked to make us who we are. This failure is unacceptable. Labor have forgotten rural and regional Australia. They've been put to the test but they've failed to deliver. The government needs to get its head out of the city and put some focus back on all Australians, which includes regional Australians, before its failures become disasters.

I am disappointed that the member for Riverina didn't shout me out, as he shouted out just about everybody else in the chamber!

You haven't spoken.

I am here now.

You know I love you!

I will take that interjection. Could you please return to your seat, Member for Riverina, and we can continue the conversation, or we'll have a chat later. I do agree, though: we all love the regions. We wouldn't be here if we didn't. We work hard in our communities. We've gained their trust, and now we're looking to move forward with that. Yet I hear from those opposite that perhaps they believe that the regions have been neglected, when the simple fact is that the former shadow treasurer had not visited the Far North since 2019 prior to the last election. I've got to say, a fair bit changed in Cairns between 2019 and 2024. A lot changed in terms of the way our economy worked. A lot changed in the way our health system had to work. But we weren't visited. No-one came to listen. No-one cared. I hear a lot about telecommunications, yet 97 per cent of my electorate remains without any form of mobile coverage at all. That is not new. It's always been that way. But, with the low-orbit satellites proposed by this Labor government, we will bring education, safety and better health care to all of Leichhardt. And we'll bring it not just to the urban areas but to the actual regions, the places where people are getting it done. They're growing their bananas and raising their beef in places that I don't think a lot of people over the other side have ever heard of, or cared about—or pronounced!

I've got the Minister for Skills and Training here. He shows great interest in the regions. He travels with me to places where most Australians will never set foot. He sits with the elders. He opens new TAFEs, providing opportunity for the people of the Torres Strait to learn valuable healthcare and early-childcare skills which will get them through in their careers and keep them on country, looking after the bubs, looking after the elders and growing the resilience of my communities. We're also adding our child care to remote areas, including Horn Island and Napranum, allowing young mothers—primarily mothers—to get back into the workforce. That's caring for the regions. That's understanding what the regions need. That's delivering for the regions.

I'm proud to be part of this government. I'm proud to represent an area that you can fit most European countries into. I'm proud of the 12- to 14-hour drives on dirt roads with creek crossings. I'm proud to be trying to make a difference for my area, and I'm proud to be part of a government where I can call up ministers and say, 'Hey, this is happening in Aurukun today,' and get a response. When I need a Medicare urgent care clinic, I can speak to Minister Butler—and we're getting one. When we ask about getting more money to GPs, $8.5 billion arrives—the largest investment in the history of Medicare, delivering health care right across my electorate. As of today, an additional 22 GPs in Leichhardt are bulk-billing. That is a fantastic outcome, a great outcome.

We're investing in regional airports because we know regional airlines are the lifeblood of my rural and remote communities, who are often cut off for months at a time by the wet season. If the airport goes down, people go hungry—so we've invested in that. We're investing in the road up to Port Douglas and the road up to Kuranda. There is additional floodproofing and drainage, so that when an event like Cyclone Jasper happens again—and it will happen again; climate change is upon us—we can avoid most of the damage and keep those roads open. The township of Port Douglas has suffered greatly from the closure of those roads. We are building back better to ensure that small businesses and tourism operators get their fair share of the tourism dollar that comes in to the Far North.

We are delivering for the regions. We do not ignore the regions. During the campaign, ministers came through Leichhardt all the time. They heard from elders and from community leaders. They visited TAFEs and schools. They understand what rural and regional Australia needs.

The time for this discussion has concluded.

by leave—I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

I seek leave to move the following motion:

That the following matter be referred to the House Standing Committee on Communications, the Arts and Sport, for inquiry and report:

Australian Competition & Consumer Commission's Draft Determination on Voice lnterconnection Services, with particular reference to:

(1) the cost modelling inputs and assumptions used in the ACCC's modelling for declared voice interconnection services;

(2) the discrepancy between fixed and mobile termination rates and the potential implications for market neutrality;

(3) the financial and operational impact on fixed-only voice telecommunications providers;

(4) the potential consequences for businesses and consumers in relation to end-user pricing, service availability, and quality—particularly in regional, rural, remote and isolated communities;

(5) the implications of the proposed determination for regional, rural and remote communities, where fixed voice services remain essential due to limited mobile coverage;

(6) the resilience and redundancy of national voice infrastructure in ensuring service continuity during mobile outages and emergencies;

(7) the implementation and transition arrangements required; and

(8) any other related matters.

Leave not granted.

I move:

That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Member for Lindsay moving a motion to refer the following matter to the House Standing Committee on Communications, the Arts and Sport, for inquiry and report:

Australian Competition & Consumer Commission's Draft Determination on Voice lnterconnection Services, with particular reference to:

(1) the cost modelling inputs and assumptions used in the ACCC's modelling for declared voice interconnection services;

(2) the discrepancy between fixed and mobile termination rates and the potential implications for market neutrality;

(3) the financial and operational impact on fixed-only voice telecommunications providers;

(4) the potential consequences for businesses and consumers in relation to end-user pricing, service availability, and quality—particularly in regional, rural, remote and isolated communities;

(5) the implications of the proposed determination for regional, rural and remote communities, where fixed voice services remain essential due to limited mobile coverage;

(6) the resilience and redundancy of national voice infrastructure in ensuring service continuity during mobile outages and emergencies;

(7) the implementation and transition arrangements required; and

(8) any other related matters.

House standing committees in this place play an important role in our democracy. They are a way for the communities, stakeholders and experts to have their say, to challenge ideas and approaches and to test legislative and regulatory changes that impact Australians. House standing committees not only investigate any matter referred to them by the relevant minister but also propose their own topics of inquiry. Committee chairs are appointed by the Prime Minister and receive an 11 per cent salary increase, equivalent to more than $26,000 a year. Since the 48th Parliament began, only three of the 10 House standing committees have launched inquiries. The Chair of the Standing Committee on Communications, the Arts and Sport has been sitting idle, with not a single referral from the Minister for Communications and no proactive measures that they wish to investigate.

I note the member for Macquarie is the chair of this committee and recently stated the committee had been receiving private briefings from departments to prepare for an inquiry. The member for Macquarie further stated:

The committee is considering options for inquiries, and we expect those inquiries to kick-off in the near term.

Well, it has been six months since the election, and we have not seen a single scrap of fruit from the efforts of those very important briefings and preparatory work. There are a plethora of ideas for the standing committee to investigate, and today I stand here to present just one of them for you to take up. The committee can thank me for this.

Please direct your comments to me. When you're referring to 'you', that is me you are talking to.

Yes, through you. I understand. On 6 August this year, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, the ACCC—

which is what I'm discussing now, thank you for your assistance—released its draft final access determination and associated cost modelling for declared voice interconnection services. This determination includes fixed terminating access service, fixed originating access service and mobile terminating access service.

Fixed terminating access service covers the cost of terminating a call to a fixed number, while mobile terminating access service applies to mobile calls. Together, they make up the voice usage component of a phone service. When a customer on one network calls a customer on another, a regulated fee applies for the handover of the call.

The ACCC's draft report proposes a 75.6 per cent reduction in fixed terminating access service rates and a 24.4 per cent reduction in mobile terminating access service rates, effective 1 January 2026. Our telecommunications fixed voice networks continue to play a critical role in national communications infrastructure, providing redundancy during mobile outages, supporting emergency call systems and underpinning essential services in health, enterprise and government. The communities most at risk of being impacted are those in regional and remote areas. What a surprise! Some challenger and fixed-only providers—and by this I may be smaller end of town, not Telstra, Optus or TPG but Aussie Broadband, Symbio and the like—have expressed to me their concern that the proposed reductions and non-price provisions could undermine service continuity, competition and investment in these essential networks. It is really important, given the current state of our telecommunications sector, that all providers, particularly smaller providers, are able to sustain themselves in the market. They feel that this inquiry would go a long way to testing the viability, transparency and cost implications of these changes before they are enacted.

As detailed in the motion, we propose the inquiry look specifically at the cost modelling inputs and assumptions used by the ACCC, including the framing and definition of 'modern efficient operator', the treatment of fixed-only versus integrated mobile/fixed operators, the exclusion of key cost components, such as transmission and backhaul to points of interconnect, and the assumptions regarding economies of scale and technology mix. We also request that the committee review the discrepancy between fixed and mobile termination rates, including the rationale for the differential rate reductions between fixed originating access service and mobile terminating access service. Before any change is enacted we must look at the implications of this discrepancy for market neutrality and regulatory consistency.

As I foreshadowed earlier, investigating the impact of these changes on the telecommunications industry is vital, particularly the financial and operational impact on fixed-only voice providers, including potential revenue loss, cost recovery challenges and investment disincentives. It is imperative that we understand any flow-on impacts of these changes, not only on the industry but, more importantly, on everyday Australians. There are likely to be broader implications for wholesale and retail providers, which has the potential of resulting in operator consolidation or the withdrawal of smaller providers from the market. There is no competition when smaller providers have to leave the market. We know all too well that, where there are flow-on effects for businesses, there are flow-on effect for Australians.

We ask the House Standing Committee on Communications, the Arts and Sports to investigate the likely consequences for end-user pricing, service availability and quality, particularly in regional, rural and vulnerable communities. In parallel, the committee should also review the impact on enterprise, government and emergency services that rely on fixed voice infrastructure, as well as the risk of reduced choice and innovation in the market. Fixed voice services in regional, rural and remote communities are essential. Before any changes are enacted, we should understand the impacts for regional and remote communities. Fixed voice networks play an essential role. Any reduced service availability, increased costs or diminished competition in these communities would be an unacceptable outcome, especially for vulnerable communities reliant on fixed voice infrastructure. Further, the committee should test whether these changes will have the unintended consequence of reduced investment in the network, its resilience and our critical telecommunications infrastructure.

The ACCC draft report proposed implementation timeframes of 1 January 2026. This is just eight weeks away. The world could change in the telecommunications space in such a short period of time. I hope that without further inquiries and consultation this implementation timeframe is reviewed.

As I said, the committees' work in this place is so important. The Australian public expects each and every one of us to take our job seriously—jobs that their well-earned taxpayer money funds. If Australians knew that committees were sitting idle—I don't think one single Australian would think it was a good use of their hard-earned taxpayer money to have politicians sitting around parliament when they should be working. Some of that work is the work that I've just mentioned. We're handing over a very important job that could be started now. It could have major impacts, particularly in regional and rural Australia, where people are already suffering telecommunications failures. We are seeing that right now with Optus. If the smaller providers leave the market and only three large providers are left—well, we know what happens when there's not enough competition.

Hopefully, with the committee's assistance and inquiry into this matter, we can ensure that our telecommunications network is safe and resilient and that it remains competitive. That is the very least that we can do for regional Australia and for all Australians, who expect every politician in this place to be working hard for them.

Is the motion seconded?

():  I second the motion. I spoke recently in this House about Christine from Cumnock in New South Wales, who had to travel an additional kilometre after a car accident to call triple 0 on a landline at a nearby house because she didn't have mobile phone reception. I also mentioned Joe from Meckering in Western Australia, who called in while I was on a Perth radio station, saying he has regular visitors at his home on the transcontinental highway asking to use his landline because, contrary to network indications, there is no mobile phone reception on his section of the highway.

Like it or not, landline services remain essential to connectivity in regional Australia. They enable people to access emergency services in times of need. They give people the ability to work or run a business, access health care and essential government services, and maintain social connection. Affordable fixed-line voice services—in other words, landline services—may no longer rely on the copper wiring, but the fixed voice services remain critically important. Mobile connectivity remains sketchy at best in large swathes of regional Australia, and it has been made worse by this Labor government's abysmal failure to manage the 3G network shutdown effectively.

While the country has been rightly shocked at the devastatingly tragic outcomes of Optus's recent triple 0 outage—and I hear there has been another one this afternoon—I feel compelled to highlight the fact that large parts of our vast country have no access to triple 0 at all on their mobile phones. That is because they don't have any mobile phone service. The point is often overlooked, but it is not lost on people who live in the regions.

Thankfully, redundancy has been built into the telecommunications system for the most part, due to legislative provisions like the universal service obligation and the statutory infrastructure provider regime, to ensure minimum service levels for fixed voice and high-speed broadband. The Nationals are acutely aware of the urgent need to update the USO and the SIP for this day and age, and landlines currently remain vital for regional connectivity.

I turn now to the text of the motion that my colleague has brought and to the ACCC's draft determination on declared voice interconnection services, including the fixed terminating access service, FTAS; the fixed originating access service, FOAS; and the mobile terminating access service, MTAS. As explained by the shadow minister for communications, the ACCC's determination varies the fees charged when a customer on one telecommunications network calls a customer on another for the handover of that call. Stakeholders, including fixed-only providers, have expressed concern that the ACCC's proposed reductions could undermine service continuity, competition and investment in these essential networks. Communities that are most at risk of being impacted by the ACCC's draft proposal are—and I know this will shock the House!—those in regional and remote areas—

An honourable member: There's a theme there.

there is theme—where there is limited redundancy in the system. I am concerned about what this ruling could mean for competition. While the ruling theoretically entices new market entrants, it jeopardises the viability of existing smaller operators that have footprints and staff in Australia already. Australia has, arguably, the most concentrated telecommunications market in the developed world. Given that the ACCC's remit is to promote competition, protect consumers, support fair trading and regulate national infrastructure to make markets work for everyone, why propose changes to network charges that hinge on a hypothetical rather than reality and potentially reduce competition? It makes no sense to me.

Two submissions to the inquiry—Aussie Broadband and Venture Insights—model that the draft determination equates to a 75.6 per cent reduction in the fixed termination rate, which they say would disproportionately hit fixed-only providers and erode competition. The size of the proposed fee reduction and the speed at which it would be implemented poses a significant threat—a threat large enough to compromise business viability and trigger flight from the market. I highlight that these recommendations— (Time expired)

I move:

That the debate be adjourned.

The question before the House is that the debate be adjourned.

The question is that the amendment be agreed to.

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

(1) Schedule 1, item 2, page 7 (line 2), omit "members.", substitute "members; and".

(2) Schedule 1, item 2, page 7 (line 2), at the end of subsection 110ABA(2), add:

(e) 2 persons, each of whom is a member of the House of Representatives or a Senator but not a member of the Government or the Opposition.

In this year's federal election, Independents and minor parties received more votes than the Liberal-National coalition, achieving 34 per cent of the primary vote. While Labor would have us focus on their 94-seat so-called supermajority, only about 35 per cent of Australians gave Labor their first preference. This is no anomaly. This is a very long trend in Australian politics. In 1975, minor parties and Independents accounted for only four per cent of the primary vote. Fifty years later, the non-major-party vote of 34 per cent represents the highest recorded since the emergence of the two-party system. That's nearly a ninefold increase. This is the modern Australian political landscape—a third of the votes for Labor, a third for the coalition and a third for the rest. Understandably, the major parties do not like this trend, and, understandably, they would like the status quo to remain where the two major parties are the only voices in Australian politics, and this bill is evidence of that.

For good reason, the government is creating a parliamentary joint committee on defence, and the stated aim of the bill is to inject greater parliamentary transparency and accountability and oversight of Defence. In fact, I was very interested to hear the member for Fremantle speak on this bill last week. He seems to share my view in relation to the committee, noting it is important that, with respect to matters of national security and the national intelligence community, ordinary parliamentarians who are not members of the executive can have some visibility over these matters. These are worthy aims, and I am very much on board.

Other committees in this place have rules that not only allow but require crossbench members to be part of them. Membership of this proposed committee has no such requirement. It has no requirement that a member of the crossbench be included—members of parliament who the Australian people have entrusted with a third of their vote, the same as Labor and the same as the coalition. The bill provides only for government or non-government members. In fact, the appointment provisions are identical to the appointment provisions for the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. This means that, in practice, both the Intelligence and Security Committee and the proposed Defence Committee will never include members from the Australian parliament's crossbench.

There is something wildly arrogant about this—that when it comes to security and intelligence matters, when it comes to the defence of our nation, only Labor, Liberal and National Party members are considered qualified to weigh in; only major-party members are to be trusted to oversee these vitally important matters. This is despite the breadth of experience on the crossbench in relation to these matters—the member for Calare, for example, and the member for Clark. The member for Clark has been a lieutenant colonel in the Australian Army, has had senior management roles with an American defence contractor, has served as an intelligence officer with the Office of National Assessments and is a two-time winner of the Australian Intelligence Medal. That membership of the Labor, Liberal or National Party makes you more qualified than this to serve on a defence committee is preposterous. The defence of our country, the security of our citizens is a matter for the entire nation, not just those elected to major parties. My constituents and the constituents of every one of the 13 members of the crossbench in this place deserve to be represented. It's profoundly undemocratic. I fail to understand how it can be justified.

The amendment that I am proposing to this bill simply requires that one crossbench member from the House and one crossbench member from the Senate be appointed to the Defence Committee—simple, fair, democratic and entirely reasonable. To repeat, this is now a firmly established trend in Australia's voting patterns. At this year's election, 34 per cent of voting Australians—that's 6,150,000 people in this country—put their trust in independents and minor parties. That is 6,150,000 who wanted those candidates to represent them in parliament, in all aspects of the business of this parliament. Locking out elected members in order to protect the major-party duopoly does not pass the pub test. The duopoly ignores the reality of the Australian political landscape of the 21st century at its peril. I commend this amendment to the House.

I thank the member for Bradfield for her contribution. The government will not be supporting this amendment to the Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence) Bill 2025. The membership arrangements of this proposed committee reflect, quite rightly, the arrangements of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, and the reason they reflect those arrangements is the success of the longstanding and well-respected PJCIS. It is a key model for the parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence which allows for effective, balanced oversight of defence matters by both government and non-government members. The selection of members of parliament is made in the same way as for the PJCIS—by the Prime Minister, who will select up to 13 members, non-government and government members.

I rise to support the member for Bradfield in her comments and in her amendment. This parliament operates on the principle that every representative comes here with an equal voice. The fact that, on certain committees, crossbench members are effectively being shut out is profoundly undemocratic and shows that it's the old political parties at work. This is a case of the major parties looking down their noses and sneering at crossbench members by suggesting that somehow we can have crossbench members on some committees but, when it comes to defence and intelligence, they are going to be shut out. I think it is disgraceful, and I think the Australian public expects that everyone comes into this place and gets an equal go and has an equal say. The fact that the major parties are trying to shut out crossbench members is disgraceful. It's profoundly undemocratic and it will not be forgotten on the crossbench. At some point, our friends on that side of the aisle and our friends over here are going to need the crossbench, and we will remember the condescension and the sneering nature with which you have treated the crossbench members when it comes to this legislation. We will not forget this.

The question is that the amendment moved by the member for Bradfield be agreed to.

by leave—I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

The coalition believes stop-work powers must be time limited, appealable and transparent. Otherwise, they threaten investment confidence and local jobs. I can only imagine the consequences for my community on the southern Gold Coast. A stop-work order on a small civil worksite could hold up dozens of tradies, including apprentices, concreters and electricians—everyday people trying to make a living. A prolonged suspension on foreshore renewal projects or surf club upgrades could leave construction zones fenced off through peak tourism season. This would hurt local cafes, surf shops and accommodation providers. Even a short delay in approvals for new housing estates would send ripple effects through supply chains. Timber yards, surveyors and local suppliers would all feel the pinch in my electorate. That's not protecting the environment; that's punishing local jobs and small-business confidence.

The second major concern is the sheer scale of penalties that are buried in this legislation. We're talking about fines reaching hundreds of millions of dollars—in some cases up to $825 million—for breaches that might include administrative oversights. For large corporations, it's another cost of doing business, but, for smaller tourism and eco businesses in McPherson—boat operators, local quarries and community groups—these penalties could destroy livelihoods overnight. To make matters worse, the bill includes strict liability provisions, meaning intent doesn't even have to be proven. That's not fairness; that's a trap for honest Australians trying to do the right thing.

Environmental protection should be about partnership, not punishment, yet Labor's reforms send a chilling message: 'We don't trust you.' It's a system designed by bureaucrats for bureaucrats, not for the people who actually build our nation. The Business Council of Australia has said plainly that we need clarity, consistency and common sense in enforcement, not overreach. The government's approach will make compliance so costly and complex that small business operators will simply give up. We need an enforcement model that encourages cooperation, educates small operators and focuses penalties on deliberate, environmental harm, not paperwork errors. That's how you build a responsible environmental culture.

For my community, the consequences of these reforms are real and immediate. We are home to small developers, tourism operators, surf-lifesaving clubs and marine industries that rely on clear, consistent environmental approvals. Under the proposed Labor plan, projects will face longer assessment times, compliance costs will skyrocket and the uncertainty created by indefinite stop-work powers will stall investment on the southern Gold Coast.

We've already seen industry confidence waver. The Business Council of Australia CEO, Bran Black, warned, 'Without significant changes, this bills risks embedding a system that's even slower, more complex and lacking the clarity and the certainty needed for investment.' He's right. These reforms more red tape than reform.

Every extra month of delay on an approval means another month that builders can't start, apprentices and tradies can't work and businesses can't expand. For my seat of McPherson, what does that mean? It means fewer local jobs and slower growth. Small business confidence is already fragile. These reforms would tip the scales against investment in tourism infrastructure and green energy projects that our region depends on. Even local councils could be caught up in compliance uncertainty when trying to deliver coastal protection works or new projects. This isn't just theoretical; it's real impact on real people right in my community on the southern Gold Coast.

Another alarming feature is the creation of an unaccountable EPA CEO, answerable not to the minister but effectively to no-one. The CEO can issue binding orders, halt operations and impose massive penalties, yet cannot be dismissed by the minister. Where is the accountability? This is consistent with what we're seeing across this 48 Parliament from this government. What we've seen, as I've said previously, is a sense of 'emboldenedness' from the election result turning into a sense of arrogance. It's a dangerous concentration of power and one that Professor Graeme Samuel's review never recommended.

I know that before me was a speaker who time and time again referred to Professor Graeme Samuel. That review never recommended this set up. He called for a commissioner a model: accountable, transparent and limited to compliance and enforcement, not an agency that acts as judge, jury and executioner. If we look at other statutory bodies—the ACCC, the eSafety Commissioner and even the Ombudsman—they all operate within clear frameworks, answerable to ministers and the parliament. They have key performance indicators, reporting obligations and a chain of accountability.

The EPA model in this bill has none of that. It's an agency with unchecked power and the ability to impose decisions that can cripple industries across the country, including in my seat of McPherson. And there is no real avenue for appeal either.

Australians deserve environmental oversight that is effective, not authoritarian. Accountability is not a barrier to environmental protection. It's the foundation of public trust. We all agree the environment matters, and my community takes pride in our conservation efforts, but environmental law must protect nature without strangling opportunity. The coalition has always believed in balance between protection and productivity, and between sustainability and jobs. Our contribution in this debate is about ensuring that that balance is maintained.

Under the previous coalition government, Australia achieved record renewable investment while cutting waste, improving recycling and protecting threatened species. That's the model that works—practical action, not ideological overreach. Under the coalition, Australia had the world's highest uptake of rooftop solar, with one in four homes producing their own clean energy. We delivered the $250 million Recycling Modernisation Fund that turned waste into opportunity and invested in reef protection and threatened species. Again, that's practical action, not ideological overreach. These were outcomes achieved through cooperation not confrontation, working with industry not against it. That's the difference. Our approach is collaborative, and it builds capacity and confidence. All Labor's does is build bureaucracy.

Labor's bill fails on multiple counts. It undermines natural justice through unlimited stop work powers. It cripples enterprise through excessive penalties. Our local industries and environment groups deserve better. The government must go back to the drawing board, consult properly, remove the overreach and deliver balanced reform that supports both jobs and the environment.

In McPherson, on the southern Gold Coast, we do not believe that prosperity and protection are opposites. We believe they can and they must work together. This is not about choosing between growth and greenery, between jobs and biodiversity. It's about having the courage to design laws that do both—protect what we love and enable what we need as a community, as a state and as a country. I know the people of the southern Gold Coast. They are practical, forward looking and deeply connected to the land and sea around them. They want fair laws not fast politics and, importantly, they want results not rhetoric. They want us to do what the government should—bring industry and community together and get it right for the next generation.

So I say to the minister and to the government: scrap the rushed timelines, fix the flaws and start listening. Start listening to the people of Australia. Start listening to those on this side of the House that represent a very large cross-section of the Australian community, from the cities to the regions. Don't just listen to the Greens but listen to those Australians whose livelihoods depend on these decisions. Let's get serious about reform, not about red tape. Let's protect our environment while protecting our future. We can do both. There is this fallacy that seems to be spoken about by the opposition where we can't, but we can. McPherson deserves a government that balances both, not one that sacrifices our prosperity to appease ideology.

(Quorum formed)

Australia's biodiversity is one of the richest and most extraordinary on Earth. From our ancient rainforests and our vast deserts to our coastal wetlands and coral reefs, we are home to species and ecosystems found nowhere else. This diversity is not just a source of national pride but also the foundation of our national strength.

Healthy ecosystems support our economy, our communities and our way of life. They filter our air and water and protect our coastlines from erosion. They provide the natural resources and services that sustain agriculture, tourism and industry, and, for many of us, keep a steady flow of water from our taps, whenever we need it—something that's often taken for granted. Without birds, and bees and insects transferring pollen from one plant to another, our crops would fail. Without wetlands filtering and storing water, our rivers would run dry. Without our riparian zones, urban and agricultural run-off would pollute our waterways, leading to algal blooms and species loss. Without forests absorbing carbon, our climate would be harsher and more volatile. Without forests, our climate is further dysregulated and our soils are poorer. These ecosystem services are the quiet workhorses of our economy. They save us billions of dollars every year by doing what no technology can fully replicate. Protecting them is not just good environmental policy; it is sound economic policy.

We also know the benefit of natural spaces to our mental and physical health. Parks, trails and gardens give people places to connect with nature, to exercise and to find calm. They bring shade and lower the temperatures of our suburbs. They make our cities more liveable and resilient to heat. Our beaches are a quintessential part of our identity as Australians. Ensuring that we can continue to enjoy these spaces is vital.

That is why restoring and protecting nature must go hand in hand with building homes and infrastructure for the future. That is the principle at the heart of these reforms. For far too many homes in Australia, it takes longer to get an approval than it takes to build. That captures one of the biggest challenges our nation faces. A system meant to balance growth and environmental protection has, instead, become a barrier to both. It is holding back housing supply, making it harder for Australians to own a home and slowing the renewable energy infrastructure needed for our future.

That is why the Albanese Labor government is reforming Australia's national environmental laws to make them stronger, fairer and more effective—because protecting our environment and building the homes Australians need are not competing priorities; they are connected goals. Healthy environments create healthy communities, and thriving communities need affordable, sustainable housing. Both depend on good planning, clear rules and a system that delivers outcomes rather than obstacles.

In August this year the government announced that it would fast-track 26,000 homes currently under environmental assessment. That builds on our ambitious $43 billion housing agenda—the most comprehensive housing plan in a generation. But, on its own, fast-tracking only treats the symptom. The measures in this bill tackle the underlying cause of delay while delivering greater protections for nature.

The reforms before the House are the most significant overhaul of our environmental laws in nearly 25 years, which were first introduced when I was five years old. It is time for reform. When the EPBC Act was first introduced in 1999 its aim was to protect matters of national environmental significance while supporting sustainable development. Over time the system became bogged down with complexity, duplication and delay. Assessments drag on for years, proponents face uncertainty and communities lose trust that environmental protections are enforced. In that vacuum, homes and habitats both suffer. That is why this government has gone back to first principles to build a system that protects nature while supporting reasonable growth.

These reforms rests on three pillars: firstly, stronger environmental protections and restoration not just to look after our special places but to regenerate them for future generations; secondly, more efficient and robust project assessments and approvals, enabling faster, better decisions on national priorities like renewable energy, manufacturing and housing; and, thirdly, greater accountability and transparency, delivering on our election commitment for a national environmental protection agency. Delivering on these pillars is critical to building the housing we need.

We have heard loud and clear from industry, communities and experts that the current system is not working. Assessments under the EPBC Act are unpredictable, take too long and create uncertainty across the economy. That is not good for builders, buyers, workers or investors and is not good for the environment. The slow and inconsistent system does not protect nature; it leaves projects proceeding without the strategic planning and restoration frameworks that these reforms will deliver.

These changes address the challenge head-on. By working cooperatively with states and territories while maintaining strong Commonwealth standards, by adopting landscape-scale approaches to environmental restoration and approvals, and by streamlining assessment pathways so that good projects move forward quicker and bad projects are stopped early, these changes together will create a system that is faster, fairer and more predictable without compromising environmental standards.

We reject the idea that we must choose between a strong environment and a strong economy. Our natural environment underpins our long-term prosperity. A well-designed regulatory system can and must deliver both. These bills are not a tug-of-war between protecting nature and addressing our housing shortage; they are about designing a system that does both, protecting our most precious natural assets while unlocking the homes and infrastructure Australians need.

The coalition have made it clear that they are not interested in how these reforms will help solve the housing shortage. In fact, they're not interested in housing at all. They checked out of housing for nine years in government. For most of that time they did not even have a housing minister. In opposition they have voted against new homes at every opportunity. Just this week the member for Wright said they didn't have a housing problem back when the coalition was in government, further proving how out of touch they are. The opposition have shown that they are only interested in saying 'no' to progress, to solutions, to responsibility and to each other. They have a choice this term: continue to play political games or work with us to tackle this generational challenge. Australians have seen through opposition for opposition's sake. The coalition should heed the message and work constructively with the government to reform Australia's environmental laws and help fix the housing crisis.

The same goes for the Greens. When it comes to housing, the Greens too often choose politics over progress. Australians are tired of slogans; they want solutions. The Greens should heed the same message as the coalition and work with the government to deliver these long overdue environmental reforms.

For our part, the Albanese Labor government has been clear and consistent. We are getting on the job of fixing a system that has failed for too long. We are rebuilding the foundations of a fair and sustainable housing market and restoring integrity and accountability to environmental decision-making. Communities should trust that projects meet the highest standards. Industry should know that if they do the right thing they will be treated fairly and efficiently. That is why establishing the National Environmental Protection Agency is so important. For too long, decisions have been clouded by uncertainty and mistrust. The new agency will provide independent oversight, ensure that standards are applied consistently and enforce the law when breaches occur. Australians deserve confidence that our environment is being protected and that our laws are being upheld. We are living in the era of unprecedented change. Climate change, biodiversity loss and population growth demand a more integrated approach that will help unlock the homes and communities that Australians need to thrive.

I want to acknowledge the people who have fought tirelessly to see these changes come to life. Back in 2018, more than 500 Labor branches voted for stronger national environmental laws. In my electorate, branch members are tireless in their environmental advocacy. I want to thank the rank-and-file branch members who have pushed for this legislation, the people who know that real reform starts in communities, not in Canberra. This is community led, ground-up policy. They recognise that our environment is not a political issue but a shared responsibility. I want to thank the environment minister, Senator the Hon. Murray Watt, for his tireless work on this reform. I also want to acknowledge the contribution to these reforms by the previous minister for environment, Minister Tanya Plibersek.

Our natural environment is one of the greatest gifts we can pass on. The next generation deserves to inherit clean rivers, thriving forests and protected coastlines. They also deserve to inherit cities and towns where they can afford to live, to raise a family and to build a life. We can do both, we must do both, and we will do both. As with nature, everything is connected, and this government believes that good policy is not choosing one priority over another but finding a way to advance both. That is what these reforms will do. We need to get this done. It's time to act, to deliver on what Australians put us here to do. Every day we delay is a day the environment is degrading further. Every day we delay is one that we could be building the renewable energy and the housing that we need for the future.

I rise to say we have a dilemma in the Environment Protection Reform Bill 2025. I know the timber industry and other areas definitely want to have security. They know that, if we do not come to some form of agreement, so many jobs and a vital industry for our nation will be put at risk, because it forces the Labor Party to deal with the Greens, and what a dilemma that is! What we see here and what I've been part of, as a person who lives in the country and lives on the property I was born on, is the continued encroachment into private property rights, which is a fundamental of a safe, secure, Western, free democracy. If you want something, we work on a very fair principle. If there is a community benefit that is desirous of a certain aspect that will be enforced by a caveat or exclusion, then you buy it. You offer a price and buy it. You don't just implicitly, from a government position, steal it. This is how we see it. If I were to say in your house that I'm going to pass a piece of legislation that says that you can only go into your kitchen on Tuesdays, that the third bedroom is not allowed to be used and that you can use your lounge room but you can only sleep on the right-hand side of your bed, you would say, 'That is a massive diminishment of the value of my house.' You would say, 'I expect to be paid for that, if that's what you really want.' But you're doing that to our farmland. You're doing that to our farmers.

The only reason we're meeting these targets, such as the Kyoto target—and I'll say at the start that the Liberal Party and the coalition were responsible for stitching us up in that, because they got the states to do the dirty work—is that people on the land have had to pay for them with the exclusion of their rights, the exclusion of their capacity to manage vegetation, manage regrowth and manage grasses. At my place, which is owned by me and my wife, we woke up one day, and our whole place was coded yellow or orange. That means that I can't even chop up a dead tree. I'm not allowed to. I have to get permission. I don't think you will see that in an urban environment. I don't think you could comprehend what a massive intrusion into our lives that is and how we feel that we've had it stolen. After working very hard to pay something off—and we did pay it off; we bought it and paid it off—it's been taken back off us. And it's not just for the trees; it's for the grasses and for the shrubs. It is insanity. The only part on the map that I'm allowed to touch is my lawn. That is it—the lawn. It is a fact.

An honourable member interjecting—

Well, it shows how ignorant you are. That's the problem we've got. You're completely ignorant of the facts, and that's why you stand so boldly behind this legislation. You really don't understand the effect of it. On this side, we can't just stop this ratcheting to the left and then say, 'Well, it won't go any further to the left under us.' No. It's got to go back. You've got to reinstall property rights. Who ultimately becomes the beneficiary of this? It's the bureaucracy that polices it.

In the past, my father worked for the department of agriculture. He worked for the government. His job was to assist people to get a better outcome from their land, to get a better outcome from their animal husbandry, to deal with viruses and to deal with pathogens. He was a clever man, dealing with microdoses and strain 19s. Bodies like that one have gone from assisting farmers to policing farmers. The only time they turn up—and it is a major fine—is for criminal convictions for doing what we've always done for generations on our property.

I shouldn't have to say this. From the aerial maps, you can see there are vastly more trees on our place than there were in 1969. We've got no problems with that, but we don't like being looked at by satellites and by AI. There's a fear all the time: 'Maybe I've done something wrong to my own land—my own property.' What we see with this is a dilemma in this legislation. I've been speaking to workers from the timber industry in electorate of Lyne, and they've been saying: 'You've got to cut a deal, because this affects our area. Please do not force them to the Greens.' I said, 'But hang on—then we've got to comply with this form of socialism that's coming in.'

Socialism, ultimately, is the primacy of the state over the rights of the individual. Every time we do this, we reinvest in the primacy of the state over the rights of the individual. On our side, we believe in the primacy of the individual over the state. The state is there for very important requirements—for health, for education and for defence—but it's not supposed to have excessive stewardship or ownership of my private asset, and that is what has been happening with this. All these incremental caveats that are placed on our assets always come with some apparently quasi-benevolent form. It's climate change. It's biodiversity. It's this. It's that. It's salinity. They're all plausible in their first iteration, but the solution is always a loss of property rights, another caveat on what we can do.

I know little about lots, but I know lots about politics, and I sense in the public a dynamic pushback against this. I see it even in issues which identify a catalyst of where issues are. In the Rockhampton Morning Bulletin this morning, there was a poll on coal fired power. It found 9,300 people in support and 142 against. I think that's reflective of an overall cynicism that people have about the whole process, and it's being expressed in that issue. People are saying: I think I'm going to call rubbish on a lot of this stuff because all I can see is the government getting bigger, the nation getting broker, industry leaving, farmers being dispossessed of their assets, people becoming poor and pensioners becoming poorer.

And for the benefit of whom? Cui bono? Who benefits? Bureaucrats? I know it's some sort of Zeitgeist that I really don't know the numbers of. Is it billionaires—people who are smart, who put themselves up as the white knights of the environmental movement, from their corporate jet? You'd probably find that their tax affairs were based in Singapore and they were resident in Monaco. The beneficiaries of the wealth of all of these caveats on things such as your electricity—your swindle factories—don't reside in Australia; a lot of them reside overseas. So, in some of these things, I just wanted to show you how perverse some of these offsets are.

You talk about a housing crisis—and the member for Parkes did a brilliant speech before, and I recommend it to those who want to see some of the examples of how ridiculous this is. At Denman, I'm trying to help with an aged-care facility. They are going to extend it into a paddock. It is rubbish country, with a couple of dead trees—a rubbish country paddock. They had to spend—

They gave them $13 million or $11 million—

I'll take the interjection from the member for Hunter. As he well knows, they had to put $3½ million to offsets to build aged-care units. So you know what they did? They didn't build as many units, which means that people didn't go out of their houses, which means that other people didn't have houses to go into. In a very specific example, it shows you how obscene this policy is, in that you would say to people, 'No, we're not going to have aged-care units. We're going to send your money off to'—I don't know—'Ningaloo Reef for some environmental offset.'

Right now we have tens of thousands of acres in the Upper Hunter where the cattle have been removed and they're just going to plant trees—

Cooplacurripa.

On Cooplacurripa, in the seat of Lyne, they used to have 8,000 head of cattle. Eight thousand head of cattle—they're gone. That means there's pressure coming on the jobs of the meat workers who used to cut up the 8,000 head of cattle. That means the trucks that used to transport those 8,000 head of cattle are losing out. That means those shops that used to make money out of the people who had cattle on Cooplacurripa will lose out—the hairdresser; the tyre business. And for whom? For the Zeitgeist. And do you offer anything back? No. You give nothing.

Unless we are going to evolve into a higher form of termite, this is not much use to us. And that is happening to place after place after place. This is perverse! We are actually putting up a policy to reduce the production of food, so that, after we've absolutely butchered the electricity market, we're going to butcher the food market. Why would we do that?

Hand in glove with that, we're always seeing that they no longer believe in coal-fired power stations—they're evil—and they're always, with a wink and a nod, having a shot at the coalmining industry and coalminers. It's always the case that they're running down the blue-collar workers that the Labor Party was born to look after. That is who you were supposed to look after—blue-collar workers. But you've given up on them. There's only a handful—two or three—blue-collar workers left in the Labor Party. Mostly they're bureaucrats or staffers or whatever, but they're not people who've worked with their hands; they're not people who've worked outside. They just don't exist anymore. That's an item of history—that that section of the Labor Party was there.

You say you got a lot of votes. You got about 34 or 35 per cent of the primary.

More than you got!

More than us, I grant you that. But I'll tell you what: I would be really careful of that vote! I'd be careful of standing behind that vote.

Here's another example. We were going to run out of water for the city of Tamworth. We had only 40,000 megs in the storage, and, when we applied to increase the storage—which I got—we had to break the offset laws, because of the Booroolong frog. I thought that frogs lived in water; I thought the frogs would be happy. But apparently they weren't. And it was serious. People got terribly upset, because their investment in the Booroolong frog was more important than 70,000 people in the city of Tamworth having water to drink. It is almost a sort of Kafkaesque and alternative universe that we have created—this mad type of philosophy which works at complete odds to not only the regional areas but to the rights of the farmer, to the prosperity of small regional towns and villages, to the strength of our nation and to the maintenance of what is fundamental. We talk about a housing crisis, and you shut down the timber industry. We talk about the cost-of-living crisis, and you shut down the coal-fired power stations and say you've got to use the most expensive form of electricity in the world, as shown—which is intermittent power. We say we believe in pensioners—yet you make them pay multiple millions of dollars in the small country towns for environmental offsets. Then you go to some sort of branch members' meeting and everyone's bleeding all over the place about how important this is for the environment. Go up to Denman and explain to the aged-care facility why you are taking $3.5 million dollars off them for a paddock. Why would we do this? Why do we do this?

This brings us to the question of where we go from here. Once more: the timber industry is very important. It's very important for the member of Lyne's seat. It's not so important for mine, but it definitely has a role. We somehow have to get sane people to cut a deal that helps industries such as timber and allows more of a streamlining so that we are not completely tied up in red tape. But we also have to, in that process, start putting some ring-roads around the intrusion into our private property rights that you have dealt us. The member for Hunter says it's the state governments; the state governments do it to us because they don't have to pay just and fair compensation. But the Commonwealth government is the source of the primary legislation and the primary targets, with all the international targets they want to meet. They're the beneficiaries. The state governments are the implementers, and we are the poor bunnies who pay the price.

There is nothing more distinctively Australian than our stunning natural environment, and there are few places more iconic than the Three Sisters in the Blue Mountains—a World Heritage area in my electorate. In fact, it's the 25th anniversary of the declaration of the area as a World Heritage area on 29 November. This is an area that gets four million visitors a year. They come because we are known around the world for our wilderness in Sydney's backyard. We need to protect it. Our environment and economy are intrinsically linked. For the Blue Mountains, our tourism relies on a healthy natural environment. It matters in the Hawkesbury and along the Nepean too. For the Hawkesbury especially, the agricultural sector relies on a healthy natural environment. Australians want governments, businesses and environmental groups to work together to protect our environment and to reap the economic benefits of sustainable development.

This last election, people put their trust in Labor. They clearly rejected the extremes of politics on both sides. We know it's really important to build connections from all sides. That goes to the type of government Australians have told us that they want. We need to be able to accept the science and to build coalitions across the community while solving the problems and keeping the lights on. This Environment Protection Reform Bill 2025, and cognate bills, delivers modern, fit-for-purpose national environmental laws that ensure big gains for both the environment and for business. The Albanese government is committed to reforming our environmental laws to deliver stronger protections, reduce duplication and boost accountability and transparency in decision-making.

The legacy of every Labor government in my lifetime has been to improve the environment for future generations. That is an endless task. In June 1987, Bob Hawke went to the Daintree to announce that he was going to seek World Heritage listing for that site. I flew with the prime minister that day, as a young journalist, to report on the announcement. It was incredible to witness history. That decision and announcement in the election campaign that year, came on the back of the Hawke decision to save the Franklin River from being dammed a few years earlier.

The Keating government began the establishment of Indigenous Protected Areas, which now cover 112 million hectares of land and sea. Rudd signed us up to climate action through the Kyoto protocol, and Gillard continued that work. The Albanese government is aiming to protect and conserve 30 per cent of Australia's land and 30 per cent of our marine areas by 2030. And we've committed more than $1 billion in funds for that plus the Indigenous Protected Areas Program to protect critical biodiversity areas, as well as our ambitious plan to stop species extinction.

One of the projects we've done in Macquarie is a million-dollar grant for the Hawkesbury Environment Network and incredible platypus work by Western Sydney University researcher Dr Michelle Ryan and her colleagues. And a new koala project will soon begin with Science for Wildlife and the Blue Mountains World Heritage Institute, worth nearly $3.5 million, to research and look at land and threat management to help establish a koala stronghold in the Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area. This has the potential to support 20 per cent of New South Wales koalas.

So, Labor makes a difference to the environment. We protect it, and Australians endorsed the Albanese government's policy agenda at the election. That agenda involved protecting jobs and the environment. That includes making sensible reforms to protect our environment and deliver certainty to business. It's been five years since Graeme Samuel tabled his report for the former environment minister, currently the Leader of the Opposition, and our laws remain fundamentally broken. They aren't working for the environment or for industry. These new laws are a targeted and balanced package of reforms to the EPBC Act, centred on three pillars. No 1. is stronger environmental protection and restoration. No. 2 is more efficient and robust project approvals. And No. 3 is greater accountability and transparency in decision-making.

These are stronger environmental protection and restoration laws that won't just deliver better protections for our special places but also will restore and regenerate them for future generations. There will be more efficient and robust project assessments and approvals that will allow us to better respond and deliver on national priorities like the renewable energy transition and the housing that we need. There will be greater accountability and transparency in decision-making to give all Australians confidence that good decisions are being made.

Let's work through some of the changes. First of all is the National Environmental Protection Agency, the EPA. Under the proposed reforms we'll establish the first ever national EPA, delivering on an election commitment that was proudly campaigned for by my branch members and by many other people in my community: the Labor Environment Action Network, or LEAN; the Blue Mountains Conservation Society; Bushfire Survivors for Climate Action; the Australian Conservation Foundation in my local area; the Macquarie Alliance for Climate; the GetUp members in the Macquarie electorate; and the Hawkesbury Environment Network. They all want to see this change.

The EPA would exercise a range of powers independently of the minister, such as compliance and enforcement of the laws and project conditions and the auditing of state and territory processes for project assessments and approvals against the new national environmental standards. What are they? Well, reforms will allow the minister to make national environmental standards that set boundaries for decisions so they deliver improved environmental outcomes. Their aim is to protect, conserve and restore important environmental areas and species to genuinely make up for the environmental damage that's done and deliver a net gain for the environment to support better decision-making and to help the public understand and comment on projects.

We recognise that some impacts can't be approved unless the project is in the national interest. The reforms include a new definition of 'unacceptable impact' specific to each protected matter. Among other things, they'll provide a safeguard against impacts that cause irreversible loss of Australia's biodiversity and heritage and clearly define what types of environmental harm must be avoided and cannot be offset. That includes World Heritage areas like the Blue Mountains. It includes threatened species and it includes wetlands of international importance. Significantly, this bill ensures that projects must leave the environment better off by introducing the concept of net gain for environmental offsets. This is a shift from the current rules, which focus on no net loss. Projects will be required by law to avoid, mitigate and repair damage to protected matters wherever possible. Any residual significant impacts on nationally protected matters must be fully offset to achieve a net gain for the environment. That's the improvement. The net gain can be achieved either by the proponent directly delivering an offset or through an upfront financial contribution to a restoration fund. This shifts the dial towards avoided impacts and restoration, giving our native populations the opportunity to regenerate, recover and become more resilient.

I want to give a bit more detail about environmental offsets. Sometimes, projects can harm the environment in ways that can't be avoided. When this happens, this is how we offset to compensate or make up for the damage. Under the proposed changes to the EPBC Act, it will require project managers to avoid harm in the first place—that's No. 1—and then offset that remaining impact to deliver the net gain. The proposed changes will allow certain biodiversity certificates issued under the nature repair market to be used for environmental offsetting. So project proponents have some options. They can deliver an offset themselves, they can pay for the government to do it via a restoration contribution payment, or they can do a combination of both. A new restoration contributions holder will manage the funds to deliver the net gain and ensure transparency.

The reforms also introduce new emissions disclosure requirements. In keeping with Professor Samuel's recommendations, there's no climate trigger in this bill, but major emitting project proponents will be required to disclose estimates of scope 1 and scope 2 greenhouse gas emissions as part of gaining federal environmental removal. Proponents will also be required to disclose their plans to reduce those emissions and explain how those measures are consistent with government laws and policies.

Excuse me. Have you ever planted a tree?

This legislation is not a tug of war between the environment and the economy. I've heard the coalition, the Greens and some Independents each argue that you can have one but not the other. That isn't true. These reforms deliver a balanced package while delivering more efficient and robust project approvals, which means more renewables projects will be approved more quickly—

Have you ever planted a tree?

Order! The member for Kennedy will cease interjecting.

and that will help people with their energy costs and lowering emissions. But we will also be delivering the strongest environmental protection and restoration laws that Australia has had. It won't just deliver better protections for our special places but restore and regenerate them for future generations.

I wonder whether people in this place ever did a history lesson in their lives. I asked the lady who was just speaking whether she'd ever planted a tree. In every single environmental meeting I have ever been to—

The member for Kennedy will refer to members by their proper title.

I don't know what her proper title is.

It is the member for Macquarie.

The member for Macquarie—I simply asked her if she'd ever planted a tree. Could I ask you again? Have you ever planted a tree?

I've planted dozens of trees.

She has planted thousands of trees! Where?

I live in the World Heritage Blue Mountains.

Order, both members on both sides. I'm not going to have banter between both sides. It's through the chair that you ask the questions, and you're speaking through the chair.

I'll move on. What is happening here is about my ownership of land and the undermining of our freedoms, our integrity, our 'comfortableness' and our ease. They are being taken away and given to a bunch of bureaucrats sitting on their backsides in air conditioned comfort in Canberra. They're going to tell me what I can and can't do with my land. Who is better qualified to look after the land—a fifth-generation grazier, or fifth-generation cane farmer, or some beggar sitting on his backside here who's a fifth-generation public servant in Canberra? Who'd know more about it? Why is he living in Canberra in air-conditioned comfort, and why is he or she living out there in the wilderness? It's because they love the wilderness. That's why they're living there. Why are you living in Sydney? It's because you're terrified of the wilderness! You don't understand it. You've never set foot in it. You've never lived there. You've never aspired to make your country better off than it is.

It would be just wonderful if these people read some books and had an understanding of history. The authoritarian government in Britain said, 'I own your land,' to the people of America, and the Americans said: 'Hey, wait on a minute. I own my land. That's my farm. That's where I run my cattle. That's my land!' The authoritarian government in England said, 'No—we own the land!' That's exactly what you're saying today: 'We own the land, not you. We, the authoritarian government, the ruling class, own the land.'

I pose the question again: who would know more about the land—love it and protect it? Would it be the people who live on the land or the person sitting on his shiny backside here in Canberra? Your proposition is that the person sitting on his shiny backside here in Canberra knows best, rather than the person that's living there.

I'll tell you your collection of achievements. You brought in some bugs to solve a problem that was there. The bugs ran amok and created enormous problems, so you brought in the toads, to get rid of the bugs. The toads were eaten by the dingoes and by the goannas, so now there are no dingoes or goannas. You took away the predator—for example, crocodiles. There was a balance of nature. A mother crocodile has 60 eggs. My forebears, the blackfellas, took the eggs—a lot of them, not all of them. There was a balance that had been there for 30,000 years, but you took the balance away. You took away the human beings that were taking the eggs. Now, with 60 eggs a year—you imagine if every woman in Canberra had 60 babies a year. We'd solve our underpopulation problem very quickly! That is what is happening out there with the crocodiles.

Then there are the pigs in the national parks. In the good old days in Queensland, the Labor Party and its successor, the Country Party—it was dominated by Labor after the split—allowed you to go hunting. There were no pigs in the rainforest, because hunters went in and shot them. Then you removed the hunters. You removed my forebears, the old blackfellas, who used to take a lot of the crocodile eggs, so now the crocodile numbers are exploding everywhere. Now there are no fish in the rivers, because they're being eaten by the crocodiles. You think you know about nature and you start fooling around with it, but all you've done is disaster after disaster after disaster. Since you took the shooters out of the national parks—which is about half of North Queensland, I might add, with all the jungle—the pig numbers have exploded and now the cassowaries are doomed. There is no way that the cassowary can survive with the pigs taking their eggs, and there's no way that the turtles can survive the explosion of pig numbers. Are you doing anything about the pigs? Yes, you are; you've got traps—400 traps for about three million pigs!

In a pub, in the real world, where people like myself sort of live—I put on the record that when I said 'in the real world, in the pubs' they burst out laughing. They think it's funny that Australians still go down to the pubs and talk to each other. They are laughing at it. I'll tell you where Labor Party was founded and formed: in the pubs of North Queensland. As a published historian, I can speak with some considerable authority. As the great-grandson of one of the major financial creators of the Labor movement, I can also speak with authority.

I speak with authority when I say I am watching the cassowaries—the trademark of most of the councils in Far North Queensland—vanishing as the pigs take the eggs, and no-one is doing anything about the pigs except for 400 traps. Please excuse me for laughing. If you would license the shooters to go into the national parks, they would take out the pigs and, in 30 years' time, we would have cassowaries and we would have turtles. But, thanks to you people, there will be no cassowaries and no turtles. For those of us that live in this country, we love our cassowaries and we love our turtles. That's why we live in the bush. That's why we live in North Queensland. It's because we love the land that we choose to live there. You don't choose to live on the land; you choose to live in Canberra. That is the complete opposite to the people of North Queensland and their value systems.

There is a second thing happening here which is very troubling indeed. I don't say it by way of skiting, but speaking as a published historian, you don't get to publish a book unless you know an awful lot about history. They won't simply publish your book. Believe me, I've tried that. Knowing a little bit about our history, I think about the Mandarin class that ran China for about 400 or 500 years. Once you have a class of people whose children go into positions of power and their grandchildren go into positions of power—that is Canberra: five generations of power people. They haven't had to make a quid out of selling some beef, some cattle. They haven't had to make quid out of cutting cane by hand. They haven't had to make a quid milking dairy cows. They have made a quid by milking the Australian people. That's how they make a quid and you want to give them the power.

Well you want to read about the history of China and find out how the Mandarin class went against the property respecting countries like America, England, France and the European countries that had this institution called private property. When they got that institution going and speeding up, they became the rulers of the world, for good and for bad—and I won't go into good or bad. I'm just saying that that created the enormous power of the Mandarin class, as they were called, in China.

That is what is happening today. I lose my land rights, as a person that loves the land and has lived in the land all my life, and they're given to someone down here. My wife is from a city background. She got 15 acres of land in Charters Towers and put a thousand trees on what was land without a single tree upon it when she went there. You can multiply her by half a million in North Queensland, because we are the group of people who plant trees. We are the group of people that love nature. That's why we live there. You are the group of people that don't plant trees and don't live in nature. There's another one laughing. He thinks that's funny. He thinks it's funny that a Mandarin class should rule Australia and have all the power, and the people that live on the land should have no power at all. He thinks that's funny with his very peculiar sense of humour.

Honourable members interjecting—

There you go. They're laughing again. That's very curious to me, very curious indeed. Let me name a name: a gentleman called Daniel Messina—a hell of a good young bloke. He worked in the mines and was captain of the rugby league team in Cloncurry. He comes from Gordonvale near Cairns. He saved his money and bought a small block of land. Then he bought another block of land. And then he bought 100 acres of very prime agricultural land, and he wanted me to see it. He insisted on me coming down to see it. I said, 'Daniel, why do you want me to see it?' He said, 'Just have a look at the ground.'

Every single square inch of that ground was covered in Singapore daisy and another weed—the name's escaping me at the present moment. The entire land was covered by them. That's what he wanted me to see. Two gentlemen that had lived there together were greenies, and they wanted to return to nature. So they took all the agriculture out and returned it to nature. And, within 25 years, every square inch of that land was covered in Singapore daisy and this other introduced species that I can't think of. You are naive if you think that you just step away and it'll go back to being nature. No, it won't. The most powerful of the plants will take over. When you have a country that now has tens of thousands of plants coming in each year, whether we like it or not, then the most powerful plant will prevail. Invariably, amongst those 10,000 plants you brought in, there will be some very aggressive plants.

Sadly, that is what is happening in North Queensland—except on the land that people in North Queensland occupy. They live there because they love the trees, they love the jungle and they love the environment. That's why they live there. So they're going to protect it, and they're going to keep those weeds and bad guys out. There are no pigs in sugarcane lands, on the farms or in the areas where we're grazing cattle on the coast. There are no pigs there because we get rid of them. But on your land—the land that you look after, the national parks—there are 3½ million pigs estimated to be living on your national parks. You're breeding the pigs. We're trying to shoot them out, but you're breeding them.

There, again, he laughs! He thinks it's funny that there are 3½ million pigs destroying all environmental native flora and fauna. He thinks that's funny. He keeps laughing at it—a very peculiar sense of humour.

There's the other issue of authoritarian rule, the Mandarin class: 'We are the rulers, and we know what is best for you. You don't know what's best for you, but these people down here do.' The incredible arrogance of the presumption that is built into this bill is breathtaking. And I commend Barnaby Joyce for his words earlier on in this area. I'll tell you how to look after North Queensland. The Forty Mile Scrub is the most iconic national park in North Queensland—completely wiped out by fire! (Time expired)

My name is Matt Smith, and I'm of the Far North. The member for Kennedy is correct. The story of the north is told by farmers over generations, be it cane, bananas or cattle. It is told by the songlines of 60,000 years, celebrating the country, culture, sea and air. It is told by the tourism industry that delights people from all over the world as they visit our two World Heritage areas. We support industry and mining. We have tungsten, zinc, bauxite and silica, the tools required for the energy transition. All of it is in abundance in my beautiful part of the world, which is a place I'm very proud of and a place I know the member for Kennedy is very proud of. He speaks of it passionately. Nobody loves the land like a farmer. Nobody loves the reef like the tourism operators. Nobody loves country like mob. There is no better place to demonstrate why this bill is needed than Leichhardt, because we need to give our industries, including our farmers and our tourism industry, the surety that they need to continue business, continue to bring wealth to the area and continue to drive jobs and economic development in my region, but we also need to protect the natural assets that allow us to do so. Our farmers need to be able to keep farming. Our tourism operators need a healthy and thriving reef. The reef and the Daintree are symbiotic. One cannot exist without the other. They have to be protected. We need to have regulations that work both for environmentalism and the industry. Otherwise, we hang out electorates like mine to dry.

I hear multiple arguments that we're going too far or not going far enough, but the balance is critical. Without the balance, I'm losing one or the other, and I can't lose one or the other. You would destroy the far north. We cannot go without our mining. Our mining will drive the energy transition—the silicon in the solar rooftops, the tungsten in the wires and the aluminium that is powering basically everything in this building.

You've got the best silicon deposits in the world.

The member for Kennedy agrees. Our beautiful natural wonders—all of it is critical. Seventy-seven thousand jobs are connected to the Great Barrier Reef. Over $90 billion it is worth to this nation. That makes it the biggest employer in the country by a not-insignificant margin. It is a great thing to have and a great thing to protect, and that's what these laws are about—making sure we can have one and the other. It is not binary. It never has to be binary, and to argue that it is is a fabrication.

These reforms will deliver better protection for everyone. The Business Council of Australia accepts this. I've been meeting with mining companies. I've been meeting with environmental groups. Everyone understands the desperate, desperate need for these laws so that there is understanding and clarity moving forwards. Clarity is fine. Clarity is what anybody wants at all times: 'Give us the superstructure and we can work within it.' But, at the moment, it is higgledy-piggledy. They don't know whether they're coming or going. It makes it hard. Investors lose billions of dollars on projects that go nowhere. This will give our investors surety. Environmentalists are pushing for the protection of areas that don't require it, because they don't understand the nature of it all. The far north is wild—some of it pristine, some of it not so much. Some of it can be mined; some of it cannot. Some of it is prime agricultural land, and it needs to stay that way. We need to give that protection to our people.

So this will give us, as led by the review by Professor Graeme Samuel, stronger environmental protection and more efficient and robust project assessment, with greater accountability—'accountability' being the keyword. It always has to come. The buck needs to stop somewhere. I'm sure that people have different views. We're going to hear from many of them. But this bill works for Leichhardt. It works for my area, and it will work for the rest of the nation too. Not everywhere has the same sort of balance that I have to maintain, but trust me: on some level you certainly will.

If we look at the content of the bills, we see the first national EPA, a clear Labor commitment, which will bring the regulatory functions and natural environment laws into a single independent agency. That's the accountability we're talking about. It provides transparency in the decision-making. It allows people confidence. We will ensure that a new ministerial power to make national environmental standards will be inserted into the EPBC laws to give more certainty for environmental laws, and we'll deliver improvements in the offsets framework to get a net gain that ensures environmental offsets support restoration rather than just mitigating harm. Restoration is great; going further is better.

As to the risks that people talk about for the food bowls, they will remain. Farmers will remain farmers because farmers want to remain farmers. If they make a commercial decision elsewhere, that's good for them; they're doing what is good for their family, the way every single Australian should, and it's their right to do so. We are giving them more options.

The assessment pathway will be streamlined, with the removal of three to six existing pathways and the introduction of a new streamlined assessment pathway providing a fast approval process for proposals, which will provide better information upfront. The member for Kennedy would know—he comes from a mining area—that sometimes things get bogged down, get buried or go sideways. This is going to make it easier—track projects and get them started, get us jobs and get us minerals that are going to make us not just a power but a superpower in renewable energy. We have that potential. That one measure alone, of streamlining proposals, is estimated to save as much as $7 billion. That goes back into those companies—more R&D, more research, more product, more jobs. There will be a clear set of enforceable rules. Once you know the rules you can always play the game.

The renewable energy transition is upon us. Minister Bowen gives us an update daily, much to the joy of those of us on this side of the House. Living in a unit, I was thrilled to know that I will now get three hours of free power because I don't have access to my roof. We are bringing it further even faster—69 projects generating more power, and 15 providing energy storage such as batteries. This government has given the green light to 29 projects to support the energy transition, including four hydrogen power projects that help set up Australia's renewable future. The Albanese Labor government has a clear plan to replace our ageing coal generators with cleaner, cheaper renewables and is making huge progress.

This is about creating jobs and creating our future. We on this side want Australia to thrive in a modern economy in a modern world that is heading towards net zero and is embracing renewables, and we have the technology, the space, the minerals, the resources and, frankly, the people to get it done. We should be proud of what we're putting forward today. We should be proud of the clarity we're giving business and the environment, and the ability that we're giving people to move forward and move this great country forward as well. We will fight for these reforms to deliver better environment protections and more certainty for business. Nobody wants broken environmental laws, which is, by unanimous consent, what we have had for the last 20 or 30 years.

We can get this done and delivered to the people of Australia. We can do what we were put here to do and guarantee our nation's future. Every day we delay, we degrade our environment and we make it harder for business to succeed. We deserve better.

If good policy is met with greater prosperity, this government seems intent on salting the soil. After three years of promises, backflips and bureaucratic composting, Labor has finally planted its so-called Environment Protection Reform Bill 2025 and six associated bills. Make no mistake, this isn't a plan to make Australia greener; it's a plan to make Australia slower, poorer and tangled in so much red and green tape that no-one can tell where the vines begin or end. These bills, around 1,500 pages long, are a legislative jungle. They were dropped on the parliament floor like a storm-felled tree. Now Labor wants to rush them through before anyone has had a chance to read the warning signs carved in the bark.

The coalition cannot and will not support these reforms in their current form because, instead of protecting the environment, they threaten to choke our economy. This is the most significant environmental overhaul in a generation, yet the government is trying to push it through in just weeks. Stakeholders from the Business Council to the mineral sector, from farmers to housing developers, have all asked for more time to read, analyse and consult. They want to make sure this reform is workable.

The Business Council of Australia has been crystal clear: without significant changes, we risk embedding a system that is even slower, is more complex and lacks the clarity and certainty needed for investment. In other words, Labor's so-called reform is not fertilising growth; it's strangling it. Yet, after four years and two elections, Labor still haven't delivered the environmental protection agency they keep promising. They've had more false starts than a wind farm without wind.

In the last parliament, Minister Plibersek attempted to push through ridiculous reforms. They were so extreme left that the Premier of Western Australia contacted the Prime Minister, and overnight those bills were stopped. Wow! That's saying something when it's too left for the Premier of WA. That historical failure is a cautionary tale. It shows what happens when reforms are rushed and sets the context for why Australians should be rightly concerned today.

The coalition supports strong, sensible environmental laws, and we always have. When the Leader of the Opposition was minister of the environment, she commissioned the Samuel review, a practical road map for modernising the 1999 EPBC Act. It was based on balance—protecting nature, while enabling responsible development. The coalition government began the reform process by introducing streamlining pathways and bilateral agreements to cut the duplication between Canberra and the states. Labor blocked that reform, then rebranded it and called it their own. We say: 'Fine. If you want to recycle our policies, at least read the instructions before you throw them in the green bin.'

Let's be clear about what's wrong here. Firstly, there's the environmental protection authority. Under Labor's model, the EPA's CEO will hold enormous powers, including the ability to stop projects indefinitely, without clear accountability or ministerial oversight. That is absurd! There is no binding statement of expectations, there are no performance measures and there's no capacity for the minister to terminate the CEO for failure to deliver. That's not accountability; that's bureaucracy on autopilot. Graeme Samuel's review was explicit: the EPA's role should be compliance and enforcement only, while assessment and approvals remain with the department. Labor ignored that. They created a body that is both regulator and referee. And that's not environmental management; that's environmental mayhem.

Secondly, there's scope 1 and scope 2 emissions reporting. Labor's bill requires proponents to report their emissions under the EPBC process, duplicating the existing safeguard mechanism. But nowhere in the bill does it clearly say that this information cannot be used for decision-making or for imposing conditions. That omission is a lawyer's paradise and a miner's nightmare. It opens the door to endless green lawfare. Industry groups have told us that they could live with the reporting if there were guardrails, but in this version the guardrails are gone. It's a slippery slope straight to a climate trigger by stealth.

Thirdly, there are 37 definitions of 'unacceptable impacts' spread over eight pages—37. That's not law; that's a complicated maze. Even existing projects that were once approved could be ruled out under these new standards. Industry says the definition should be removed from legislation and placed in flexible standards, not set in stone. If Labor does not fix it, it could block development faster than a landslide on a rural road.

Fourthly, there are the penalties and stop-work orders. The bill allows fines of up to $825 million—nearly $1 billion—for a penalty regime with no appeal rights and no proportionality. The EPA could issue an environmental protection order on the flimsiest grounds, shutting down operations indefinitely—no checks, no balances, no sunset clauses. That's not justice; that's a kangaroo court with a green backdrop!

These bills are sold as protecting the environment, yet they risk opening the door to green energy projects in places that should never be touched. Imagine wind farms on the Great Barrier Reef—an icon of Australia's natural heritage—in the name of emissions reductions that would barely move the needle on global emissions. Across Queensland, fertile farmland is being swallowed up by massive solar arrays. This is land that should be used for feeding Australians but, instead, is being turned into industrial deserts of solar panels. Koala habitats are under threat. Wind farms are being built in areas critical to the survival of these iconic species. Wind turbines that barely spin due to inconsistent wind are causing more environmental destruction than benefit. How many ecosystems, how many more species and how much more farmland will be lost in the name of hitting this arbitrary emission target?

The government wants Australians to believe that more wind and solar equals better environmental outcomes, but the reality is that uncontrolled, poorly sited projects are causing irreversible damage—all this destruction for emission reductions that are almost meaningless when Australia contributes just one per cent of global emissions. Yet our landscapes and our livelihoods bear the cost. If the minister truly cared about protecting our environment, we wouldn't be bulldozing ecosystems. We must ask ourselves: where does this destruction end? If the goal is net zero at any cost, Australians, their land, their water and our wildlife are being sacrificed with zero meaningful global impact. These bills, in their current form, fail to protect what Australians truly care about. They incentivise environmental damage under the guise of progress, and that's why these bills cannot be supported.

These reforms were sold as part of Labor's so-called productivity agenda, yet every serious economist knows they'll do the exact opposite. They'll drive up costs, slow down approvals and scare away investors. Let's talk about productivity. Australia has now fallen to second last among OECD nations. Only Mexico ranks lower. Labor says we need reform to fix productivity, then proposes legislation that makes it harder to invest and harder to build, mine and manufacture. It's like telling a farmer to grow more crops but locking the gate to his paddock.

In the last financial year, mining companies contributed $59.4 billion in taxes and royalties—money that pays for hospitals, schools and roads. Yet these are the industries Labor is happy to sacrifice to appease the Greens, and a deal with the Greens is a deal to turn off the lights on Australia's economy. Let's remember that, when the coalition introduced reforms to streamline approvals, Labor said no.

Australians can see through this spin. If the government were serious about environmental reform, it would bring industry, farmers and conservationists together. Instead, Labor has divided them. The coalition believes in practical environmental policy grounded in science, not slogans. We support ministerial decision-making remaining with the elected government, not unelected bureaucrats. We support no climate trigger. We support forestry exemptions under regional forestry agreements because our forestry industry is sustainable, world class and essential to regional jobs. We support reducing duplication between state and federal systems, and we support a proper national interest exemption because sometimes projects are just too important to delay with ideology. That's what balanced reform looks like.

So why the rush? Why the mad dash to get through this before Christmas when even Labor's own minister said back in June that the legislation wouldn't be ready until next year? Because the government wants to declare a political victory, not a practical one. They think passing a 1,500-page bill before Christmas will prove that they can get things done, but getting things done isn't the same as getting things right.

Our nation's wealth was built on natural resources, innovation and hard work. Mining, agriculture, manufacturing—these are the roots of our prosperity. Labor's reforms dig up our roots and replace them with bureaucracy. This isn't environmental protection; it's economic deforestation—and, when the canopy falls, it's everyday Australians who are left in the shade. We want environmental laws that protect our biodiversity and our competitiveness. We want clean air, healthy soils and flowing rivers, but what we also want is factories that hum, farms that thrive and jobs that stay right here in Australia. That's not too much to ask. It's what every sensible Australian expects.

This parliament has a choice. We can nurture growth with balanced, sensible reform or we can let poor ideology fill the garden of prosperity with weeds. The coalition will work constructively to prune what doesn't work, graft in accountability and clarity and ensure the final product is something Australians can live with and live from.

Environmental reform shouldn't come at the cost of national prosperity. It should be about balance, not bans; stewardship, not strangulation; and a greener future that doesn't leave our workers, our industries and our regions out in the cold. Until that happens, the coalition will not support these bills, because, when it comes to Labor's environmental reform, the only thing growing right now is a list of the reasons to vote against it.

I was extremely fortunate to grow up in the magnificent Blue Mountains, west of Sydney. During my childhood I spent countless hours with my parents and sisters bushwalking, camping or just being outdoors in nature. These experiences cultivated in me a lifelong love of nature and a deep desire to protect it. Australia's national parks, rivers, creeks, beaches, forests and incredible wildlife and landscapes are so unique and breathtakingly beautiful. It's never been so important for us to act swiftly to protect our natural environment, and I've heard from thousands of people in my electorate asking our government to act decisively to protect nature for current and future generations.

Labor has delivered all of Australia's major environmental reforms. This includes the establishment of Landcare, saving the Franklin River, protecting the Daintree and Kakadu, protecting the Great Barrier and Ningaloo reefs, building the largest network of marine parks in the world and taking meaningful action to address climate change.

As the member for Whitlam, I'm particularly proud of Gough Whitlam's legacy in relation to environmental conservation. The Whitlam government was one of the first governments in the world to support and ratify the World Heritage convention in 1974. This was a seminal moment which confirmed the role of the Commonwealth government in protecting the immense natural and cultural heritage of Australia. Whitlam recognised that protecting the environment was part of a global responsibility that required courage and leadership on the part of the federal government.

This leadership role was confirmed when the Hawke government stopped the damming of the Franklin River in Tasmania in 1983. This was a defining environmental decision that cemented Australia's commitment to safeguarding wild rivers and World Heritage landscapes. This landmark decision also set an important precedent for the leadership of the federal government regarding environmental protection and enshrined in the Australian consciousness that some places are too precious to lose.

Since Gough Whitlam—and for every Labor prime minister since—protecting the environment has been core to Labor's promise, and we owe gratitude to these former leaders for their foresight and courage. I'm therefore proud to be part of the Albanese Labor government and to have the opportunity to speak in support of the Environment Protection Reform Bill 2025 and the suite of amendments to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act.

Five years ago, Professor Graeme Samuel AC delivered his independent review of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act to the then minister for the environment, Sussan Ley. This review concluded that our national environmental law is fundamentally broken and outdated and that it's failing both the environment and business. Professor Samuel laid out a blueprint for reform, and this package is faithful to the review's recommendations. It is not a case of choosing one or the other, the environment or the economy; we can deliver for both. These reforms are underpinned by three key pillars: (1) stronger environmental protection and restoration, (2) improved productivity through more efficient and robust project approvals and (3) greater accountability and transparency in decision-making.

The first pillar, stronger environmental protection and restoration, includes the creation of a new ministerial power to make national environmental standards. These standards were the centrepiece of the Samuel review, and they set the boundaries for decisions to ensure they deliver improved environmental outcomes. Importantly, they also provide certainty and guidance for business by setting clear and enforceable expectations and uplifting the quality and consistency of decision-making. The Samuel review stressed that reforms to the law must not just protect our precious natural environment but also restore it. That's why, under these reforms, projects will be required to avoid, mitigate and repair damage to protected matters wherever possible. Any residual, significant impacts on nationally protected matters must be fully offset to achieve a net gain for the environment. This is an important improvement on the existing policy of no net loss.

The reforms will also clearly outline in legislation what is an unacceptable impact on the environment. The new definition of 'unacceptable impact' is specific to each protected matter. This will set clear and upfront criteria for impacts that cannot be approved unless the project meets the national interest test. It will increase transparency, consistency and certainty of decisions and provide a safeguard against impacts that cause the irreversible loss of Australia's biodiversity and heritage. There will be higher penalties for the most significant breaches of environmental law as well as environment protection orders for use in urgent circumstances to prevent and respond to major contraventions of the law. Overall, the reforms under the first pillar deliver more protection for the environment and, importantly, also focus on restoration and recovery.

The second pillar underpinning these reforms relates to productivity and efficiency. The system requires navigation of multiple assessment and approval processes across federal, state and territory jurisdictions. This creates lengthy delays while delivering no benefit for the environment. Central to the Samuel review were recommendations around reducing duplication between state and territory processes and Commonwealth processes, and this package of reforms 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. Another way in which productivity will be boosted is through a new streamlined assessment pathway.

This significantly reduces the assessment timeframe for proponents who provide sufficient information upfront and design their proposals in line with the environmental requirements and other requirements of these reforms. The Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water has calculated that the streamlined assessment pathway reforms alone will deliver annual savings of at least half a billion dollars and potentially up to $7 billion to the national economy. The bills before the House adopt Professor Samuel's recommendation that the EPBC Act should include a specific power to be used in rare circumstances that are in the national interest for one minister to make a decision that is inconsistent with the national environmental standards. Any such decision would be accompanied by a statement of reasons which includes the environmental implications of the decision.

The third and final pillar of this package enshrines greater accountability and transparency in environmental decision-making. The key to achieving this outcome is the establishment of Australia's first national environmental protection agency. This will be a proud Labor legacy, delivering on our election commitment. The new National Environmental Protection Agency will be a strong, independent regulator with a clear focus on ensuring better compliance with and stronger enforcement of Australia's new environmental laws. The reforms also introduce new emissions disclosure requirements that require major emitting project proponents to disclose estimates of scope 1 and scope 2 greenhouse gas emissions as part of gaining federal environmental approval. Proponents will be required to disclose their plans to reduce those emissions and explain how those measures are consistent with government laws and policies.

Since winning government in 2022, the Albanese government has passed strong laws to enforce big polluters to cut emissions so Australia gets to net zero carbon pollution by 2050. We've committed to 82 per cent renewable energy electricity by 2030 and approved 111 renewable energy projects, producing enough electricity to power more than 13 million homes. We've protected an extra 95 million hectares of Australian ocean and bush and expanded marine parks around Macquarie Island as well as the Territory of Heard Island and McDonald Islands, increasing the proportion of Australia's marine waters under protection to 52 per cent. We've invested over $600 million to better protect our threatened plants and animals and tackle feral animals and weeds that are devastating our native species. And we've increased funding for national parks and Indigenous rangers.

Under the Albanese government, renewable energy generation has reached new Australian records, up in volume by around 30 per cent since we came to government and reaching 46 per cent of the national market at the end of 2024. Last month, around half of all electricity in the national grid came from renewable sources, the highest monthly rate on record. On 11 October, for part of the day, nearly 80 per cent of electricity was generated by renewables. We are making strong progress to deliver 82 per cent renewable electricity by 2030, driven by our Capacity Investment Scheme, our Rewiring the Nation Fund and our Cheaper Home Batteries Program.

I've outlined just the highlights of the Albanese government's environmental achievements. The Environmental Protection Reform Bill, combined with a range of amendments to the EPBC Act, will build on this legacy by delivering reforms that benefit both the environment and business. These reforms incorporate a balanced package featuring: (1) stronger environment protection and restoration laws that won't just deliver better protections for our environment but restore and regenerate these special places for future generations; (2) more efficient and robust project assessments and approvals that allow us to better respond and deliver on national priorities, like the renewable energy transition, a Future Made in Australia, and the housing we need; and (3) greater accountability and transparency in decision-making to give all Australians confidence in these laws.

These reforms are long overdue. They're in the national interest and they are firmly in the spirit of the Samuel review. This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to build on Labor's legacy by reasserting the federal government's leadership role in protecting our shared heritage and placing the protection of the environment at the centre of our decision-making, not just for our generation but for generations to come. I commend this package of reforms to the House.

Our environment is in crisis. Nature is one of Australia's most precious assets—internationally recognised, deeply loved, and a source of solace, wellbeing and joy for so many—but it is in rapid decline.

The 2021 State of the environment report found that over 1,700 species and ecological communities are now threatened or at risk of extinction. Species loss is accelerating. Our oceans are warming and acidifying. Since that report was tabled, we've seen more extreme weather events, more fossil fuel projects and still no major overhaul of our broken environmental laws.

It's not just nature that's hurting. Business leaders, economists and investors are increasingly calling for stronger, clearer environmental legislation. They know that uncertainty and delay in project assessments come at a cost, including delaying renewable energy projects critical to combating climate change. They know that degraded ecosystems create risk, not resilience. They know that protecting the environment is essential to long-term productivity, liveability and prosperity. As former treasury secretary Ken Henry put it in his recent address to the National Press Club:

Boosting productivity and resilience relies on environmental law reform, but the biggest threat to future productivity growth comes from nature itself. More particularly, from its destruction.

The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act reforms have been coming for a long time. First created in 1999, this act established a legal framework to protect, manage and preserve nationally and internationally significant flora, fauna, heritage sites and ecosystems. In 2020, Professor Graeme Samuel AC's statutory review found that our nature laws were outdated, ineffective and not fit to address future or current environmental challenges. It was damning.

Since my election in 2022, I have called for a stronger EPBC Act, which will finally fix our broken environmental laws. However, these reforms were overdue three years ago; they were overdue two years ago. Last year they were overdue, and they're overdue now. While I welcome that the government is finally acting, I'll be honest: the process is not appropriate. It is unacceptable to bring a bill, with 1,500 pages of legislation, into the House and expect that the House should vote on this complex legislation within less than seven days. I can't in good conscience say to my community of Wentworth that I have full confidence in this bill and all its contents within this time frame. These reforms are complex. The devil is in the detail, and they require full scrutiny.

But let me tell you, there are positive things about the reform, and I do want to acknowledge that. There are parts that represent real, albeit overdue, progress, starting with higher standards. Higher, stronger standards—national environmental standards—are the cornerstone of the Samuel review's recommendations. This bill's introduction of new powers to create these standards and to require that decisions made by the minister responsible for the new Environmental Protection Agency align with them is a welcome and necessary reform. But while this mechanism is promising, its impact depends on the strength of the standards themselves. I understand that they sit outside the act. Transparency is limited. But if government wants to rebuild trust, the standards must face this sort of scrutiny.

Secondly, I believe we're going to get stronger enforcement through this law. One of the most welcome elements of the government's proposed EPBC reforms is the establishment of a new National Environmental Protection Agency with the authority and independence to enforce our environmental laws properly. The new agency will have the power to issue environmental protection orders, to require harmful activities to cease, to initiate both directed environmental audits and new compliance audits, and to use real-time tools to monitor breaches and respond effectively.

These powers go to the heart of ensuring that the environmental protections are more than just words on paper. Equally important is the strengthening of penalties. Under the proposed reform the agency will be empowered to seek to substantially increase fines, including civil penalties, up to—this is really significant—$825 million in the most serious cases. I think these are important, for the environment and also for business, on the basis that bad actors in business make it worse for everybody. If some businesses are trying to do the right thing and follow the laws and other businesses can get away without doing the right thing, you just encourage good businesses to behave badly. Having stronger penalties and clear standards is a way to actually get better action and make sure those bad actors can't run a lower-cost of business model because there aren't significant penalties. This long-overdue shift sends a clear message: environmental harm will bring serious consequences.

Let's talk about what it does for business, particularly around faster time lines. I welcome the government's introduction of a new streamlined assessment pathway under this legislation. It replaces an overlapping, confusing stream with one coherent pathway, cutting duplication and delay. If implemented well, this streamlined model will help accelerate project time lines, provide greater certainty for proponents and deliver stronger environmental outcomes—an essential balance in today's economic and ecological context.

Secondly, let's talk about the assessment process. We have the opportunity in these laws to have less ambiguity about approvals and assessments. For instance, a clearer definition of what constitutes an unacceptable impact can be beneficial to the environment and to business. Businesses needs certainty to invest. They need certainty to put in all the effort to put forward an investment case. If unacceptable impacts are very clear, that makes it easier for businesses to make decisions. For instance, under unacceptable impacts, if an impact would seriously impair the viability of a species or cause significant irreparable damage to habitat that is critical for species' survival, approval cannot be gained.

I believe these are sensible changes. They give a clear understanding of the boundaries while also strengthening environmental protections. Importantly, the government has also committed to introducing bioregional planning as a key part of the new environmental system, and I look forward to seeing these take shape. These regional plans will provide strategic context for decisions at a landscape scale, proactively identifying areas that are suitable for development, those that are environmentally sensitive and those where restoration is really needed. If done well it could, again, provide greater certainty and transparency for businesses, improve conservation outcomes, and help reduce delays and duplications in assessments. Stronger, clearer standards can benefit both nature and business alike.

Let me move to my concerns with the bills. Whilst I commend the government on the introduction of the reforms and for engaging both with environmental groups and business groups—many of whom I have spoken with in the last week and who have been, on the main, very appreciative of the constructive engagement that they have had with the government—there are still some very significant sticking points that could seriously harm the integrity of this legislation and actually create harm for the environments that the laws are seeking to protect.

Firstly, let's start with national interest approvals and proposal pathways. There are two provisions in these bills for national interest. The first national interest exemption allows for approval of projects subject to conditions in a specific timeframe as an expansion of an existing power. The minister can consider our national security or a national emergency. I understand this is a 'break glass in case of emergency' clause, with a statement of reasons published whenever it is used. This appears to be appropriate to me.

However, I hold deep concerns about the new power for national interest approvals or proposal pathways. This power allows the minister to determine that if an action is in the national interest, it need not satisfy the three approval tests or can be exempt altogether. My concern—and this has been echoed by others on the crossbench and also by the environmental movement—is that this definition is too broad, too discretionary and open to exploitation. This definition covers defence, security, strategic interests or international agreements and then explicitly says, 'This does not limit the matters the minister may consider.' This is, again, a broad definition of national interest. I have a definition and I'm sure someone else has a different definition. There are all sorts of things that we may or may not agree are in the national interest, but I think having this broad power in these bills creates a significant loophole and a great deal of uncertainty in the legislation. There could, as Ken Henry recently warned, be a 'conga line of developers' lobbying for this carve-out. Again, this ambiguity is not good for business.

The second concern shared widely across Wentworth and the country is the continued exemption for continued native forest logging and the continuous use exemption allowing land clearing without federal approval. Currently, logging covered by the regional forestry agreement is exempt from the EPBC Act. This exemption remains unchanged in this legislation. This is deeply disappointing. RFAs are not adequately protecting threatened species and I believe the government knows this. The Forestry Corporation of New South Wales was recently taken to court for breaching its state's laws. We know that, without proper regulation, species like the greater glider, the koala and the grey-headed flying fox are heading for extinction.

Since the EPBC Act commenced in 2000, more than 11.5 million hectares of land have been cleared, including three million hectares of remnant native vegetation. A University of Queensland study this year found most land clearing occurs without assessment of environmental impacts, worsening both the biodiversity and climate crises. Even though forests are home to threatened species, and logging and land clearing can wipe them out, these exemptions persist. I do not believe the government should have introduced these laws without dealing with these exemptions. I think they know that. I think they're leaving these exemptions open as a negotiating ploy, potentially, with the Senate. That is another reason why it is not appropriate for that to not be included in these bills before the House.

My next concern relates to transparency and independence. I'm pleased to see the NEPA—the National Environmental Protection Agency—established, but I have real concerns about its independence. The minister retains decision-making power and may delegate to NEPA, whose CEO will be appointed by the minister of the day. That's not independence. The Samuel review explicitly recommended against retaining such ministerial discretion. It undermines trust, transparency and enforcement. The NEPA must truly be the tough cop on the beat—independent, transparent and free from political influence. I do not think that, in its current form, such independence is guaranteed, and it therefore may not provide the enforcement that our environment needs.

My next concern relates to the offsets proposed restoration fund. The Samuel review criticised the overuse of biodiversity offsets, which should be used as a last resort. Instead, they've become the default. The new restoration fund risks creating a pay-to-destroy model, letting developers offset destruction with a cheque and shifting responsibility to the government. The New South Wales Biodiversity Offsets Scheme has shown the pitfalls of this approach, with the funds accumulating but not being effectively spent. Western Australia's Pilbara region has seen similar issues. There is an argument, and I see the argument, for having some sort of fund here. But the use of offsets needs to be strictly controlled and only genuinely used as a last resort, not as a licence to destroy critical habitat.

Finally, on climate, I'm disappointed climate is not properly considered in these reforms. Climate change remains the single greatest threat to Australia's biodiversity and nature, from rising ocean temperatures to floods, fires, droughts and extreme weather. While proponents must disclose their emissions and mitigation plans, they aren't required to be considered by the minister or the EPA or be independently verified. In fact, the legislation explicitly prevents the minister from considering anything beyond the set approval tests. The government argues this is unnecessary because emissions are managed under the safeguard mechanism, but that's not managed effectively. The safeguard mechanism is relied on heavily here, yet it is not effective enough in its current form to carry the burden. It needs to be expanded and fit for purpose. If the government were truly serious about recognising the climate impacts on nature, they would strengthen the safeguard mechanism alongside these bills to make sure those protections are really there—but they are missing.

Finally, I acknowledge that the business community, who I've spoken to, also have a number of concerns or changes they would like to see in this legislation. I don't have time in this speech to go through them, but I think some of these are very valid and thoughtful concerns and they should be addressed in the drafting of these absolutely mighty bills. I understand a number of constructive amendments have been put forward via the crossbench to identify and manage some of the loopholes. I will also be moving some amendments.

In conclusion, I am really torn, I'll be honest, whether to support these bills in their current form. The reforms are urgent to protect nature, to enable clean energy and to support productivity. I have been consulting widely with business and environmental groups, and they are telling me, to a person, that the laws matter and we have to get them right. I believe, on balance, that these bills are better than what we have now—but, given the short time I have to consult on this, it's honestly hard for me, hand on my heart, to tell that to my community with absolute certainty. There are opportunities to seriously improve the bills, and I urge the government to engage seriously with the crossbench amendments that have been put forward in good faith and engage across the parliament; I think there's an opportunity. I also urge the coalition, the Greens and all the other parties in the parliament to work on these bills to make them better and get them passed. They are urgent, they are important but they still have a way to go.

In Menzies, the electorate I am honoured to represent, we are blessed with a beautiful natural environment. The mighty Yarra River forms the northern boundary of the electorate. It runs through Warrandyte, where you can swim in the river or hike on the Goldfields Track. It runs around the beautiful Westerfolds Park, around the gardens of Heide Gallery and Banksia Park. We've got great tracks for cycling and jogging like the Koonung Creek trail and Gardiners Creek trail. We also have fantastic green spaces, like Ruffey Lake Park, Box Hill Gardens and Wurundjeri Walk, that are well loved by the community.

People in Menzies care deeply about the environment and the climate. Every Wednesday, people stand outside my electorate office holding signs and calling for stronger action on environmental protection. Groups like Menzies for Climate and the Australian Conservation Foundation Eastern Rosellas have become familiar faces in Menzies. They care deeply about the land, the rivers and the future we will leave behind for our children and grandchildren.

During the election campaign, you would see people like Sally, from Menzies for Climate, everywhere. She fights the good fight because she believes in protecting the environment. For her, it's personal. It's about the generations that follow, about her children and grandchildren. That is why I've always welcomed her and her group into my office to share their concerns and ideas. I've invited them to meet with the Special Envoy for Climate Change Adaptation and Resilience, the member for Jagajaga, Kate Thwaites, so their voices can be heard at a national level. While we might not always agree, we have a shared commitment to the future of Australia's environment. That is why it's important to make sure that people like Sally know that the Labor Party is the party for the environment. Every major environmental reform in Australia's history has been led by the Labor government. It was Labor that created Landcare, Labor that saved the Franklin, Labor that protected the Daintree and Kakadu, Labor that built the largest network of marine parks in the world and Labor that took real and measurable action on climate change. And once again, it is a Labor government that is taking the next great step to reform our national environment laws so that we protect nature for generations to come.

Our current environmental laws are outdated, inefficient and ineffective. They do not work for nature, they do not work for business and they do not work for communities. This was made clear in the Samuel review delivered five years ago to the then minister for the environment—who is now the opposition leader. The review laid out a comprehensive set of recommendations to fundamentally reform how environmental impacts and approvals are managed in this country. The coalition government sat on the review. Then they teamed up with the Greens and the Liberals to block reform when we brought it in the last term of government.

We know that reform is needed—and we're acting. The Environment Protection Reform Bill 2025 and six associated bills are not just about protecting the environment; they're about safeguarding Australia's future and creating a system that can protect nature while supporting the economic projects that our nation needs. This package of bills remains faithful to the spirit of the Samuel review. It is built around three key pillars.

The first pillar delivers on the central recommendation of the Samuel review: enforceable national environmental standards. The minister will be able to set clear, legally binding standards for matters of national environmental significance. These standards will apply to every decision under the EPBC Act. The goal is consistency, certainty and continuous environmental improvement. Businesses will know the rules, communities will know their rights and the environment will have guaranteed protection under law. To make sure the standards are never watered down, these bills include a 'no regression' rule. The bills also make it clear that some damage is simply unacceptable. Projects that cause unacceptable harm to protected matters will not be approved. These impacts cannot be traded away or offset. They must be avoided or mitigated before approval is granted. For those who ignore the law, there will be consequences. The bills introduce higher criminal penalties and a new civil penalty formula based on corporate law models. They establish new environmental protection orders that can be issued in urgent situations to prevent or remedy serious harm. They expand audit powers to allow both compliance and directed national environmental audits, and they strengthen the ability of courts to impose proportional and meaningful penalties. The bills also introduce a new principle: projects must deliver a net gain for the environment—not just 'no net loss', but real improvement. Proponents with residual environmental impacts must compensate those impacts to a net positive outcome. They can do so by either delivering their own offsets or paying a restoration contribution into a new Commonwealth fund. That fund will be used to deliver large-scale restoration projects that achieve the best outcomes for the environment. This approach is better for nature and it's more efficient for business. It allows for strategic and pooled investment in areas that most need restoration.

The second pillar focuses on fixing a system that has become slow, inconsistent and confusing. Under the current EPBC Act, project assessments can take too long, with duplication between Commonwealth and state projects. These delays hold back investment in housing projects and in renewable energy projects, and they do not deliver better environmental results. These bills introduce large-scale bioregional planning. Instead of assessing projects one by one, we will map entire regions to identify development zones, conservation zones and areas in between. In development zones, projects will be able to proceed after registration with the minister. In conservation zones, projects will be prohibited unless a specific exemption is granted. By working in close partnership with states and territories, bioregional plans will provide faster approvals and better outcomes at a landscape scale.

These reforms will also streamline assessment pathways. Six outdated pathways will be replaced with one modern and efficient process supported by a simplified environmental impact statement pathway. The new system will reduce the approval timeframes by up to 20 days, cutting the statutory period from 70 days to 50 days or fewer. This will save businesses time and the economy an estimated $500 million each year.

The bills will also provide flexibility for urgent national interest projects. This includes emergency situations, such as natural disasters like bushfires, when land clearing may need to take place to protect further destruction. It may also be used in rare circumstances where a project is clearly in the national interest and the minister provides a public statement of reasons. Approval can proceed even if all environmental standards are not yet met. It maintains accountability for the minister, but it ensures there is some flexibility for exceptional circumstances.

The third pillar delivers one of Labor's central election commitments: the creation of Australia's first National Environmental Protection Agency. I was out doorknocking in Surrey Hills on the weekend just past in my electorate of Menzies, talking to people about the need for an independent EPA. Again and again, people agreed it was a reform that Australia needed, a reform that was overdue. This new, independent regulator will be responsible for compliance, enforcement and oversight across key environmental laws. The EPA will have statutory authority to issue permits, licences and enforcement actions. It will act independently of governments in its regulatory functions, ensuring that decisions are based upon law and science, not politics. For the first time, Australians will have a national watchdog focused solely on protecting the environment.

The EPA will also play a proactive role in helping businesses and the community understand their obligations. It will provide education and guidance, ensuring that compliance is achieved through support as well as enforcement. The EPA will also oversee the implementation of national standards under bilateral agreements with the states and territories, ensuring consistency across all jurisdictions. The bill also strengthens First Nations engagement in environmental decision-making. Traditional owners will be incorporated into environmental assessment and conservation planning. The Indigenous Advisory Committee will be formally consulted on the development of national environmental standards relating to First Nations engagement.

This package of bills is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to reform our environmental laws. It builds on decades of Labor leadership and responds directly to the Samuel review's call for comprehensive reform. The Greens and the coalition have a choice about whether to play a constructive role in protecting the environment and improving efficiency for projects of national significance. The Albanese Labor government is getting on with the job of reform. I commend the bills to the House.

We've all attended those functions in our electorates, often on Australia Day—one of our most important national days—where we've gathered together and sung 'I am Australian', that 1987 Bruce Woodley from The Seekers and Dobe Newton from the Bushwackers hit which unites us all and makes us feel really patriotic. The second verse goes like this:

I came upon the prison ship bowed down by iron chains.

I cleared the land, endured the lash and waited for the rains.

I'm a settler.

I'm a farmer's wife on a dry and barren run

A convict then a free man I became Australian.

The way we're going, we're going to have to change a verse or add a verse, and it'll go something like this: 'I was elected on the back of a whole heap of Greens votes. I sip lattes, weave baskets and welcome illegal boats. I'm a protester. I'm a tree-hugger on land that was once farmed, a dissident who bludges off the taxes of hard-working Australians.' That's where we've got to.

We hear members opposite from the Australian Labor Party, the party that once represented those hard-working Australians, come in here and use words in the Environment Protection Reform Bill 2025. There will be consequences and strong enforcement—stronger enforcement. It's almost as if they want to take the big wack, the big stick, to those farmers, who we celebrate in that song, 'I am Australian'. Heaven help if my father, the late Lance McCormack, were still alive, because I know when he took over the farm in the 1960s he dynamited trees out. He was one of those people who cleared the land, and he did it so that he could grow wheat. He did it so that he could help feed a hungry nation. Our farmers not only feed Australians; they feed many others besides.

I love this book. It's called Water Into Gold. It's the seventh edition, from 1946. It was written by Ernestine Hill, and she was a great Australian—1899 to 1972. She was a journalist, a travel writer and a novelist. She was known for her various travels across Australia and her writings about diverse landscapes and cultures in the country. In this particular book, which, coincidentally, ironically perhaps, is water damaged, in chapter 4—I want to read this into Hansard, because it's so, so good—under the heading 'Apostles of Irrigation', she writes:

'In the early eighties'—that's the 1880s—'the fiery breath of a terrible drought seared the land. Western New South Wales and north-western Victoria became barren wastes. Even the meagre 10 inches of rain a year that are heaven's tender mercies in this part of the world were denied. Day after day, for five years, the sun was a copper gong in cloudless skies, earth cracked with thirst and pallid with heat. Green had faded to brown, and little enough of that. The puny wheat withered on the stalk, and the stock were famished. On the Murray and Darling stations, the sheep died in their tens of thousands, perishing out on the plains, lying in rotting heaps on the very riverbanks, bloated with water and too weak to climb again for the feed they could not find. Skeleton poverty had the pioneers in its grip, and settlers everywhere were leaving their farms—stark madness to send others to follow them.

And, as though drought were not enough, a pharaoh's plague of rabbits descended. The five fluffy, lovable little English rabbits that Captain Phillip had brought in a hutch to Port Jackson in 1788 had become 500 million. An army of occupation marching west to the conquest of a continent, eating it bare as a billiard ball, honeycombing it to nightmare and multiplying all the way along. At dawn and at twilight, the sheep pastures were a moving blur of rabbits. Every blade of hope went down before them. They demolished the leaves of the shrubs and the bark of the trees. They burrowed into the sandhills to devour the roots of the few cast-iron tussocks that held them together, leaving a trail of starvation and [inaudible] of blowing sand.'

That was the 1880s. And yet we've managed the rabbit infestation. It wasn't just Captain Phillip; I think he probably gets a bad name there. A fellow called Thomas Austin also brought a whole heap of rabbits in for sport later on, in the 19th century. But the point is this: we have politicians in this place, and in Macquarie Street in New South Wales, in particular, at the moment, who think that they can turn a land of droughts and flooding rains into something that resembles Europe all the time—of green hills and running rivers. We know that Australia has ephemeral streams. We can't turn Australia into something that it wasn't designed to be. Nature will always have its way—'her way', I should say; it's Mother Nature—and she will always beat any efforts of Australians. We could do a whole lot more. We can build a whole lot of more dams. I tried that. I built one in Tasmania with the good help of the then Liberal—and still Liberal, thankfully—Tasmanian government. Thank you to Michael Ferguson and others for helping me in that task. Trying to get other states, mainland states, to go with me on that journey was in fact, unfortunately, a lost cause. But the point is this: we've got a country where we now think it's wise and sensible to lock up and leave it to feral pests, rabbits and weeds, all in the name of nature.

We've also got this propensity, whenever we build something in this nation—and we used to be a nation of builders—to think we have to have these offsets which perhaps aren't just covering the piece of land that is being taken up by the actual infrastructure we're constructing but indeed a whole heap more. It is just a nonsense, because what we're actually doing with these offsets is punishing companies, developers and people who want to construct such things as, heaven help us, aged care homes by having offsets somewhere that's not even in proximity. In this piece of legislation, if they don't do that, well, as the Labor members say, there will be consequences! Stronger enforcement will follow. It's like the Labor Party don't want to build anything. They've got a housing minister who talks about the prospect of building a million homes. Good luck with that! At a state level, they're preventing every forestry company and developer from ever trying to succeed.

I resumed representing the Snowy Valleys Council in the Riverina electorate in May this year, having represented it previously between 2010 and 2016. Seventy per cent of the economy in the Snowy Valleys Council area—Tumut, Talbingo, Tumbarumba—is underpinned by forestry. But, if Labor have their way—they're totally against forestry. Why? I don't know. How are they going to build a million homes if we can't have our own successful, reliable, consistent and sustainable forestry industry providing the timber for those homes? Under Labor's policies, they'd have it all imported from overseas. To hell with the rainforest wherever it's coming from. To hell with Indonesia or whatever country that, quite frankly, is going to provide those imports to build those million homes. What a fantasy! What a fallacy! A million homes, really? Come on. Get real!

Then, of course, we've got this legislation before the House which talks about offsets, and then we've got green activists. Green activists! They are blocking every single project, whether it's gas, iron ore or forestry. No matter what project is proposed in this country, there are activists who want to stop it, activists who want to abolish it and activists who are just loving this sort of legislation, because it's right up their modus operandi.

And we see in the Daily Telegraph only today that almost $11 million of taxpayers' money—that's all our money that could otherwise be spent putting in more aged-care beds, beds in hospitals, potential desks in classrooms to be filled by students and all those sorts of things that once were important—has been ploughed into the activist Environmental Defenders Office, helping fund bids to scuttle multibillion dollar gas and gold projects. Labor, how do you feel about that waste of money? This legislation before the House tonight ain't going to stop that! It's not going to prevent that!

We're seeing professional protesters everywhere, and they're protesting about everything. The previous speaker was talking about these wonderful people who came outside his electorate office. He invited them in, and good on him—I've done the same with the protesters that used to be 'Climate for Fridays' and then became 'Peace for Sunday' or 'Sundays for Peace'. They stopped protesting about the climate when Labor took office in May 2022 because, apparently, the climate became a whole lot better when that occurred. Now the same people—they're just Greens—are protesting about Gaza. Now they think that, on Fitzmaurice Street in Wagga Wagga, we can solve a problem that has been going on for decades, if not centuries, in the Middle East. Some of their actions have been, quite frankly, despicable. But we move on. What I would say to the previous speaker is that he perhaps ought to tell those protesters who turn up every week outside his office, 'Here's a thought: why don't you spend a few hours volunteering your time at a soup kitchen, at a Carevan, at St Vinnies or doing something like that instead of wasting your time outside the—

Debate interrupted.

I rise today to speak about further unlocking the full potential of the Capricornia region, and that begins with returning to a coordinated, properly funded approach to regional roads—one that delivers safer roads, stronger connections between communities and more reliable and efficient routes for the industries that power our region and add value to our Australian economy. Right now, under Labor, regional roads are being left behind. Funding is being cut. Heavy renewable infrastructure is being hauled across roads that were never designed for that load, and now there's a proposal by Labor to lower the speed limits instead of fixing the problem.

This is not a solution; it's an admission of failure. Instead of investing in road safety, Labor's answer is to slow people down. That approach hits productivity, drives up freight costs and punishes regional Australians who already spend more time and money travelling long distances to access work, education, healthcare and other services. Communities like Clarke Creek, Clermont, Moranbah, Dysart, Middlemount, Lotus Creek and Nebo know exactly what's going on. The problem isn't speed; it's neglect. Take the Fitzroy Development Road, for example. It's a vital freight and tourism corridor linking the Bowen Basin, the Bruce Highway and western Queensland. Yet sections of the road remain in poor condition—narrow, crumbling and unsafe for the heavy vehicles that depend on it every day.

The Peak Downs Highway is a lifeline for mining workforce and freight operators. This road carries the economic pulse of our coal and resources sector. Yet, year after year, locals face dangerous overtaking conditions and pothole riddled surfaces that put lives and livelihoods at risk. And, of course, there's the Bruce Highway—the backbone of Queensland's transport network and the main connector for regional communities across Capricornia. Every upgrade here delivers huge benefits to local businesses, tourism and industry, but the pace of progress has slowed, and we can't afford complacency. Investment in regional roads is one of the smartest and most productive investments any government make.

According to the Roads Australia and BIS Oxford Economics report, the total economic impact of the road industry in 2019-20 was $236 billion. That's direct and indirect value added to our economy. The road transport sector alone contributes around 4.5 per cent of Australia's gross value added. Road investment delivers strong multiplier effects. It creates local jobs, supports small businesses, improves productivity and unlocks regional industries. Over the next four years, road construction nationally is expected to generate over $300 million in output and support more than 57,394 jobs nationally. With major projects like the coalition led $1.98 billion dollar Rockhampton Ring Road project and continuing upgrades to the Bruce Highway, the Capricornia region will deliver back in spades for the economy for every shovel of construction. That's the power of roads done right.

But roads are more than concrete and bitumen. They are lifelines for regional communities. They connect people to opportunity, ensure goods reach markets, enable emergency services to respond faster and keep our mining, agriculture and tourism industries moving. In Capricornia, our roads carry the economic heartbeat of the nation, from the coalfields of the Bowen Basin to the cattle country of the Fitzroy and the tourism destinations along our coast. When our roads fail, the entire nation feels it. That's why road funding should never be seen as a cost. It's an investment in productivity, prosperity and safety. The value of good roads extends well beyond their construction cost. Better roads mean less travel time, safer journeys, improved access to markets and hospitals, and stronger regional economies.

The opposite is also true. When governments neglect regional roads and lower speed limits instead of repairing them, we see increased travel times, reducing productivity for workers and families; higher freight and logistics costs, pushing up prices for consumers; and weaker competitiveness for our farmers, miners and manufacturers. That's the real cost of neglect.

Regional roads aren't just infrastructure; they are the arteries of the Australian economy. For a region like Capricornia—a region that feeds, powers and builds this country—we deserve our fair share of investment. We need a long-term, coordinated regional roads approach that ensures local communities remain safe and supported. The people of Capricornia are proud contributors to this nation's prosperity. All we ask is that Canberra invest back into the roads that make our nation building possible. It's time to stop slowing down the bush and start building it up.

A telescope in the desert, a window to the universe, stars above and stars in science—that's what I'm talking about today. In the red dirt of Western Australia's Murchison region sits a telescope that's quietly reshaping our understanding of the universe. It's known as the Murchison Widefield Array, or MWA. Recently, I had the privilege of celebrating its phase 3 upgrade. This upgrade has boosted its sensitivity and data capacity, allowing scientists to peer deeper into space and go further back in time, right to the formation of the first stars and galaxies over 13 billion years ago.

The MWA is a global collaboration involving 29 partners and hundreds of researchers. It's supported by Curtin University, the Commonwealth government and international partners. It has also generated over $83 million in economic activity, and it's not just about astronomy. The MWA has spun off technologies that now power high-performance computing, data processing and even remote sensing. These innovations are being used in fields far beyond space and science, from medical imaging to environmental modelling. The MWA is a symbol of what's possible when we invest in science, collaboration and the future.

One of the key partners in supporting the MWA is the Pawsey Supercomputing Research Centre, based in Perth and also funded by the Commonwealth as a CSIRO site. It is also a partner of the new and extraordinary Square Kilometre Array, which will make WA an astronomy capital of the world. It is a place where raw data becomes insight—a place where petabytes of information from telescopes like the MWA are processed, analysed and transformed into knowledge. It is a hub for innovation. It supports researchers across astronomy, medicine, engineering and environmental science. It is home to some of Australia's most powerful supercomputers, including Setonix, named after the Latin word for quokka—another WA icon, from Rottnest Island.

There is much to say about this place from a scientific perspective. Its infrastructure is designed to reduce energy use and produce less carbon emissions. It uses groundwater cooling, solar energy and efficient data centres designed to minimise its environmental footprint. Imagine data centres connected by pipes and actually seeing fluid pumping through this. It's very impressive technology. It's proof that high-performance computing can be both powerful and responsible.

Dr Natasha Hurley-Walker is a radio astronomer who has used data from the MWA to create the most detailed map of the southern sky ever produced at low radio frequencies. Her work has helped uncover hidden galaxies, dying stars and cosmic phenomena that we're only just starting to understand. She was awarded the Nancy Millis Medal for women in science, a well-deserved recognition of her groundbreaking research and her commitment to mentoring the next generation of scientists. Dr Hurley-Walker is a star in science, and she is based in WA and lives in the heart of Swan.

But the Pawsey Supercomputing Research Centre isn't just about space; it's also about Earth. One of its most exciting areas of work is environmental modelling. The Pawsey supports researchers who are tackling some of Australia's biggest environmental challenges, from climate change to biodiversity loss and water management. Take the work on carbon sequestration. Australia has vast underground basins that could store millions of tonnes of carbon dioxide, but modelling these complex systems is complex and requires a huge amount of data and computing. Pawsey has partnered with researchers to simulate how carbon can move through rock formations and be stored safely and how we can watch it over time.

All of this—including the MWA, Pawsey, Dr Hurley-Walker's research and environmental modelling—is possible because the Albanese Labor government invests in science. And, under the Albanese government, that investment is growing. We accept science and know that we need it for research and innovation and that it's central to Australia's future. Science isn't just a discipline; it's a promise to learn, to grow and to build a better future that is fairer, smarter and more sustainable.

On 29 August I went to the meeting of the Wagga Wagga and district greyhound racing club. At that particular meeting, I was impressed by the number of young families who went to the track for a night's sport and entertainment—not only young families but a lot of young tradies.

I caught up with a group of them. They'd had quite a few bourbon and cokes by this stage of the evening, and they were very pleased to see me—trust me! It was interesting. They wanted a few selfies and all the rest, but—I won't say 'through their alcohol fuelled or gambling induced vision'—I tell you what, they were very, very proud of the fact that they were working on the reconstruction and refurbishment of the eternal flame in Wagga Wagga's Victory Memorial Gardens. They went out of their way to tell me so.

It wasn't long after that that we reopened that particular honour roll and eternal flame. Wagga Wagga City Council was successful in applying for a $147,425 grant through the federal government's Saluting Their Service Commemorative Grants Program. I thank the government for that and for the funding. But the point that I want to make is that those young blokes were proud Australians. They were very patriotic and they were so very pleased that they were part of something that they felt was very historic and very special for our city—and, indeed, it is because it honours the service and sacrifice of so many who've gone before us.

It wasn't long after that meeting and then the rededication and reopening of that particular important military monument that we learned that the Wagga Wagga greyhound track is due for closure. Under a new rule from Greyhound Racing NSW following a report handed to them, the club has to show cause as to why it should remain open. They have spent $200,000 on kennelling. They have spent $20,000 on upgrading their canteen. This is all in recent months—not over a whole host of time but just in recent months. They attract families. They've got three full-time employees and a casual who are all going to be out of work. Wagga Wagga and Young—also in the Riverina—are among these closures. They will also affect Coonamble, Kempsey, Moree, Potts Park, Tamworth and Wauchope by the end of this year, with TAB tracks at Wagga Wagga, Maitland and Broken Hill to follow by June 2026.

I'll tell you one thing. When you attack battlers—and that's what the people who attend greyhound meetings are—when you have a crack at them, as the former Liberal-National state government found out, they don't like it. Even people who perhaps wouldn't have ever gone to a greyhound meeting don't like it, because they see people who are doing nothing more than just trying to have a night out. They've improved the welfare of their sport immeasurably—and they needed to, but they have done that. And then you've got people like president Ben Talbot and his hardworking committee at Wagga Wagga and the club at Young and others besides being told that they can't race. Greyhound Racing NSW have got something coming to them, and so has the state government if it goes ahead with this. Bruce Baird, Troy Grant and others found out the hard way. When you go and close down the industry, as they did—and I can't understand why the Liberals in Tasmania are taking Greens votes by closing down greyhound racing on the Apple Isle—it just makes no good sense.

People in country Australia are sick of copping it in the neck. Whether it's greyhounds, environmental laws, fewer doctors, no funding for roads or whatever the case might be, people have had a gutful, and woe betide the New South Wales state government if it then endorses this ill-thought-out, ill-conceived, stupid report that has been presented to Greyhound Racing NSW suggesting that all of those tracks close.

Why should they? Why shouldn't they have a sport which, in Wagga Wagga, has been going for 98 long, successful years? Why shouldn't they be able to continue the lease? The Wagga Wagga Showground wants them? They're doing a great job for sport, entertainment and families, and for the young tradies. This is an outrage. It shouldn't be tolerated. Good luck to the Wagga greyhound club. May it remain open.

Wendy's husband, Keith, was diagnosed with dementia when he was only 52 years old. After Keith was diagnosed with younger onset dementia, he stopped working because he was finding his job too difficult. Dementia can be very lonely. Wendy and most of Keith's friends were still working. Keith did some volunteer work, but he missed being with his peers. One day, Wendy and Keith were invited by the City of Melville in my electorate of Tangney to give a talk about their experiences with younger onset dementia. At the end of the talk, someone asked him: if there was one change he himself could make, what would it be? Keith replied: a cafe for people with dementia and a carer who would offer fellowship and support. Six weeks later, Keith and Wendy attended the City of Melville's first memory cafe.

Fast forward nine years. Last month I was honoured to attend that memory cafe's ninth anniversary and see how this cafe is so meaningful to so many people in our Tangney community. In Tangney there are more than 3,300 people living with dementia. The prevalence of dementia is higher in Tangney than in most parts of Western Australia. Dementia Australia reports that in 2054 there will be 7,300 people in Tangney living with dementia, an increase of 116 per cent. The people I met at the cafe were some of the 433,300 people across Australia living with dementia. The carers I met were a few of the estimated 1.7 million people in Australia involved in the care of someone living with dementia. Keith has, sadly, passed away, but at the memory cafe I had a chance to meet up with Wendy, his wife, a Tangney resident, and listen to her story.

I want to say thank you to the City of Melville for organising this monthly cafe and to Westfield Booragoon, which partners with the city and sponsors all their coffees for free. The memory cafe meets monthly and welcomes both new and familiar faces and friends. Wendy said her husband, Keith, looked forward to it every month. They made friends with other couples where one or the other partner was also living with dementia. The cafe helped maintain social connections, an important part of keeping the brain active and looking after brain health.

Maintaining brain health also includes looking after your body, including physical exercise, taking care of your heart and looking after how you eat and what you drink. Wendy told me how Keith sometimes felt a little awkward when he began to struggle using a knife and a fork and with his glass. He became embarrassed and afraid to be out in the public. The memory cafe gave him an opportunity to be comfortable among other people who faced similar challenges. Wendy still attends the cafe, catching up with friends and supporting people who have just joined the group. I admire everyone's warmth and care. I congratulate the cafe on nine years of success and support and friendship with all the communities.

I want to close with Wendy's words on the importance of community groups for people with dementia:

It's about creating situations for the person living with dementia to live well. Anything that makes the person living with dementia feel part of a group. The carers get a lot of joy seeing their loved ones live well.

Every day, when I am speaking to constituents in my community of Lindsay and Western Sydney, one of their top concerns is the astronomical cost of power. In my community and right across Western Sydney—in fact, right across the country—we're paying $1,300 more for energy this year compared to when the Albanese Labor government took office in 2022. It is a shame. Shame on them! Shame on you for doing that! Thirteen hundred dollars in three years—it shouldn't be a joke, but it is. This government is treating everyday Australians as jokes and taking them for granted. It's no small sum of money for many hardworking everyday Australians who live in Lindsay, from Penrith to St Marys and Londonderry down to Luddenham. So many people across the country right now are picking up a second job just to make sure they can cook dinner for their kids and keep the lights on. Seniors are struggling under cost-of-living pressures. As I walk down the high street of Penrith, I can see people living on the streets and double-income families lining up at food banks. I'm particularly worried about seniors in these hot summer days ahead when they're having to make that choice about turning on the air conditioning or not. I'll tell you who needed the $275 reduction in power prices by 2025 from 2022 levels—it's these Australians, the ones I proudly fight for every single day in this place and in my community.

In my most recent community survey, Lindsay residents said they overwhelmingly reject net zero by 2050, with less than a quarter supporting it. Almost 90 per cent of Lindsay people said their energy bills have increased, with nearly half saying this has actually severely impacted their standard of living. Energy prices have soared 40 per cent. How does the government think its renewables-only approach to energy production in this country will keep our manufacturers here? A future made in Australia—that's what the Prime Minister is saying when he runs across the country, putting on a hard hat for a few pictures before he heads off overseas. A future made in Australia under this Labor government's ideological obsession for renewables is contempt for Australian industry.

Manufacturers are being suffocated by their bills piling up because of Labor's abandonment of the 24/7 baseload power that they need to power manufacturing in this country. I've been on many manufacturing floors across Western Sydney, and they all tell me the same thing. Energy prices have increased so much under the Albanese Labor government that they just don't know what to do. For Mascot Steel in Penrith, their energy costs are up more than 40 per cent. Local small businesses have told me their costs have doubled since 2022. Austral Bricks said they're trying to play their part in reducing emissions, but the solar they produce only powers the office, not their manufacturing that we so need in the building of homes across this country. Do you know what fires Austral Bricks' kilns to create thousands of bricks per day for new homes across Western Sydney? It's gas. They need a lot of it. They need more gas, and we need to be pumping more gas into the system. We need to be keeping it for our own domestic consumption. This will lower power prices right now for families and businesses right across Australia.

More than half of my community said affordable energy is their top priority. Gas will help with this. For the sake of Australian industry, we need a sensible, pragmatic energy policy that puts more gas into the system and ensures reliability and affordability. A third of Lindsay residents said 24/7 baseload power was important, with almost 11 per cent saying reducing emissions was their priority—only 11 per cent. The best solution to these two wants is nuclear energy. Scores of countries use nuclear energy or are in the process of creating nuclear power stations.

How else will we power the data centres of the future that we can use? In Western Sydney, when we're looking to the future, we are talking about the data centres of the future. People in this country want to store our data at home, not offshore. But we need power right now. That power is drawn from our local energy grids.

My community recognises the need for nuclear energy in the future. That's why, in the results from my survey, it came across strongly—with percentages in the 70s—that people wanted the ban on nuclear energy to be lifted.

It's time that Labor fesses up. Their renewables-only tirade must come to an end, for the sake of Australians—everyday Australians, in my electorate of Lindsay in Western Sydney and right across this country. Labor, listen to the sensible calls. The sensible calls of the Lindsay electorate put cheaper, reliable, 24/7 baseload power before your ideological obsessions.

I rise today to celebrate three outstanding sports clubs right across my electorate of Bennelong. I'd first like to welcome home the Ryde Dragon Boat Club's Auroras, who represented Australia at the 17th World Dragon Boat Racing Championships in Germany recently. Seventeen young individuals engaged in a rigorous training schedule, which they managed alongside school, work and interpersonal commitments. This year, the championships were the largest ever, with 4,000 athletes from 33 countries. Almost all of the Ryde Dragon Boat Club's Auroras who were competing achieved a bronze, silver or gold medal, with some participants being as young as 16. And this was a club that only started during COVID—a young club, sending athletes across the world, winning gold, silver and bronze for Australia. Congratulations to them. It's so important to recognise that these events, and all this training and this travel, cannot happen without the dedication of families, volunteers and staff, including head coach George Dimech and chair Corina Wotherspoon, so a massive shout-out to them.

And it doesn't stop there. I can let the House know that the Lane Cove Swim Club, based at the Lane Cove aquatic centre, was recently named Club of the Year in the metropolitan category by Swimming New South Wales. This 2025 accolade comes hot on the heels of their huge win in 2024, where they were crowned Australian swim club of the year. Whilst these are outstanding testaments to the club's extraordinary approach, they come as no surprise. The Lane Cove Swim Club has grown exponentially since COVID and has quickly become the largest club in New South Wales and the third-largest swim club in Australia. The club has produced champions who personify the bright future of swimming, like national medallists Eliza Damian and Harrison Reid.

President Joshua Baker, who led his team to its accolades, was asked how the club achieved its feats, and he said that they're not there for the widespread fame and fortune; he said they are inextricably linked to their community—and Lane Cove is a fantastic community, which I am now so lucky to represent. There's no doubt about that link, because inclusivity is paramount to their club. They cater for any swimmer, from babies to the elderly. All Lane Cove residents are given an opportunity to stay active.

Mr Baker recently shared with me the story of Samantha Pratt, who has lived a story of inspiration, dedication and come-back. Supported by the New South Wales Institute of Sport Para Unit and head coach Jacob Curcio, Samantha followed a hiatus from swimming with spectacular performances at the 2025 Australian Short Course Championships, claiming a gold and a silver medal. I couldn't be more proud of the Lane Cove swimming club, as both a model sports club and a leader in community engagement—from those who just want to dip their toe in and give swimming a go for a bit of exercise, to those who do it competitively.

Another great community club is the Eastwood Rugby Club—the Woodies. And didn't they have a great season in 2025? The Woodies club is built on excellence and development and young talent. It's a club with a very strong connection to Eastwood and Bennelong. The Woodies are renowned for fostering a culture of inclusion and belonging, which is essential to making sure that our young local athletes stay active and are supported.

For years, the club has been actively investing in the development of their players, and this year it has met with great results on the field. At the junior level, both the under-15 and under-17 teams reached their respective finals, with the under-15s crowned state sevens champions at Mudgee. Their success was guided by coach Matt Gonzalez, an Australian Olympic sevens representative.

And there was the big one: the Woodies celebrated winning the Colin Caird Shield, the club's first premiership in a decade. This was a true team effort, right across the club, led by coach Graeme Harrison and captain and clubman of the year Ben Rosada, who also celebrated his 150th game for the Woodies earlier this season. Lachie Shelley is another remarkable young talent, who finished as the top try-scorer across the Shute Shield competition.

I'll also give a shout-out to those in the women's rugby program at the Woodies, who have continued to build momentum and grow. They are currently preparing for the Dubai sevens.

The Ryde Dragon Boat Club, Lane Cove Swim Club and Eastwood Rugby Club have embodied the spirit of Bennelong brilliantly. As their MP, I'm determined to continue to represent them and back them, because I know they back our local community.

The House transcript was published up to 20:00 . The remainder of the transcript will be published progressively as it is completed.

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

I rise today to call for an increase in funding for the Medical Research Future Fund for Australian and medical research. The Canadian psychologist Stephen Pinker described his favourite sentence in the whole English language. It was the start of a Wikipedia page that read 'smallpox was an infectious disease'—was. A disease that caused millions of deaths has been completely eradicated. Medical research is one of humanity's greatest success stories. Over the past few centuries we developed antibiotics, vaccines and public health systems that have transformed our lives. Life expectancy has soared and infant mortality has fallen. But there is still so much more to do. Every family in Australia has been touched by illness, by cancer, dementia, diabetes or rare genetic conditions. Continued investment in medical research is vital to saving and improving lives. I'm proud to represent a community, Curtin, that punches well above its weight in medical research. Curtin is home to the University of Western Australia, the Harry Perkins Institute for Medical Research, the Parent Institute, the Kids Research Institute, the Raine Medical Research Foundation, the Ear Science Institute, the Lions Eye Institute and a number of other medical research institutions.

WA has been responsible for seven of the 17 Australian drugs that have been approved by the US FDA but we only receive four per cent of federal medical research funding. It was researchers in Curtin who first identified the toxic amyloid beta protein that causes Alzheimer's disease, which affects 30 per cent of older Australians. Alzheimer's Research Australia, based in Curtin, is continuing the fight against Alzheimer's through groundbreaking work on how we can slow cognitive decline. But despite their incredible work, they have only received limited funds from the MRFF simply because of the cap on MRFF spending.

More broadly, researchers in Curtin have had products rated highly by the MRFF but turned down simply because of the funding cap. This includes research into rare childhood diseases, Indigenous children's health, diabetes, heart disease detection and cancer therapy. These are exactly the kinds of projects the MRFF was created to support. Get this: the funding cap is arbitrary. The MRFF was established with bipartisan support to provide a sustainable funding stream for life-changing medical research. It's grown into a $24 billion fund yet it disperses only around $650 million each year, which is far less than originally intended. The coalition, when it created the MRFF, envisioned spending a billion dollars a year once the fund reached maturity at $20 billion. We have passed the milestone, and that's why I'm here backing the call from the member for Kooyong to increase disbursements to a billion dollars a year. It's time to unlock the potential of the MRFF to back researchers in Curtin and across Australia who are working every day to change lives.

I had the pleasure of attending this year's Lake Macquarie Business Excellence Awards, a night that celebrates the people and the businesses that keep our community moving. These are locals who are open early, who close late and who back our region every single day, creating jobs, supporting families and helping our towns thrive.

A shout-out to this year's winners: the outstanding employee award went to Jade Gray from Flying Colours Education; outstanding young business leader was awarded to Quyen Nguyen from Dental Folk; outstanding business leader went to Peter Haynes from Northern New South Wales Football—well done, Haynesy; outstanding visitor experience was awarded to Matt Hall Racing; employer of choice went to Move About Therapy Services Warners Bay; excellence in innovation went to Fire Response; excellence in sustainability went to Northern New South Wales Football; outstanding new business went to Showtime Kayaking; excellence and diversity and inclusion went to Dynamic Business Technologies; outstanding community organisation went again to Northern New South Wales Football—they cleaned up that night; excellence in micro business went to Psyborg; excellence in small business went to Yard Kings Brewing—and it is beautiful beer, may I say; excellence in large business went to Agility Professional Tree Service; Origin Energy's people's choice award went to 8 at Trinity—congratulations to Keith and Natalie; and the big one, business of the year, went to the amazing Matt Hall Racing. Congratulations to all the winners and finalists. It's groups like you that keep the Hunter what it is. Thank you.

Speaking of local pride, it's not just our businesses that are kicking goals. The same drive and determination we see in local entrepreneurs can also be found in our young athletes. I want to recognise some outstanding young sports stars from the Hunter, recently celebrated by the Hunter Academy of Sport. Every year, the academy's Athlete of the Year and Rising Star awards shine a light on the next generation of talent in our region. This year's recipients show exactly why the Hunter has such a proud sporting reputation.

Firstly, Zac West from Cessnock has been turning heads in Aussie Rules footy. His attitude and commitment to the game are a credit to his club and the community. Then there's Addyson Kirby, also from Cessnock, making her mark in basketball. Her drive and leadership on the court inspires her teammates and other young women in sport. Ameka Melmeth from Cameron Park is another talent rising extremely fast in basketball. Her work ethic and skill are on show, and she will go a long, long way. Finally, we have Lleythan Jenkinson from Kilaben Bay. He's proving himself one to watch in tennis. His achievements already speak volumes about where his future might take him.

I say to the Hunter Academy of Sport, the coaches, the parents and volunteers, thank you very much. Behind every athlete is a team that gives their time, energy and encouragement. None of this happens without you. Thank you.

I stand today to celebrate three stellar members of the Bradfield community, people who have gone above and beyond the hundreds, even thousands, of outstanding Bradfielders. The first is Sallianne McClelland, outgoing president of Wahroonga Rotary. Named Hornsby Woman of the Year in 2018 for her incredible hard work, passion and determination to ensure the success of the Hornsby Ku-ring-gai Women's Shelter, Sallianne has gone from strength to strength, using her energy and ingenuity to contribute to our local community. Continuing as an advocate with the broader Women's Community Shelters, she now serves as deputy mayor on Hornsby Shire Council and has been invaluable in her leadership as president of Wahroonga Rotary. Sallianne has also worked directly for the benefit of younger generations in northern Sydney in her role as the volunteer club president and director of the PCYC Northern Beaches, contributing to sports, mentorship programs and crime prevention initiatives.

Next up is Mayor Christine Kay, who has used her leadership position in Ku-ring-gai local government to be a powerful advocate for advancing gender equality in so many efficient ways. Elected mayor in 2024, Christine has wasted no time in using her role to foster a framework of cooperation and community-mindedness. Just some examples include championing the council setting aside grant funding of $100,000 to fight violence against women. She launched a clothing drive to empower women, partnering with Dress for Success. She established an advisory committee on council for the status of women. Furthermore, she launched a new award in July 2025 to honour inspiring women leaders and announced a menopause forum in September 2025 as part of council's commitment to supporting the health and wellbeing of women in her community.

Then there is Mayor Tanya Taylor, who leads Willoughby City Council with a strong focus on sustainability, inclusivity, community engagement and cultural development. Here are just some of the practical ways that the mayor has demonstrated that she's so effective. She has trialled food-only waste collections in apartments as part of a $1 million multicouncil initiative, instituted an award-winning initiative called 'Hi Neighbours' which fosters connections between people who are living in high-rise apartments, developed a reconciliation action plan to strengthen cultural understanding and inclusion, and supported events like the vibrant and diverse Emerge festival, which celebrates the richness of our different local arts and cultural communities.

It's plain to see that, through leadership activities like these, these extraordinary women in Bradfield are finding strength in diversity and building social connections and community empowerment, which means that everyone in Bradfield benefits. I tip my hat to these extraordinary women for their local leadership across Bradfield and beyond.

In Adelaide's north we have long memories. Residents in the city of Playford have had to endure their share of fizzers, spanning from a hotel to a carpark that ratepayers spent millions on yet no-one uses—white elephants hidden in plain sight. Under the leadership of Mayor Glenn Docherty, the City of Playford has too often prioritised publicity over planning and focused on ribbon-cutting events before due diligence. But this isn't about personalities; it's about priorities. It's about how every dollar spent on these vanity projects is a dollar not spent fixing local roads, parks and community facilities.

The ice arena in Elizabeth is yet another one of these projects. When the City of Playford sought my support for federal funding for this project, I declined, making it clear that they should instead focus on delivering long-overdue local road and infrastructure upgrades that have been overlooked for far too long. These are the projects I will support every day of the week. The ice arena was given development approval back in April last year, hailed by many as a huge win for the north with few downsides. Now, I'm told that, as of late last week, residents only have until 20 November to make submissions on the ice arena after the developers proposed a number of changes. You'd have known this if you drove past the site and scanned the QR code on a sign they placed there. It leads to a 143-page document outlining these changes. It's a token consultation if ever I saw it! Despite this, I strongly encourage locals to use the next 15 days to make a submission and make your voices heard.

In their application, we can see their original plans being put on ice, and many aspects of this development are being pared back entirely. The elite rock climbing gym, basement car parking, basketball courts, playground, restaurant and outdoor dining area and more are all gone; although, we've been assured that the ice arena in Elizabeth isn't skating on thin ice, like the arena that was proposed in the city of Marion. We're also assured that ratepayers will not end up paying for this development. What aren't you telling us, Mayor Docherty?

I welcome investment in the north and I welcome ambition, but I don't accept poor judgement calls. I encourage the City of Playford to stop with the secrecy and act with integrity to ensure we are not left with another cost blowout for ratepayers to clean up. Start prioritising the basics. We deserve delivery and not more debt and disappointment. It's time to pull up your socks, Mayor Docherty. Get on the program and start engaging in good faith with the entire ratepayer community in the city of Playford. Enough with a smoke and mirrors. Come out of the dark and be honest with everyone in our community.

Like many in this House, I recently attended a moving National Police Remembrance Day event on 29 September. I joined my community in Bundaberg to pay respects to the police officers who run towards danger when others flee and to remember those who've lost their lives on the line of duty. It is especially important to me, a former police officer of 23 years, to remember friends and colleagues who are no longer with us. I'd like to acknowledge Chief Inspector Grant Marcus for coordinating a well-attended service at the Bundaberg Baptist Church. The special guest was Acting Deputy Police Commissioner Mark Kelly. Mark and I were police cadets together, both commencing our service in 1989. It was great to catch up with Mark, and I thank him for attending a local service. We must extend support to all of our police men and women, because the thin blue line is getting thinner. To our police, both retired and actively serving: thank you.

Next Tuesday, at the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month, we will pause and reflect for Remembrance Day. Across my electorate of Hinkler, commemoration services will be held in memory of those who served and sacrificed in all wars, conflicts and peacekeeping operations; 11 November marks the end of World War I in 1918, the day when the guns fell silent on the Western Front. I will join the Hervey Bay RSL Sub-Branch for its 2025 Remembrance Day ceremony and lay a wreath at Freedom Park. It's a time for all of us to remember those who fought for our freedom and this land that we love. I encourage everyone to spend a few minutes to remember our fallen.

In the lead-up to Christmas, we need to put money into the pockets of local small businesses, local primary producers and local tourism. That's why I'll be launching a local first campaign right across my region of 'Bundy, bay and bush'. It's about tourism—visit local first. It's about our farmers and fishermen—choose local first. It's about our local businesses—buy local first. It's about supporting those in our own backyard first. If it's tourism, you can see the turtles lay at Mon Repos or take a tour of the rum distillery. For your Christmas feast, get your seafood fresh from Urangan Fisheries, Red Shed Seafood or the Australian Ocean King Prawn Company. Then, there's too much in the salad bowl to mention—an abundance of fresh produce, including macadamias, mangoes, juicy lychees, melons of all shapes and sizes and much more. If we each do our little bit in Hinkler and go local first it will go a long way at a time when doing business is a tough gig. I'll be joining forces with state MPs the member for Hervey Bay, David Lee, and the member for Burnett, Stephen Bennett, for this campaign because they want what's best for businesses in our community too.

One of the joys of this job for all local MPs is to recognise our local sporting champions with Local Sporting Champions scholarships and grants that come from the federal government. It has existed for quite a number of years now to support young people in their pursuit of sport. In my electorate, being a regional electorate, people can receive a grant of between $600 and $950, depending on how far they have to travel and where they are travelling to.

Like many regional electorates, Bendigo is blessed with many successful young people in a variety of sports. I'm pleased to stand here today to say that at our most recent award ceremony we recognised seven successful recipients from round 1 of the 2025-26 sports grants. Some of them have previously been acknowledged as well. As I said at the event, rarely are our young sporting champs brilliant once; quite often they are brilliant over and over again. At the ceremony I also acknowledged the dedication and commitment from family—quite often mum and dad driving them down the Calder to do the training required for them to compete.

I'd like to give a special mention to young superstars like Harriet Caldwell, who is doing great things in wheelchair basketball. Not only is she achieving at that elite level but she is also a para sports star. Congratulations, Harriet, on what you are doing not just for your sport, for your community, but for young people with disability. You are an inspiration.

I also wish to give a special shout-out to our swimming sports stars and champions, Matthew Skewes and Zarah Reynolds. To be good at swimming in an electorate like Bendigo is phenomenal. It's cold for huge chunks of the year in our electorate—it was snowing in Maldon on Monday, just to demonstrate how cold it can get—so to have that commitment to get up on those cold mornings and to do your swim training is phenomenal. Matthew is actually from one of the newest parts of the electorate that came in at the last redistribution, Pyalong. Again, he's overcoming the tyranny of distance just to get to training. Congratulations to Matthew and Zarah.

The opportunity to participate in local sport is big in regional electorates. Whether it be football, netball, some of the more engaged sports like basketball or dancesport or lawn bowls, there are a myriad of opportunities for young people to engage. It's great for mental health, it's great for better community, it's great for sportsmanship and it's great for giving young people opportunities. Congratulations to everyone who has been successful, and to those who will be successful in the future.

I had the great pleasure of hosting the Leader of the Opposition when she visited my electorate of Moncrieff last week. One of the standouts of her visit was introducing the leader to exceptional young leaders at Merrimac State High School. It's a beautiful school that I have the privilege of visiting regularly. It's not far from my home. It's one of the 34 schools in the electorate of Moncrieff, and I love all of them.

The focus of the visit with the leader at Merrimac was to involve students in a young leader roundtable discussion. Firstly, I acknowledge the exceptional calibre of questions that the young people asked the leader, along with the initiative shown by our bright young leaders at the school. The pride they have in themselves, in the school, in their education and in their families was on full display, and I congratulate them on their achievements.

Some of the thoughtful questions asked by our student leaders were: How do you hope to support small business in the future? What are some key skills that leaders need to possess? How can we bring together the polar ends of the political spectrum for the betterment of Australia—a tricky one there! It's so very important to listen to the voices of our young people. They are our future, and they deserve to have a seat at the table.

It was clear that the student leaders seated around the table were eager to learn more about what it means to be a parliamentarian. There were lots of questions around that, along with questions around issues that affect them now and will affect them into the future. Together we engaged in robust discussion and explored topics of youth crime, the housing crisis, university affordability and, of course, the broader cost-of-living pressures they face. These are the concerns of young people on the Gold Coast, and we have a duty to represent them in this place and to ensure we act on their concerns and leave this place much better than we found it so they can continue to thrive into the future.

While I'm on the topic of young people, I also want to highlight my recent meeting with Australia's youth representative to the United Nations, Satara, who came into my office here in Parliament House in Canberra. Satara recently returned from New York, where she presented an interim report on her year-long nationwide consultation with the youth of Australia. We had a very frank discussion about the future of our country and about the issues affecting youth. We talked about pretty much everything in the half-hour period, from macroeconomics and social policy to international injustice and international aid. She also spoke about her experience at the United Nations.

There are truly some very, very remarkable young Australians among us, and I'm very proud of their achievements. I'm privileged to speak to them daily in my roles as the member for Moncrieff, the shadow minister for the environment and the shadow minister for youth. I'm very proud of all young Gold Coasters.

It was 254 years in the making, and the Gweagal spears have been returned to the La Perouse Aboriginal community. The four spears were taken by Captain Cook and Sir Joseph Banks at the time of first contact between the crew of the Endeavour and First Nations people of Kamay, or Botany Bay. They belong here in Australia on country, and I was delighted to join the local community for the premiere of the documentary film about the journey for the Gweagal spears from Cambridge university to Sydney at the Australian Film Television and Radio School.

I'd like to acknowledge the great work of the Gujaga Foundation in helping to produce the return of the Gweagal spears documentary. The short film focuses on both the decades-long campaign by members of the La Perouse Aboriginal community and the experiences of the delegation of traditional owners who travelled to Cambridge for the hand-back ceremony. The delegation was make up of Noeleen Timbery, Ray Ingrey, Tristan Simms, David Johnson, Quaiden Williams Riley and Ash Walker. The film also captures the perspectives of representatives from the University of Cambridge, who received the Gweagal spears in 1770 and held them until their hand-back. The return of the spears is extremely important to the La Perouse Aboriginal community, but it's also important for Australia. It's a significant step forwards on the journey of reconciliation and towards finally telling the truth about what actually occurred when Captain Cook landed in Botany Bay.

I was also proud to join the 100th anniversary celebrations of the Eastern Suburbs Football Association in Sydney recently. In 1925 the association, known as ESFA, was founded to create a place where people across our community could unite on the football pitch. What began with just a handful of local clubs has flourished into a thriving association boasting 24 member clubs and a record-high of over 10,000 registered players. Notable milestones include historic premiership wins, the expansion of women's football opportunities and an ongoing growth in player participation year after year, with grades from very young children all the way up to walking football.

Off the pitch, ESFA is recognised for its commitment to inclusion, volunteerism and club development. This includes supporting junior football and investing in coaching education so that the beautiful game continues to flourish in our community. I'd like to make special mention of the tireless dedication of the volunteers who keep ESFA kicking goals year on year. Congratulations to everyone who has played a part—the players, in particular; the referees, who week in week out adjudicate games; the coaches; the volunteers; the sponsors; and the supporters. Happy 100th anniversary to the Eastern Suburbs Football Association.

For nearly 40 years, Healesville Interchurch Community Care Incorporated, better known as HICCI, has been a steadfast provider of vital support for residents throughout my community in the Healesville region. Their critical assistance extends across a vast service area, including Healesville, Yarra Glen, Steels Creek, Badger Creek, Dixons Creek, Castella, Toolangi, and frequently reaches Narbethong and Marysville. HICCI's capacity to sustain these crucial services has long relied upon federal government funding, specifically through food relief and financial wellbeing support. Through these funds, they've been able to assist countless people, offering essential food packages, assistance with paying bills and critical advocacy to additional support services.

The partnership between HICCI and the federal government has spanned over 20 years, ensuring these vital services have reached our region. Yet, despite this decades-long partnership, HICCI received a letter earlier this year that their application for continued funding under the Financial Wellbeing and Capability Activity program was unsuccessful. This decision was a complete cut in funding. There was no discussion, there was no consultation and, disappointingly, there was not even an opportunity for HICCI to receive a reduced sum.

The greatest concern now is for the community members who rely on HICCI and where they can turn for help. The financial shock has already forced immediate, painful cuts. HICCI has informed me that they have been forced to retrench an experienced community support worker, reduce appointment availability for those seeking assistance and reduce the extent of bill assistance that they can provide. This complete cut has already and will significantly impact Healesville and the surrounding communities. More concerning is the thought that vulnerable members of our community will be left without necessary support.

On behalf of my community, I've written to Minister Plibersek, seeking the minister's urgent attention to this matter, including that the appropriate member of her department engages directly with HICCI, and asking that the minister reconsider the decision to cut all funding to HICCI. Families and locals in my community are struggling due to the cost-of-living crisis. At a time when households are paying 15 per cent more for food, 40 per cent more for electricity and 37 per cent more for insurance, services like HICCI are more important than ever. We cannot allow decades of vital community support to simply disappear overnight.

I'm excited to let you know that November is Australian Music Month, a fantastic time to celebrate the incredible talent, creativity and culture power of our local Aus music scene. In my electorate of Melbourne, music isn't just entertainment; it's a part of who we are. It fills our iconic pubs, like the Corner Hotel and the Tote, laneways and stadiums as big as the MCG. It drives our festivals—too many to mention—and brings people together across all generations and backgrounds.

Recently I had the privilege of visiting the amazing Bakehouse Studios in Richmond with the Special Envoy for the Arts, Susan Templeman. It is a legendary creative space that has hosted just about every major Australian artist you can name. I give a very special thanks to Quincy McLean and Helen Marcou for their passion and for helping to keep Australian music alive. Bakehouse has hosted everyone, from the Go-Betweens to Courtney Barnett, Paul Kelly and the Avalanches—the list goes on and on. Bakehouse is also a favourite destination for international music artists. It showcases visual arts and it opens its doors for photography and filming. It is truly a wonderful creative space.

On the day I visited, at least five bands and artists were rehearsing, including the Temper Trap, the Pierce Brothers and an artist named r.em.edy, who is writing and recording her music there with the help of Revive Live grants received by Bakehouse to help artists with disabilities. That energy, creative people working side by side, is what makes Bakehouse so special and why I truly enjoyed my visit there. What struck me most was not just the history of those walls but the sense of community. Bakehouse has long been a place where musicians, producers and performers come together to collaborate, experiment and keep our live music culture thriving.

As we celebrate Australia's music month, we recognise the artists, venues and workers who make this industry possible and we commit to supporting them through fair pay, safe workplaces and investment in the creative economy. Part of that investment is through our government's successful Revive Live program, which is delivering millions in funding to help live music venues and festivals bounce back, supporting touring artists and ensuring Australian music is heard, loud and proud, across the country and the world—because when Australian music thrives, our whole culture thrives.

Today I want to reflect on Remembrance Day and what it means to our local community. The date of 11 November holds a very special place in the heart of all Australians. At 11 am on 11 November each year we come together and have a moment of silence to remember the lives lost and to commemorate those who've served and protected our nation and its values. Having been connected directly to serving personnel—my grandfather fought in World War II and my great-uncle died at Lone Pine in Gallipoli in World War I—I probably feel the sense of contribution of our service men and women more deeply. But on 11 November we recognise the moment in time where peace descended upon the world and we recognise and remember the role Australians played in achieving that peace.

In the electorate that I represent we are very well served by RSL subbranches that not only look after our local veterans but also take a lead role in commemorations for both Remembrance Day and Anzac Day. I want to thank those organisations and the many volunteers for the work they do in providing that opportunity in April and November each year for the community to gather. On Remembrance Day this year we will have services at the Runaway Bay cenotaph, which will be conducted by the Runaway Bay RSL subbranch, and also a service over at the North Gold Coast RSL subbranch, which will be at Helensvale, just behind the bowls club.

Additionally, I'm very pleased to see that the Rotary Club of Hope Island will be continuing their commemoration services at Sanctuary Cove. We will have a community service at Woongoolba, which will be at the bowls club, led by members of the community, and what has become an iconic service at Woongoolba State School. But there will also be services across our community at many schools, and I urge everyone on that day to take a moment to remember.

In Senate estimates, I was alarmed to hear comments made by Liberal senator for South Australia, Senator Antic, about the National Immunisation Program, a program that delivers protection against many diseases through immunisation—a simple, safe and effective way to protect ourselves, our families and our communities. One vaccine included in the National Immunisation Program is for hepatitis B. Hepatitis B is one of the most common liver viruses in the world. It causes significant damage to the liver, causing both short-term and long-term effects and can lead to cancer. Around 200,000 Australians live with chronic hepatitis B, and thousands more are newly diagnosed every year. For First Nations Australians and for many culturally and linguistically diverse communities, the rates are even higher. The hepatitis B vaccine given to newborns is one of the safest, most effective public health measures we have. Last week in Senate estimates, Senator Antic asked:

… who can tell me the rationale for newborn babies having a vaccine for a disease which is largely in the domain of intravenous drug users and prostitutes?

This was from a senator in the Liberal Party of Australia. We know that there are 200,000 people in living with hepatitis B in Australia, including in vulnerable communities like sex workers, intravenous drug users, First Nations communities and culturally and linguistically diverse communities. Sex workers and injecting drug users experience discrimination daily, which, sadly, results in a general acceptance of social stigma against them and internalised stigma within these communities. These people are valuable members of our community—people who matter and who deserve respect, quality health care and our protection. Included in the 200,000 people living with hepatitis B are people who have contracted the disease at birth through their mother or through exposure to unsterilised equipment, including those in tattooing and body piercing studios, from medical procedures or from needlestick injuries.

That's because, unlike Liberal senators, hepatitis B does not discriminate. What Senator Antic forgets is that immunisation is a preventative measure and has seen diagnosis rates fall across Australia and internationally. With Australia's program of neonatal immunisation for hepatitis B, there has been a clear and profound decrease in the rates of hep B in our community. To dismiss this as unnecessary or attempt to paint it with a brush of stigma is not just wrong and dehumanising; it is dangerous. It risks undermining public confidence in vaccines and public health. It risks turning back the clock to a time when preventable diseases claimed countless lives. Australians deserve representatives who to listen to the experts, not those who use their position to peddle misinformation and conspiracy theories. When medical researchers, public health experts, immunologists and physicians stand united behind our nation's vaccines program, that should count for something. Our national immunisation program saves lives. It protects our most vulnerable, and it upholds our shared responsibility to one another.

I'd like to send my warmest congratulations to the incredible team at Hansen Yuncken on 100 years of continuous building excellence in Shepparton and the Goulburn Valley. For a century, Hansen Yuncken has bee more than just a construction company. Founded by Lauritz Hansen and Otto Yuncken with a simple handshake, the company has been a vital part of our community, shaping the places where we live, work, learn and come together. From early projects with Ardmona and Kyabram cannery to modern facilities like the Greater Shepparton Secondary College, All Saints Anglican School and the Goulburn Valley hospital accommodation project, their work has left a lasting mark on our region.

Equally important is the ongoing commitment to the people of Shepparton and the Goulburn Valley. Employing local tradies, supporting local suppliers and fostering opportunities for young apprentices has strengthened our community and ensured that skills and expertise stay in our region. It's always a delight to see Hansen Yuncken signs when you drive past a building site, because you know local tradies are being employed, local businesses are being supported and our community is benefiting. The company is now visible across Australia, where you will find their projects at the centre of everyday life, from universities and schools to iconic arts precincts, commercial and industrial buildings and public buildings for Defence and the Australian Tax Office.

This century is not only a celebration of past achievements but also a recognition of the values that have guided Hansen Yuncken's journey: trust, excellence and connection to the local community. On behalf of all the residents of Nicholls, I want to acknowledge the generations of Hansen and Yuncken families and the countless staff past and present who have contributed to their remarkable legacy across Shepparton, the Goulburn Valley and now, indeed, Australia. Congratulations on 100 years of success, service, commitment and making sure local kids have opportunities in trades and other jobs. May the next century continue to bring innovation, growth and pride to Shepparton, the Goulburn Valley and beyond. Thank you, Hansen Yuncken.

Macnamara is a proudly diverse and wonderful place. Sitting in the heart of Macnamara is the Victorian Pride Centre. Sitting in the heart of the Victorian Pride Centre is JOY Media, which is Australia's premier community LGBTIQA+ radio station. It was founded in 1993 amidst the AIDS crisis, with its original purpose of bringing together an isolated community through connection and inclusion. It amplifies the incredible voices of the LGBTIQ community both inside and around Macnamara.

It also brings people across the political divide. I've co-hosted shows on JOYwith the member for Goldstein, for a brief period the other member for Goldstein and now the original member for Goldstein. There's Senator Smith and, of course, many other crossbenchers as well. It is an outstanding organisation, and we were proud to support it with a $250,000 election commitment to ensure that JOY Media can thrive, survive and expand its reach and network so people can hear the voices, the views and the good and welcoming nature of the LGBTI community. That grant process is underway, and I'm pleased to report good progress on it. We will fulfil that election commitment as per we set out in the election. I want to say to all the team at JOY Media that we are proud to support you. We look forward to it growing, and we look forward to JOY Media entering into the next chapter.

I also want to take this opportunity to congratulate the parliament on the passing of the Fair Work Amendment (Baby Priya's) Bill. This is a bill that will mean a lot to families. We are ensuring that any family that has a stillborn child or a child that passes away, tragically, after birth, is still able to take paid parental leave. I think that some of the contributions across the chamber have really been outstanding, on all sides of politics, and I congratulate the parliament for passing this.

I do think it's worth mentioning the fact that, as is often the case, these sorts of sensitive topics have been hijacked by people with their own agenda. They're putting misinformation and, frankly, damaging and hurtful information into these sorts of bills. The four Liberal members who decided to make this about something that it's not—to make it about late-term abortion—were really hurtful. It was really hurtful to those families who are in those positions and hurtful to those people who actually and devastatingly need this bill, and it also is a very bad reflection on the way in which this debate is often warped for the interests of people who have their own agendas. So I just want to say that those views and those members should really reflect on that moment of raising those issues. I've seen some of the ways in which this debate becomes toxic and very personal, and I just want to say that, for the members who did the right thing, thank you.

The recent inflation numbers are not just figures on a page; they represent people in pain. They remind me of Howard at FoodWorks in Aroona. After 25 years serving locals, his latest monthly power bill jumped by $1,200. He can't raise shelf prices because families are already stretched. What keeps him going is the loyalty of his customers and neighbours. That is Fisher at its best: community standing with small business. I hear the same message online and on the street. Ryan, who runs a bakery, told me his latest power bill was $3,774. That is 800 loaves just to pay for electricity. Christopher, a pensioner living alone, saw his quarterly bill jump by $400 and asked what exactly he is using to justify that rise. And Jeff said what many are thinking: while bills climb, the Prime Minister always seems to be somewhere else.

People in Fisher are proud of this country, and so am I. We live in the best nation on Earth but we can't take it for granted. Under Labor, essentials are up, and savings are down. Even hope is taking a hit. Homelessness is rising on the Sunshine Coast. More families are calling my office because they can't find a rental or keep up with repayments. Charities are telling me demand has never been higher, and community groups say there are fewer grants and less support under this Labor government. No longer is homelessness just restricted to people who don't have jobs; we have people who have good jobs but simply cannot afford a home—or can't find one. That's why my office is working overtime to promote opportunities so locals don't miss out.

At the same time, the nation's credit card is being hammered. Debt is heading past $1 trillion, with $50,000 being paid by this government in interest every minute. That is money that should be going to hospitals, schools, Medicare and law enforcement agencies. When Labor runs out of money, they come after yours. This government promised cheaper power, more homes and lower costs. Instead, power bills are up, housing targets are missed and new taxes are on the table. It's out of touch and sends a heartless message to struggling Australians. The coalition will always back small business and families, reward effort with lower and fairer taxes, prioritise reliable and affordable energy and encourage people to live within our means. To the people of Fisher: I'll keep telling your stories in this place and fighting for policies that ease pressure on households and put Australians first.

Volunteers are the heart of regional communities, and I'm really proud to stand here today to congratulate the outstanding Eden-Monaro volunteers who were recognised in the 2025 southern inland and South Coast volunteer of the year awards. In southern inland, volunteer and adult volunteer of the year, Abby McPherson, from the Michelago RFS—of whom she is the RFS captain—was recognised for her leadership, innovation and dedication to community safety. The senior volunteer of the year was Adolf Franko for 14 years of service with the Snowy River and alpine search and rescue, marine rescue and Berridale RFS. The volunteer team of the year was the Terry Campese Foundation youth mentoring Tonga team, for supporting at-risk youth through community service and international outreach.

For the South Coast awards, volunteer and senior volunteer of the year went to Maree O'Neill for her tireless work across numerous Eden community organisations. Adult volunteer of the year went to Samarah McGovern for 20 years of dedication to the debutante ball tradition in Merimbula. To all recipients: thank you so much. Your service and leadership continue to inspire us all.

I'd like to congratulate Doug Palmer on being awarded life membership of the Bungendore rural fire brigade, after 27 years of dedicated service. Doug joined the RFS in September 1988 and has since received the National Medal, the National Emergency Medal and the 2019-20 bushfires clasp, the RFS Long Service Medal and the Premier's Bushfire Emergency Citation. Between 2005 and 2018 Doug served in a variety of roles, including as deputy captain, senior and captain. Over the years Doug attended more than 552 call-outs, undoubtedly saving countless lives, homes and our beautiful countryside. People like Doug are the cornerstone of our community, and I congratulate him on a well-deserved achievement.

In the 2025 New South Wales Tourism Awards, Eden-Monaro stood out. We had finalists across a number of categories, including tours, festivals, accommodation, food and more. Representing our diverse and stunning region are: Eden Local Aboriginal Land Council for delivering authentic cultural experiences and creating meaningful local jobs; the Narooma Oyster Festival, now in its 19th year, for showcasing our world-class oysters and coastal culture; Tathra Beach Eco Camp for its sustainable, nature based tourism; and Merimbula's Eat Festival for celebrating local food, chefs and producers on the beautiful foreshores of Fishpen. From the coast to the mountains, Eden-Monaro offers unforgettable experiences. Congratulations to all the finalists. You make our region proud.

Finally, I want to give a shout-out to Hunter Clark, a year 12 student, for her achievement of the Service Award for the New South Wales branch of the Order of Australia. She's been the captain of TS Orion cadets and the captain of Jindabyne High School. She was Snowy Monaro Young Citizen of the Year and is an all-round inspiration to young people. She said, when she was congratulated on the award, in the Monaro Post: 'Don't forget to smile. Its power is often underestimated, but it truly makes the biggest difference.' Thanks so much, Hunter, for all your work.

Let's go, Dan! Wonthaggi veteran Dan Lucas has been through a lot, but he was kicking goals at the Australian Masters Games just last week. Dan had a terrific debut in archery, finishing first in his group in his first ever competition. I've met Dan a number of times through his volunteer work at the Wonthaggi RSL advocating for veteran welfare, and he is doing a great job. I think it's a timely reminder to reflect with gratitude on all of our veterans community with Remembrance Day next week, on 11 November. I reflect on my grandfather—my mum's dad—who served in World War II. He was captured and imprisoned as a prisoner of war at Changi under terrible conditions. I reflect on his service and the service of so many across Australia.

The Phillip Island rec reserve is something that I've been advocating for passionately for a very long time. I'm working with the mighty Phillip Island Bulldogs, a footy team, who are at absolute capacity. Locals have been advocating for this project for over 20 years. It's the biggest football club in Gippsland. It's having to divert players away to Dalyston and other clubs. I'm also working with the Phillip Island dog walkers' association, who have limited off-leash areas for their dogs. I'll continue to advocate for their needs as well.

The South Gippsland Highway intersection at McCartin Street, Roughead Street and along Hughes Street is a huge headache for lots of parents who suffer a bottleneck every morning on their way to school drop-off. It's also a dangerous black-spot area. As a freight driven area, we need safe, efficient routes to market for our local producers. I'm going to keep fighting for an upgrade to the McCartin Street corner in Leongatha to make sure we get the investment and support we need to upgrade our infrastructure. That is a critical area of priority.

I also want to give a shout-out to Leongatha basketball's Leongatha Parrots. The Leongatha basketball stadium has 50-plus upside-down umbrellas attached to the roof to catch the water leaking when it rains heavily, such is the condition and disrepair of their roof. Leongatha basketball players, from young players starting out through to elite players, deserve much better facilities. I will continue to advocate for funding. I came to the last election with support for this from the coalition, and I will continue to raise that as a major priority.

I also want to give a shout-out to the film Just a Farmer, which is screening in Warrigal and right across Australia. It's doing a tremendous job raising the issue of mental health for many in our farming communities.

Local councils play a vital role in supporting local communities across Australia. I want to congratulate the newly elected mayor of the City of Rockingham, Lorna Buchan. Lorna has served as the city's deputy mayor for the last two years and has been a councillor for the Comet Bay Ward in Secret Harbour since 2019. I also want to congratulate the three newly elected councillors to the City of Rockingham: Dylan Mbano, in Baldivis; Ryan Robertson, in the Rockingham/Safety Bay Ward; and David Rudman, also in the Comet Bay Ward. I particularly want to congratulate Robert Schmidt, who was re-elected with a majority of the primary vote in the Comet Bay Ward, and has also been elected the deputy mayor of Rockingham. Congratulations to you all.

I want to acknowledge the tireless work of outgoing Rockingham mayor, Deb Hamblin. I thank her for her years of service as councillor, deputy mayor and mayor and for the commitment that she has shown to my home town. I particularly want to commend Deb for her support of Rockingham's role in the AUKUS partnership and the opportunities it will bring to our local community. My best wishes also go to outgoing councillors Caroline Hume and Brett Wormall for their tremendous contributions to our beautiful city.

And in the City of Kwinana to the north, I want to congratulate newly elected councillor Balian Miller. Balian is 18 years old and the youngest councillor ever elected to the City of Kwinana. My sincere congratulations also go to the three re-elected councillors Erin Sergeant, Matthew Rowse and Barry Winmar. Barry was also re-elected as the deputy mayor, and will bring years of important experience to that role. I want to thank the dedication and service of retiring councillor Sue Kearney and wish her all the best.

The City of Kwinana has an unprecedented opportunity for economic growth and development at its doorstep. I look forward to working with the City of Kwinana and Mayor Peter Feasey, and all the councillors, and I hope to continue delivering positive outcomes for the community.

I want to thank all those candidates who stood in the local government elections recently, particularly in Rockingham and Kwinana, but also right across WA. It is an important step, and shows your commitment to the community.

I'm really pleased that the new veterans and families hub in Brand will officially be known as the Goldsworthy Veterans and Families Centre in honour of Lieutenant Commander Leon Goldsworthy, who is Australia's most decorated naval officer of the Second World War. I want to thank Lieutenant Colonel Duncan Anderson, the state President of RSL WA, Stephen Barton, the CEO, and Janine Gardner. They have led the project to find a site for this really important hub. I want to thank the Minister for Veteran's Affairs, Matt Keogh, and his team for their work in delivering the hub. It will provide support for more than 4,000 veterans in Rockingham, as well as veterans and families living across the southern metropolitan region. It's important for Rockingham, it's important for Brand and, of course, it's important to all those vets.

I'm proud to stand here today as a member of the party that is putting Australians first. In my electorate of Parkes, covering half of New South Wales, I often hear firsthand the stories of exactly what the rapidly escalating cost of living means to families. My heart is with the people of this vast electorate, who often struggle against the odds just to remain on the land. In recent years, some of these communities and their families have had the added pressure, conflict and financial impact that can come with living in a renewable energy zone. They are caught up in arbitrary boundaries that are earmarked to carry the burden of the race towards the unattainable target of net zero.

Net zero might be a great-sounding concept to some but, for those facing the prospect of giant transmission towers or wind turbines or solar panels parading across the land that has been in their family for generations, this infrastructure will impact livelihoods, is dividing families and neighbours and it has an impact on the environment.

I am not against wind, solar and battery projects and I am all for reducing emissions but net zero is not the way to do it. It clusters industrial-sized developments in small communities that are ill-prepared and sometimes ill-suited for the proposals. It is causing headaches, friction and stress. To add to these concerns—

A division having been called in the House of Representatives—

It causes headaches, friction and stress.

To add to these concerns, the Australian Energy Market Operator sent out a release in June 2024 that showed plans to expand New South Wales's five renewable energy zones to 12. This includes among the most prime agricultural land in north-west New South Wales, covering Moree, Narrabri, potentially Gunnedah—some of the best agricultural land the country has to offer—and Broken Hill. As I said, there may be some solar, wind or battery projects that are ideal for these regions. But making these communities a renewable energy zone means they face the potential inundation of industrial-size projects. It's a huge black cloud on the horizon for the Parkes electorate.

The Nationals are putting Australia first. With cheaper electricity, secure jobs and lower emissions, our way forward is cheaper, better and fairer. The Albanese Labor government's net zero plan is an impossible task that puts the burden squarely and unfairly on regional Australians.

Today I'd like to share a story that captures the very best of our young people—their courage, their compassion and their instinct to help others, even in the face of real danger. Earlier this year at West Beach in my electorate, a grandmother and her young grandson were swept into a powerful rip after the boy fell from the rocks. In a matter of seconds, what began as a normal afternoon turned into a life-or-death emergency. On that same beach were four remarkable teenage boys—Kai Nixon and Cruz Campbell, both just 14 years old, along with their friends Louis Kempster, 16, and Riley Kellock, 18. When they saw what was happening, they did not hesitate for a moment. Kai and Cruz paddled straight out into the rough surf to reach the young boy, while Louis and Riley worked to help the grandmother, using their boards to bring her safely back to shore. Kai later said, 'I had to stay calm, because this can't be the last moment of their lives.'

Those are remarkable words from a 14-year-old boy. What makes his actions even more extraordinary is that Kai was undergoing chemotherapy at the time. He was fighting his own battle, yet when he saw someone else in danger, he didn't think of himself, he thought only of saving others. In fact, today, 5 November 2025, is a special day for Kai. It's his final day of chemotherapy, and I know everyone here will want to join me in wishing him strength, good health and congratulations on this truly inspiring milestone.

These young men didn't wait for someone else to take charge. They didn't freeze or second-guess the situation. They drew on their training, their teamwork and their instinct for doing what is right. Because of them, that grandmother and her grandson are alive today.

Their bravery has already rightly been recognised. The boys received a ministerial award from South Australian education minister Blair Boyer. They have been nominated, quite rightly, for a Surf Life Saving award. And today I'm proud to announce that I've nominated Kai, Cruz, Louis and Riley for a bravery commendation through the Governor-General's office, an honour that I believe they richly deserve.

These young men remind us of the power of youth, training, teamwork and community spirit. Kai recently completed his Surf Rescue Certificate, and that training gave him the skills and the calm to act when it mattered most. More than that, it was his heart, courage, compassion and mateship that made the difference and saved those lives that day.

We should celebrate and support programs like Surf Life Saving, youth volunteering and first aid education, because these programs not only teach skills, they also give young people the confidence to act when it truly matters. Their bravery saved two lives. They've made their families, their surf club and our state incredibly proud.

In accordance with standing order 193, the time for constituency statements has concluded.

I call the member for New England.

():  Just a point of order. Madame Deputy Speaker, we've just been informed recently—we thought we were going to government business, the defence amendment. I've just been talking to the whip's clerk in our office to get the change in speakers. Because we've changed the order of business, we don't have speakers here who do want to speak on this. I know they've got three on the list. I can't remember the names. When was this change made, to go to this bill?

Member for New England, I am not aware of when that was changed, but certainly in front of me, now, I have the Freedom of Information Amendment Bill 2025. I can suspend the chamber while we find someone who is keen to talk.

Thank you very much.

The chamber is suspended until further notice.

Sitting suspended from 10:43 to 10:48

We had a bit of a debacle before the suspension, so I'll proceed again with respect to the Freedom of Information Amendment Bill 2025. The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Curtin moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The honourable member for Wentworth has moved as an amendment to that amendment that all words after 'House' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The question is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Wentworth to the amendment moved by the honourable member for Curtin be agreed to.

I am not surprised at all that there is a level of confusion around this Freedom of Information Amendment Bill 2025 and where we are up to in the debate because it has been a bit like a yo-yo going back and forth between this place and the chamber downstairs. I think that is a bit emblematic of the government 's approach to this legislation. Unfortunately, we are seeing a bill here that is, I think, relatively friendless. There is great support, I am sure, from the government and the government backbenchers but very little support from my side of the chamber, the crossbench or even anyone out there in civil society who has made comment on this bill so far.

What we are seeing in this bill is something that weakens the transparency measures around government processes, it entrenches secrecy and it reduces accountability, and that is something we certainly cannot support. Unfortunately, we are seeing the government rush this bill, and the antics of seeing it go back and forth between our debating chambers is indicative of that. The government have rushed this bill through. They are ignoring the 2023 Senate FOI inquiry and without advancing credible national security measures. We have also seen this bill introduced without consultation. Unfortunately, it undermines transparency and democratic accountability. It moves FOI from a presumption of openness to a presumption of control. Australians will see only the announcements and never the debates that lead to them. Unfortunately, it also creates a truth tax, and we see a lot of opposition to that from not just civil society groups but also from those whose job it is to also hold the government to account—that is, our media. By imposing application fees and processing caps, Australians will have to pay for access to information that already belongs to them.

We are also seeing a lot of criticism of this bill, that it will silence whistleblowers and it will prevent vulnerable applicants from being able to access information. It bans anonymous requests, which strips away protections for those who fear retaliation. That is an area I will focus on a bit later in my remarks as well. It is critical we do allow those anonymous requests because people do at times require the protection of an anonymity to be able to make these requests and get to the bottom of things, and I will touch on that a bit later.

The bill also expands secrecy around cabinet advice. New clauses will allow agencies to block access to any document that describes or refers to cabinet material and to classify factual briefs as deliberative to keep them hidden. Anyone who has had anything to do with making freedom of information requests before will understand that inherent grey area between what is cabinet material and what is not.

I have certainly had quite a bit of experience in lodging freedom of information requests. I have worked for a number of industry associations over the years where I have had to make FOI requests, and, being a member of parliament, I have made a number of freedom of information requests not only to the federal government but also to the Queensland state government as well. It has been interesting to draw a parallel between the different systems. It has always been a benefit of the federal government systems that they have always been cheaper, more transparent and clearer than what the state government offers. I recall one particularly bad incident when I was requesting a rather simple bit of information from the Queensland government in relation to a helipad which had been closed and was being utilised to withdraw patients from Stradbroke Island in my electorate. It had been closed under unusual circumstances. We have gotten to the bottom of it now but it took me about two years to find out a clear answer from the state government. I fear the changes these laws will implement will provide that same labyrinth, that same level of complexity, to federal FOI requests as well. I

This bill also rewards delays and dysfunction. We already see agencies that breach FOI timeframes all the time. In fact, I had one last year where an agency requested more time to be able to meet their FOI request and were unable to make it.

If the member will pause, the member for New England?

Member for Kennedy, would you mind not speaking on your mobile phone in the chamber, please, while other members are on their feet speaking.

As I was saying, the changes that the government are proposing through this legislation will reward delay and dysfunction, and I was explaining an example of an FOI request that I made recently. The government waited until the final day before asking for additional time. This happens all the time, and, unfortunately, what these proposals would do is only make that worse. It will extend the timeframes and make the system slower and less accountable.

We're also seeing a complete lack of public support for this bill. Every major integrity and transparency body has condemned this bill; none support it. I'll run through a few of those examples a bit later. It also contradicts Labor's integrity pledges. There was a lot made by this government in the lead-up to the last election, and the election before that, about transparency. Unfortunately, this is just delivering secrecy.

Non-disclosure agreements have become part and parcel of the way this government conducts business and conducts consultation with outside groups. We're seeing secret estimates manuals, and document refusals have become the norm. I think it's extra hypocritical that the government are bringing these forward when we've had so much comment from them in the lead-up to these elections about trying to restore and improve integrity, accountability and transparency.

I fear that this will damage public trust. Secrecy undermines democracy and prevents Australians from forming informed opinions about government. The FOI process is an important part of public trust. Anything that waters that down, making it less transparent and more secret, is not going to assist in building public trust around the federal government. This bill will also increase bureaucracy and legal complexity by introducing new thresholds, exemptions and caps. This is going to lead to more disputes, more appeals, more time tied up asking for appeals and reviews of decisions and far less transparency.

I want to read from an open letter, an advertisement, that was put in recently by a range of different groups who are all voicing their opposition to what the government here is proposing. This has been signed by the following groups: the Alliance for Journalists' Freedom, the Centre for Public Integrity, the Human Rights Law Centre, the Grata Fund and the Whistleblower Justice Fund. I'll read it verbatim because I think it's important that we understand where these groups are standing on this important area of government policy and also these reforms the government's proposing. They have written:

Freedom of information is a cornerstone of our democracy.

I think it's hard to argue with that. It certainly is the cornerstone of our democracy, and it's something that's utilised by so many different groups and media outlets to try to get to the bottom of government decision-making. I'll continue:

As voters, the Australian people must know what governments are doing. Without transparency, corruption remains hidden and public interest journalism goes unreported.

While Australia's existing FOI Act is in desperate need of updating, the Government's proposed FOI Amendment Bill fails to provide the necessary structural solutions.

Instead, it will make things worse, by making it harder to access information and creating more secrecy in government, not less.

I'll repeat that: more secrecy in government, not less.

The Bill's process also represents a grave integrity failure, with no public consultation or attempt to address the real issues applicants face with the current regime.

The government has also refused to provide Parliament and the public with any evidence to justify this move to secrecy.

P assage of this B ill would represent the greatest attack on transparency since the FOI Act was established.

We call on the Albanese government to withdraw the seriously flawed Freedom of Information Amendment Bill 2025 and urgently establish an independent and comprehensive review of Australia's freedom of information regime.

I think it's important to share that because it demonstrates what a lot of groups outside of this building are saying about these amendments.

We've also had criticism from the Australian Lawyers Alliance. They have observed that the government has tried to defend the changes within this legislation, noting that they're concerned about the impact that hostile foreign governments might have on the FOI process. The Australian Lawyers Alliance say:

… hostile foreign governments, big business and other well-resourced applicants will have no problems in meeting the $50 fees contemplated (but not yet published) and therefore such a fee will have no deterrent effect on these applications.

They also noted the processing cap and said:

… An obvious flaw in this system is with respect to how the proposed 40-hour ceiling would be calculated. The Bill does not make clear whether the cap applies to a single decision maker's processing time, or whether it is cumulative across multiple public servants. In practice, the ceiling could be reached quickly, where a decision is reviewed at multiple levels within an agency, or where consultation with the Minister or third parties is required. Without clear guidance and external scrutiny, applicants would have no way of verifying whether an agency's estimate is genuine and reasonable.

That's already a flaw within the current system. There is a lack of transparency around the current system on whether an agency's decision has been reached objectively. This of course would provide another area of confusion and another area where these agencies would have a greater ability to hold things up, and applicants will not be able to tell whether it's genuine or not.

The Law Council of Australia have also taken exception to the processing cap. They said:

… in practice, the impact of the processing cap will be heavily influenced by the efficiency, resourcing, and technological capability of individual agencies. Agencies with well-developed information management systems and experienced FOI teams may be better placed to process large or complex requests within the cap, whereas less-resourced agencies may be more likely to rely on the cap as a basis for practical refusal. This could result in inconsistent access outcomes across government, potentially undermining the objectives of the FOI Act.

Crikey, of course, provided a submission as well. It said:

The government's Freedom of Information Amendment Bill 2025 purports "to improve the operation of the FOI framework". From our perspective as a small independent news outlet, it does the very opposite.

I think that's a sentiment shared by many different media outlets in this building and beyond this building. The Australian Press Council, in its submission, said:

Access to information is a fundamental democratic right and should not be contingent on financial means. Application and review fees pose a significant barrier for freelance journalists, smaller outlets, academics, and civil society groups. Evidence suggests that individuals are far less likely to pursue reviews when fees are imposed, effectively excluding them from scrutiny. This results in a two-tier system where large media organisations can pursue appeals, but community and independent journalists cannot.

I'll give an example of this. I spoke in the chamber yesterday about the great work undertaken by the Australian Remembrance Army, who are a very small group of volunteers who do a lot of very important work in researching information around unmarked World War I veterans graves within my electorate and across greater Brisbane. They've been using FOI requests to try to get information and Department of Veterans' Affairs records on how they've been maintaining war graves. If they had to provide this fee for every FOI request that they make, that cost would add up. It's not just big media organisations or big business that need to make FOI requests. Sometimes it's individuals who are making requests in relation to their own information; at other times it's small community groups who need to get a certain aspect of government information that's not publicly available. Any extra fee that we impose on them is another barrier to entry, and I don't think that that's the direction we should be heading in. We should have a process where we have greater transparency, greater accountability and less secrecy around the whole process. One of my colleagues who spoke on the bill talked about letting the sunlight in. That's so important. Transparency is critical.

The coalition will oppose the Freedom of Information Amendment Bill 2025 in the House because we believe that it ignores the key recommendations from the 2023 Senate inquiry, particularly those in relation to resourcing, timeframes and cultural issues within the Office of Australian Information Commissioner; it imposes new barriers, such as fees and the ban on anonymous requests, that reduce access and discourage legitimate applications; and it expands the grounds for refusing information, especially through new broad exemptions on cabinet and deliberate processes.

This speaks for itself. There is so much opposition to this bill that the government should seriously reconsider it.

The Labor government loves to talk about transparency. They promise openness, integrity and accountability. But with this Freedom of Information Amendment Bill 2025 they have done the opposite. This bill is not about Freedom of Information; it is about freedom from scrutiny. It weakens the public's right to know, entrenches secrecy and reduces accountability of the federal government. It is the most significant roll-back of transparency laws in over 40 years. Labor tells us this bill will modernise the freedom of information framework and improve efficiency, but, when you look very closely, it becomes clear. What they really mean is to make it easier to say no—make it easier to encourage dysfunction and to encourage and reward incompetence.

Let's look at what the bill actually does. Schedule 1 rewrites the objects of the act to prioritise the proper functioning of government over the public's right to access information. Schedule 2 bans anonymous requests, ending protections for whistleblowers, advocates and citizens who fear reprisal. Schedule 3 introduces a discretionary 40-hour processing cap, allowing agencies to stop searching once the request just gets that little bit too difficult. Schedule 4 extends decision timeframes from 30 calendar days to 30 working days, delaying responses. Schedule 5 changes the Information Commissioner's review processes in a way that limits third-party participation. Schedule 6 creates application fees for freedom of information requests and reviews. This is effectively a truth tax on citizens seeking information. Schedule 7 expands cabinet and deliberative process exemptions, making it easier to refuse requests without even searching for one document. Schedule 8 allows a different minister or agency to respond if a minister leaves office.

This bill moves freedom information from a presumption of openness to a presumption of control. I'll say that again: it moves from a presumption of openness to a presumption of control. So much for transparency. Australians will only see the final announcements—never the debates, never the advice and never the disagreements that led to those decisions. The coalition opposes this bill because it undermines transparency, accountability and trust in government. This bill was introduced without consultation and rushed into the parliament despite the findings of the 2023 Senate FOI inquiry, which made it clear that the real problems are under-resourcing, delays and cultural resistance within agencies. Labor has clearly ignored those findings. Instead of fixing the system, they're breaking it even further. It takes a lot of talent!

Let's be honest. This is not a reform born out of necessity. It is a reaction to scrutiny—a desire for less scrutiny. I can't believe I'm saying those words. I just cannot believe it. By banning anonymity, Labor silences whistleblowers and vulnerable applicants. By imposing the fees, they make transparency a privilege only for those who can afford it. By expanding exemptions, they ensure that the most politically sensitive information will stay hidden. Every major integrity body, transparency advocate and media organisation has condemned this bill, and so they should. Not one of them supports it. The only supporters, of course, are the bureaucrats who would rather not be questioned. They're cheering from the sidelines. This is not just poor policy; it is procedural abuse. Yet, here we are, being forced to consider it before the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee has even reported. They've been working hard on this very issue. Their report is due on 3 December. What's the rush? Why can't we wait until that report is finished so that we can look at the recommendations? We could all look at the recommendations. The report is due on 3 December. The government's decision to rush debate now, before the committee has finished its work, is a disgrace. It's another example of this government's contempt for parliamentary process.

So much for transparency! What is Labor scared of? That is what you've got to ask yourself. Labor came into power promising integrity. They spoke of sunlight as the best disinfectant, yet under this government we've seen non-disclosure agreements, secret costings, hidden estimates manuals and, now, legislation designed to make it harder for Australians to see what their government is doing.

I've been in government for 10 years. We don't always like the scrutiny, but it's important for our democracy. This bill damages public trust. It tells citizens that the government—

Order! Can the member for Durack pause. We no longer have quorum in the chamber. The chamber is suspended until further notice.

Sitting suspended from 11:11 to 11:14

(Quorum formed)

In continuance, I might repeat some of the words that I've just said, but I think they're worth repeating. This bill damages public trust. It tells citizens that the government doesn't trust them with the truth. When people can't access information, they can't form an informed opinion, and that strikes at the heart of our democracy. Freedom of information is not a privilege granted by government; it is a right owed to every Australian citizen. When you limit what citizens can know, you limit what they can decide.

The coalition stands for open government, a free press and the people's right to know. We will engage constructively with the Senate inquiry and consider amendments that are genuinely there to protect transparency, including removing the most restrictive provisions in schedules 2, 3, 6, 7 and 8. But make no mistake. As it stands now, this bill is indefensible. It ignores the expert advice of the 2023 Senate inquiry, it expands secrecy, delays access, discourages applications and imposes new costs on citizens. It turns a system built for accountability into a fortress for concealment.

So you have to ask yourself: what is Labor so scared of and what is the bureaucracy so scared of? Labor says this bill will modernise the freedom-of-information framework, when , in truth, it will take Australia backwards—back to the days when government decisions were made behind closed doors and the public was told only what it was allowed to know. Democracy dies in the darkness, and this bill is darkness by design. The coalition will oppose the Freedom of Information Amendment Bill 2025 because transparency should not depend on convenience. The truth should never come with a price tag.

Freedom of information isn't a privilege; it's a right that belongs to the Australian people. The documents of government don't belong to ministers or departments; they belong to the people. When Australians ask for information, they are not being difficult. They are exercising their right to know how their government works. That right, one of the most important in our democracy, is what this bill, the Freedom of Information Amendment Bill 2025, puts at risk. The government says this bill will modernise the FOI system, but it does not modernise it; it weakens it. It moves our system from a presumption of openness to a presumption of control. It gives agencies more excuses to say no and gives citizens fewer tools to hold government accountable. That's not reform; that is retreat.

I want to thank my colleagues who have called this bill what it is—a truth tax. Australians will be made to pay more, wait longer and receive less when they simply ask to know what their government is doing. Let's remember what FOI is actually for. It's for journalists to expose waste. It's for community groups to check on decisions that affect them. It's how citizens hold us, their representatives, to account. Remember what 'FOI' stands for—'freedom of information'. It's not 'freedom of information if we feel like it'. If FOI fails, bad decisions multiply in the dark. This government already has a transparency problem, and now, under this bill, even that small window of sunlight will start to close.

In regional Australia, we value straight talk. In Grey, people don't expect perfection from government, but they do expect honesty and openness. They expect to see where their money is being spent. They want to know why a road project in the mid-north has stalled or how decisions about aged care or rural hospitals were made. They want to know why programs are announced but the delivery never seems to reach the Eyre Peninsula, the Yorke Peninsula or the far north. Freedom of information helps us keep that trust alive. It's how the local paper in Port Augusta or Whyalla can ask the hard questions. It's how communities make sure decisions about them are made with them, not for them behind closed doors. That's why this bill matters. It's because, when you shut down transparency, you shut out the people.

Now, let's look at what this bill actually does.

Schedule 1 rewrites the whole purpose of the act. Right now, the law says government information should be released unless there's a good reason for it not to. Under this bill, information will only be released if it is part of the 'proper functioning of government'. That sounds harmless, but it's a huge shift. It gives every department an easy way out: 'Sorry, we cannot release that. It might interfere with our processes.' What a cop-out! It's the kind of language that breeds bureaucracy, not accountability.

Schedule 2 bans anonymous requests. The government claims that that's about protecting national security from bots. That's nonsense. Once a document is released, it's public. Who asked for it doesn't matter, but for the whistleblower, the community advocate, the local journo or the local public servant who spots something wrong, anonymity is protection. Removing it will silence the people who most need it to be heard.

Schedule 3 caps processing times at 40 hours. That's not efficiency; that's a get-out clause. It lets agencies stop searching when things get hard. The big, complex cases, the ones that expose systematic issues, will be the first ones to hit the wall. Imagine a journalist in Balaklava trying to uncover why local job funding fell through or a volunteer group in Port Lincoln asking for correspondence about a fisheries decision. Once that search hits 40 hours, the answer will simply be: 'Too hard. Denied.' That's not accountability; that's called obstruction.

Schedule 4 changes the timeframe from 30 days to 30 working days. That means longer wait times—six weeks instead of four. And that's before you add the usual extensions.

Then there's schedule 7, which quietly expands the cabinet exemption to cover any document that merely refers to cabinet material. That means a department could refuse to search at all, claiming that papers might be related to cabinet. That's not protecting cabinet confidentiality. That's burying anything that might cause political discomfort. It's the difference between keeping deliberations private and hiding inconvenient truths.

This bill does not come in isolation. It fits a pattern, a pattern of control, concealment and centralisation. We've seen it in the refusal to release energy modelling, in the endless redactions on defence and procurement and in the Prime Minister's own handling of his diary. The culture of 'no' is spreading through this government. Right now, we need absolute transparency on energy policy and power prices. This government has not released anything on how much it will cost the country to get to net zero, for example. Some say $8 trillion to $9 trillion. What does that mean for a steelmaker in Whyalla or the worker at the lead smelter in Port Pirie? Their livelihoods are on the line. And regional manufacturing is hitting the wall because of this government's energy policy.

Who loses when transparency dies? It's not ministers and not the big corporates with lawyers and lobbyists. It's the local paper in Port Augusta that cannot afford the new fees. It's the community group in Ceduna trying to trace where regional grants went. It's the citizen in Kimba asking simple questions about infrastructure funding and getting stonewalled by a process. This bill will make it harder and more expensive for those people to participate in their own democracy. Freedom of information should not be a luxury item for those who can pay the most. It should be the ordinary right of every Australian.

This government says this bill is about efficiency. Let's be honest: it is not. Efficiency doesn't come from new excuses to say no. It comes from properly resourcing the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner so it can clear the backlog. I will repeat that: it comes from properly resourcing the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner so it can clear the backlog. It comes from better training, clearer systems and a culture that values transparency instead of fearing it. Right now, there is a stack of unresolved reviews. Applicants wait years. Departments drag things out until a story is cold and the issue is forgotten. That's not efficiency; that is delay by design.

In Grey, people do not have the money or time to fight through red tape to get answers. When a community wants to know why a hospital service was downgraded or why a road repair project fell off the budget, they should be able to ask and get a straight answer. They should not need a lawyer, a lobbyist or a media team to do it. That's what this bill forgets. It treats the public as a nuisance, not a stakeholder. It forgets the power is lent to us by the people, not owned by us. If the government was serious about improving the system, it would take a very different approach.

Here is what genuine reform looks like: keep the law's purpose clear—that information belongs to the people, not to the government; protect anonymity so whistleblowers and citizens can speak without fear; replace the 40-hour cap with a duty to assist so agencies must work with applicants to refine requests, not block them; limit the cabinet exemption to genuine cabinet documents, not every piece of paper that mentions a minister's name; and properly fund the information commissioner so that the system actually works. Those steps will deliver real transparency. They would make government more open, not more opaque.

Freedom of information is meant to make governments uncomfortable. It is meant to hold power to account. That is the point. Governments that fear scrutiny don't trust the people, and, when governments don't trust the people, the people stop trusting government. We already see that distrust growing across the country. People are cynical about politics, frustrated by spin and tired of decisions being made without explanation. If this bill passes, that cynicism will deepen, and the next government will inherit a system even more closed off than before.

Transparency should not be a partisan issue. It is not about left or right; it is about fairness, honesty and accountability. When people can see the facts for themselves, democracy gets stronger. In Grey and right across regional Australia, people expect straight talk and fair play. They expect government to answer questions honestly, even when the answer is uncomfortable. This bill fails that test. It weakens transparency, it increases secrecy and it shifts power further away from the public and into the hands of the bureaucracy.

This parliament should not vote for longer delays, higher costs and wider exemptions. We should vote for openness, honesty and confidence. Freedom of information is not a nuisance; it is a right. It is a right. This bill does the opposite. It narrows it, it entrenches secrecy and it weakens the fundamental rights of Australians to know what their government is doing in their name. This bill represents a profound step backwards for transparency, accountability and open government. The government tells us that this bill will modernise the freedom of information framework, that it will streamline processes and improve efficiencies. But when you read it, when you listen to those who understand the FOI system—journalists, integrity experts, transparency advocates—the truth becomes clear: this bill is about control, not modernisation.

The bill proposes a long list of sweeping changes to the Freedom of Information Act 1982 and the Australian Information Commissioner Act 2010. It would require all FOI requests to include verified identification, banning anonymous requests, and would impose a 40-hour cap on the processing of requests, allowing agencies to simply stop searching if they decided a request was too hard. It would allow new application fees for requests and for reviews, except for personal information, effectively taxing Australians for seeking the truth. It would expand exemptions for cabinet and deliberative documents, making refusals easier and transparency rarer. It would extend the time agencies have to respond from 30 calendar days to 30 working days, further delaying public access, and give the Information Commissioner power to remit reviews back to the very agencies that made the decisions in the first place.

These are not minor procedural tweaks; these are major structural changes to how Australians access information from their government. The coalition will oppose this bill because it strikes at the very heart of democratic accountability.

I thank my parliamentary colleagues for their contributions to the debate on this bill. The Albanese government recognises that an effective freedom of information system is vital to fostering citizens' trust in government decision-making and to supporting participation in Australia's civic and democratic processes.

Australia's current freedom of information framework was established over 40 years ago and does not reflect our world today, including the opportunities and challenges presented by modern technology. Outdated provisions divert resources and cost taxpayers money while delaying responding to genuine requests. Complex procedural and technical rules contribute to system inefficiencies without benefits to Australians or Australia's democracy. The Freedom of Information Amendment Bill 2025 will ensure our freedom of information framework is fit for purpose in 2025 and beyond by upholding and promoting core democratic principles that underpin freedom of information laws and addressing issues that in practice undermine a more effective and balanced framework.

The government remains committed to delivering meaningful freedom of information reform. We remain ready and willing to engage across to parliament on possible amendments, given the importance of getting this right. One of the important measures in this bill is the ban on anonymous requests. This will provide greater transparency about who is seeking to access information held by the Australian government, ensuring our FOI system cannot be exploited by those who may seek to do Australia or Australians harm. However, some stakeholders and those opposite have expressed concern that the proposed ban might discourage individuals or organisations with legitimate reasons for seeking anonymity, such as whistleblowers, from making FOI requests. Today I will be moving an amendment to address this concern by allowing applicants to make requests for non-personal information without having to disclose whether a request is being made on behalf of another person. This change will mean that a person with a legitimate reason for seeking anonymity can ask a member of parliament, a journalist, a lawyer, a friend or any other person to make a request for non-personal information on their behalf while maintaining their anonymity.

More broadly, we have been listening to evidence provided as part of the Senate committee inquiry, and the government will keep an open mind and continue to engage in good faith on the final form of these important reforms. We all agree on the need to get on with fixing what is currently a broken freedom of information system. What we know is that every stakeholder says the current FOI system isn't working and there are significant delays in having FOI requests processed. The fact is that the government's freedom of information laws will create efficiencies in the system to ensure it works better for all users of the system. This will allow genuine FOI requests to be prioritised and taxpayers' money to be better utilised.

The Albanese government and our FOI reforms are focused on delivering for the Australian people. This bill amends the Freedom of Information Act 1982 to reflect the modern environment. It will improve the freedom of information framework through reducing system inefficiencies, providing clarity of the law and addressing abusive processes that impact on people's right to access information.

The amendments achieve this by clarifying the scope and objects of the Freedom of Information Act, streamlining processes relating to information access requests and reviews, establishing mechanisms to address improper use of the FOI system, enabling application fees and clarifying the operation of certain exemptions and treatment of official documents of the minister. The bill also makes consequential amendments to the Australian Information Commission Act 2010 and the Public Interest Disclosure Act 2013 to support the changes to the Freedom of Information Act.

The bill provides important updates to the Commonwealth's freedom-of-information framework, with a focus on modernisation, reducing system inefficiencies and addressing abuse of processes that impact on people's right to access information. It recognises the importance of a well-functioning system of information access balanced with an efficient and effective government. I commend the bill to the House.

The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Curtin moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The honourable member for Wentworth has moved as an amendment to that amendment that all words after 'House' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The question now is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Wentworth to the amendment moved by the honourable member for Curtin be agreed to.

Question unresolved.

As it is necessary to resolve this question to enable further questions to be considered in relation to this bill, in accordance with standing order 195 the bill will be returned to the House for further consideration.

The Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence) Bill 2025 establishes the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence. There's never been a more important time for parliamentary accountability and oversight over defence decisions. The stakes are higher than at any time since the Second World War. As the 2024 National defence strategy stated, Australia faces the most complex and challenging strategic environment since that time. Conflict has returned to Europe. Conflict has returned to the Middle East. We've also seen conflict in our own region in South-East Asia. We face evolving threats as well—cyber threats, grey zone tactics and foreign interference, as well as continuing threats like that of nuclear conflict.

In a time of geostrategic uncertainty, it has never been more important to maintain independent oversight of our defence community. Engaging the parliament and the public in these matters is vital to the way that Australia responds to these challenges. The new Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence will enhance transparency, accountability and oversight of defence decisions. It will provide scrutiny to all parts of the defence ecosystem at a significant moment in Australia's history.

I want to acknowledge at this point my colleague the member for Bruce, Assistant Minister Julian Hill. This bill would not be before the House but for the work of Minister Hill in chairing the Defence Subcommittee of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade in the previous parliament. He led the inquiry into international armed conflict decision-making which led to the bill before the House being with us today.

The parliament plays a crucial role in scrutinising and debating decisions of the executive government and the implementation of those decisions by departments and agencies. The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence will provide oversight of all areas of our defence ecosystem. The circumstances demand a coordinated, whole-of-government and whole-of-nation approach to our nation's defence. That's why this legislation is so important.

The committee is modelled on the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security and provides a mechanism for classified parliamentary intelligence briefings and oversight of defence. The PJCD fills a gap in the current oversight framework by enabling scrutiny of classified matters in a secure setting. The bill gives the committee broad information-gathering powers. The committee's information-gathering powers include the ability to request a person to give evidence or to produce specified documents. The committee is empowered to receive and consider classified information subject to appropriate safeguards. These safeguards balance the government's commitment to greater public transparency with the necessity for the protection of information. These safeguards will ensure that information which maintains Australia's security and that of our international partners is protected and the arrangements for information handling will be closely modelled on those that apply to the PJCIS today.

The PJCD will have oversight of the ADF, the Department of Defence, the Department of Veterans' Affairs and portfolio agencies, including the Australian Submarine Agency, Defence Housing Australia and the Australian War Memorial. It will also include the performance of key independent regulators, including the Inspector-General of the ADF and the Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Regulator. The committee's functions will include oversight of administration, expenditure and personnel matters, and it will have the ability to scrutinise Australia's defence capability development, including strategy, planning and acquisitions. The committee will also be responsible for monitoring and reviewing the findings of royal commission inquiries relating to defence. The committee will be able to assess war, war-like and major non-conflict operations in the event of the executive deciding to enter into armed conflict.

The establishment of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence is just one part of the government's strategy with regard to our defence and security. Greater oversight and transparency is necessary at a time when we have been lifting our defence engagement with regional partners in order to build the kind of region that we want to see—a region that's peaceful, prosperous, secure and stable, governed by rules, norms and international law, a region where sovereignty is respected and countries are free to make their own choices, where no country dominates and no country is dominated.

As outlined in the 2024 National defence strategy our enhanced defence cooperation and activities with key partners 'build depth and trust in Australia's relationships, support collective deterrence and demonstrate Australia's value as a reliable partner'. In response to the more complex security environment facing the Indo-Pacific region, we have established upgraded bilateral defence arrangements with a number of partners. We've established upgraded defence agreements with partners including Papua New Guinea, Singapore, Japan, Korea, India and Indonesia. These agreements will facilitate deeper and more sophisticated practical cooperation between the ADF and our partners.

In particular, we've been lifting our engagement with the Indian Ocean region. The 2024 National defence strategy identified the north-east Indian Ocean region as an area of primary strategic interest that is critical to Australia's security. It was identified in the National defence strategy because the Indian Ocean matters to Australia. It's critical for our prosperity and security. It's home to the world's fastest growing economies. Around half of Australia's sea-bound exports set sail from Indian Ocean ports, and the shipping lanes of the Indian Ocean are vital to Australia and the broader global economy. More than a third of the world's bulk cargo traffic and two-thirds of global oil shipments travel through the Indian Ocean.

It's critical for our Defence Force posture. Half of Australia's naval fleet is based in the Indian Ocean. It's home to Fleet Base West, which is critical for Australia's capacity to deploy major fleet units for sustained operations off our west coast in the Indian Ocean. It's also home to Submarine Rotational Force - West. Submarine Rotational Force - West will help Australia build the necessary operational capabilities and skills to be sovereign ready. It will ensure Australia can safely and securely own, operate, maintain and regulate a fleet of nuclear powered submarines from the early 2030s. Submarine Rotational Force - West will accelerate our efforts to develop Australia's capability to safely and securely operate and sustain its future nuclear powered submarines. It's an investment in AUKUS and a significant contribution to the security and stability of the Indian Ocean region.

Our defence relationships in the Indian Ocean region are an important part of our regional engagement, and the gifting of the first Australian built Guardian class patrol boat to an Indian Ocean country, the Maldives, will enhance its capability to protect its sovereign waters. It will also contribute to collective maritime security in the Indian Ocean. The Indian Ocean also saw in 2025 the largest ever participation in Exercise Talisman Sabre, with over 30,000 military personnel from 19 nations partaking and an additional three nations observing. Joint exercises like Talisman Sabre reflect the strength of Australia's alliance with the United States and demonstrate our commitment to working with like-minded partners in the region. Bilateral defence cooperation between Australia and regional partners enhances collective strength, contributes to all countries' security and makes an important contribution to regional peace and security.

The context in this bill is that we're also undertaking a long overdue program of base hardening and investment in our northern and western defence bases. The Albanese government is hardening Australia's northern defence infrastructure in the Northern Territory, North Queensland and Western Australia, and we're doing this because the Defence Strategic Review identified improving the ability of the ADF to operate from Australia's northern bases as a key priority. Given our strategic circumstances, the ADF must be optimised for littoral operations in northern land and maritime spaces. The ADF must be equipped to support operations in the north through surveillance, air defence, strike and air transport.

Development of defence estates will address force posture requirements and enhance an integrated, focused force as outlined in the 2024 National defence strategy. In order to realise this, the government is upgrading defence bases, including $1 billion for upgrades to land and joint estate capabilities, $600 million in maritime estate investments, including HMAS Coonawarra, HMAS Cairns and the Harold E Holt naval communication station, and an additional $200 million towards the acceleration of additional projects. The ADF will be better equipped to defend Australia's north thanks to $14 billion to $18 billion of funding for resilient bases under the 2024 Integrated Investment Program.

In the Indian Ocean, the Cocos (Keeling) Islands is a key territory for Australia. The island is located 2,000 kilometres from Australia's north-west coastline, adjacent to vital Indian Ocean sea lanes. As argued by Professor Peter Dean and Alice Nason in a recent report by the United States Studies Centre, the Cocos (Keeling) Islands is a key Indian Ocean asset for Australia. That's why we're investing $567.6 million to upgrade the airfield there to sustain Defence operations in the Indian Ocean. This investment is expanding infrastructure in this territory and will see its operational significant to Australia only grow in the future.

Despite this clear strategic imperative, the implementation of upgrades to Australia's northern defence network has been impaired by significant delays and rising costs. Under the previous government, we lost a decade of work on these projects. The lack of oversight and focus in the development of these bases in the north and north-west led to a decade-long delay between the 2012 Force posture review and the 2023 Defence strategic review. That's why the establishment of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence is so significant for Australia. Our government's defence base hardening is important for Australia's security, and the delay between the 2012 Force posture review and the 2023 Defence strategic review meant that our key bases in the north and west faced vulnerabilities. It also means that they now require significant, rapid investment and hardening.

We got to work doing this as soon as we came to government, so it's important that we have committees like this to ensure that issues and investments like that maintain the focus of the parliament that they desire. More than ever, we need to ensure our defence ecosystems are transparent and accountable and have appropriate oversight. We need to ensure there is oversight of strategically key investments. We need to ensure Australia's defence ecosystem can meet the challenges of the time, and that is what the bill before the House represents. I cede time to my colleagues on the opposite side of the chamber to address this bill.

I very much appreciate that, member for Gellibrand. Much of the member's contribution I earnestly agree with, particularly the need for this sort of joint committee on defence. This is why this Defence Amendment Bill is so important. The proposal implements longstanding bipartisan support for Defence oversight. This particular committee was first proposed by the late Jim Moland AO DSC, the late, great senator, who'd probably forgotten more about defence than most of us in parliament will ever actually know. Indeed, it was not only his advice, knowledge and firsthand experience as a very decorated military man. It was complemented by the fact that he wrote very authoritative books on matters pertaining to national security, particularly in the Asia-Pacific.

It was also put forward by the much maligned Linda Reynolds CSC. I say 'much maligned' because the former senator was unfairly treated. She was. But her contribution to this place will continue, even though she no longer has a seat in the red chamber. The efforts she went to and the knowledge she brought to the military space are very much appreciated and recognised. Then there's David Fawcett. I know his work, too. His intimate knowledge of defence matters has been critical.

Australia is unique among AUKUS partners in lacking a dedicated parliamentary defence committee. One would think that this particular amendment and committee will rectify that. For the coalition, it was very much when this was first mooted by Labor—of course, we brought it up initially, but it was when Labor cottoned on to this idea—there was talk about the make-up of this committee. Very much a line in the sand for the conservative side of parliament was the potential appointment of Greens or crossbenchers. With all due respect to the member for Kennedy, who is in this chamber at the moment—I have the utmost respect for him, and he knows that, but I'm particularly referring to the Greens and teals in this regard. They do not share the same values for our military, and oversight thereof, that Labor, Liberal and National members of parliament and senators would have. The defence minister—again, someone I've got the greatest respect for, the member for Corio—has assured the committee that committee members must, firstly, support the Australian Defence Force and increased resourcing for defence. That's absolutely bottom line. And, secondly, they must support AUKUS.

When it comes to AUKUS, that is a wonderful thing. It will enhance our security with our two most trusted and longstanding friends, the United Kingdom and the United States of America. In late 2019, then prime minister Morrison tasked Defence officials to look into the feasibility of acquiring nuclear powered submarines after doubts over the French contract. In May 2021, then prime minister Morrison presented the AUKUS proposal to the full National Security Committee. I was on it at the time. He was given permission to approach US and UK leaders with an official government policy.

This was groundbreaking; this was landmark. In June of that year, he met with then US President Joe Biden and then UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson—they being the leaders of those two nations at the time—on the sidelines of the G7 and agreed to an in-principle deal. On 15 September 2021, AUKUS was announced. Obviously, since then we've had multiple meetings between the three nations. Prime Minister Albanese met with President Trump recently to strengthen the deal and to ratify the US's involvement in this arrangement with Australia.

For America, Australia and the Asia Pacific rim are very vital geopolitical spaces. What is happening with incursions into the Pacific is as worrying for the US, or should be, as it is for Australia. As I said, with US Marines coming into the Top End on a rotational basis, anyone who has been to Darwin at that time of year when the Marines are at their full strength would know how important and how critical Australia's geographic and geopolitical position is for Washington.

In September 2021, an 18-month consultation period began into how Australia would acquire nuclear powered submarines and which model it would proceed with. I know there has been a lot of conjecture and I know there has been a lot of debate. I know that during the recent federal election, in one of the lead-up fora in Wagga Wagga, I had equal the most number of opponents as anyone in Australia, as did the member for Calwell. At that particular debate I was the only one of those candidates who supported spending of billions of dollars into Defence for AUKUS, for the submarines. I make no apology for that, particularly as a former assistant minister for Defence, as a former veterans affairs minister and someone who was largely responsible for the more than $1.4 billion being spent to upgrade RAAF Base Wagga and Blamey Barracks, 'home of the soldier', at Kapooka, home of the First Recruit Training Battalion. All of our Army recruits—at the moment they range in age from 17 to late-50s—go through that particular facility.

Wagga Wagga is also home to a strategic naval presence, where—Member for Kennedy, you'll be interested in this—we have 80 personnel from the Navy. Member for Kennedy, you would know that Wagga Wagga is a long way away from the nearest drop of seawater, but it's an important strategic base. Along with the Air Force at Forest Hill, and they do a power of good and a power of work and they produce a power of benefit for the nation's military endeavours.

I'm pleased that when Labor won the election in May 2022—I'm not pleased about the fact that they won, but I am pleased about the fact that they have continued with the coalition's military objectives, with AUKUS. What I'm not particularly enamoured about was the recent report in the Australian, in October 2023, under the heading 'Defence orders brutal cost cuts'. The introductory paragraph by Ben Packham says:

Defence is being ordered to delay projects, slash maintenance costs and cut workforce spending in a severe austerity drive, as the soaring costs of nuclear submarines and new shipbuilding programs undermine the nation's readiness for conflict.

The story continued:

Days after Donald Trump declared "full steam ahead" for the AUKUS pact, the Australian can reveal the Chief of the Air Force, Stephen Chappell, has initiated reviews of capability and sustainment costs as part of a service-wide push to "mitigate overspending" and "address budget challenges".

That is a concern. That is a worry. That is something that needs to be addressed, because, as the member for Gellibrand quite correctly pointed out, if there were ever a time that we needed to be full steam ahead, where we needed to be absolutely putting the accelerator down on defence spending, it is now.

I've heard the Prime Minister, the Minister for Defence and many others say on any number of occasions, on the floor of the nation's parliament, that we are living in the most challenging, difficult and dangerous times since the end of World War II in 1945. We are, and we need to be at all times ready. We have what has been going on in the Middle East. I know we've got a very fractured, tenuous and fragile peace being enacted at the moment, but that is a tinderbox that could go up again at any time. It was also interesting, in the last fortnight, to have had conversations with the Ukraine Ambassador to Australia, His Excellency Vasyl Myroshnychenko, and today with the Australian Ambassador to Ukraine, His Excellency Paul Lehmann, in relation to what is happening with Russia's illegal aggression, which has now been going on for way too long—one day would be way too long. But what Moscow is doing in Ukraine at the moment is unforgivable. I was interested to hear Ambassador Lehmann this morning say that one thing you won't see is Ukrainians giving up, and good on them for that.

I was disturbed that the Ukraine ambassador mentioned last week—and it was well publicised—that Australia could be stepping up its efforts and that Australia had not done as much as would have been desired, liked or preferred this calendar year, 2025, to assist and aid the efforts in Kyiv. While the capital of Ukraine is very much protected, and there is a strong military presence particularly in the east of that country, they are under constant bombardment from drones and from incursions. Planes are grounded in that country. People are getting in and out via other means. It is a worrying situation; it truly is. I would implore and ask the government to go back and revisit what you are doing, insofar as helping our Ukrainian friends out. As much as you can, wave that gold and blue flag, but do more than that—put some real, genuine military efforts into helping, in whatever capacity you feel is desirable.

But the expected composition of this particular bipartisan committee is seven ALP and six coalition. Any deviation by the Prime Minister to appoint any member from the Greens political party or the Independents would be a captain's call and would absolutely and totally breach any convention and the good faith that the coalition is bringing to this particular bill.

We know that the Greens political party do not share our—as in, the political party's—view on how the world should be, on how Australia should stand up its national security. They want to change all things military. They don't believe in even the executive having the authority to send people into war. If it were up to the Greens, quite frankly, if trouble started, they would want parliament recalled. They would want to get their travel entitlements. They'd want to have sit-down lunches and discussions and Senate inquiries and go backwards and forwards. And, in the meantime, the country would probably be invaded. You just can't rely on them. You just simply can't rely on them. That is the truth of the matter.

The Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence) Bill 2025—provided it meets all the tick-offs and with the ruler being put over it by the right people—is supported, is good and is to be encouraged. But let's never have those teals or those Greens, in any way, shape or form, on this committee or anywhere near its discussions or deliberations.

I'm speaking on the Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence) Bill 2025. I would like to quote two people—one is one of the soldiers that has seen the most active warfare than any other soldier in Australian history, probably, and the other one is a very close friend of mine, a Cloncurry boy, whose best friend was one of my best friends. To the soldier with great experience, I said, 'What do you think about the new rifles and the light calibre of the bullet?' He said, 'It stinks.' I said, 'Why?' He said: 'When you squeeze the trigger, I want the bloke dead. The idea that it will only wound him and will take three men out of the front line—in warfare, that is not how anyone looks at it. When I squeeze the trigger, I want him dead.'

Now, the last head of the armed forces is reputed to have given orders that they were not to use the word 'kill'. This person has spent $40,000 million buying patrol boats that have no ordinance. They can't kill anybody. Well, what is the bloody use of having them? They're supposed to be our front line of defence and they can't kill anyone! They've got a machine gun! So we spent $40,000 million buying 15 machine guns.

My platoon—in two wars, we were on 24-hour call-up to fight in Borneo and, later, in Vietnam—had 23 machine guns amongst the 32 of us, and he spent $40,000 million buying 15 machine guns. The man should have been jailed. And he issued instructions that they are not to use the word 'kill'.

Well, I tell you, I was a weapons instructor for about 11 years of my life, as most of us were at my age. I was born in 1945, the year the war ended. Obviously, no-one was going to be doing bayonet charges in the sixties or seventies. That was not going to happen, so why were we doing bayonet drills? You charged and you let out a bloodcurdling scream and you plunged your bayonet into the dummy and you screamed out 'en garde!' and then charged the next dummy. What was all that about? It was about training people to kill without thinking. That goes back to my good friend—the soldier whose probably seen more combat than anyone else in Australian history. He said it's about killing people; don't have any illusions about this. It's interesting that America calls them armed forces. We call them defence forces. That is a very interesting comment.

The second person I want to quote is a very good friend of mine from my home town of Cloncurry. His mutual friend was one of my closest friends. He'd come back from Vietnam, he came to see me and he said, 'Robbie, I was in the unit that was responsible for the so-called massacre.' I felt so sorry for the blokes that went to Vietnam. It was a terrifying experience and I don't think any of them came back the way they were before they went there. He said, 'Our commander, our lieutenant, said that there are VC coming down the track'—Vietcong—'and he said, "When I fire, you will all fire, you hear me?" and the 23 of us nodded our heads.' Then he said, 'Anyway, coming down the track were some women and young people and he started firing.' He said, 'I was on a GPMG'—a machine gun—'so I started firing.' He said: 'Robbie, they were women and children that we killed. But I swear to you that they were carrying ordinance.'

Are you people in this place going to judge these people that have to make those sorts of decisions in a fraction of a second about whether they're going to die or not or whether they're going to let down their platoon and have their platoon wiped out? You're going to judge them? What the hell would you know about it? You've never been near a firearm in your life, most of you, apart from any other consideration. There are people here talking about how wonderful our defence forces are. What a joke! A flotilla of Chinese warships circled Australia and, I don't know about other people, but it had a very bad psychological effect upon me. I felt like I was on the side of the road in a road accident with the kites and hawks circling around overhead.

We didn't even have warships that could've tracked them. They just sailed around Australia, letting us know that they were the bosses of the southern Pacific and we were nobody and nothing, and we're here at their pleasure or displeasure. You say America—well America happens to be about 4,000 or 5,000 kilometres away from Australia, and I didn't notice any Americans around at Kokoda or at Milne Bay. In fact I didn't notice any Americans there at all when our country was about to be invaded. My own father was sitting behind a machine gun outside of Brisbane. He wouldn't have been very happy if he'd known that the government of Australia had already given northern Australia to the enemy—the decision had already been made.

If you want to be serious, then clearly you have to have a fortress wall. Ever since man has been man, he has had a palisade—maybe thorn bushes, maybe fire. He's got a fire in the cave where he's living. We have had a protective wall of some description around us. Obviously, in days past, that was a huge construction that was very, very high, which people had to breach if they wanted to take the city. The modern fortress wall, clearly, is the missile umbrella that is over Israel, given to them by the Americans. We have a coastline that precludes us from that approach, but, if we have 80 vessels—I'd call them defence forces, because we don't actually have a vessel of this type. It's a bit bigger than a patrol boat, but able to carry missiles and interception capacity and interception of drone capacity. If we've got 80 of them—maybe 40 in Darwin and 40 at Cairns or Townsville—then you come sailing around our waters, we'll say hello to you and it won't be a very friendly hello. We'll now be stalking you; it won't be you stalking us. You say, 'What can we do against a country the size of China?' Well, China had better make the best of it, because in 25 or 30 years, the vast bulk of the population will be over 70 or under 13. They better make hay while the sun shines, I say to them.

I spoke to one of the leading people in the Australian Army about Ukraine. Obviously, my electorate goes into Townsville. I said, 'What's your take on Ukraine?' They said, 'It's very interesting, isn't it? It's not about rockets or missiles, as everyone thought it would be.' They're too expensive apparently, but they're hurling 10,000 mortar bombs at each other every day. Where are our mortar bombs? I doubt we have 150 or 200 mortar bombs. We probably need about 2,000.

The other interesting thing—and I hate to say this because I have very great respect and very great admiration for John Howard, and it wasn't entirely his decision. I'm not going to go into what happened. I was still in the party room at that stage. There were two million or three million rifles in Australia that were taken off us, so we could not defend our homes. I will add the largest number of signatures ever collected in Queensland history were on castle law: your right to defend your own home. There were 130,000 signatures by the time period closed. It was the highest ever recorded in Queensland history. Those people want the right to protect their home. You can try defending your home with a cricket bat if you want, but I know what I would need to defend my home.

You say, 'Oh, what will happen if everyone has a rifle?' Lady, I was brought up most of my life when everyone did have a rifle in this country. I'll give you one statistic that wipes out your arguments. When Queensland had no gun laws at all, I went to buy a pair of socks, and they had AK-47 rifles for sale, so I bought an AK-47 rifle and 350 rounds of ammunition instead of buying my socks. There were no gun laws at all in Queensland, and there were eight deaths with guns. Just remember that figure. In the same year, in New South Wales, with its Draconian gun laws, there were 36 deaths with guns. With fierce Draconian anti-gun laws in Victoria they had 54 deaths with guns. If you think that's an isolated phenomenon, check the deaths with guns in Switzerland, Sweden and Finland where every home has a gun. Check the figures.

East Germany had the highest death rate with guns in Europe, and guns were banned in East Germany. The neighbouring country Switzerland, where every single home had a gun, had the lowest death rate with guns in Europe. In America, North Dakota and South Dakota have the highest gun ownership in the world, and there were two deaths with guns in three years. Places where there are very restrictive gun laws—guess where the highest death rate with guns were? They were Chicago, Washington DC and California, the capital city.

I am not keen to rob a house if I think that house might have a gun in it. I think I'll raid that house and not this house. But every house in Australia now has a sign on it saying, 'You're quite safe to rob this house.' Not only do we not have castle law, the right to defend ourselves in our own homes; we don't have the wherewithal to defend ourselves in our own home. You say, 'Oh, the police will look after you.' Well, the down time in Queensland is about 40 minutes, so I think it will be all over red rover by the time the police arrive. So don't even think about that one.

Once upon a time, my country, Australia, believed in the right of the individual, not the government. This bill is the complete opposite. It takes away the rights of the individual and says, 'We people sitting in our ivory towers, in our plush, air conditioned rooms, here in Canberra will pass judgement on men that are out there risking their lives for this country.' Young men are risking their lives for this country. They're on bivouac and they're marching 40 kilometres a day with a 40-pound pack on their backs. They're not even in combat, but they're doing it for their country. It amazes me that the young people in the Army, and a lot of them are in the Kennedy electorate, do it for patriotic reasons. You sit down at the pub with them, listening to them. It's amazing how many of them actually do it out of patriotism, believe it or not.

Here we are today, taking away the rights of the individual and taking away our right to protect our country, and now we have a Star Chamber. For those of us who have had legal training—I was in the final year of law at the toughest law school in Australia, with a 72 per cent dropout rate, so, when it comes to the law, I know what I'm talking about. We have a Star Chamber here. The Star Chamber is notorious in English history. There was a period under one of the totalitarian kings in England when they could simply pass judgement upon you in closed shop. No-one knew what was going on, and they could pass any judgement on you they liked. They were not bound by the rule of law.

Do you want to know the difference between a civilised country and an uncivilised country? The country that has democracy, rule of law, industrial awards and Christianity—I make no apologies for saying that—are the civilised countries. As far as I'm concerned, people that come from countries that don't have those four things should not be coming into our country. I feel very, very fearful of what is going on with immigration. Whether that undermines the security of our country, I won't address today— (Time expired)

I rise to speak on the Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence) Bill 2025. This is an important piece of legislation. It seeks to entrench parliamentary oversight of defence through a new joint committee, a structure that, if implemented with discipline and respect for convention, can strengthen accountability, transparency and public confidence in the way we defend our nation. The coalition supports the principle of this bill, but with an important caveat: the committee this bill creates must remain bipartisan, serious and focused on the national interest.

Australia faces the most dangerous strategic environment since the Second World War. This is a hard truth that must be confronted, and this reality demands seriousness in all that we do—seriousness in our policy, in our spending and in how this parliament exercises its responsibilities. This bill can contribute to that, provided it is implemented in the right spirit.

I'll begin by commenting on the composition of this committee, and I make no apologies for supporting the member for Hume's amendment, which explicitly calls for the membership of the new joint committee to be limited to members of the opposition and the government parties of the day. This is a proven model which is already in place with respect to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security and has been the convention for more than two decades.

For doubters of this approach, let's consider what would happen if a member of the Greens political party were included on this committee. Let's consider what their goals might be if they were a part of the membership of this important committee. This is a party that took to the last election a policy to cut defence spending, cancel AUKUS and end our alliance with the United States. They also have on their website that the decisions made by the Liberal and Labor parties have escalated tensions with our neighbours. You see, in their view, the acquisition of nuclear submarines and other capabilities, which are designed to protect Australia, don't contribute to deterrence but instead make conflict more likely. It is their view that Australia would be in a stronger position if we had fewer alliances and a weaker arsenal.

The Greens' defence policy fundamentally diverges from what is required in the current strategic environment. In this context, entrusting them with a committee whose purpose is to enhance parliamentary oversight of key defence decisions would risk diluting the bipartisan consensus required on capability, readiness and deterrence. This would not be in the national interest. Also, beyond policy positions, there is a demonstrated lack of alignment with respect to Australia's service personnel and commemorative traditions.

When the Australian War Memorial was defaced with politically-charged graffiti, the Greens leadership at the time declined to unequivocally condemn the desecration. WA Greens senator Jordan Steele-John described the memorials as 'not politically neutral spaces' and suggested that the vandalism—which is a crime, by the way—was a valid form of free speech. Over 103,000 Australians have died in war, protecting this nation. The Australian War Memorial is a monument to their sacrifice, which provided us with the very freedom to hold elections and be elected to this place. For the Greens to come into this place and excuse the vandalism of our memorials, our sacred sites, is an absolute disgrace that should not be forgotten.

In light of the Greens' extreme views, the Prime Minister should have no trouble in ruling out a member of the Greens from sitting on this committee. I use the Greens as an example, but they aren't the only anti-AUKUS, anti-Defence representatives in this place, so I again stress that membership should be limited to only government and opposition parties.

I want to reflect on how we got to this moment. This idea builds on the work of coalition senators and members over a long period of time—people like the late Jim Molan, Linda Reynolds and David Fawcett—who each recognised that effective parliamentary engagement with Defence is essential to good policy. Major General Jim Molan in particular devoted much of his time in this parliament to improving the way that elected representatives understand and scrutinise Defence. In the 2018 Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade report called Contestability and consensus: a bipartisan approach to more effective parliamentary engagement with Defence, the late Jim Molan wrote:

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.

We are debating this bill at a time when Australia faces the most dangerous strategic environment since the Second World War. As I outlined last week in a keynote address at the 4th KAS Australia and the Pacific Security Conference, the rules based order is being tested across multiple fronts. Russia's invasion of Ukraine shattered any illusion that interstate war in Europe was a relic of the past. China's behaviour in the South China Sea challenges freedom of navigation and projects power into the Indo-Pacific. Iran and its proxies fuel instability from Yemen to Lebanon and Gaza, with the atrocities of 7 October 2023 being the worst massacre of Jewish lives since the Holocaust. We have recently seen the influence of this wicked regime in Australia, with attacks on our own Jewish community, resulting in the undermining of our social cohesion. North Korea keeps advancing its nuclear and missile programs. Cyberattacks, disinformation and economic coercion blur the line between peace and conflict.

The coalition understands the situation we are in at the moment and that what is required right now is peace through strength. Unlike the approach of the Greens, we recognise that, when you have a neighbour that is engaging in the largest military build-up since the Second World War without strategic assurance, it is not an escalation to invest in your own capabilities. That is why the coalition is committed to a credible, costed pathway to spend three per cent on defence. This target reflects the gravity of the strategic moment that we currently find ourselves in. We cannot prepare for tomorrow on yesterday's budget.

On that, I'll turn to AUKUS. Obtaining conventionally armed nuclear-powered submarines through AUKUS remains the most ambitious defence and industrial partnership in our nation's history. It will transform not just our Navy but our economy, our workforce and our place in the world. We recognise that obtaining nuclear submarines is not a cheap exercise. It requires a genuine increase in defence spending.

Yesterday, I was very lucky to secure leave from this place to be able to attend the IndoPac in Sydney. Inside the exhibition hall were hundreds of Australian defence industry companies. They represent the potential for Australia's defence capability going forward. It was a clear view from the many groups that I talked to that if you aren't involved in submarines, you are unlikely to get any form of financial assistance or contract from the current federal government. AUKUS cannot come at the expense of the rest of our defence capability needs.

Also at IndoPac yesterday, I was delighted to visit the first Navy Life Expo, which was designed to attract new recruits to the service. I was very happy to run into three young people who had just joined the Navy, one through the gap year program and two through the standard enlistment process.

I will conclude by saying that it is my hope that this new committee will help parliament's oversight of defence so that we can better understand what those young people need in order for us to defend our country. Again, this committee must be about strengthening Australia's defence, not weakening the conventions that protect it. It must help build a defence force that is properly funded, properly equipped and properly supported, one that can deter aggression, defend our sovereignty and protect the freedoms that generations of Australians have fought and died to secure. That is the standard the coalition will uphold and that is the test by which this government will be judged.

The original question was that the bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Hume has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The immediate question is that the amendment be agreed to.

Question unresolved.

As it is necessary to resolve this question to enable further questions to be considered in relation to the bill, in accordance with standing order 195 the bill will return to the House for further consideration.

Recently, I had the pleasure as co-chair of the Parliamentary Friends of AUKUS to welcome members of the UK House of Commons Defence Select Committee to Parliament House. It was a powerful reminder that the AUKUS partnership is not just a policy or a simple handshake agreement. It is a relationship between people, parliaments and communities that share values, trust and ideas. The conversations I had reaffirmed what the Geelong treaty embodies: a 50-year commitment to industrial cooperation, technological exchange and mutual security.

That is why today I speak in strong support of the Customs Tariff Amendment (Geelong Treaty Implementation) Bill 2025, legislation that brings to life one of the most significant defence partnerships in our nation's history. This bill gives domestic effect to the Geelong treaty, signed on 26 July 2025 by the Deputy Prime Minister, Richard Marles, and the UK Secretary of State for Defence, John Healey. It marks a moment of deep renewal between two nations whose friendship pre-dates Federation but now finds new expression in shared capability, shared technology and shared purpose under AUKUS.

Our relationship with the United Kingdom is among our oldest. We have fought together across Europe, Africa and Asia and built together and grown together as nations. Now, through AUKUS, that historic bond carries a contemporary, strategic weight deep into the 21st century.

The Geelong treaty represents the most significant bilateral agreement between Australia and the UK since 1901. It sets the foundation for the design, construction, operation, sustainment and eventual deployment of a new class of conventionally armed nuclear-powered submarines, the SSN-AUKUS, and ensures both our nations' navies will sail side by side for generations to come, protecting both of our island homes. The treaty is a cornerstone of AUKUS Pillar I, the submarine program that will create over 20,000 high-skill jobs in Australia through the design and construction of these vessels. Those jobs will not just be in shipyards; they will span engineering, science, cyber, welding, nuclear stewardship, logistics and advanced manufacturing. Across our TAFEs, universities and research institutes, new education pathways are opening that will link directly into these AUKUS jobs. Students in high school today will graduate into apprenticeships and degrees tailored to AUKUS industries: nuclear engineering streams, maritime systems training and defence technology courses developed through partnership between government and education providers. These pathways mean that a student in my electorate of Spence, Geelong or Osborne can see a clear line from the classroom to a career in sovereign shipbuilding and defence innovation.

The Geelong treaty cements that pipeline. It supports the growth of the workforce, infrastructure and regulatory systems required to build and sustain our submarines here in Australia. It also enables the rotational presence of a UK Astute-class submarine as part of the Submarine Rotational Force - West in Perth. This will be a training ground for our sailors and technicians and a living classroom for the transfer of skills and knowledge. Beyond the strategic benefits, the treaty delivers real economic and commercial benefits through trade, information sharing and joint procurement arrangements. It will allow both countries to share materials and equipment freely under the treaty framework without additional tariffs adding cost to the trade exchange. That is why this bill is so important. It provides the legislative mechanism to apply a free rate of duty for goods imported for use under the Geelong treaty. It amends the Customs Tariff Act 1995 by inserting a new item, item 58A, ensuring that the movement of materials under AUKUS is swift, efficient and cost neutral. There are no revenue implications from this change. It delivers clarity and readiness and is a necessary step before Australia can declare it has completed its domestic obligations for the treaty to enter into force later this year.

When I welcomed the UK Defence Select Committee to Parliament House as co-chair of Parliamentary Friends of AUKUS, I was struck by how aligned we are on the fundamentals: safety, sovereignty, transparency and the long game required to do this right. Doing it right means maintaining the highest safeguards and non-proliferation standards, a culture of safety in every workshop and laboratory and an unwavering commitment to the communities that will host these capabilities. Doing it right means building partnerships with industry and education providers and aligning curricula, equipment and placements so that graduates are job ready on day one. Doing it right means ensuring small- and medium-sized Australian businesses can access the opportunities that come with AUKUS, with capability uplift, quality accreditation and payment terms that let small firms scale into global supply chains. Extensive consultation has been undertaken across the Commonwealth with the Department of Defence, Foreign Affairs and Trade, Prime Minister and Cabinet, Treasury, Finance, the Attorney-General's Department, the Australian Submarine Agency, Border Force and nuclear safety bodies. All agencies support the implementation of this treaty and the amendments contained in this bill.

The Joint Standing Committee on Treaties has already held public hearings, receiving a range of submissions from industry and the public. That consultation shows a healthy engagement with his national endeavour—an endeavour that belongs not to one government or party but to the nation itself. This is a 50-year undertaking. It is a project that will span decades of policy, decades of people and decades of progress. The AUKUS program is already building momentum across our regions. From Perth to Adelaide to Geelong, in TAFE campuses—

A division having been called in the House of Representatives—

Sitting suspended from 12:34 to 12:45

As I was saying, the AUKUS program is already building momentum across our regions. From Perth to Adelaide to Geelong, in TAFE campuses and university hubs across the nation, young Australians are preparing for a new era of opportunity. Every course, every apprenticeship and every partnership that flows from AUKUS builds a pipeline of skills and careers for decades to come. These aren't just defence jobs; they are jobs that will strengthen advanced manufacturing, robotics, AI and engineering industries across Australia.

That is why the Geelong treaty is so vital. It ties our education system, our workforce and our industrial base together in service of a shared national mission. The treaty also deepens our people-to-people connections. As we welcome UK sailors, engineers and scientists to our shores, Australian workers and students will train and work in the UK, creating knowledge, sharing and cooperation that will stand the test of time. As its name suggests, this treaty was signed in Geelong, and fittingly so—it is a city with a heritage of industry and innovation. The treaty represents the same spirit that built our manufacturing base and our naval tradition. It reminds us that nation building is never a thing of the past; it is an ongoing responsibility.

The Geelong treaty is how we continue to carry that responsibility forward into the 21st century. It is how we equip our nation to defend our interests, strengthen our alliances and grow our economy through technological excellence and people power. It's how we ensure that the next generation of Australians, from our classrooms to our shipyards, inherits a country that is secure, prosperous and respected. That is why this parliament should support the passage of this bill without delay. The Geelong treaty will shape our strategic landscape for the next half-century. It is not merely about submarines; it is about sovereignty, skills and shared security. I commend this bill to the House.

This legislation is, on one level, not necessarily legislation that will change the universe. The flip side is that it's still an important part of the implementation regime associated with the AUKUS submarines project, and it remains an important part of that architecture, because Australia needs to be a trusted partner when working with other nations, particularly when we're sharing different pieces of technology, to ensure that we're a partner trusted to be able to build the sorts of technology we need to defend the future of this country.

Of course, the Geelong treaty implementation simply provides a pathway for the governments of the United Kingdom, Great Britain and Northern Ireland to be able to cooperate as part of the nuclear-powered submarine partnership collaboration with the Commonwealth of Australia. But, when it comes down to it, this bill is about something far bigger. It's about the enabling legislation for what is going to be required if we're going to defend ourselves in the 21st century.

In the period after the Cold War, this nation has progressively relaxed its security premium and taken a false sense of complacency about the challenges it faces. We're a nation that is facing the most challenging environment since the Second World War—that is the view of the white paper of the Department of Defence—and we're acutely aware of the fact that we're exposed to many fronts as a consequence of relaxing our approach to security.

It doesn't matter what government is in office, we never, as part of a trade-off of the priorities of the Commonwealth, want to overspend on security, because every dollar has to come from taxpayers, but we do need to make sure that we achieve the first objective of the Commonwealth, which is to defend the Australian homeland, this continent and our territories so that we can be safe and secure and, more importantly, help and support other countries in our region and, in particular, with our beneficence and our standing, be able to support and secure their sovereignty as well.

That's why having different technologies is going to be so important in meeting the challenges of the 21st century and the potential for kinetic war. Of course, we never want that to happen. But we know, from the actions of foreign governments and nonstate actors that we are seeing an increasing level of grey zone activity, often through things like cybersecurity threats and attacks on other essential infrastructure, that the era of complacency we have enjoyed must come to an end. Part of that is understanding how we are going to work with our allies to project our capacity if required in the event of conflict and, more importantly, making sure we have the security of the technology we are going to need to do so. That obviously is where the AUKUS regime comes in, not just around the role of submarines but also the potential for partnerships and foreign technologies we can build into the capacity of the ADF.

We should not be complacent about this issue. There should be a very active interest from this parliament because it goes to the core of the role of this nation, its government and how it will be a partner with foreign nations. Additionally, it is a pathway to support and grow industries in different parts of our nation, with Geelong being one of them, South Australia being another, and other parts of the country, particularly Western Australia, being part beneficiaries of them too. We have to harness that potential so we are building up our capacity, not just our defence capacity but our skills capacity, and take that through to improving overall capacity to build that industrial development. It reminds me of only the other day when I was at Monash University, my alma mater. Monash University is looking at companies like Rolls Royce, who, of course, provide things like nuclear technology and propulsion technology to be part of submarines that could also be used for other purposes, including civil nuclear power as well. But one of the frustrations is they are not getting the clear signals from this government or at a state level to deliver the technology that Australians desperately need.

This legislation does provide a very clear signal to the marketplace and to companies like Rolls Royce about how they can be part of the solution and build up the technology to build out Australia's defence capacity. They also have a place to build out our civilian capacity as well. Off the back of things like the AUKUS submarine project, there is a natural, logical conclusion that we should be investing in a civilian nuclear program to build out the capacity for Australia's clean industrial growth. Unfortunately, that falls on deaf ears from the ideologues in the Labor Party who simply oppose nuclear at all costs. But we will all pay a very heavy price through the government's mad pursuit of looking only ever through the lens of renewables rather than taking a rational, informed energy mix approach which recognises the critical role of existing technologies and the decommissioning of them over time.

The state governments say one thing and do the complete opposite. They talk renewables then they underwrite secret contracts between the New South Wales and Victorian governments and coal generators. For the extraction of gas, you need to build a baseload potential for the future with renewables as part of that conversation both at a household level and sometimes an industrial level as well, because our interest must be how are we're going to build the strength of our great country and its future. We can then go on and create the well-paying jobs so Australians can get the incomes they need to then buy the homes they need to support themselves and their families, and put them in a financial position to retire with security.

Some of us will never stop fighting for the future of this country. Deputy Speaker Boyce, I know you are one and I know there are other members in this chamber who will always fight for the future of the country. Sometimes we have a difference of opinion about what that is, but, if it is to be a nation that is secure, a nation that has the capacity to stand up for itself and its confidence, a nation that can help support other countries and secure their sovereignty and rights to maintain free and independent in our region, and one that is able to provide the economic opportunity for future generations of Australia, that is something we should be immensely proud to fight for.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.

I'm proud to speak in strong support of the VET Student Loans (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2025. This bill goes to the heart of something that Labor believes in: building the skilled workforce Australia needs now and into the future. The VET Student Loans program makes vocational education and training more accessible to Australians by providing opportunities for students to undertake a VET course and defer their tuition fees through an income-contingent loan. It's a system that gives Australians from all walks of life a chance to gain qualifications in high-demand fields, from engineering and project management to occupational trades like plumbing, carpentry and electrical work. This bill ensures the system remains fair, transparent and secure.

Under the current law, students applying for a VET student loan must provide their tax file number. This is essential because, like university HECS style loans, repayments are made through the Australian tax system. The tax file number ensures that the student's loan details align with Australian Taxation Office records. However, due to a recent review of how VET student loans are administrated, the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations identified a legislative grey area: the VET Student Loans Act 2016 did not explicitly authorise providers to handle tax file numbers, even though this has been a practical necessity since the beginning of this program.

The department also identified that improvements could be made to better align legislation, IT systems and privacy safeguards. We have acted to fix that. Since early 2025, updates have been made to the department's IT systems. These updates now mask students' tax file numbers and automate the secure transfer of data between student interface and government systems. This means VSL providers no longer need to directly handle tax file numbers at all.

The bill before the House today therefore does two things. It retrospectively authorises VSL providers' past handling of student tax file numbers for the purpose of administrating VET student loans and it authorises the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations's past disclosure of those tax file numbers to providers for the same purpose. This measure applies to all current and former VSL providers and their officers who handled tax file numbers between 1 January 2017 and 30 September 2025 as well as the secretary of the department, the Commissioner of Taxation and the relevant Commonwealth officers. By clarifying this legal authority, we protect both students and providers from uncertainty about past administrative processes and we reinforce confidence in the ongoing integrity of the system. Importantly, there have been no student complaints about the handling of tax file numbers under the program since its commencement in 2017. This bill simply ensures that the administrative reality of the past eight years is now aligned with the law and that the program continues to operate smoothly and securely.

While this bill is technical in nature, it speaks to something much broader: Labor's unwavering commitment to rebuilding Australia's vocational education and training system. The truth is that the VET sector is crucial for the future of Australian industries. It trains the builders who construct our homes, the electricians who power our cities, the nurses who care for us and the clean-energy workers driving our transition to a net zero future. That's why the Albanese Labor government is building Australia's future and boosting the workforce we need to deliver it. We are investing in priority occupations and creating a modern, adaptable apprenticeship system, one that's critical to our nation's future productivity and prosperity.

Labor knows apprentices are essential to Australia's growth. They're the young people and the career-changers picking up the tools, learning the trades and gaining the skills our country needs. That's why we've implemented targeted measures to ease the cost-of-living pressures for apprentices and support employers with training costs. From 1 July 2025, the government expanded the Key Apprenticeship Program to include a housing construction apprenticeship stream, offering up to $10,000 in financial incentives to new apprentices in construction, and it's already working. In just the first three months of the program we've seen 4,700 new apprentices commenced training as plumbers, electricians and carpenters.

We've also extended the Australian apprentice training support payment and the priority hiring incentive by six months to the end of 2025. These provide up to $5,000 to apprentices and employers in priority occupations. For those who relocate for work, the living away from home allowance has been increased for the first time in more than 20 years, from $77 to $120 a week for first-year apprentices and similar rises for second- and third-year apprentices. For the apprentices with disability, we've increased the disability Australian apprentice wage support payment from $104 to $216 per week, the first increase since 1998, back when I was four years old. It's time for a change. And we have scrapped unnecessary red tape that force annual rechecks.

These measures are about more than cost-of-living relief. They're about fairness, opportunity and inclusion. And we can see the results. There are currently 300,000 apprentices in training across Australia, up by 15 per cent compared to pre-COVID levels. Over the last financial year, more than 62,000 employers and 119,000 apprentices received incentive payments. Trade completions are up 8.7 per cent compared to last year and a remarkable 34 per cent compared to before the pandemic.

In Queensland, apprenticeship commencements and completions have risen steadily under Labor, particularly in construction, electrical and engineering trades. In my own electorate of Petrie, as of December 2024 there were 1,480 apprentices and trainees in training, young locals and career changes, gaining practical skills that lead to secure, well-paid work. These are people who will build our homes, wire our renewable energy systems and drive the next generation of Queensland industry.

Only Labor is the party of free TAFE. We are delivering real cost-of-living relief and valuable skills to Australians through the most significant investment in vocational education in decades. More than 685,000 Australians have already enrolled in free TAFE courses under the Albanese government. There are thousands of opportunities to get skilled and start a career in the sectors our country needs most. And almost 200,000 Australians have already completed their qualifications. That's hundreds of thousands of Australians who can now access better jobs with higher wages without being crushed by student debt. These are the skills Australia needs, and they're being taught in our TAFEs now free of charge.

For students in my electorate of Petrie, this means life-changing savings. These are real dollars staying in the pockets of local students and families, opening doors that might otherwise have stayed closed. That's what Labor's free TAFE program is about. Under Labor, free TAFE isn't a short-term pilot; it's a permanent pillar of our education system. We've locked in 100,000 free TAFE places every year from 2027, guaranteeing a pipeline of skilled workers for the future.

Labor is also delivering fairer loan arrangements for all students, whether they study at TAFE or at university. We're cutting 20 per cent off all student debt and raising the minimum repayment threshold so repayment only starts when graduates are earning more. This one-off reduction applies to over 280,000 VET student loan and Australian apprenticeship support loan accounts, cutting more than $500 million off student balances. That's real relief for apprentices, tradies and students, who keep our economy running. Labor is a party of education, whether it's TAFE or university. We believe in giving Australians every chance to succeed.

The VET Student Loans (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2025 might be a small technical bill, but it sits within a much larger Labor mission to rebuild vocational education, restore fairness and ensure that every Australian has access to skills, opportunity and secure employment. We're making sure that the VET system supports our nation's big goals, from building 1.2 million new homes to transforming our energy grid to expanding our care economy.

We're supporting more women in trades through the $60 million Building Women's Careers Program, partnering with business, industry and education institutions to create inclusive higher-paying jobs. We're reforming apprenticeships, strengthening pathways and investing in institutions that deliver quality training: our TAFEs. We know that, when Australians have the chance to learn, they have the power to build their future and our nation's future.

This bill is about good governance, ensuring that the VET student loan system remains compliant, fair and effective. But it's also about Labor's bigger story—one of investment, fairness and nation-building through education. In my electorate of Petrie, I've met apprentices training to become electricians and nurses, people retraining in the care sector and parents returning to study through free TAFE. Each one of them is building a better life because of the choices the Labor government has made. This bill ensures that their opportunities are backed by integrity and security. It is part of a broader vision: a skills system that gives every Australian the chance to learn, contribute and prosper. When we invest in skills, we invest in people. When we invest in people, we build communities. And when we build communities, we build Australia's future.

My remarks on this bill will be short. We support the bill. The work led by the shadow assistant minister for skills has been outstanding, and I commend him for his incredible work.

Every now and then a bill comes before this House that doesn't spark headlines or hashtags but quietly makes the system fairer. This is one of those bills. At its core, the VET Student Loans (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2025 is about trust in the law and our institutions and trust for the students and providers who rely on them. It fixes an ambiguity that should never have existed. It confirms that the people administering student loans did so lawfully and in good faith. And it future-proofs privacy protections, so the same uncertainty can never happen again. That's it. There's no spin and no sleight of hand. It's just the kind of measured repair work that good government does quietly and well.

When Australians apply for a VET student loan, they must include their tax file number. That's what ties the loan to their tax record and ensures repayments are made correctly through the Australian Tax Office. It's a safeguard that keeps the whole scheme honest so that the person who borrows the money is the person who pays it back. But here's the issue: the technology that made this possible moved faster than the legislation that governed it. While the law required the tax file number to make the system function, it never clearly authorised providers to handle it. For years, approved training organisations were doing exactly what the system needed them to do, entering data into secure government portals and reconciling loan information. But the authorising words in the statute weren't there. No-one acted improperly. No-one misused data. There were no complaints, no breaches and no scandals—just a gap between what the law said on paper and how the system worked in practice.

This bill closes that gap. It makes clear that everything done in good faith since 1 January 2017 was and always had been lawful, and it confirms that, from 1 October 2025, providers no longer need to handle tax file numbers at all. Earlier this year the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations finished a major technology upgrade. Student tax file numbers are now masked from view in the student loan portal and transferred automatically between government systems. That means the data never passes through the hands of training providers or their staff. It moves seamlessly and securely from the student's application to the ATO and back again. That's modern governance in action—tightening privacy, reducing risk and removing unnecessary human handling altogether. This bill doesn't create new powers or broaden access to personal information; it simply aligns the law with the secure digital systems we already have and ensures that people who are already doing their jobs—providers, Commonwealth officers and departmental staff—are protected from the technical uncertainty created by a missing line of legislative authority.

It sends a clear signal: when Labor finds something that isn't quite right, we don't bury it. We fix it, and we make it stronger for the future. From the day the VET Student Loans program began, privacy has been tightly controlled. Providers have been bound by strict information-handling rules under the VET Student Loans Act. They must meet a 'fit and proper person' test, undergo extensive approval processes and report any breach immediately. They are subject to civil penalties and even criminal offences for misuse of data. Those safeguards remain. What changes under the bill is the certainty that every past action performed in good faith and to get the student loans processed or reconciled sits squarely within the law. For the future, the system will operate with even higher privacy standards. No provider will see, store or transmit a student's tax file number. That's exactly how it should be in the digital age: minimal access, maximum protection. The bill, therefore, strengthens both integrity and confidence in our program, which has helped hundreds of thousands of Australians learn, train and work.

The principles behind the bill are simple and consistent with the values that underpin our democracy. It supports the right to education by ensuring that the VET Student Loans program continues to operate smoothly for those who already rely on it to study and upskill. It supports the right to work, by guaranteeing access to training that leads directly to secure jobs in our economy. And it protects the right to privacy, by tightening the rules so that personal information is handled only when absolutely necessary and always within the bounds of the law. That is how we maintain trust in public administration: through careful, proportionate reform that respects both the individual and the institution.

The bill may look technical, but it sits within a much larger effort of rebuilding Australia's vocational education system after its neglect. The truth is, when Labor returned to government, we inherited a skills system that had already been hollowed out. TAFE campuses were left to crumble, apprentice numbers were in freefall, and billions had been stripped from training budgets. Young Australians were told, implicitly and sometimes explicitly, that choosing a trade or a technical career was second-best. We reject that nonsense. We believe that, whether you are wiring a hospital, caring for the elderly or coding a new piece of software, your contribution matters equally to this country's future, and that's why Labor has put TAFE back at the centre of Australia's training system.

Since Labor came to office, free TAFE has delivered more than 685,000 enrolments across the nation, in early childhood education, disability care, construction and in digital technology. That's 685,000 Australians who are getting a real qualification for a real job, without the financial barrier that once kept them out. When the opposition leader was shadow minister for skills, she said, 'If you don't pay for something, you don't value it.' Well, Australians are proving her wrong every single day. They value free TAFE, because it changes lives—theirs and their family's.

In my own electorate of Moore, I've seen that transformation up close at the North Metropolitan TAFE. Under the leadership of Michelle Hoad, it's dedicated staff are training the electricians, engineers and technicians who keep Western Australia running. These people are juggling work, study and families. They're showing the same grit and determination that built this country. They deserve a government that has their back, and that's exactly what this bill represents: a government that's making sure the system that supports them is watertight and fair. When those students apply for a VET loan, they deserve to know that their personal information is safe, that their the debt is correctly recorded and that the government has done its homework.

Labor's skills agenda goes further. We're backing apprentices in every corner of the country, because they are the ones who are building the homes, the infrastructure and the clean energy projects of the future. From July 2025, the Key Apprenticeship Program was expanded to include a dedicated housing construction stream, offering up to $10,000 in incentives for new apprentices. We extended the training support payment and priority hiring incentive through to the end of 2025, providing up to $5,000 for apprentices and employers in priority occupations. We increased the living-away-from-home allowance to help young people relocate for work, and we boosted support for apprentices with disabilities by removing unnecessary red tape. Each of these measures helps someone start and finish their trade, and each of them builds a stronger, more skilled workforce for our nation.

We also understand that students and apprentices are under real cost-of-living pressures. That's why this government took decisive action to cut student debt by 20 per cent and lift the repayment threshold so that graduates begin repaying only when they can actually afford to. More than 280,000 VET and apprenticeship loan accounts will benefit from that change, representing over $500 million in debt relief. That's money that will stay in people's pockets. It's money that will help them pay rent, buy tools or simply breathe a little easier when they build their future. It's another example of a government that understands what fairness looks like in practice.

This bill also reinforces something deeper—confidence in the government itself. That's because, when citizens see their government fixing problems quietly and properly rather than ignoring them or playing politics with them, it strengthens faith in every other reform we deliver. This is responsible lawmaking—no fanfare and no finger-pointing, just solid, careful work that keeps our systems strong.

Those opposites might prefer a headline; we prefer results. They might treat governance as theatre; we treat it as service. Service means doing the unglamorous work of tightening a definition, updating a system or closing a legal loophole so that the whole machine runs as it should. That's what this bill does. It ensures that every form lodged, every record kept and every repayment made under the VET Student Loans program sits securely on the right side of the law. It's easy sometimes to think of legislation like this is as dry or technical. but behind every data point and clause is a person—a mature-age student retraining after a redundancy, an apprentice starting their first job in the trades or a single parent studying nursing to re-enter the workforce. They are the reason this program exists. They are the reason we make sure every part of it, from the online form to the privacy settings, works flawlessly. When we get these details right, we're not just fixing a database; we are reaffirming the social contract that government will look after people who put in the effort to better themselves. That's something Labor will always stand for.

I often think that good government is a bit like good wiring. You don't notice it when it's done well; it just works. This bill is the wiring behind a much larger system. It's the quiet work that keeps the lights on, literally and figuratively, for the thousands of students who rely on VET loans every year. It shows that we take responsibility seriously. When we find a problem, we own it, we fix it and we make sure that it never happens again. That's what separates governing from posturing.

So, yes, this bill is small. It won't make the evening news. But its impact will last. It strengthens privacy, validates the good-faith actions of people who did their job, modernises the administration of student loans and reinforces the integrity of one of the most important programs in our education system. It gives students confidence that their personal information is safe, it gives providers certainty that they are operating within the law and it gives the Australian people proof that their government is paying attention to even to the fine print.

The VET sector is one of the great engines of national opportunity. It changes lives, opens doors and drives innovation. By maintaining integrity and trust in the systems that support it, this bill will help ensure that opportunity endures. It may be modest, but it's meaningful. It is, in every sense, what good government looks like—practical, careful and built to last. I commend the bill to the House.

I am always delighted and pleased to be able to have the opportunity to talk about vocational education and training. That's not just because in my electorate on Brisbane's southside we are home to the flagship Acacia Ridge TAFE, but it does give me a little bit of an opportunity to brag about it, because it's something we are very proud of in the electorate of Moreton. It's the largest trade training centre not just in Brisbane, not just in Queensland and not just in Australia but in the entire Southern Hemisphere. I had the great pleasure of being able to host the Deputy Prime Minister when we tried out dino chassis behind the wheel of a car. I've had the great pleasure of hosting Mr Giles, working through how battery technology works and talking to the students about their experiences at their TAFE.

The Acacia Ridge campus is 22 hectares of purpose-built, state-of-the-art training facilities. I always enjoy visiting there because it's a hive of activity. It offers a wide range of trade related courses in automotives, building construction, electrotechnology, engineering, manufacturing and design, resources and mining, transport and utilities. It's all about making sure that we are giving people, many of them young people, access to the skills that we as a nation need for the future. The VET sector delivers vital industry-specific skills and qualifications across all of these fields and many more—helping to boost economic development, helping to enhance business efficiency and helping to tackle workforce skills gaps. The Labor government is supporting people to do that.

We're supporting people to learn, we're supporting people to train, we're supporting people to work and we're supporting people to gain skills that will make their lives better and that will make our country better. We're supporting them to be the people who make the things that we need, we're supporting them to be the people who build the homes and houses that we need and we're supporting them to be the people to care for our loved ones in an ageing population. Data from the National Centre for Vocational Education Research from September 2024 indicated that 5.1 million students took part in nationally recognised training in 2023, which is a 10.8 per cent increase from 2022. What that means is that we have more Australians—in my part of the world, more southsiders—who have pathways to skilling, pathways to a future, pathways to job security and pathways to ensuring that they not only have jobs but have good jobs.

Of this number 3.5 million students studied standalone subjects. Over 2.1 million gained full qualifications and 230,000 completed short courses. This is about the skills that our country needs and, contrary to what you might hear, it is working people—particularly those who have been trained just as in Acacia Ridge—who drive our economy. It is the working people who grow our economy. It is the working people who make sure that our economy is moving forward. Many of these students were able to study thanks to the VET Student Loans, VSL, program. This program supports eligible students to cover tuition fees for approved higher level—such as diplomas and above—VET courses at approved providers. The aim of the program is to promote courses and to grow the workforce in areas that align with industry needs, with what our country needs and with what business needs. The VET Student Loans (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2025 concerns the administration of these loans.

This bill addresses an issue with the administration of VET student loans which was identified during a recent review. It concerns the handling of students' tax file numbers and the fact that the VET Student Loans Act 2016 does not authorise VSL providers to handle tax file numbers. VSL providers are registered training organisations which are authorised by the Australian government to deliver VSL approved courses. They may be TAFE institutions or private providers. Tax file numbers are necessary for the administration of student loan programs such as VSL. They're used to accurately link loan accounts to individuals within the taxation system, enabling precise tracking of loan balances and repayments over time. It is important to note that there is no knowledge of tax file number misuse throughout the administration of the VSL program. Similarly there have been no student complaints in regard to the tax file number administration.

Nonetheless the Albanese Labor government is taking swift action to resolve this challenge. We want both students and VET providers to have certainty and to have confidence in the administration of their loans. The bill enables the retrospective authorisation of VSL providers' handling of students' tax file numbers. This will also give providers and government alike certainty that the administration of the loans between 1 January 2017 and 30 September 2025 was lawful.

Since early 2025 the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations has implemented a series of enhancements to its IT infrastructure aimed at improving the security and efficiency of handling sensitive personal data. One of the key changes involves the automatic masking of tax file numbers from VET student loan providers. This update ensures that providers no longer have access to, or need to, manage tax file numbers directly. The transfer of this information between relevant government systems is now fully automated. By streamlining the handling of tax file numbers and removing the need for providers to process them, the department has strengthened data privacy protections while maintaining the integrity of the loan management process. Importantly, these system updates do not affect the way students apply for a VET student loan. The application process through the electronic Commonwealth Assistance Form remains unchanged, ensuring a familiar experience for students seeking financial support for their training.

VSL providers are subject to a range of robust scrutiny measures and integrity protocols embedded within the relevant IT systems. These controls are designed to safeguard students' personal information and ensure that providers operate within a secure and compliant framework. Before being granted approval to administer VSLs, providers must complete comprehensive vetting procedures, ensuring that only qualified institutions are permitted to participate in the program. Providers are required to adhere to several key obligations. These include strict compliance with legislation. Providers must follow stringent rules regarding the use and disclosure of information as outlined in the VET Student Loans Act. VSL providers are also subject to mandatory breach reporting. In the event of any data breach involving student information, providers are obligated to promptly notify the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations. This requirement supports transparency and enables swift action to mitigate potential harm.

Importantly, the data protection standards that have historically governed the handling of TFNs by VSL providers will remain in effect following the commencement of the new bill. These ongoing safeguards reinforce the government's commitment to maintaining high levels of privacy and data security within the VET student loans framework. The Albanese Labor government has invested $42 million over four years from July 2023 to help develop a fit-for-purpose VSL IT system. This means that, from 2026, the VSL program will be bolstered by a new assessments and payment system. This is just one way that Labor stands behind the VET sector.

One of Labor's key election promises was to cut student debt by 20 per cent. In fact, we promised it would be the first piece of legislation we brought to this parliament, and it was. The result is, of course, that three million Australians with student debt will have 20 per cent of their debt wiped, gone. This includes students with VSL program debts.

When we think about the contrast between the Albanese Labor government and those opposite, what becomes clear is that, when it comes to TAFE and vocational education and training, we are focused on delivering for students—not just through this bill but through taking 20 per cent off people's debt and through free TAFE. We know that those opposite do not support free TAFE. While we're focused on delivering, the only thing that the opposition has done when it comes to students is to say no: 'No, we cannot give you that cost-of-living relief,' and, 'No, you cannot have 20 per cent off your student debt that will help set you up for the future.'

We've made TAFE free and we've made that permanent nationwide. This provides cost-of-living support to more Australians to get the qualifications they want for the jobs our economy desperately needs. Free TAFE will boost Australia's workforce by training more tradies and construction workers to build more homes, and more nurses and more healthcare workers to look after our loved ones. From January 2023 to June this year, 128,231 people in Queensland alone had taken up the opportunity to upskill for free. Across the country, thousands of students have flocked to courses such as the Cert IV in Building and Construction, the Diploma of Early Childhood Education and Care, the Cert IV in Cyber Security, the Cert III in Individual Support, the Diploma of Nursing and the Cert III in Horticulture.

A February 2025 report from Jobs and Skills Australia, Opportunity and productivity: towards a tertiary harmonisation roadmap, indicates that a more integrated and coordinated tertiary education system has the potential to enhance workforce productivity, elevate skill levels across the industries that we're talking about and support the development of a future-ready workforce that meets the industry demands. Our government has invested $27.7 million dollars to support the development of a more aligned tertiary education system. This includes developing better student pathways by clarifying recognition of prior learning and streamlining regulation for dual-sector providers. Through the National Skills Agreement, the government has partnered with states and territories to establish nationally networked TAFE Centres of Excellence. These partnerships among TAFEs, university and industry will deliver the skilled workers and the skilled workforce for critical industries. An example in Queensland is the TAFE Centre of Excellence Clean Energy Batteries. The focus will be on targeted training solutions in renewable energy batteries, intermittent renewable energy source storage, grid connectivity—

Excuse me, member for Moreton—if you could just take your seat. It being 1:30 pm, the Federation Chamber is suspended until 4 pm today.

Sitting suspended from 13:31 to 16:00

Debate adjourned.

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

(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 3), omit "Schedules 2 to 6", substitute

"Schedules 2 to 5".

(2) Schedule 6, page 56 (line 1) to page 58 (line 12), omit the Schedule.

Freedom of information should never come with a fee. Today I move amendments that would repeal schedule 6 of the Freedom of Information Amendment Bill 2025. Schedule 6 allows the government to charge application fees for FOI matters by a regulation which would be created at a later date. The bill would let the government set fees for things like making an FOI request, seeking internal review of a refusal or applying for an independent information commissioner review. Fee for access is contrary to the right to access information, and these provisions to create application fees appear to be just another barrier to access, with little justification provided by the government.

I have three key concerns with application fees, which I'll now outline. First, a fee system will simply create new barriers for people with little disposable income to access the FOI system and make it more likely that they will decide against pursuing information. Provisions for financial hardship and exemptions for personal information are important, but the fact remains that when there is a cost there is a subset of our community who will not even apply, even when they have a genuine and reasonable reason to do so. Even with hardship waivers, the burden of proof will shift to the applicant to establish this hardship, provide paperwork and endure any delays. This will further disincentivise people from exercising their right to seek information.

Secondly, the administration of application fees is likely to cost more than it will ever raise in revenue, and if it isn't a revenue measure then what is it and why have it? It's just bureaucracy that unfairly burdens people who can least afford it. If it's not raising revenue, it must be achieving some other aim. The only obvious conclusion is that the purpose of charging a fee is to deter people from applying in the first place. Remarkably, the bill's own explanatory memorandum, written by the Attorney-General's own office, states:

The existence of an application fee may unintentionally limit access to information for certain persons.

The government then says that the application fees are 'reasonable, proportionate and necessary', without providing any evidence for why this is true. Put simply, saying it's true doesn't make it true.

Finally, the government tries to justify application fees on the basis that most state and territory governments charge fees. This is a poor argument and, on its own, is no justification for such a significant change. If the government wishes to establish a fee-charging system it should lay out a clear case for change and explain how the benefits of such reform would outweigh any negative impacts on vulnerable persons or those otherwise disadvantaged by the proposed application fees. It hasn't done so, and I would truly appreciate hearing from the Attorney-General—and I'm really grateful that the Attorney is here—how the government weighed up the disincentive it acknowledges exists against the supposed need to limit the number of requests made. On what basis did the government determine this was proportionate and reasonable?

As I previously stated, the government has thus far failed to make the case for why application fees are necessary and has not sufficiently justified that application fees won't deter people from making an application in the first place. Without a case for change and a solid evidence base, I cannot support schedule 6.

I support the member for Indi's amendments. I think they are good and worthwhile amendments. I support the amendments, first of all, as a matter of principle. I think, as a matter of principle, the government should be doing whatever it possibly can to facilitate the community's access to information, thereby promoting democracy through public participation and scrutiny. So I think, first and foremost, that this is a matter of principle; people should not be charged for seeking information they need to find.

There is also a practical dimension to this—and this goes to the point of the member for Indi—that it is a disincentive for people seeking information through the FOI framework. Just about whatever financial impost the government might put on applying through the FOI framework will be unaffordable for a lot of Australians. Even the most modest amount of money will be an unreasonable impost. I'm sure, in our own communities, we would all regularly come across people who cannot even afford to shout themselves a cup of coffee at the local cafe. For them, $5 is too much to spend. It's not unusual that, as an MP and on behalf of members of my community, I apply through the Tasmanian FOI framework for people to access information in the Tasmanian system. They come to me and ask me to apply because there is no financial charge in Tasmania for an MP applying. They go to all that trouble to come to me because they can't afford it.

I would also add that I don't think the government has satisfactorily made the case that there is a need to charge. I was first attracted to the argument from the government that, with emerging technologies and artificial intelligence, there needs to be some tension in the process as an impediment to AI swamping us with FOI requests. But we haven't seen the evidence of that. In fact, when I look at the data between 2020 and 2024, FOI requests to the government have remained fairly steady at about 34,000 a year. They've gone up a bit and down a bit, but, if there is an issue in the future, we haven't actually seen even a whiff of it at this stage. So I can only draw the conclusion either that this is ill-considered because it is unnecessary, or, as the member for Indi has spoken to, that this imposition of a charge is indeed meant to create that tension to deter people from applying for FOIs in the first place. If that is the case, then, sadly, the Centre for Public Integrity is quite right on its recent integrity report card on the Albanese government. I'll just remind you, when it came to transparency in the report card, the Centre for Public Integrity gave the government a 'fail'. When it came to cronyism, the Centre for Public Integrity gave the government a 'fail'. When it came to undue influence and, in particular, the access of lobbyists, the Centre for Public Integrity gave the Albanese government a 'fail'. It also gave them a 'fail' for parliamentary accountability and for supporting an independent Public Service. So the government is rating poorly already and this adds to the criticism of the government.

Frankly, when it was announced right back at the start that the FOI framework would be reviewed, I actually spoke positively in the media of this move by the government because I felt it would likely be a genuine attempt by the government to modernise our FOI framework, which is warranted. But, sadly, now that we are preoccupied with the detail of the reforms, I find the reforms very much lacking and I've become quite critical. I will leave it there. I will support the amendments moved by the member for Indi.

I rise to support the member for Indi's amendments. I think it is worth pointing out that the 2013 Hawke review explicitly recommended no application fees. This is the same review that the government is repeatedly referring to as back-up for other changes in the bill to show they have actually been supported previously. This is just another example of previous comments about the FOI legislation being cherry-picked, all in one direction and all towards making it harder for the public to access information. It may be that fees would prevent bad-faith actors from introducing large volumes of requests, but it is also likely to deter public interest journalism. Had the government consulted more widely than with just public servants, had it consulted with some of the journalists who use the FOI process to hold government to account, I think that it would have heard more about the impact of fees on public accountability. I think, then, the government would be much happier to support this amendments and make sure that we are not creating extra barriers for the public to find out what decisions government is making and why it's make those decisions.

The government opposes the amendments. The cost to government of processing FOI applications is significant and increasing, costing $97.99 million in 2024-25 compared with $36.32 million in 2010-11. Further, vexatious and abusive requests and repeat requests by applicants for the same information impact on the ability of agencies and ministers to process other FOI requests in a timely manner. The ability to reduce these FOI requests will assist to manage these issues. The bill includes a regulation-making power to impose application fees for FOI requests and review processes. It also includes appropriate safeguards. The bill expressly prevents application fees from being imposed in relation to requests for an individual's own personal information. Any fee regulations must provide for waivers or remission in circumstances of financial hardship. The regulations can provide for circumstances in which fees should be refunded. Regulations to establish application fees under the bill will be subject to scrutiny and disallowance. All other Australian jurisdictions except the ACT have application fees for FOI requests.

I have a question for the Attorney-General. You quoted $97.99 million as the cost to the Commonwealth of processing freedom-of-information requests. Could you tell me, please, how much revenue you expect to raise by imposing these fees.

I appreciate the question from the member. As I said, the bill provides for regulations to prescribe fees for FOI applications, internal reviews and information commission reviews. A vast number of FOI requests continue to be for access to personal information, at about 75 per cent. So that would be excluded from those fees. This would all depend, obviously, on the number of requests that are received. Being unable to see into the future, it would be inappropriate to make an estimation.

I thank the Attorney-General. Attorney, I still can't see a case that charging for access to freedom of information will in any way compensate for the cost that the Commonwealth is claiming it's costing them right now. I'm wondering: what other justification, other than the cost, is charging a fee about?

I refer the member to my comments made previously.

Question unresolved.

As it is necessary to resolve this question to enable further questions to be considered in relation to this bill, in accordance with standing order 195 the bill will be returned to the House for further consideration.

by leave—I move amendments (3) and (4) as circulated in my name together:

(3) Schedule 7, Part 1, page 59 (line 2) to page 60 (line 9), omit the Part.

(4) Schedule 7, Part 2, page 61 (line 1) to page 63 (line 8), omit the Part.

In a bill full of antidemocratic reforms that will worsen transparency and accountability in our government, the amendments proposed in schedule 7 are perhaps the most egregious changes proposed. The amendments I'm moving today seek to repeal both the changes to cabinet exemptions as well as new powers to refuse FOI requests without even consulting the relevant documents.

First, on the summary refusal of request. This part of schedule 7 would enable decision-makers to refuse a request when 'it would clearly be exempt' under the relevant section of the act. This means that a decision-maker can refuse a request without ever checking whether it is actually an exempt document. Simply believing it would be exempt will be enough to refuse a request. I'll say that again, just to make sure everyone has got this straight: you're right to access government information can be determined by whether the public servant thinks it would involve an exempt document. That doesn't pass anybody's pub test. It's lazy, at best. The test of 'clearly exempt' is elastic and it will be stretched in practice. That is not a fair contest, and it will discourage legitimate scrutiny. It will result in worse outcomes. Now while you can appeal, most people will simply give up. It's just another way that freedom of information will be harder to access.

Second, on cabinet exemptions. It's already incredibly difficult under the current FOI Act to access documents that have gone anywhere near the cabinet room. Years of litigation have established a very high threshold for the disclosure of documents involved in the cabinet process. Now, I fully support the principle of cabinet solidarity, and I agree there must be rigorous and appropriate protections for cabinet confidentiality where it's needed. That's not my argument. However, I think most people today believe that the balance has shifted too far against disclosure—and that's under the current arrangements! But now the government want to go further and extend cabinet exemptions to more documents, many of which were never created to go to cabinet or even to directly inform cabinet deliberations.

Under this bill, anything considered or even simply noted in the cabinet process will be exempt, rather than the previous definition that refers specifically to deliberation and decision-making. Now this matters. I'm also extremely concerned that the previous dominant purpose test will be replaced by a substantive purpose test. Words matter. This will make the threshold even higher. Words matter, and that's why they're in the bill! Under these proposals, a document could be exempt simply because it helped to inform a minister in relation to an issue the cabinet will consider. It is a long bow; I contend that it is too long. It's hard to imagine anything that this couldn't include.

Finally, these amendments to expand cabinet exemptions are in direct contravention of the concluding recommendations of the robodebt royal commission. As I said in my speech yesterday—it's important these things are recorded in Hansardthis government's proposals seek to reinforce a culture of cabinet secrecy that, in part, allowed robodebt to persist for so long. So concerned am I about this that I asked the Attorney-General about these proposed changes in question time in an attempt to understand why the government was rejecting the concluding recommendation of its own royal commission. Unfortunately the Attorney-General's answer did not inspire me with confidence—suggesting that the proposals were merely a clarification of what happens now and would reflect the policy intent of the existing exemptions. But this simply isn't accurate.

Yesterday the Centre for Public Integrity published a fact check on key claims made by the government in relation to this bill. The fact check said that it is misleading to suggest that this bill simply clarifies the existing cabinet exemptions. In fact the opposite is true. The Australian Law Council, in its submission, said:

… the effect of the proposed amendments … will be to broaden what is captured by the cabinet documents exemption and further limit access to information. This contradicts the closing observations of the Royal Commission.

The Law Council goes on to recommend that these amendments be rejected. So I seek to repeal these sections of the bill because they will make our democracy and our government less open, less accountable and less transparent, and we don't want that.

Again I will be supporting the member for Indi's amendment, because clearly the attempt by the government to greatly increase the exemptions to the FOI framework are unwarranted. Again, as a matter of principle, the effort to do this will be an impediment to the community's access to information thereby promoting democracy through public participation and scrutiny. That's self-evident; I don't need to talk in any more detail about that. Surely we should be doing everything to shine a light on governance and public administration, and we should be taking no backwards steps in that regard. I would also make the point—and the member for Indi has already touched on this—that the robodebt royal commission made a very, very clear recommendation:

… the Government should end the blanket approach to confidentiality of Cabinet documents. To give effect to this, section 34 of the FOI Act should be repealed. The wide range of class and conditional exemptions in the FOI Act is sufficient to protect the public interest in relation to Cabinet documents. The mere fact that a document is a Cabinet document should not, by itself, be regarded as justifying maintenance of its secrecy.

In other words we shouldn't be having a debate about the merits of increasing the exemptions; we should be having a debate about the merits of reducing exemptions. I would like—this is going to be a little bit indulgent, so bear with me—to recount something out of my own personal experience. The students of ancient history in the Federation Chamber might remember that 20 or so years ago I got myself into terrible strife when I resigned from the Office of National Assessments and went to the media. I accused the Howard government of misleading the Australian community over the reasons for the invasion of Iraq. One of the reasons I resigned and went public was my concern as a public servant and intelligence official that, if I just ventilated my concerns internally, they wouldn't be reported. They'd be buried and they would never see the light of day. Heavens, if for any reason one day there should be one or in fact two inquiries into Australia's misplaced invasion of Iraq, there'd be no record of it.

My experience was that, if I as a public servant had been able to give frank and fearless advice and if it had been recorded carefully, I might've been more comfortable sticking with the team and not resigning from ONA. The point I'm getting to is that this claim that the current FOI framework is a barrier to frank and fearless advice is actually back to front. I think public servants would be much more comfortable with giving frank and fearless advice if they knew that it was written down and noted carefully. One day, if the government's refusal to heed that frank and fearless advice was made public, then it would be the government's problem, and I would be vindicated. I wouldn't stand accused as an incompetent—or worse, unprofessional—public servant that wasn't giving frank and fearless advice.

I'll make this point as firmly as I can. The claim that frank and fearless advice is not being provided, because public servants are scared of their advice one day being publicised, is quite misleading—in fact, it's terribly misleading. We have a world-class public service. It's really world-class. It's populated by officials and senior officials who want to give frank and fearless advice, and they want it to be recorded. They are quite comfortable with their advice being one day publicised, in particular if the government makes a serious misstep by—hmm!—accidentally invading a country for fraudulent reasons! Then that advice would clear those officials of any sort of incompetence or unprofessional behaviour. Good on the member for Indi. It's another good amendment, and I'll be supporting it.

I would like to just reiterate the issue that has come out of the robodebt royal commission and that is being ignored here. The excuse being used is that public servants will be more likely to give frank and fearless advice. In the robodebt royal commission, one of the quotes from Commissioner Holmes was this:

Nothing I have seen in ministerial briefs or material put to Cabinet suggests any tendency to give full and frank advice that might be impaired by the possibility of disclosure …

The commissioner goes on to say that, had there not been the exemption from freedom of information, the activity would have been uncovered earlier and dealt with much more effectively. The commissioner says that raises the real question of whether the protection of cabinet documents as a class of disclosure ought to be maintained or whether when access is sought, disclosure should be given unless there is a specific public interest in maintaining its confidentiality.

One of the things I'd like to add to that is that I'm unclear as to how this will actually increase frank and fearless advice anyway. If you move from a dominant-purpose test to a substantial-purpose test, I'm not convinced that that actually would make a significant difference in a public servant's decision about what to say to cabinet. Many experts would say that frank and fearless advice is far more likely to be protected by protecting the tenure of those public servants and ensuring that they are able to speak up without fear for their jobs than by avoiding the fear that someone might find out what they have said. In fact, they might feel more comfortable if they know that they can give advice. Ultimately—it may be one or two inquiries down the track—that advice will become known, and the public will know that they did their best. I will be supporting this amendment. I think the expansion of cabinet exemptions is absolutely heading in the wrong direction. We need greater transparency. The way to rebuild trust in government is for people to understand what decisions government are making and why they are making them. I'm very disappointed that the government is putting this forward. It is not in the interests of open government.

I also rise to support this amendment. Out of all of the bill, this is probably the most important part to change. I thank the member for Indi for making these changes. I want to reiterate what was said by the member for Clark in terms of robodebt. The government has made a huge deal, and rightly so, about the impact of robodebt on individuals and the enormous stain that it is on Australian political public service history. Something which was so clearly put in the robodebt royal commission has been ignored. In some cases it seems to mischaracterise some of what of the robodebt royal commission said. Saying that somehow this fits within the robodebt royal commission's observations and recommendations is very disappointing, and I'm disappointed.

I'm disappointed, I'll be honest, with the Prime Minister who, in a question I asked specifically on this issue, denied that robodebt had anything to do with FOI, when in fact the robodebt royal commission is explicit in that, in relation to cabinet confidentiality and how that inhibited a negative for robodebt.

I'd also like to make the observation, more broadly, about what we're trying to do in this country to improve the quality of debate. Mike Burgess, the head of ASIO, spoke yesterday, very powerfully, at the Lowy Institute, talking about the need to disagree well, to have fact based and broad based conversations and to do this in an effective way. Let's be honest: the parliament doesn't do that very often. But, to do that well, we actually need the information to back it up. We do need the frank and fearless advice of the Public Service to be more available to the country, rather than less available to the country, so that we can have the debates that we need to have in this country about difficult political and public issues.

There are many difficult challenges that we are facing as a country—economically and socially. As a member of the public rather than as a member of the parliament, I would love more of that information to be out there in the public domain so that, as a member of the public, I can be better informed about whether the government is serving the people or whether it's not, about what policies we should or shouldn't be considering and about what policies have been considered and why, justifiably, they have been left alone.

In the dearth and vacuum of information, you will have other players who play, and I respect many of the think tanks and others who play in the space. But there are also many bad actors who play in this space, who try and fill the void of good public data and good public debate with sometimes quite misleading information. That actually decreases trust.

So I urge the government to completely rethink its approach on this FOI bill. What would it take to increase transparency in this country to give people more confidence in government and more information and certainty so our community can be more well-informed about what are the good policy choices that we should be urging our government to be making and what are the difficult trade-offs that we should be urging our government to be making? Let's be honest: there are very difficult trade-offs here, but most Australians do not have access to the Public Service advice that helps make those difficult trade-offs clear. So I very much support the FOI recommendations coming out of the robodebt royal commission. We should be decreasing, rather than increasing, restrictions to cabinet documents.

So I once again recommend and urge the government to support the member for Indi's amendments. I think they go to the heart of building trust in government by building a better public debate, and I think both of those things are really critical.

With respect to amendment (3), the government opposes the amendment. The government considers that this provision is necessary to achieve efficiencies and allow agencies and ministers to more quickly resolve requests of this kind. The government recognises that a similar provision was repealed in the 2010 reforms and that the ALRC's 1997 open government report recommended the repeal.

However, the ALRC also acknowledged that repealing the provision may increase the cost of FOI processing. The government respectfully suggests that, in the context of rising FOI costs since the 2010 reforms, the repeal should be reconsidered on that basis.

The proposed provision has appropriate safeguards. The provision is only available in certain circumstances. The decision to refuse access is a reviewable decision through internal review and by the information commissioner and the Administrative Review Tribunal. When relying on the provision, the agency or minister provides a statement of reasons for the decision, including that the provision was used and what exemptions were relied on to refuse access.

With respect to amendment (4), the government considers the proposed changes to cabinet exemption are required to appropriately protect information central to the cabinet process and support the principle of collective ministerial responsibility.

The amendments are necessarily to more clearly and accurately reflect how the cabinet process works in practice, and to ensure appropriate protections for the full range of documents prepared to support the cabinet process and workings of cabinet government. The amendments would provide appropriate protections for briefings where a matter is presented to cabinet orally and without papers and reflect that, for example, a summary of a cabinet document can be just as revealing of cabinet deliberations as a verbatim copy or an extract.

The change of the reference from 'dominant purpose' to 'substantial purpose' recognises that documents may be created for multiple purposes; however, the cabinet purpose must be of substance, real and not insignificant, trivial or nominal, ensuring the exemption still applies to documents with a genuine cabinet purpose. The government will therefore be opposing both sets of amendments.

I thank the Attorney-General for her response. I feel, though, that I need to ask the Attorney-General to respond in particular to the Law Council opinion on cabinet exemptions and the explicit advice that they've given in regard to the robodebt royal commissioner's recommendation. I don't feel that the Attorney has addressed that and I have real concerns about that, so I'd ask, respectfully, that the Attorney address that particular concern with this bill.

As outlined in the Australian government's response to the report of the robodebt royal commission, the government believes it is critical that the cabinet, the key decision-making body of government, is comprehensively informed in its deliberations. To achieve this, the cabinet must have the benefit of frank and fearless advice from the minister and senior public servants in question. The principle of collective responsibility requires that ministers should be able to express their views frankly in cabinet meetings, in the expectation that they can argue freely in private while maintaining a united front in public when decisions have been reached.

For these reasons, the government does not support the repeal of section 34. The bill does, however, respond to the royal commissioner's observation that merely describing a document as a cabinet document is not, in itself, sufficient justification to maintain confidentiality of a document. The bill inserts new subsection 34(7) to make clear that the mere presence or absence of any kind of security marking or other feature is not sufficient to determine whether or not the document is exempt under section 34.

A division having been called in the House of Representatives—

Sitting suspended from 16:37 to 16:55

As there are no further speakers, the question is that the amendments be agreed to.

Question unresolved.

As the question is unresolved, in accordance with standing order 188, the question will be included in the Federation Chamber's report on the bill to the House.

I move the amendment circulated in my name:

(1) Schedule 7, Part 3, page 64 (line 1) to page 65 (line 5), omit the Part.

The amendment I am moving today is simple. It removes the changes proposed in this bill to the deliberative documents exemption of the Freedom of Information Act. The bill proposes to expand this exemption by including a new list of 'factors against giving access' in addition to the current 'factors favouring access' and 'irrelevant factors'.

This list of factors against giving access to a document in the public interest is overly broad. In the words of former Public Service Commissioner Andrew Podger, 'They could be used to refuse access to almost any document.' Specifically, the list includes whether giving access to the document would or could reasonably be expected to prejudice the orderly and effective conduct of a government decision-making process. This is one of many measures in this bill that would reduce government transparency and take our public service in a more secretive direction.

As I outlined in my second reading speech, experts, the broader community and my crossbench colleagues have all raised key concerns with this bill, including the expansion of the cabinet documents exemption, the reintroduction of application fees for FOI requests and the removal of the ability for an FOI applicant to remain anonymous or use a pseudonym.

A central argument for the government for the proposed expansion of exemptions is that the current provisions constrain the delivery of frank and fearless advice. Certainly, we must protect the Public Service values of impartiality, intellectual rigour and perhaps, most importantly, the willingness of public servants at all levels to offer frank and fearless advice to their superiors and their ministers. Yet the evidence, including from the robodebt royal commission, shows that factors other than FOI are contributing to failures to provide frank and fearless advice. These include the central role of government in appointing and dismissing departmental secretaries, which has the potential to impact the relationship between the secretary and the minister. Disappointingly, the government has not taken on key recommendations of the 2019 Thodey report to reform the appointment and tenure processes of departmental secretaries. Such reforms would structurally strengthen the independence of the Public Service and improve the ability of public servants to provide frank and fearless advice.

Freedom of information is a key pillar of our democracy. It ensures that the Australian people have access to the information they need to understand the decisions and actions of their government. Australia's FOI system does need repair, but the overwhelming sentiment from community experts—and in submissions to the Senate inquiry on this bill—is that this bill is not fit for purpose. Given the strong and broad opposition to the bill, I feel it should be withdrawn. I would urge the government to instead set up an independent, comprehensive review of the FOI system in a way that modernises it to work for, not against, our democracy. However, in place of that, the bill—

A division having been called in the House of Representatives—

Sitting suspended from 17:00 to 17:13

However, in place of that, the bill should, at the very least, be amended to remove the most egregious elements. These include the member for Indi's amendments to remove the expansion of the cabinet documents exemption and application fees and the member for Kooyong's amendment to remove the restriction on anonymous requests. I thank them both for their tenacity in striving to strengthen the integrity and transparency of our political system.

The amendment I'm moving removes the expansion of the deliberative documents exemption, something that would move us away from a culture of disclosure and towards a culture of secrecy. Our FOI system is critical to the integrity and strength of our democracy, and we must preserve and protect it at all costs. That's why I asked the government to engage in good faith with the crossbench amendments today. There is no urgency to push these changes through, and I ask the government to seriously consider these amendments. I commend the amendment to the House.

I rise to support the member for Mackellar's amendment. FOI is a fundamental tool of accountability in our democracy and the default option should be disclosure. Adding more factors that count against disclosure is heading in the wrong direction to where the whole framework should be heading. FOI was developed in 1982 with a clear purpose to open up government, to shift that default from secrecy to transparency and to ensure that decisions made in the name of the public are actually visible to the public. It has generally worked. It ensures that the public find out what the government is doing, it exposes corruption and waste, and it allows the public to participate in government decision-making and exercise some power as citizens. Adding more exemptions to what can be disclosed is not in the spirit of the legislation as it was originally intended. It might be painful for government to actually have to be transparent in its decision-making, and I recognise that, but it is a small amount of pain to bear for a system of democracy that actually retains the trust of the people.

This part of the bill that the member for Mackellar is seeking to amend was going to introduce new factors to be considered that would say 'let's keep this secret'. But let's think about the concept of balance and whether balance is an appropriate thing to be looking for in this bill. We are balancing transparency for the benefit of the public versus a bit of inconvenience for public servants. One of the things put forward by the government in explaining the need for this bill is that there are 500 full-time equivalent public servants filling FOI requests. That sounds like a lot, 500 people. But is this really too many? If we are thinking about balance, do we have that balance? There are 213,000 federal public servants and 500 of them are focused on making sure that government decisions are transparent—that is, 0.2 per cent of the public service focused on public accountability.

I think that this concept of introducing factors that count against a greater disclosure is completely the wrong way for the legislation to be headed in, and I thank the member for Mackellar for her amendment.

The government opposes the amendment. Part 3 of schedule 7 inserts three public interest considerations that would weigh against the disclosure of information under the deliberative processes exemption. The amendments provide greater statutory guidance in respect of the harms the exemption is designed to protect. The amendments reflect the effective operation of government, including the development of high-quality and robust policy, and rely on agencies being able to provide and ministers being able to consider frank and comprehensive advice in confidence. Other like-minded jurisdictions such as the United Kingdom and New Zealand recognise such factors as relevant considerations in assessing the public interest in disclosure. Importantly, the deliberative processes exemption remains a conditional exemption, subject to the public interest test, and, in applying the exemption, the decision-maker will still need to weigh the public interest considerations for and against disclosure.

As the question is unresolved, in accordance with standing order 188, the question will be included in the Federation Chamber's report to the House on the bill.

by leave—I move amendments (1) to (6) as circulated in my name together:

(1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 4 (lines 5 and 6), omit the item.

(2) Schedule 1, item 3, page 4 (lines 10 to 21), omit the item.

(3) Schedule 2, item 41, page 16 (line 18) to page 16 (line 24), omit subsection 15AD(6), substitute:

Multiple requests

(6) For the purposes of this section, the agency or Minister may treat 2 or more requests as a single request if:

(a) the agency or Minister is satisfied that:

(i) the requests relate to the same document or documents; or

(ii) the requests relate to documents, the subject matter of which is substantially the same; and

(b) the details given in relation to the requests in accordance with paragraph 15(2)(c) are the same.

(4) Schedule 2, item 53, page 20 (line 4) to page 20 (line 11), omit the item.

(5) Schedule 2, item 54, page 20 (lines 21 to 31), omit paragraph 15(2)(e), substitute:

(e) if the applicant is seeking to access, on behalf of another person, a document containing personal information about the other person or information concerning the business, commercial or financial affairs of the other person:

(i) state that the request is being made on behalf of another person; and

(ii) include the full name of the other person; and

(iii) be accompanied by all of the following that are provided in a form and manner specified by the agency or Minister for the purpose of requests under this section:

(A) proof of the applicant's identity;

(B) proof of the other person's identity;

(C) proof that the applicant is authorised to access the document on behalf of the other person.

(6) Schedule 7, item 3, page 61 (line 4) to page 61 (line 10), omit the item.

(7) Schedule 7, Part 3, page 64 (line 1) to page 65 (line 5), omit the Part.

The FOI Act enshrines a right to access information and protects individuals' rights by providing them access to the information held by government about themselves. The objects of this act are clear and they should not be qualified or restricted. My amendments (1) and (2) omit the government's proposed qualifiers to this fundamental statement of the objects of the act.

What is proposed by the government is the introduction of the notion that promoting representative democracy must be balanced with efficiency. Representative democracy is not practised only when convenient. The objectives of openness and transparency should not be qualified. Similarly, the government has argued that departments risk being overwhelmed by FOI requests which are being generated by bots. It has sought to treat multiple requests for the same information as a single request, but this is irrational. If two or more requests for the same document are from different sources, they should clearly not be treated as the same request. For example, a matter of public interest might well be sought by more than one media outlet. The government's solution to this issue is unnecessarily restrictive. I therefore propose a solution in amendment (3) to maintain reasonable access, under which requests could be considered and treated as being different requests if different addresses are supplied under the section 15(2)(d) notification.

The government has sought to prevent anonymous requests with this bill. To protect the privacy of individuals, it is appropriate that a person seeking their personal records should provide their name and their proof of identity so that personal material is not wrongfully given to another person. However, in seeking public interest material, there may be a reason—a very good reason in some instances—for a requester not to be identified. If release of the material is in the public interest, it doesn't matter who the requester is. It only matters that an address for response is provided to facilitate the actual provision of the information. My amendments (4) and (5) make this distinction, protecting the privacy of individuals and the anonymity of public interest requests.

I now come to the more egregious parts of the government's bill: its deliberate move to keep Australians in the dark on this flimsy pretext of national interest. We see this pretext in this and other bills, including the environmental protection of biodiversity conservation bills currently being debated in the House, which reference the FOI Act as grounds for the minister not to publish decisions in the so-called national interest. If the government's decisions are lawful, sound, based on the best advice, in the public interest and, indeed, in the national interest, then they should be shared with the people. We need to stop the rot. If we let these provisions of secretiveness pass, if we hide who has lobbied the government, if we hide what information is before ministers and if we hide who is benefiting from government decisions, we are losing our battle for integrity and accountability in this democracy.

Amendment (6) addresses the right to freedom of information. It changes the requirement for exempting cabinet documents from requiring a dominant purpose to requiring only a substantive purpose of being for cabinet consideration. I support the member for Mackellar in her related amendment to section 7 regarding the addition of new considerations for not releasing these documents. Those considerations, as given in this legislation, are too broad, too loose and too easy to misapply.

The Freedom of Information Act 1982 is legislated as an act 'to give to members of the public rights of access to official documents of the government of the Commonwealth and of its agencies'. That is a worthy activity for any government. Any restrictions on those rights of access have to be limited and they have to be proportionate to prevent transgressions of those rights. I commend these amendments to the House.

The government opposes the amendments. The amendments to the objects of the act balance promoting transparent government with the countervailing public interest in protecting essential private interests and the proper functioning of government.

The amendments in relation to vexatious requests allow multiple requests to be treated as a single request and will help agencies deal with abusive requests and repeated requests by applicants for the same information. I note that the government has also moved amendments in relation to the anonymous measures in the bill and I'll speak to those later in the debate. The amendments in relation to anonymous applications will ensure vexatious applicant declarations are unable to be circumvented, discourage applicants from engaging in inappropriate or threatening behaviour and enable agencies to know who they are dealing with. The amendments in relation to the deliberative processes exemption provide greater statutory guidance on the harm the exemption is designed to protect against and reflect that the effective operation of government relies on agencies being able to provide and ministers being able to consider frank and comprehensive advice in confidence.

The amendments to the cabinet exemption are necessary to more clearly and accurately reflect how the cabinet process works in practice and to ensure appropriate protections for the full range of documents prepared to support the cabinet process and the workings of cabinet government.

Question unresolved.

As the question is unresolved, in accordance with standing order 188, the question will be included in the Federation Chamber's report to the House on the bill.

by leave—I present a supplementary explanatory memorandum to the bill and move government amendments (1) and (2) as circulated together:

(1) Schedule 2, item 53, page 20 (line 8), after "person", insert ", and the applicant is seeking to access a document containing personal information about the other person or information concerning the business, commercial or financial affairs of the other person".

(2) Schedule 2, item 56, page 21 (lines 8 to 20), omit subsection 19(1), substitute:

(1) This section applies if, when dealing with a request for access to a document (including a request that does not comply with the requirements of subsection 15(2)), an agency or Minister is not satisfied of:

(a) the identity of the applicant; or

(b) in the case of a document that contains personal information about a person on whose behalf the request was made, or information concerning the business, commercial or financial affairs of a person on whose behalf the request was made—the identity of a person on whose behalf the request was made.

The amendments to part 5 of schedule 2 moderate the circumstances under which identifying information must be provided by an applicant when making a request. Applicants would only be required to declare when they are making a request on behalf of another person and provide that other person's full name where the request is for that person's personal, business, commercial or financial information. This is a sensible adjustment based on feedback by stakeholders through the committee process.

The amendments also provide that proof of identity is not required for another person whom the applicant is acting on behalf of where the freedom of information request does not concern that person's personal, business, commercial or financial information. The changes reflect that there may be situations where an applicant may wish or need to obtain non-personal information anonymously through another applicant—for example, a community group being able to put in a request on behalf of their constituent, an investigative journalist or whistleblowers. Retaining the requirement for the applicant to provide a name supports a number of policy purposes, including to ensure vexatious applicant declarations are effective and unable to be circumvented through use of a pseudonym.

I rise in support of the Attorney-General's amendments. I think these are sensible amendments. I recognise that we had a conversation in her office some time ago which included a conversation about such measures to improve the bill. I thank the Attorney-General for bringing these changes to the chamber.

Question agreed to.

by leave—I move amendments (1) to (3) as circulated in my name together:

(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 1), omit "Sections 1 to 3", substitute "Sections 1 to 4".

(2) Clause 2, page 2 (after line 3), after subclause (1), insert:

(1A) The Minister must not advise the Governor-General to make a Proclamation for the purposes of item 2 or 3 of the table until after the Minister has tabled a copy of the review of the Freedom of Information Act 1982 in accordance with subsection 4(4).

(3) Page 3 (after line 2), after clause 3, insert:

4 Review of operation of Freedom of Information Act 1982

(1) The Minister must cause an independent review to be conducted of the Freedom of Information Act 1982, with terms of reference to provide recommendations on how best to:

(a) encourage greater proactive disclosure of information to the public, and thus reduce the need for formal FOI requests; and

(b) maximise accessibility, transparency and efficiency for genuine and lawful FOI requests, including through setting an appropriate fee structure; and

(c) improve the timeliness of dealing with FOI requests, including review processes; and

(d) ensure that exemptions to disclosure requirements do not go further than is required for good government; and

(e) create a robust system for the resourcing, training, auditing, and oversight of authorised officers responsible for FOI decisions; and

(f) manage vexatious and frivolous requests; and

(g) address the potential impact of artificial intelligence, both to improve FOI processing and to mitigate the impact of its use in generating vexatious and frivolous requests; and

(h) provide structural support for public servants to provide frank, honest, timely and evidence-based advice.

Timing of review

(2) The persons conducting the review must complete the review before the end of the period of 6 months beginning on the day this section commences.

(3) The persons conducting the review must give the Minister a written report of the review as soon as possible after the review is completed.

Minister to table copy of report of review

(4) The Minister must cause a copy of the report of the review to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the Minister receives the report.

These amendments would ensure that there is a broad review of the Freedom of Information Act before this bill comes into force. A broad review is the only thing that all previous reviews have agreed on. The 2013 Hawke review, the 2015 Shergold review, the 2019 Thodey review and the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee inquiry in 2023 all called for a comprehensive independent review of the entire FOI Act.

It's important to note that none of these listed reviews performed a comprehensive review of the FOI system, so this would not be duplicative. Instead, every previous review that has at least partially looked at the FOI system has pointed out its complexities and the importance of it actually getting a comprehensive assessment.

The reason we need a broader independent review of the act, as opposed to just a committee inquiry into this bill, is that this bill only addresses the problems that are solved by less transparency. This is, at best, half of the problem. The other half of the problem is that, in many circumstances, we need more transparency.

There are many reasons to increase the information that's disclosed. Requests can take far too long to be answered. The proportion of FOI requests granted in full has dropped from 59 per cent in 2012 to just 25 per cent in 2024. There have been findings that this system is driving a culture of secrecy, a lack of ministerial engagement and inconsistent exemptions. Journalists and legal advocates report administrative torture, with excessive redactions and delays that compromise public interest reporting.

These really crucial problems that require greater transparency are not addressed in this bill. A comprehensive independent review should be linked to the fundamental purpose of the FOI system, based on the principle that we need to maximise transparency and efficiency for genuine and lawful FOI requests. Within this context, it should consider how best to encourage greater proactive disclosure of information to the public, and thus reduce the need for formal FOI requests.

It should consider how to maximise accessibility, transparency and efficiency for genuine and lawful FOI requests, including through setting an appropriate fee structure. It should consider how to improve the timeliness of dealings with FOI requests, including review processes, and ensure that exemptions to disclosure requirements do not go further than is required for good government. It should consider how best to create a robust system for resourcing, training, auditing and oversight of authorised officers responsible for those FOI decisions and how best to manage vexatious and frivolous requests. Also, it should consider how to address the potential impacts of artificial intelligence, both to improve FOI processing and to mitigate the impact of its use in generating vexatious and frivolous requests. Largely, it should consider how best to provide structural support for public servants to provide frank, honest, timely and evidence based advice.

This review should be done by independent experts, not by representatives of the government who are focused on reducing the workload and reputational risk for government. It also needs to provide significant opportunities for public feedback. The FOI system is part of the checks and balances that we put on governments to ensure that power is used in the public interest. We should not be making changes to this system without seeking the views of the public and the media, who hold governments to account.

The consultation process for this bill was wholly inadequate, consulting only the public servants who can't help finding FOI requests painful to fulfil. Our FOI system is an essential part of our democratic checks and balances. Without looking at both sides of the ledger—the reasons for more transparency, as well as the reasons for less transparency—the government is doing the public a disservice in this bill. I commend the amendments to the House.

I rise in support for the member of Curtin's amendments. I just want to add my voice in calling for a broad review of the Freedom of Information Amendment Bill and of our FOI system—again, not just a committee review, but one that's done independently by experts. We know all previous reviews—the Hawke, Shergold, Faulkner and Thodey—all recommended comprehensive reviews.

There are multiple concerns with this bill to change our FOI laws. They include the expansion of the cabinet document exemption, the reintroduction of application fees for FOI requests—something that would shut some people out of their democracy and promote secrecy over transparency—and the removal of the ability for a FOI applicant to remain anonymous or use a pseudonym. We know that sometimes it is people like whistleblowers and investigative journalists who need to make these applications anonymously, and we know that there have been many royal commissions coming from investigative journalism, so to cut that out, to shut that out, would be a retrograde step in terms of our transparency.

There is one other thing I want to mention. A number of us have said that freedom of information is a cornerstone, a key pillar of our democracy. We need to be moving towards greater transparency and greater accountability, rather than greater secrecy. That's why having an independent, broad based review of our FOI system is incredibly important, and I support the member for Curtin's call for there to be a broad based review of our FOI system.

Finally, a lack of trust in our political system, a lack of trust in our democracy, is something that undermines social cohesion and a sense of wellbeing. Anything we can do to inspire greater trust in our government and our political system is always a great way to grow that social cohesion.

The coalition is opposed to the Freedom of Information Amendment Bill 2025, lock, stock and smoking barrel. I acknowledge the amendments that were moved by the Attorney-General, and I thank her for doing so, but they do not remedy all of the many problems that have been raised by my parliamentary colleagues and many stakeholders. This bill does not have a friend, apart from the Public Service. When every stakeholder, the crossbench and the coalition are combining to say that the bill is extremely problematic, it is incumbent on the government to have a very long, hard look at the bill.

As many of my colleagues have mentioned so far, the concept of freedom of information is a fundamental tenet of our democracy. Our democracy can be inconvenient at times. That's the price you pay for living in a democracy. I get it. I understand that sometimes requests for freedom of information may be difficult and arduous, but the concept of putting these 40-hour time limits on requests for information goes against the very basis of freedom of information. It goes against the very basis of a bulwark of our democracy—

I'm sorry to interrupt the member, but I would ask that you be relevant to the amendments that are before the House.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I'm able to speak on the bill.

I put the question that the amendments be agreed to.

I have been relevant, actually, insofar as the amendments that have been put forward by the Attorney go to—

No, they're the amendments from the member for Curtin.

I'm sorry. The amendments moved by the member for Curtin are very sensible amendments. Basically, what they are asking the government to do is to go and do an independent inquiry on the bill. When this bill does not have a friend in the world and when all of the stakeholders are saying that there should, in fact, be an independent inquiry—not a parliamentary inquiry, which would no doubt be stacked with government members who would no doubt support this bill. A proper independent inquiry has been called for in relation to the concept of changing the FOI Act for many years. It beggars belief that this government would not seek to get all of the barnacles out on the table. It's this concept—this is a government that campaigned in the lead-up to the 2022 election on honesty, on transparency and on accountability and, now it's in government, it doesn't want to be held to account. This government wants to make life difficult for Australians who want answers from their government. I implore the Attorney to reconsider—just hit pause. Why won't the Attorney hit pause and commission an independent inquiry in relation to this bill?

The government opposes the amendments. The government has a delivery focused agenda and, while reviews have their place, delivery is important for Australians. More than six reviews have considered or reported on the FOI system in the past 13 years and the bill is the first significant amendment made to the FOI Act in response to the reviews. Recommendations, analysis and stakeholder submissions made to previous reviews and inquiries into the FOI system were considered in the development of the bill. They included the 2013 Hawke review and the Senate committee on legal and constitutional affairs' inquiry into the operations of the FOI Act.

Question unresolved.

As the question is unresolved, in accordance with standing order 188 the question will be included in the Federation Chamber's report to the House on the bill.

I rise today to address some other grave, specific concerns that I have with this bill. The provisions under schedule 7 part 2, which expand cabinet document exemptions, raise serious questions about the government's commitment to transparency and accountability. The Law Council of Australia has voiced strong opposition to this measure, citing its potential to undermine public trust and democratic principles. The Law Council warns that the amendments could reduce transparency around government decision-making and hinder scrutiny of matters in the public interest, which runs counter to the objectives of the Freedom of Information Act. They argue that the bill extends beyond efficiency gains and instead undermines the core principles of FOI—particularly the public's right to access information promptly and at minimal cost.

Before proceeding with reforms that may reduce access to information, the Law Council recommends that the government commission an independent review of the FOI Act and the broader federal FOI framework. On balance the Law Council does not support the bill in its current form—especially provisions that enlarge the scope of exemptions and implement barriers to public access. My question to the minister is how does the government justify restricting access to information in a democracy where transparency is a cornerstone of public trust? This bill, in its current form, risks eroding the very foundations of open government. I urge the minister to reconsider these provisions and listen to the voices of civil society, legal experts and the Australian public.

I call the member for Fisher.

In relation to the expansion of cabinet document exemptions under schedule 7, part 2, this has drawn considerable criticism from Transparency International Australia. My question to the minister is this: why is the government expanding the cabinet exemption, effectively shielding more documents from public scrutiny? This move appears designed to reduce transparency around key decisions. I urge the minister to reverse this provision and uphold the public's right to know.

The member for Fisher.

The discretionary refusal powers in schedule 7 allow agencies to reject the requests deemed frivolous or harassing. The Office of the Australian Information Commissioner has raised concerns about the lack of safeguards. My question to the minister is this: what safeguards exist to prevent agencies from abusing the new discretionary powers to refuse requests deemed frivolous or intimidating or harassing? Without clear definitions and oversight, this provision risks arbitrary denial of access. I call on the minister to introduce robust safeguards.

The member for Fisher.

In relation to the discretionary refusal powers under section 11B(3) of the act, the Freedom of Information Bill introduces discretionary powers under schedule 7, part 3, division 1 that have been described by the Environmental Defenders Office as a 'grave integrity failure'. The EDO—who I often don't agree with, but in this case I do—in submissions to the legal and constitutional affairs committee, argued against the expansion of exemptions allowing agencies to refuse requests on vague grounds, such as 'prejudicing frank discussion' or 'orderly and effective government conduct'. My question to the Attorney is this: why is the government pursuing reforms that have been described by integrity advocates as a 'grave integrity failure'? This bill risks giving agencies broad powers to reject requests based on vague and subjective criteria, undermining the public's right to know. I urge the minister to withdraw these provisions and restore faith in our democratic institutions.

The member for Fisher.

I refer you to the Freedom of Information Bill 2025, specifically schedule 7, part 3, division 1, and in relation to the amendments to section 11B(3) of the act. Subsection (3A)(a) inserts a provision which provides that a document is conditionally exempt if the document would or could reasonably be expected to:

… prejudice the frank or timely discussion of matters or exchange of opinions between participants in deliberative processes of government for the purposes of consultation or deliberation in the course of, or for the purposes of, those processes …

Attorney, what does that provision even mean? In what circumstances does the minister consider that it could or would be exercised?

The member for Fisher.

In relation to schedule 2, part 4, division 1, which amends section 15AD(1) of the act, it introduces subjective criteria like intimidation or harm for rejecting FOI requests. The Australian Lawyers Alliance warns this undermines procedural fairness. My question to the minister is this: how does the government plan to ensure procedural fairness when agencies can now reject requests based on subjective criteria like intimidation or harm or, even worse, those that 'are likely' to have that effect? In what circumstances and how would it be determined that an application was an abuse of process? Attorney, this opens the door to abuse and arbitrary decision-making. I urge the Attorney to clarify and constrain these powers.

I call the member for Fisher.

Until only a couple of hours ago, the bill's requirement for verified identity under schedule 2, part 5, division I, would have effectively banned anonymous FOI requests. The Human Rights Law Centre warned that this would deter whistleblowers and vulnerable individuals from seeking accountability. My question to the minister is this: why did the minister believe that banning anonymity was in any way acceptable, and why did it take her until this very, very late stage to see that such a proposal was antithetical to the concepts of FOI? Does the minister now accept that banning anonymous FOI requests would have deterred whistleblowers and vulnerable individuals from seeking accountability?

This change would have threatened to silence those who rely on anonymity to expose wrongdoing. Why did it take the Attorney so long to acknowledge that all Australians should have the right to seek information without fear of recriminations? What evidence supported the claim that anonymous or pseudonymous requests are predominantly vexatious or abusive?

I call the member for Fisher.

The Law Council of Australia has criticised the government for failing to conduct an independent review before introducing sweeping changes to the FOI framework. My question to the minister is this: why were these sweeping changes introduced without first conducting an independent review of the FOI framework, as recommended by the Law Council and just about every other academic and interested stakeholder? This lack of consultation undermines the legitimacy of the bill, and I call on the minister to pause and engage meaningfully with stakeholders.

I call the member for Fisher.

Schedule 3, part 2, division 1 of the bill introduces a 40-hour cap on processing FOI requests. The Environmental Defenders Office warned that this could be used to reject complex but legitimate requests. My question to the minister is this: how will the proposed 40-hour processing cap avoid becoming a blanket excuse for agencies to reject complex but legitimate requests? This arbitrary limit risks undermining access to information on matters of public interest, and I call on the Attorney to reconsider this cap and ensure fairness in FOI processing.

I call the member for Fisher.

Schedule 6 introduces application fees for FOI requests. The Australian Council of Social Service warns that this will disproportionately affect low-income Australians. My question to the minister is this: how will the introduction of application fees not disproportionately affect low-income Australians seeking information about their rights or entitlements? Attorney, access to information should not depend on one's ability to pay. I call on the Attorney to remove this financial barrier.

I call the member for Fisher.

The Centre for Public Integrity has warned that the new fee structure under schedule 6 could deter legitimate public interest inquiries. My question to the minister is this: what measures are in place to ensure that the new fee structure does not become a barrier to legitimate public interest inquiries? This bill risks pricing out transparency. I call on the minister to exempt public interest requests from fees.

I call the member for Fisher.

Schedule 5 alters review procedures, placing additional burdens on the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner. My question to the minister is this: has the government considered the operational burden these changes will place on the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner? This bill risks overwhelming the OAIC and delaying transparency and justice. I call on the minister to consult with the commissioner and revise these provisions.

I call the member for Fisher.

Some lawyers have warned that the changes to the FOI Act could increase litigation and legal costs. My question to the minister is this: Does the minister acknowledge that these reforms could lead to increased litigation and legal costs rather than reducing inefficiencies? This bill may create more problems than it solves. Has the minister performed a cost-benefit analysis of these reforms, and, if not, will she commit to doing so before proceeding with the bill?

I call the member for Fisher.

The Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance has criticised the lack of consultation with media organisations. My question to the minister is this: What consultation was undertaken with media organisations, civil society and legal experts before drafting these amendments? Transparency reforms must be developed transparently. I urge the minister to engage with stakeholders before legislating.

I call the member for Fisher.

The Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills is reviewing the Freedom of Information Amendment Bill. My question to the minister is this: Will the minister commit to amending or withdrawing the bill if the Senate committee finds that it undermines the public's right to know? The government must respect the findings of independent scrutiny. I urge the minister to act on the committee's recommendations.

Finally, as I have previously indicated, this bill does not have a friend in the world apart from the Public Service. And, quite frankly, I would have thought that the Public Service would have welcomed the changes that the Attorney has finally made today around anonymity.

But the amendment that the Attorney has moved today does not, in and of itself, correct a bill with all the many faults and problems that so many of my colleagues have spoken of for such a long period of time. This government is allergic to transparency. It continues day in, day out, particularly as we get closer to the Christmas break, to be jamming legislation through this place. Every Australian should be very concerned when they hear that their government is looking to create efficiencies in everyday Australians' access to information.

Democracy is a very precarious thing but it is something that should be cherished, and I think is cherished—mostly—by 27 million Australians. But the downward slide in democracy can happen very easily. In the lead-up to the '22 election, this government prided itself on making it a fundamental election principle. 'Vote for us,' they said. 'We'll restore,' they said, 'integrity to the parliament. We'll restore integrity to government.' And what we have seen, particularly over the last four to six weeks, is this government continuing to ram legislation through this place. This bill should send a shock wave through the hearts of 27 million Australians.

I have just spoken about a few of the stakeholders who have raised concerns about this bill—just a few. The media, in particular, relies heavily upon access to freedom of information, and it relies heavily on the ability to be able to access information to hold the government to account. That is their job. Whether they do it particularly well or not is of course up for debate, but what this government shouldn't be doing is nobbling the ability of the media to do its job. But that's exactly what this bill will do. You might say, 'How is it doing that?' The reality is that the media is much more than just your News Corps and large media organisations. It also involves small, independent newspapers, like the Glasshouse Country & Maleny News in my electorate. They should be able to request information from this government on important issues like funding for hospitals and childcare centres. It's vitally important that Australians across our country have the ability to ask questions of their government, who are there to serve them. The bureaucracy are not there to serve themselves; the bureaucracy is there to serve the Australian public. I urge this minister to pause this bill.

I refer to my comments made in relation to government amendments. Secondly, I refer the honourable member to the answers and comments I have provided to every proposed amendment moved by other honourable members, each of which covers the subject matter he has raised and for which I have already given responses in this chamber.

As there are unresolved questions preventing the resolution of this question, in accordance with standing order 195, the bill will be returned to the House for further consideration.

Ordered that this bill be reported to the House with an unresolved question.

I'll start where I finish—with network embedded storage at large and small scales and with electric vehicles. I am so proud to be part of a Labor government that is backing Australians to get training, to get jobs and to build their skills—the skills that our economy and our nation need. I am very proud to be part of a Labor government that is backing not just employment but good, secure employment. It's setting people up for jobs in those priority areas, so that people can make the things that we need to make, care for the people that we care about and build the houses that we need to make housing more affordable in this country.

This bill supports the administration of a VSL program, which is making vocational education and training more accessible to all Australians. As the Minister for Skills and Training said:

Our investment in Free TAFE and getting more apprentices into the workforce is testament to our commitment to ensure every Australian has an opportunity to attain higher education which leads to good, secure jobs.

When we look at what the Albanese government has been doing in the vocational education space and compare it to what we've seen from those across the chamber, the contrast couldn't be starker. We are investing in VET. We are investing in the future skills our country needs. And they, the opposition, have only been focused on taking down the cost of living.

I rise today to speak in strong support of the VET Student Loans (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2025. That might sound technical in nature, but it is in fact deeply grounded in fairness, integrity and opportunity. This bill goes to the heart of something deeply important to the people of Barton and to communities right across our wonderful country: ensuring that vocational education remains accessible, accountable and very much trusted.

In my electorate, families know the value of vocational education and training. Our nurses, aged-care workers, tradespeople, early-childhood educators, hospitality staff and emerging innovators are the backbone of our local economy and the backbone of our nation. When we invest in VET, we invest in our future workforce, in economic growth and in giving Australians—particularly young Australians, career changers and parents re-entering the workforce—a genuine pathway to skills and dignity through secure work. That is exactly what this Albanese Labor government is doing. But with investment comes responsibility to ensure our VET system is fair, transparent, modern and worthy of public trust. That's why this bill matters.

Let me be very clear about what this legislation does and why it's absolutely necessary. During a review of the administration of VET student loans, the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations identified that VET student loan providers had historically handled students' tax file numbers, even though that authority was not clearly set out in the VET Student Loans Act 2016. Now, I want to be absolutely clear—for the public, for students, for parents and for institutions—this was not misused. This was not misconduct. There were no student complaints, no privacy breaches and no adverse impacts on students or repayments. Providers acted in good faith, in line with practice and administrative expectations. The handling of tax file numbers was necessary to verify students and ensure loans and repayments could occur through the tax system. However, the legislative authorisation for that handling was not explicit.

Our government believes in doing things properly. We do not sweep things—particularly administrative gaps—under the rug; we work towards fixing them. This bill does three simple but very important things. One, it retrospectively authorises the handling of tax file numbers by VET student loan providers from 1 January 2017 to 30 September 2025. That gives providers and government offices legal certainty that their actions were valid and lawful. Two, it ensures that, from 1 October 2025, VET providers will no longer need to handle tax file numbers, because the government has now modernised the system, investing in secure digital automation to protect personal information. Three, it strengthens alignment between IT systems and legislation to safeguard privacy, improve modernisation and enhance trust in the VET student loans program. This is responsible, transparent and very considered policy-making. It fixes a gap, protects students, respects providers and strengthens public confidence.

This bill sits within a broader, principled Labor approach to vocational training that is grounded in restoring integrity to a system that was badly damaged by the previous coalition government. It was the former coalition government that oversaw the explosion of crooked private operators, the exploitation of vulnerable students, billions of dollars wasted and dodgy schemes targeting people hoping to build a better life. Students who were just looking to learn and prepare themselves for their careers were taken for an absolute ride. According to the Senate standing committee's report on VET student loans, a number of registered training organisations and their agents aggressively marketed courses to vulnerable people using high-pressure tactics including free laptops, claims of free training and guaranteed jobs. In turn, providers enrolled students into large loans for courses that were unnecessary for employment, had low completion rates or were of questionable relevance to the labour market. Not only did this create a huge liability for the Commonwealth but it damaged the reputation of the VET sector more broadly. And no wonder—it was dodgy, bad policy that hurt the most vulnerable in our community. Labor came in and cleaned it up through the VET Student Loans program. We are now continuing that work to make sure that the VET system remains trusted and strong. This bill reflects our approach: steady, responsible, student focused and forward looking.

For a loans system to function, trust matters. When taxpayers help fund a student's education, they deserve confidence that the system is fair, that repayments are handled accurately, that data is protected and that regulation keeps up with technology. This bill ensures that. It authorises, retrospectively and transparently, past handling of tax file numbers by approved providers, including TAFE and reputable registered training organisations. It also ensures that, from October this year, automated secure systems—not training providers—will handle tax file number transfers. This strikes the right balance, protecting students, maintaining loan integrity, supporting providers, complying with privacy rules and ensuring seamless loan administration. This is government doing its job, safeguarding integrity and modernising public systems responsibly.

The bill applies to current and former VET student loans providers, their staff—who handled tax file numbers in good faith—the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations, the Commissioner of Taxation, and relevant Commonwealth officers involved in administration. This does not give blanket immunity for wrongdoing. It validates legitimate administrative actions taken in good faith to support students. Strong privacy protections, security obligations, oversight mechanisms and criminal penalties for unauthorised disclosure remain in place.

VET is an economic imperative for our nation. Our workforce is rapidly evolving. We face skills shortages in nursing, aged care and disability support; shortages in construction, electrical trades, cybersecurity and tech; new industries emerging in advanced manufacturing, renewables and clean energy; and the growing need for retaining and upskilling as careers change. VET is the bridge between economic need and opportunity. VET student loans are a lifeline for thousands of Australians chasing skills and a better future.

In my electorate, the St George Kogarah TAFE campus and the administrative and teaching staff have been doing amazing work to upskill the next generation across various occupations. I must also highlight that I had the privilege of having the Treasurer and member for Rankin, Jim Chalmers, and the Minister for Skills and Training and member for Scullin, Andrew Giles, visiting the St George Kogarah TAFE campus, which has specialised facilities, such as simulated hospital settings. We had the opportunity to meet a number of students and teaching staff and learn more about their collaboration with local public hospitals, like the St George Hospital, to ensure we have the best-trained students to participate in our health sector.

Since July 2023, this government has invested $42.2 million to modernise the VET student loan system. This bill ensures that those investments land on a strong legislative foundation. It reminds me that TAFE campuses, like the St George TAFE in Kogarah and many more, are important assets in all of our communities. It ensures our students, our providers and our economy have stability and certainty.

This bill may be technical in nature, like I said earlier, but it has a purpose, a very clear purpose, and it is quite principled. It gives certainty and legal clarity to students, providers and governments to safeguard personal information and strengthen privacy, to modernise the VET loan system and to uphold integrity in education, which is one of the great enablers of Australia's prosperity and aspiration.

To every student in Barton and across this nation: we are building an education system worthy of your dreams. We will always defend your right to learn, to grow and to build a future with dignity and purpose. I commend the bill to the House.

I wish to address the House on the VET Student Loans (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2025, a bill that strengthens our vocational education system, ensures the integrity of student loan administration and delivers certainty for students, providers and the Commonwealth alike. This bill is not a headline-grabbing measure but is one that matters deeply to those who trust our system to work as it should. It's a technical bill with a very human purpose—to make sure that every student who relied on the VET student loan program since its commencement in 2017 can do so with confidence in the law and confidence in their privacy.

Our government is taking steps to fix a problem identified during a review conducted in the previous term of government, a problem that goes to the heart of how VET student loans were administered and how tax file numbers were handled under the 2016 act. That review revealed that the VET Student Loans Act 2016 did not explicitly authorise loan providers to handle student tax file numbers for the purpose of administering those loans. While the practice had been long established and no evidence of misuse ever arose, the legislation itself has not kept pace with the system it was designed to govern. That is why the Albanese Labor government has brought forward this bill—to make sure that alignment between our IT systems and our law is restored and to provide certainty where uncertainty once stood. This bill retrospectively authorises the handling of students' tax file numbers by VET student loan providers for the purpose of administering the program from 1 January 2017 to 30 September 2025. In doing so, it ensures that providers and Commonwealth officers alike can be confident that their past actions were lawful and necessary in the delivery of a program that has helped hundreds of thousands of Australians gain a qualification and build a career.

The Department of Employment and Workplace Relations has, since early 2025, made the technical changes required to modernise the system. The tax file numbers are now masked from providers and transferred automatically between relevant Commonwealth systems. That means, from 1 October 2025, providers will no longer need to handle TFNs at all. This is a simple but significant change, one that closes the loop between legislation, technology and practice. It is also a demonstration of what good governance looks like—identifying an administrative gap, consulting with providers, building a solution and enshrining it in law. A tax file number is not a small piece of information. It is the key that connects a student's loan to their future earnings and their repayment through the tax system. Without it, the integrity of the entire loan repayment framework could be compromised. So this bill recognises that reality—that a TFN is for accurate tracking, for fairness to taxpayers and for confidence in the system. At the same time, it ensures that personal data is handled with the utmost care and respect for privacy law and community expectation.

It is important to note there's never been a student complaint about the handling of TFNs in the VET Student Loans program since its commencement in 2017. That is not by accident. It is because providers have been operating under strict security controls and integrity safeguards from the outset. Those safeguards include compliance with use and disclosure provisions under the VET Student Loans Act, rigorous approval processes to become an approved provider and mandatory notification of any data breach involving student information. The bill before us does not remove or weaken these safeguards; it cements them and confirms that they were lawfully applied from the beginning. It will apply to all current and former VET student loan providers and their officers who handled students' TFNs in good faith to administer loan applications and repayments prior to 1 October 2025. It will also cover the Secretary of the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations, the Commissioner of Taxation and other Commonwealth officers involved in the process. In other words, this bill draws a clear line under the past and sets a clear standard for the future.

The department has communicated with providers throughout this process, keeping them informed about the IT changes, about the policy intent and about this legislation. This has been an example of good-faith collaboration between government and industry, the kind of practical problem-solving that is too often overlooked but which keeps our systems running smoothly. Behind every technical fix like this are real students, real trainers and real providers trying to get on with the job of building skills and careers.

For those listening who might not be familiar with what a VET Student Loans provider is, they are registered training organisations approved by the Australian government to deliver VSL-approved courses. That includes our TAFEs, the bedrock of Australian skills and training, and also private colleges that meet the standards set by the Commonwealth. Together, they make up the network that trained electricians, nurses, childcare workers, fitters, technicians and hundreds of other skilled Australians who keep this country running. These are the people training the next generation of workers for the renewable energy sector, for aged care, for construction and manufacturing—industries that define the economy of tomorrow. The bill before us commences the day after it receives royal assent, but its provisions will apply retrospectively from 1 January 2017 to 30 September 2025, a clear and comprehensive window covering the life of the program to date.

The department at first learned of this problem through its routine review of how VET student loans were administered. Officials identified that the legislation did not clearly authorise the handling of tax file numbers by providers, despite the fact that the practice was necessary and well-controlled. The review recommended stronger alignment between relevant IT systems and the law, and that is precisely what we are now delivering. It is a measure of good administration that when issues are identified, they are addressed promptly and openly, and that is exactly what this government is doing.

The bill also formally authorises the department's past disclosure of TFNs to providers for the same lawful purpose. After 1 October 2025, no VET student loans provider will be authorised to handle a student tax file numbers, because the system will have fully transitioned to automated data transfer between Commonwealth agencies. That is a positive evolution. It protects privacy, simplifies administration and reduces risks for all involved. Since early 2025, the department has rolled out these updates to its IT systems, a modern approach to data security that meets the expectations of students today. This has been backed by a $42.2 million investment over four years to build a modernised VET student loans IT system, one that will be fully operational from 2026 and will strengthen every aspect of the program's administration. That new system will underpin faster assessments, smarter payments and stronger integrity, ensuring that public funds are well spent and students are well served.

For students, the impact of this bill is simple—continuity, certainty, confidence. The way students apply for a VET student loan will not change. They will continue to use the electronic Commonwealth assistance form, just as they do now. Their tax file number will continue to be required because it is the link between their loan and their tax record but they can be assured that is protected by modern IT architecture and clear legislative authority. If any student does have a concern about the use of their tax file number, they can contact the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations or the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner, but I reiterate: such misuse has never been reported.

The VET Student Loans program is a cornerstone of our training system. It enables Australians to undertake vocational education and training without the immediate burden of upfront fees through an income contingent loan that is fair, accessible and sustainable. It means that a student in my electorate can enrol in a Elizabeth or Salisbury TAFE course today, gain a qualification, find a secure job and repay their loans through the tax system once they are earning a good income. That is how a fair society builds its skill base, by removing barriers to education and backing people to succeed.

The program also supports national priorities, addressing skills shortages and engineering, construction, health care and occupational licensing trades that are vital to our economic growth. It aligns training supply with industry demand, a practical example of how policy can serve both people and productivity. It ensures opportunities not just those for those who can afford it upfront but for everyone willing to work hard to build a career. Without programs like VET Student Loans, tens of thousands of Australians would never have had the chance to study a trade, a technical qualification or a diploma that changed their lives. And without those graduates, Australian businesses would be facing even greater skills shortages than they do today. That is why this bill is so important. It protects the integrity of a program that is central to our future.

Now, it would be fair to ask why VET student loans require such careful handling of tax file numbers when students in the higher education sector provide theirs routinely. The answer is that the VET Student Loans program and the Higher Education Loan Program are governed by different legislation, the VET Student Loans Act 2016 and the Higher Education Support Act 2003. Each framework has its own data-handling arrangements, and this bill ensures that the VSL framework is now as clear and as comprehensive as its counterpart in higher education. It brings consistency and certainty, both vital to the confidence of students and providers alike. In a broader sense, it also reflects the values of this government that integrity in public administration is non-negotiable and that every student has the right to know that their personal information is safe and their loan is secure.

There is nothing more fundamental to good government than accountability and trust. When people hand over their personal information, especially something as sensitive as a tax file number, they are placing their trust in a system that serves them. They trust that their data will be handled lawfully, used only for the purpose for which it was given and protected against misuse. They also trust that, if something goes wrong, their government will not hide from it but will act to put it right. That is precisely what this bill does. It acknowledges an administrative gap that should never have existed and closes its transparently, decisively and permanently. It ensures that neither providers nor students are left exposed because of a technical oversight in the original act.

This sends a clear message that, when issues arise, the Albanese Labor government deals with them head on, with honesty, integrity and action, and that, importantly, it does so without disruption to students, without cost to providers and without undermining the stability of the system. It restores confidence that, when you apply for a VET student loan, your data is protected and your loan is administered under clear, lawful authority. It also restores confidence to providers, who can continue to focus on what they do best: deliver quality education and training to the Australian workforce.

Vocational education and training is at the heart of the Future Made in Australia agenda. It is how we equip our people with the skills to fill the jobs of the future in the clean energy, advanced manufacturing, defence industry and care sectors. Programs like VET Student Loans make that possible by ensuring that cost is not a barrier to opportunity. This is particularly true for communities like those in Adelaide's north. In the electorate of Spence, where access to affordable training means access to local jobs and lifelong security, it means that a young person who starts welding at TAFE SA in Elizabeth can take up work in one of the growing defence and manufacturing facilities across northern Adelaide. It means that mature-age workers can reskill into emerging industries like renewable technologies or advanced manufacturing without being deterred by upfront fees. It means that our regional training providers can continue to deliver high-quality, industry-relevant courses, knowing that the student loan framework supporting them is sound.

I commend the VET Student Loans (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2025 to the House as a bill that strengthens our education system, protects our students and upholds the integrity of public administration in Australia. When we build trust in our systems, we build confidence in our institutions, and when we build confidence in our institutions, we build a stronger, fairer and more skilled nation. In closing, I have been the very good benefactor of a VET provided course. It gave me a 10-year career at sea that I loved, and I know, Deputy Speaker Small, that you are a man of the sea as well.

To all those young people out there who are considering what they do next after their year 12 exams over the coming weeks: there is nothing wrong with taking the pathway towards a trade. It is an honest job. It gives you a great sense of purpose. You'll be able to put a roof over your head and provide for your family. There's nothing shameful about that. There's only honour to be found in pursuing a trade, so get to it, everybody out there.

Full ahead indeed!

I rise today to speak in support of the VET Student Loans (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2025 put forward by the Minister for Skills and Training, and I commend him for doing so. To build Australia's future, we need vocational education and training. We need VET to solve big national challenges in the labour market. There's no doubt we have a need for greater housing supply, for more workers in early education and aged care and for skilled technical workers to support the transition to net zero. That's right—net zero. That's because we on this side of the House actually believe in climate change and we want to prepare our country for a changing climate.

If we as a country are going to rise to these challenges, we need to ensure that the VET programs that support us are as strong as possible, that VET is accessible to people regardless of their means and that the programs supporting VET have the social licence to operate. Our work in this space started by putting TAFE back at the heart of Australia's vocational education and training sector. We did this because TAFE is vital for the next generation of skilled workers. For too long, students studied courses or undertook training that did not lead to secure jobs or the skills that employers need. Jobs and Skills Australia is the body established by this government to provide independent advice on workforce skills and training needs. This group quickly identified that we must address the disconnect between what students are studying now and where jobs and skills of the future will be. Since then, we have undertaken a massive piece of work to strengthen vocational education and training in Australia and to ensure that students are studying and training in the skills that will be vital for our future. This bill is another step in our broader efforts to ensure that Australia is equipped with the skilled workforce we will need for the future.

The bill before us is about ensuring that the VET Student Loans Act and the administration of the VET Student Loans program are aligned. Last year, the VET Student Loans program assisted more than 24,000 VET students to pay their student loans. VSL providers currently need to handle student tax file numbers, with TFNs being essential for ensuring students loan application details match with their ATO accounts. During a review of this program's administration, the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations identified that there wasn't a clear role in the legislation for VSL providers to handle students TFNs. The bill before us today clarifies the basis for this necessary practice and, in this way, ensures the program remains compliant while being accessible to students.

So, in essence, this bill is about two things. It's about safeguarding student loans for VET students, and it's about strengthening confidence in government by paying attention to detail and making sure every process is up to standard. The VET Student Loans program is an important part of the education policy landscape in Australia. It commenced in 2017 and was passed with bipartisan support. It was an overhaul of the previous system, strengthening integrity and oversight and restoring confidence and trust in loans for VET students. Since this program was implemented, more than 324,000 VET students have accessed loans. That's 324,000 VET students trained in trades, technical skills, engineering, nursing, early childhood education and more. That's 324,000 more opportunities to help build Australia's future and critical skills.

This bill, which addresses a misalignment between the program's legislation and its administration, is important for a number of reasons. It strengthens the administration of the VET Student Loans program, a program that has been and will continue to be instrumental in building the skilled workforce Australia needs. VET student loans make vocational education and training more accessible to Australians and ensure that Australia has enough skilled workers to meet industry demand and address skills shortages across critical industries.

A study conducted by Jobs and Skills Australia last year confirmed that many of Australia's current job shortages in trades, care and education roles rely on the VET system and its workforce to teach and train future workers. Australia has persistent shortages in tradies and technicians, as well as community and personal service workers, including aged-care workers, disability support workers, childcare workers and nurses. As we strive to increase housing supply, care for our ageing population and ensure that our children receive the best start in life, these workers will be even more critical. For the future of our country, it's imperative that we ensure that the supply meets the demand for these workers, and safeguarding our VET Student Loans program, which gets people into VET courses regardless of their means, is a core piece of this puzzle.

But the importance of the VET Student Loans program doesn't end there. Trades are a really important part of my electorate of Gorton. More than 13 per cent of my constituents are technicians and tradies. More than 10 per cent of my constituents are machine operators and drivers. Another 10 per cent are labourers. And, at the last count, more than 3½ thousand of my constituents were studying in a vocational education institution.

Apprenticeships change lives. They connect students with employers, while building confidence and ambition. I recently visited CMV Truck & Bus in Derrimut with the Minister for Skills and Training and met a number of these amazing apprentices. CMV Truck & Bus have a fantastic program supporting 103 diesel mechanic apprentices across their operation, including 34 in Derrimut in my electorate. They're training the next generation of vehicle technicians. Free TAFE and good employers like CMV Truck & Bus make dreams like this a reality for so many young people in my community.

I previously worked in education policy. We reformed the Victorian Certificate of Applied Learning to become the VCE Vocational Major, providing students with practical skills, hands-on experience and a pathway to further education. Bringing this pathway into the VCE was much more than a name change or a rebrand. It reformed the curriculum to ensure that there was an option within VCE that focuses on vocational and applied learning.

We have some incredible school based VET programs as well, we students are taking up hands-on subjects like automotive, engineering studies, building and construction, hair and beauty, and so much. I recently visited Catholic Regional College in Sydenham, a fantastic local school in my electorate that has a VET hospitality program and a VET food processing program. Their teachers and kitchen facilities at the school are incredible. They're able to provide commercial catering at local events through these student programs. They're learning the hands-on skills while they're still completing school so that they can go on to do TAFE or go straight into work. CRC Sydenham also has a great VET Salon Assistant program and has offered me a haircut one of these days, which I'm very much looking forward to. CRC is just one example, but there are so many schools in the western suburbs of Melbourne that have embedded the need for hands-on learning in everything they do. This sets our students up for success in whatever they choose to do.

This bill, which ensures confidence in our VET Student Loans program, is part of Labor's larger commitment to education. Labor is the party of quality and accessible education, and in our commitment to education we're leaving no stone unturned. We've locked in 100,000 free TAFE places each year, from 2027. We've cut 20 per cent off all student debts, and we'll raise the minimum repayment threshold    so that repayments are lower and only kick in when you earn more.

Our 20 per cent reduction of student debts will benefit VET students in particular, applying to more than 280,000 VET Student Loans and Australian Apprenticeship Support Loan accounts. It'll cut more than $500 million from VET Student Loans and Australian Apprenticeship Support Loan balances, giving VET students a leg-up when they enter the workforce. We're working on all levels of education. We're committing $16½ billion to fully fund all public schools over the next 10 years, tied to real and practical reforms. We've legislated paid prac payments for teaching students to help with the cost of placements. We're giving early education and care workers a pay rise. We're subsidising additional hours of care for about 100,000 families under the three-day childcare guarantee. And we're putting TAFE back at the centre of Australia's vocational education and training sector.

We passed the Free TAFE Bill, which has seen more than 685,000 enrolments in free TAFE. The Leader of the Opposition famously said, 'When you don't pay for something, you don't value it.' Tell that to the 685,000 people taking up free TAFE around Australia. Tell that to the 1,420 apprentices in my electorate who are in training, right now, thanks to free TAFE. They include my husband Chris, who was able to make a career change later in life as a result of Labor's free TAFE. He's a mature-age electrical apprentice who studies at Victoria University in Sunshine a day a week while completing his apprenticeship with a third-generation small business called Rizzo Electrical in Airport West.

Free TAFE is life-changing for so many families, including mine. Frankly, it shows how out of touch those opposite really are. They voted against training more tradies to build the houses we need for our growing communities. They voted against the cost-of-living relief that free TAFE provides for so many Australians, particularly in the outer suburbs. They are out of touch with the needs and interests of suburban families, while we on this side of the House are doing everything we can to help Australians get better jobs with higher wages and give educational opportunities to Australians that would otherwise miss out.

Labor is the party of education and we are building on our commitment to education with this bill. The bill is important because it works towards ensuring the administration of crucial programs like the VET Student Loans program is compliant and administered with integrity. We know that trust in government isn't where it should be. It's been eroded over the last decade when those opposite were in government—those opposite, who presided over robodebt; those opposite, whose former leader swore himself into five additional ministries during his term without even informing his own cabinet, much less the public; and who voted against things that are making a real difference to Australians, like energy bill relief, cheaper child care, cheaper medicines, and cheaper health care.

When the Albanese Labor government came to power in 2022, we promised Australians we would make government work for them, not the other way around—no more secrecy, no more scandal—and we have delivered key pieces of legislation to give Australians confidence that government does work for them, that our democracy is by the people, for the people, as it was intended. We have created the National Anti-Corruption Commission, the first of its nature in Australia's history. We strengthened protections for public sector whistleblowers. We have committed to releasing an annual report on trust in the Public Service to increase transparency and trust in public servants. We are delivering on the things Australians care about—cost of living, housing and education, Medicare—and putting real outcomes for Australians first. With this bill, we are ensuring the programs and processes that bring out real outcomes for Australians are compliant and administered with integrity, down to the very last detail.

The bill before us today speaks to who we are as a Labor government. We are a government that pays attention to detail, that acts on advice from the Public Service, that knows the importance of integrity and transparency in everything we do, that wants to build confidence and improve trust in government, and wants to earn that trust by doing right by Australians. We are a government that invests in Australians—our people—unlike the opposition, who believe that if you don't pay for something, you don't value it. We know that when we invest in our people, our society, our economy and our future all benefit, many times over. We are a government that cares about what makes a real difference to the lives of Australians—cost of living measures, Medicare, affordable housing—and a government that knows the transformative quality of access to education, not just for individuals but for all of Australia. I commend the bill to the House.

The VET Student Loans (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2025 we are considering is important because vocational educational training plays a huge role in building the skilled workforce Australia needs now and will need in the future. We are taking steps to fix a problem identified during a review of how these VET student loans are administered. We have taken action to ensure an issue that emerged is resolved, and that there is certainty the students and providers. The bill is a fix for where the VET student loan providers were handling tax file numbers and it wasn't authorised in the legislation for that to happen. Tax file numbers are an essential piece of information for administering the loans program of this kind, so this is why the Albanese government is bringing forward the VET Student Loans (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill to fix the problem.

The bill will retrospectively authorise the student loan providers who are handling the tax file numbers to do that. The bill will also provide certainty to providers and government offices that their past handling of students' tax file numbers for the loans scheme was lawful. There is absolutely no change to the way students apply for VET student loans using the electronic Commonwealth assistance form.

This might seem like a pretty minor piece of legislation but it achieves a number of things. It underpins the VET Student Loans program, which makes vocational education and training more accessible to Australians by providing opportunities for students to do a VET course at the diploma level and above and defer the payment of tuition fees through an income contingent loan. This program really helps to address skills shortages across industries involving science, technology, engineering or maths and occupational licensing trades, among many others.

The Albanese Labor government is building Australia's future and boosting the workforce that we need to deliver it. We're investing in priority occupations and creating a modern, adaptable apprenticeship system, which is critical to the nation's future prosperity and productivity. Without programs such as the VET Student Loans, many students wouldn't have the opportunity to undertake tertiary studies. Australian businesses and the economy would miss out on those skills that VET students and alumni bring to all our industries. It's worth thinking about the number of people who are doing apprenticeships. If I look at my own electorate of Macquarie, there are nearly 1,800 students currently undertaking training in the VET scheme. I should point out my neighbours have pretty good levels, too. In Lindsay, there are 2,365 people. These are the most recent figures for the last year of people doing training. My neighbour to the north, the Hunter, has 3,500 people. Calare to my west has nearly 3,000 people. Those are significant numbers.

The top 20 list of TAFE enrolments also tells a story. The second highest on that list is the Certificate III in Early Childhood Education and Care, and this is the data for New South Wales. Wentworth Falls in my electorate offers that course, and it is terrific to see how many people are taking it up. Also on that list is the Diploma of Early Childhood Education and Care, also taught at Wentworth Falls. Both of those are vital for providing the staff we need for our early education centres, because kids need to have really qualified educators to take them through those very formative years. I also note that Certificate IV in mental health and Certificate IV in Entrepreneurship and New Business both make it into the top 20 courses in New South Wales, and that is a really good sign for future employers. It shows what young people and maybe older people are interested in pursuing. I also note that, when I look at the key sectors, the top two courses in the agricultural sector are Certificate II in Animal Care and Certificate III in Horticulture, and both of these are courses offered by the wonderful Richmond TAFE.

The key to the revival of TAFE has been free TAFE. Only Labor is the party that believes in free TAFE; those opposite do not. Delivering cost-of-living relief and valuable skills to Australians is a priority for the Albanese government, which is why we passed the free TAFE bill, as well as announcing the $10,000 incentive payment for Australians who want to become a housing apprentice. So let's talk about free TAFE. There have been more than 685,000 enrolments under free TAFE. That's 685,000 opportunities to help build Australia's future in critical skills, like the care and disability courses, which have seen more than 186,000 enrolments. In technology and digital, there have been more than 65,000 enrolments. The total figure for the early-childhood education and care sector has been more than 53,000 enrolments. And that shows where people are picking up. I should point out that, under free TAFE, a student training in Cert III in Early Childhood Education and Care in New South Wales can save up to an estimated $1,930 dollars in their training. That is absolutely cost-of-living relief. There are also more than 52,000 apprentices in construction courses, with that number set to grow thanks to the investment in more places in such an important sector. I note that, in the Hawkesbury and the Blue Mountains, the construction sector will be feeling the benefit of this. The construction industry has the largest number of total registered businesses in the Hawkesbury, part of my electorate, comprising nearly 30 per cent of the total. The construction industry in the Blue Mountains is nearly 20 per cent of all registered businesses. Emu Plains, of course, has its fair share of construction businesses, like PAAL homes, who I visited earlier this year. So workers for this sector are essential, and cost shouldn't be a barrier. We have given special focus to the housing sector because of the catching up that we have to do to have enough workers to meet the additional housing supply and make up for what hasn't been done in the past decade or so.

Cutting 20 per cent of student debt also applies to those who have incurred fees as vocational education and training students. The one-off reduction to student debts will apply to more than 280,000 VET students and Australian apprenticeship support loan accounts, which represents about seven per cent of all income-contingent loan accounts that are administered by the government. This measure to cut 20 per cent of debt is going to get rid of more than $500 million from the loan balances of VET students and apprentices. That's a big figure. It's great to be able to provide that sort of relief to people.

There are a couple of ways we've really incentivised apprentices to work in the housing sector. The additional $10,000 in financial incentives that kicked in from 1 July is one of those. That is our Key Apprenticeship Program, which includes a housing construction apprenticeship stream. We've also extended by six months, to the end of this year, the Australian apprentice training support payment and priority hiring incentive, which is providing up to $5,000 to apprentices and employers in priority occupations. Plus there's an increase to the living-away-from-home allowance from July this year, which helps apprentices who need to relocate for their apprenticeship. I know apprentices value the opportunity to learn and earn at the same time and that they appreciate the training that they receive both off and on the job, but we know that they do experience cost-of-living pressures and so I'm very pleased to see the steps that we are taking.

The final thing I'd like to point to is the overall investment that we have made and the overall impact it's having. Data from the national VET data custodian, the National Centre for Vocational Education Research, shows that apprentice numbers are up under the Albanese Labor government in comparison to 2019 figures. Those are the pre-COVID figures. We need to be fair about this. The government is investing $1.4 billion in supporting apprenticeships over 2025-26. In the last financial year, more than 62,000 employers and 119,000 apprentices have received incentive payments. The data is showing that our strategy to rebalance the apprenticeship system towards priority occupations that are critical to our current and future workforce needs is working. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned.

Last month was National Mental Health Month. The theme of the month was 'Building Resilience: Communities and Connections'. I've got a fair bit to reflect on in this area for my own electorate, which includes Darwin and Palmerston. I have the privilege to serve Territorians along with, across the Territory, my colleagues the member for Lingiari, Marion Scrymgour, and the minister, Malarndirri McCarthy. They are doing important work in this area as well. I want to acknowledge their work upfront. We have the aim in the Territory, working federally with all stakeholders, of improving mental health for all Territorians.

I particularly want to thank some of my colleagues, including the member for Hunter, Dan Repacholi, the Special Envoy for Men's Health, who made the trek up to Solomon. We had great meetings with a range of stakeholders that are focused on men's health and male health, including, of course, young men and boys. Dan's appointment as the Special Envoy for Men's Health underlines how our government is giving this the attention that it needs, and he is doing a sterling job. Many would have seen him shave off his voluptuous beard to raise money for charity for men's health related works. I congratulate him for everything that he's doing in that special envoy role. His message is the message of all of us, including the fantastic member for Spence, who also does great work in Adelaide, in the north of Adelaide and in South Australia generally in men's health.

We do need to break down unhealthy masculine stereotypes of stoicism and bravado to encourage young men to access services and seek help when required. This is particular important for mental health. Often we see great examples of men reaching out for mental health support, showing that getting that assistance is actually strength. In Darwin, we joined a men's health roundtable, which really highlighted all the fantastic things that a whole range of stakeholders are doing in the Territory. We talked about healthy masculinity, the progress of concepts of manhood and the engagement of young man in particular. But we're also putting our money where our mouth is, in terms of programs in my electorate that are working with teenage boys in particular, and I'll touch on those briefly.

At the other end of the spectrum, it's not that men's sheds are only for senior men; they're there for a whole age range of men. The men's shedders were at ShedFEST NT, which was hosted by the Australian Men's Sheds Association. It got all the men's sheds from around the Territory together up in Darwin. It was great to go along to that with Special Envoy Repacholi. It's a great way of getting men in a place where they can connect and chat. It's a safe space. They get to work on projects, share skills and connect.

I mentioned our programs with young men and boys aged 12 to 18. Grassroots Action Palmerston has a program called Turtle Back. We have funded them to come up with a learning and leadership centre that they are putting into action. I've visited them and the physical infrastructure is going in. They're going to be working with young boys—in particular, those who have been exposed to family violence when growing up—and giving them the skills, support and encouragement to break those cycles. It's a very important program. It will work with boys from all backgrounds, but, particularly with the First Nations young men and boys, it is done in the culturally safe and appropriate way.

When we talk about mental health, we know that a lot of damage is caused through eating disorders. In September, with my friend and colleague, the Assistant Minister for Mental Health and Suicide Prevention, Emma McBride, I hosted the Northern Territory Eating Disorder Roundtable with Eating Disorders Families Australia, led by Jane Rowan. I want to thank all the frontline practitioners, the NT Health people and the system leaders who came together to identify solutions that are going to strengthen our support in the Northern Territory for Territorians with eating disorders or difficulties managing their relationship with food. It was really positive. That was highlighted by everyone.

While the assistant minister was there, we also visited headspace. We've given them increased funding, so the Darwin headspace will become a headspace Plus. We also visited the Medicare mental health centre, which has also got extended hours now. Thank you to all those mental health professionals that are doing such fantastic work.

Just finally, I want to touch on a couple of important things. One is the leadership role that our government is taking to protect young children and teenagers under the age of 16 from the harms that social media incurs, giving them time to develop the tools to be able to manage that space more effectively and more safely. From 10 December, certain social media platforms will need to take steps to make sure that under-16-year-olds aren't able to have an account.

One of the things I'm very proud to be working on with the member for Spence and others is veteran and ADF mental health. We pushed hard for a royal commission when we were not government. The royal commission is done. The recommendations have been laid down. We're getting after implementing those recommendations. We're engaging with stakeholders to make sure that everyone who puts their hand up to wear our flag proudly is provided with the best possible support and care. That is important for our mental health responsibilities as the responsible 'mental health and men's health and all sorts of health' government that we are.

The sad reality is that one in five Australians have delayed or avoided seeing a mental health professional due to cost. The national mental health report card released in July paints a bleak picture of mental health in this country. The latest National Study of Mental Health and Wellbeing shows that in 2020-22, an estimated 4.3 million people aged 16 to 85 had experienced a mental health disorder in the previous 12 months. The prevalence of mental health conditions increased in young people aged 16 to 24 from 25.8 per cent in 2006 to 38.8 per cent in 2022. Signs of financial distress are elevated, rising from 17.1 per cent in 2020 to 34.6 per cent in 2024. While more people are seeking treatment than they used to, treatment rates are still well below current targets. Clinical outcomes from public mental health services are not improving, nor are outcomes for those discharged from psychiatric care.

Mental ill health has a real impact on individuals, families and communities but also on our nation. The Productivity Commission showed that the direct economic cost of mental ill health and suicide in Australia is estimated at $43 billion to $70 billion a year in expenditure and lower economic productivity. Mental health reform is critically important to our nation's social and economic success, but unfortunately it seems to have been forgotten by this government.

In my community, the government has completely abandoned mental health supports, particularly for our youth. The former Liberal government funded the Lilydale Youth Hub, a local service that provided mental health and social support for young people right across Casey. Upon coming to government Labor has failed to fund the hub, causing it to close down. This is a gap in service that has not been filled in my community. While local headspace offices in Lilydale and Knox provide amazing support to young people, they are at capacity.

On top of this, the government cut the number of Medicare subsidised mental health sessions Australians can access from 20 sessions to just 10. They halved supports when Australians needed them the most. You will hear this government talk a lot about Medicare, but they don't talk about the mental health supports that were cut under their watch. They cut this funding for mental health support despite a report by the University of Melbourne that found that 20 sessions should stay. Page 328 of the University of Melbourne's main report of the evaluation of the Better Access initiative says:

On balance, the evidence from the evaluation suggests that the additional 10 sessions should continue to be made available …

Ten to 20 is significant. Ten sessions gives you roughly an appointment every five to six weeks. Twenty sessions gives you that every two to three weeks as you need that support. What this government is saying is that your credit card and your bank balance will determine the mental health support you get in Australia.

Every time the Prime Minister stands up with his little stunt of holding a Medicare card, it is a slap in the face to every Australian that needs mental health support. It is a slap in the face, because they halved those sessions. If you were going to stand up as the Prime Minister and claim credit with your card—which isn't even true. Everyone knows you need more than your Medicare card; you need your credit card as well. He'll claim credit for that while he cuts sessions for mental health support. What hypocrisy! At a time as I have gone through and when so many Australians are struggling—coming out of COVID, coming out of lockdowns and experiencing financial stress.

The Prime Minister says 'no-one left behind', but he has left behind every Australian that doesn't have the bank balance to afford the mental health support that they need. It is rank hypocrisy from this prime minister, who is happy to stand up and take credit, but won't take responsibility when he cuts such a needed service for the Australian people. Those opposite don't like to talk about that, but they are the facts. This prime minister cut it when the Australian people needed it.

I recently had a young man walk into my electorate office. He wanted advice on where he could find support. He was in his mid-20s. He was too old to be seen by the local Headspace services, but was unable to access support elsewhere. Local services are at capacity and waitlists to see a psychologist are lengthy. Unfortunately mental ill-health is often exacerbated because locals can't find support. This would be a similar story across the nation. Last week I received an email from Emily from Healesville. She said:

Waiting times to see psychologists are too long and people need to be able to see a professional whenever it is needed to support their journey.

Many people can't afford to pay their bills and meet their mortgage repayments let alone find $200 for a psychology appointment. Mental health appointments are the first cost saving in many budgets. But, ironically, good mental health is what people need in order to deal with these difficult times. The Labor government, as I have said, have cut the number of Medicare funded mental health sessions Australians can access from 20 to 10, and it's no wonder Australians are doing it tough and mental illnesses are soaring. We're seeing statistics increase but nothing changes.

Enough is enough. It's time for the government to take mental health reform seriously and ensure Australians have the ability to improve their wellbeing and their work, study and contribution to society to the full extent of their passion and potential. When the individual is strong, the family is strong and then the community is strong, and, when we have strong communities all across the nation, we have a strong country. But, when it comes to mental health support in this country, the facts are the facts and they can't be denied. This prime minister has let down the Australian people.

October was Mental Health Month, which is an opportunity for every one of us to reflect on the importance of mental health care, access, dignity and hope in every Australian community. In the electorate of Spence these words carry meaning, because we are delivering the services that our community has asked for. They are services that are saving lives, supporting families and reaching people earlier—before crisis sets in.

This government, this parliament and this community understand that mental health care is not a luxury; it is a core part of our health system, and a foundation of a fair and caring society. That is why the Albanese Labor government is delivering more mental health care in the part of the community where people live, work, study and raise families. We made a historic commitment of $1.1 billion at the last election to deliver free walk-in mental health services across the country and to build mental health systems that meet people where they are no matter their postcode, age or income. This funding supports new and expanded services across the full lifespan, from early childhood through adolescence into parenthood and beyond. It is a vision backed by action. Nowhere is that clearer than in my electorate.

In the northern suburbs we have delivered the Northern Adelaide Medicare Mental Health Centre, located in the heart of Elizabeth. This service offers free walk-in mental health support seven days a week, with extended hours—no appointment, no referral and no gap fees. It brings together a multidisciplinary team—psychologists and social workers, mental health workers and peer workers—all working together to provide wraparound care. People in crisis can walk through the door and know they will be treated with dignity, compassion and professionalism, people like Ruth, who said, 'I'm 55 and I cannot thank Northern Adelaide Medicare Mental Health Centre enough. I was listened to and supported with no judgement, and talked with a peer worker with lived experience. I finally found a place for me. They get me and they understand me.' That is what community based care looks like and that is what our government is delivering, but we didn't stop there.

Mental Health Month is also Youth Mental Health Month, and I'm proud to confirm in this place that Gawler will soon have its own Headspace service. The Gawler Headspace centre will open its doors in coming weeks, so stay tuned closely for that announcement. This is a major win for young people across the Gawler region and is something the community has fought for for many years. Young people aged 12 to 25 will now be able to access support for the mental health and wellbeing free of charge and close to home. They won't need to travel to the city or wait in long queues or pay out-of-pocket gap fees for basic support. Most importantly, they will be able to walk into a service that understands them, listens to them and provides tailored help.

We also continue to support Headspace Edinburgh North, another vital part of our youth mental health system. On Headspace Day, 9 October, we announced another $275,000 in funding for the Edinburgh North site to upgrade facilities, improve accessibility and enhance IT capacity. That investment will ensure the service remains modern, fit for purpose and able to respond to increasing demand. It sends a clear message that we don't just open centres and walk away; we continue to support and strengthen them over time.

Supporting the next generation means supporting new and expectant parents, because the mental health journey begins well before birth. That's why I'm proud that Elizabeth will be home to one of Australia's new perinatal mental health centres. These centres are purpose-built to support new and expectant mums and dads during what can be a beautiful but vulnerable time. Many parents experience as anxiety, depression or emotional distress during the perinatal period, and they often feel isolated, guilty or unsure where to turn. Our perinatal mental health centre in Elizabeth will provide that support in a welcoming, nonjudgemental way.

All of this reflects a broader commitment to mental health system that is free, local, accessible and compassionate. Across the country we are delivering 91 Medicare Mental Health Centres for walk-in multidisciplinary care, 20 perinatal mental health centres including Elizabeth, 17 mental health kids hubs providing emotional and behavioural support for children, and 203 Headspace services supporting the mental wellbeing of young people aged 12 to 25.

But we know the future of mental health also lies in early intervention. That's why from early next year we will launch a new national early intervention service. This will provide free phone and online mental health support staffed by trained professionals for people experiencing distress, anxiety or early signs of illness. It is expected to support more than 150,000 Australians a year. It will fill a gap between prevention and crisis, offering care at the first sign of struggle. This model reflects modern life, where people need flexible access to care—after hours, online and without barriers. It's about meeting Australians where they are and making it as easy as possible for them to get help.

We also know that more access requires more people. That's why we're investing in the mental health workforce across every level of the system. That includes over 4,000 scholarships, internships and training places for psychology students to build the next generation of clinicians. It includes investing in social workers, occupational therapists, peer workers and GPs, to make sure every professional has the tools and training they need. And it includes valuing lived experience—not as an afterthought, but as a vital part of recovery and care.

Next year, we will establish a Peer Workforce Association, to recognise, professionalise and support the peer workforce across Australia. We'll also conduct the first-ever census of the peer workforce, to better understand how to support and expand this vital group, because someone who's been through the system and knows what it feels like to struggle can offer something powerful: empathy, trust, and hope. That word 'hope' is at the heart of everything we're doing: hope for young people who feel like the walls are closing in; hope for parents who don't know how to support their child; hope for workers managing stress, burnout or trauma; hope for men who feel they have no-one to talk to, and for women who carry too much, too silently—hope that if you reach out there'll be someone there to listen to you.

This month, many Australians will grow a moustache for Movember, to raise awareness of men's mental health, suicide prevention and early intervention. It's a reminder that behind every face is a story, a struggle and a community. Initiatives like Beyond Blue, Lifeline, Kids Helpline and 13YARN also play a vital role in helping people to stay connected and supported. But our job as a parliament is to ensure that government does its part too, by investing in services before crisis strikes and reducing wait times; eliminating gap fees and making help easier to access; building a system that is community based, culturally safe and evidence-informed; supporting First Nations led mental health services, because the journey to healing must be grounded in voice, culture and self-determination; continuing to listen to young people, parents, clinicians and those with lived experience; treating mental health not as a line item in a budget but as a fundamental component of Australia's social fabric; and embedding mental health care into our health system in the same way we do for physical injuries or chronic disease—because mental health is health and because no Australian should ever feel alone, ashamed or unsupported when they're doing it tough.

In the north, we're showing what it means to put these words into action. We've opened new doors in Elizabeth, Gawler and Edinburgh North, where we're creating new pathways for young people, for parents and for those who just need someone to talk to. We're investing in new futures, where care is accessible, recovery is possible and support is never out of reach. That's the difference good government makes. That's what it means to strengthen Medicare and restore integrity to our mental health system and that's what we will continue to deliver, not just during Mental Health Month but every day.

I commend our government's work and reaffirm our shared commitment to the mental health of every Australian in every corner of the country. Don't forget to check in on your friends and family, but, most importantly, don't forget to check in on yourself and give yourself the care you might need to feel okay.

I rise today to speak on this important motion. Mental health is one of the defining challenges of our time. It reaches into every home, every school and every workplace, and it is something that government simply cannot afford to get wrong. We all know someone who has been or is struggling. It's the young person who can't get the right support at school, the parent quietly carrying a heavy burden or the colleague who suffers in silence.

Our country is facing a mental health epidemic. According to the ABS, around one in five Australians experience a mental or behavioural condition each year. Rates of psychological distress have never been higher, and yet access to help has never been harder. Despite billions in federal investment, outcomes are going backwards. Children are waiting months for appointments, and families are being pushed to breaking point. Communities are crying out for help, but under this Labor government the system is going in reverse.

The system under Labor is completely backwards. We saw it when Labor cut Medicare subsidised psychology sessions in half, a lifeline that thousands of Australians relied upon. They took away something that was working, leaving vulnerable families to fend for themselves. In my own electorate of McPherson, the need is undeniable. Nearly eight per cent of locals live with a long-term mental health condition and more than one in five report a mental or behavioural disorder. Behind each statistic is a person, a family or a community trying to hold it together.

Deputy Speaker Small, as you will well and truly know, in this role we have the opportunity to meet with people from across our community, to hear their stories, to understand their experiences and then, ultimately, to represent them here in this place. Soon after I was elected as the federal member for McPherson, I met with a local family from Palm Beach who spoke to me about the fact that they will never forget the day that their world fell apart. A father who had been battling depression attempted to take his own life. He survived, but the impact on his wife and his children was immense, and that remains to be the case. When he was released from hospital, he wanted to rebuild, he wanted routine, he wanted connection and he wanted a sense of purpose. He tried to find a part-time job, something small to get him back on track. But, under Labor's welfare system, the moment he earned a few dollars, support was cut off entirely.

It is what we mean when we say Labor policies are backwards. We know that work, routine and social connection are some of the best ways to support recovery and mental wellbeing, yet Labor's system punishes people who try to do the right thing. It traps them into dependence rather than helping them move forward. Why would this Labor government design a system that disincentivises Australians from beginning their journey to easing back into working, contributing and reconnecting? Why don't they trust Australians to make their own choices about gradually transitioning back into work and community life? If they had their own way, no-one who'd been disadvantaged would ever get a fair go at getting back on their feet.

I'm reminded of another one of my constituents, a single mother whose daughter had been dealing with mental health challenges for some time. When Labor halved the Medicare subsidised psychology sessions, it left her in an impossible position. She simply cannot afford the extra cost, and so her daughter goes without. Australians deserve better. They deserve a system that meets them where they are with compassion, flexibility and trust. And it would be remiss of me not to mention the fact that this mother spoke to me about the difficulties that her daughter has accessing mental health support services because of the unique situation they are in, where her father attempted to commit suicide and, thankfully, was unsuccessful. Because of that, this person was unable to access support that was needed. Australians, as I said, deserve better. But, under Labor, their services are cut and support is scarce, and those who are struggling are left out to dry.

We're seeing psychologists, counsellors, nurses and GPs all burning out. Clinics are understaffed, and families are falling through the cracks. I would, however, like to take this opportunity to thank the many people in my community of McPherson, on the southern Gold Coast, who are involved with the provision of mental health services for young people—for people of all ages and people of all backgrounds. They do incredible work keeping our communities' mental health where it should be and encouraging it to go in the right direction.

I also point out, in particular, the fact that the mental health record for men in this country is shocking. Men are three times more likely to die by suicide than females. And they, unfortunately, make up three-quarters of all suicides. The previous speaker on this subject, the member for Spence, mentioned everything the government should do, all of the responsibilities of government in relation to mental health and in relation to health more broadly. What I would say to that member is that the member forms part of the government. There is an opportunity here for the government to do something about this.

We went to the last election committed to restoring the 20 subsidised places for mental health support sessions. That is something that was very well-received in McPherson. Why was it well-received? It was well-received because people on the ground, the everyday men and women that I've had the opportunity to speak to and that I have the privilege of representing in this place, understand that this is a serious issue at the moment—not just in McPherson but across the country. The schools that I go into—with the rise of social media, we're seeing instances of very young people being affected by what they're seeing online, by the way they're being treated online, and that is transitioning into broader mental health issues for them.

Something needs to be done. If there's one thing I know, from my engagement in my community, it's that what is happening in this building with this government is unacceptable. We need to step up and the government needs to step up and provide where there is a need. Right now, there is a need for better funding for mental health support services in Australia.

As I have mentioned, mental health needs to be a national priority. The test of a government's commitment is not the number of their empty promises, it's whether, in a moment of crisis, an Australian can get the support they need. When I was elected to this place I committed, in my maiden speech, to giving a voice to the people of the southern Gold Coast when they needed it. That moment is now. People in McPherson, people across the Gold Coast and people across Australia know well and truly that mental health is something that needs to be prioritised by this government. We, on the coalition side, will continue to make a noise, we will continue to represent our communities about this need for as long as this need remains. Right now far too many people cannot access the services that they need. That is the measure that matters, and on that measure this government, the federal Albanese Labor government, is failing.

Federation Chamber adjourned at 19 : 28