I present the fifth report of the Petitions Committee for the 48th Parliament:

The report read as follows—

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

PETITIONS COMMITTEE

REPORT No. 05

Petitions and Ministerial Responses

24 November 2025

MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE

Chair Ms Jodie Belyea MP

Deputy Chair Mr Leon Rebello MP

Mr Cameron Caldwell MP

Ms Emma Comer MP

Ms Trish Cook MP

Mr Rowan Holzberger MP

Mr Llew O'Brien MP

Ms Tracey Roberts MP

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

Report summarising the petitions and ministerial responses being presented.

The committee met in private session in the 48th Parliament on 7 October and 4 November 2025.

1. The committee resolved to present the following 50 petitions in accordance with standing order 207:

Petitions certified on 7 October 2025

From 5 petitioners—requesting appointment of an independent commission to oversee veterans' entitlements (EN8183)

From 30 petitioners—requesting restriction on banana imports from overseas to protect local production (EN8184)

From 44 petitioners—requesting lowering of the voting age to sixteen (EN8187)

From 219 petitioners—requesting reversal of social media age limit restrictions (EN8189)

From 17 petitioners—requesting qualified tribunal members to clarify evidence in veterans' reviews (EN8190)

From 70 petitioners—requesting national standards for self-defence rights in the home (EN8191)

From 40 petitioners—requesting recognition of alternative housing options outside of current construction standards (EN8192)

From 12 petitioners—requesting increase or removal of word limits for petitions to the House of Representatives (EN8193)

From 227 petitioners—requesting prohibition of religious laws and compounds inconsistent with Australian law (EN8197)

From 1 petitioner—requesting support for Cambodian refugees (EN8198)

From 86 petitioners—requesting introduction of mandatory drug and alcohol testing for parliamentarians (EN8235)

From 332 petitioners—requesting a motion of no confidence in the government (EN8303)

From 10 petitioners—requesting mandatory ingredient labelling for all food producers (EN8413)

From 100 petitioners—requesting construction of a connector road to divert industrial traffic near Moorabbin Airport (EN8415)

From 225 petitioners—requesting legislation to ensure acceptance of cash payments (EN8416)

From 79 petitioners—requesting an official invitation to the President of the United States (EN8418)

From 99 petitioners—requesting suspension of immigration (EN8423)

From 13 petitioners—requesting protection of key industries from privatisation and support for local ownership (EN8424)

From 58 petitioners—requesting removal of restrictions on nuclear power generation (EN8425)

From 1190 petitioners—requesting independent review and reform of family law and court practices (EN8427)

From 35 petitioners—requesting protection of consumer ownership and digital data rights (EN8428)

From 881 petitioners—requesting mandatory recording of all communications between the National Disability Insurance Agency and participants (EN8429)

From 154 petitioners—requesting inclusion of dental care in Medicare (EN8430)

From 65 petitioners—requesting review of the operations of the eSafety Commissioner (EN8431)

From 11 petitioners—requesting establishment of a day of remembrance for victims of violence (EN8432)

From 1504 petitioners—requesting reconsideration of medal eligibility for Cyclone Tracy responders (EN8433)

From 210 petitioners—requesting reversal of social media age limit restrictions (EN8434)

From 85 petitioners—requesting a national framework to fund free public primary education for children regardless of visa status (EN8435)

From 58 petitioners—requesting withdrawal from international defence agreements (EN8436)

From 16 petitioners—requesting urgent action to address housing and governance issues at Cummeragunja (EN8437)

From 25 petitioners—requesting a ban on import and sale of carbon acid batteries containing lead (EN8440)

From 33 petitioners—requesting reduction of taxes on tobacco and alcohol (EN8444)

From 39 petitioners—requesting an increase in Centrelink advance payments (EN8445)

From 29 petitioners—requesting enforcement of attendance requirements for international students (EN8447)

From 23 petitioners—requesting support for the case of Dr Osama Al-Hasani (EN8452)

From 305 petitioners—requesting suspension of immigration (EN8455)

From 127 petitioners—requesting action on digital identification systems (EN8456)

From 56 petitioners—requesting action on online safety legislation (EN8457)

From 7 petitioners—requesting support services for Iraqi refugees in Australia (EN8459)

From 217 petitioners—requesting action on digital identification and digital currency systems (EN8462)

From 47 petitioners—requesting support for domestic car manufacturing (EN8463)

From 352 petitioners—requesting action on digital identification legislation (EN8464)

From 38266 petitioners—requesting action on digital identification (EN8467)

From 69 petitioners—requesting compulsory employer superannuation contributions for employees under eighteen years of age (EN8468)

From 1289 petitioners—requesting action on digital identification legislation (EN8469)

From 29 petitioners—requesting support for Iraqi families seeking humanitarian visas (EN8470)

From 56 petitioners—requesting prioritisation of humanitarian visa applications for Iraqi families (EN8471)

From 54 petitioners—requesting introduction of a carbon emissions tax (EN8473)

From 14 petitioners—requesting implementation of a debt reduction policy (EN8476)

From 59 petitioners—requesting mandatory country of origin labelling for cut flowers (EN8477)

2. The following 15 ministerial responses to petitions were received.

Ministerial responses received by the Committee on 4 November 2025

From the Treasurer to a petition regarding income tax settings (EN4454)

From the Treasurer to a petition requesting a compulsory savings mechanism for high income earners (EN5242)

From the Treasurer to a petition requesting tax relief for low to middle income earners (EN5557)

From the Treasurer to a petition requesting the implementation of a tax on plastic (EN6590)

From the Treasurer to a petition requesting an increase in the goods and services tax threshold (EN6673)

From the Treasurer to a petition requesting Steve Irwin be depicted on the Australian $5 banknote (EN7063)

From the Treasurer to a petition requesting the inclusion of Skilled Work Regional (Provisional) visa (subclass 491) holders in the benefits and concessions for first home buyers (EN7079)

From the Attorney-General to a petition requesting that family law transcripts be made accessible (EN7162)

From the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship to a petition requesting asylum for members of the LGBTIQ+ community from the United States (EN7163)

From the Attorney-General to a petition requesting an inquiry into gender bias in family law (EN7179)

From the Attorney-General to a petition requesting a publicly accessible national database for convicted animal abusers (EN7230)

From the Minister for Foreign Affairs to a petition requesting the President of the United States be banned from visiting Australia (EN7254)

From the Minister for Foreign Affairs to a petition requesting the condemnation of all acts of violence against religious and ethnic minorities in Syria (EN7286)

From the Attorney-General to a petition regarding family and domestic violence (EN7318)

From the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship to a petition regarding Ministerial Direction No. 105 (EN7341)

Ms Jodie Belyea MP

Chair — Petitions Committee

I present the following 50 e-petitions:

I present the following 15 ministerial responses to petitions previously presented:

The e-petitions being presented cover a range of topics including social media minimum age, immigration, family law, the National Disability Insurance Agency and digital ID.

I am pleased to inform the House that the c ommittee also certified 18 new e-petitions at its last meeting. These e-petitions are now collecting signatures on the e-petitions website.

Since the beginning of the 48 th Parliament, the c ommittee has assessed over 800 petitions. This has been a tremendous undertaking, and I thank my fellow c ommittee members for their collegiate approach.

I look forward to updating the House further on the work of the petitions committee .

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The greyhound racing industry in Australia results in animals suffering unspeakable and entrenched industrial-scale cruelty , which is why I've long campaigned for an end to the appalling industry.

Indeed animal welfare issues in the industry are well documented and widespread. They include outrageous levels of injury and death, physical overexertion, inadequate housing, lack of socialisation and environmental enrichment, cruel training practices, illegal live baiting, administration of banned or unregistered substances , and euthanasi a of poorly performing and unwanted dogs.

Many in the community share my disgust at this industry and its appalling practices , so y ou can imagine just how welcome is the Tasmanian government's recent decision to phase out greyhound racing.

But the truth is that Tasmania is a small player in a much larger industry. And while that industry is in decline, Australia has the ignominious honour of hosting the largest greyhound racing industry in the world.

Indeed, Australia has more than half the world's remaining operational greyhound tracks and, following a recent decision by New Zealand, will be one of just four nations in the world that maintains a legal, operating greyhound industry.

Mercifully though, the greyhound racing industry in Australia is in decline, in terms of both participation and perception.

In fact, a recent report commissioned by economist Saul Eslake found that in Tasmania attendance rates were down around 11 per cent between 2011 and 2023 on the industry's own figures, and that the number of races also fell by six per cent. And it's not just in Tasmania, with Greyhound Racing NSW being forced to plan for the closure of 11 of its 26 tracks due to a significant decrease in demand.

Public perception of the industry has also been shifting, with more and more Australians recognising its inherent cruelty. Indeed, in September this year, 66.5 per cent of people surveyed by McCrindle were concerned about the treatment of greyhounds in the greyhound racing industry. And an October 2022 poll commissioned by GREY2K USA and the Coalition for the Protection of Greyhounds found that 57 per cent of Australians supported an end to dog racing. What's more, recent EMRS polling in Tasmania found that 74 per cent of Tasmanians supported the announced greyhound racing ban.

But what continues to prop up the industry is online wagering. And while not quite at the peak of $10.7 billion in 2022, last year still saw around $7.5 billion wagered on greyhounds in Australia. Appallingly though, but sadly unsurprisingly, wagering on Australian greyhound racing accounts for roughly 70 per cent of all bets placed on dog racing worldwide. This is a frankly staggering amount of money that only serves to perpetuate cruelty and suffering on an industrial scale.

And the real cost? Well, so far this year there have been 99 greyhounds die and 9,663 greyhounds injured on greyhound racing tracks in Australia, with New South Wales having the highest injury rate in Australasia—60 per cent higher than the rate that led to New Zealand banning the industry. Mind you, it's Victoria that kills more dogs on its tracks that any other state.

Furthermore, off track, the industry continues to breed far too many dogs and rehoming programs are failing. No wonder I suppose that over 1,600 greyhounds were euthanised within the industry just in 2024, the highest national toll since 2019.

In other words, greyhounds are being abused and dying in the name of this industry, and Australians want it to stop.

Which brings me to the purpose of this refreshingly straightforward bill, simply to amend the Interactive Gambling Act 2001 to remove the exemption for wagering services which relate to betting on greyhound racing. In effect, this would end online wagering on greyhound racing and hasten the demise of the industry.

Sensibly the bill provides for a period of two years to allow the industry to adequately plan and provide for the welfare of dogs following the anticipated sharp drop in revenue.

Now, I stand by my long-held belief that the only way to actually ensure the safety of greyhounds is to ban the industry entirely. Frankly, there is simply no conceivable way to conduct races in a way that adequately meets animal welfare standards. No wonder community pressure is building on state governments to follow the example of the ACT and Tasmania and end the cruelty.

But until all state governments get their act together on this, federal pressure needs to be brought to bear on the industry. And that's where this gambling ban comes in.

To close I'll quote Alexander von Humboldt, who said:

Cruelty to animals is one of the most significant vices of a low and ignoble people. Wherever one notices them, they constitute a sign of ignorance and brutality which cannot be painted over even by all the evidence of wealth and luxury.

Hence it should be a stain on our national conscience that in 2025 Australia stands virtually alone as the global stronghold of the cruel greyhound racing industry.

Frankly, the only way to end the cruelty is to end the industry, and the sooner that happens the better, starting with at least a ban on online gambling on racing.

Is the motion seconded?

I second the motion. I start by thanking the member for Clark for his tireless advocacy for animal welfare and for bringing compassion and common sense to this parliament. There is widespread support for ending greyhound racing in this country. I've heard it consistently in my own electorate of Mackellar since I was elected in 2022 and I've seen it reflected in the national polling.

The greyhound racing industry is one built on animal cruelty. In 2015, following the ABC Four Corners expose about the industry, a special commission of inquiry into greyhound racing in New South Wales was undertaken. The report described overwhelming evidence of systemic animal cruelty, including the mass killing of greyhounds, the widespread practice of live baiting, racing deaths and injuries, and the mistreatment of the dogs. The then premier of New South Wales, Michael Baird, acted swiftly to ban the industry in New South Wales, but this was soon overturned due to political pressure to give the industry another chance to reform itself. The industry has now had 10 years to reform itself. So where do we find ourselves a decade on? Sadly, it seems, not much has changed.

Last year a handover report by New South Wales former chief veterinary officer Dr Alex Brittan claimed that some dogs were being raised at a 'barbaric' intensity, that rehomed animal figures were inflated and that some dogs were locked in metal cages. In the report, Dr Brittan wrote:

There are cases of extreme distress, deep claw marks gouged all over the inside of metal cages and recent pools of blood from toenails that had been ripped off from clawing at the cage door in distress.

The New South Wales Minister for Gaming and Racing, on reading the report, stated:

This level of animal distress is appalling and can neither be condoned or excused.

Last year, a new independent inquiry was undertaken to again look at greyhound racing in New South Wales. The report was handed to the racing minister early this year but is yet to be made public or acted upon. As we've heard, last year alone there were 128 recorded track deaths and a shocking 11½ thousand track injuries. Astoundingly, as the member for Clark has noted, Australia will soon be one of just four nations in the world that maintains a legal operating greyhound racing industry. The industry has had 10 years to reform itself here in New South Wales, and it has failed dismally. We've heard of other examples in Tasmania and around the country.

If we want to ensure that the way we treat animals reflects modern Australian values, then this outdated and cruel practice must stop. Australians want this industry to stop, so I commend this bill to the House to end online wagering on greyhound racing.

The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned, and resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.

Slowly, slowly, and then suddenly! Within the coalition, the speaker's list on this bill started as something of a renegade action to begin a long and necessary debate on the need to dump Labor's net zero agenda, especially the taxes, penalties and big government schemes that now see taxpayers forced to stump up for the generation, storage, transmission, retail and even the consumption of power, directly supporting the businesses in Australia who are no longer viable in this country because energy prices are through the roof. So much for a future made in Australia. Without taking money off nurses and tradies, the Mount Isa refinery—closed; the Port Pirie smelter—closed; Whyalla—closed; Alcoa Kwinana refinery—closed; Tomago—closing. Instead, in just a few months, we have landed on a coalition position to put Australians first. I am not sure when we as a country decided that Canberra always knows best, with unelected bureaucrats who live far, far away from communities like mine somehow best placed to decide what ordinary Australians do in their homes, businesses and communities. It's a lens through which I've come to look at most policies of government. I am a 'live and let live' sort of guy, after all, and I honestly believe that an important part of the Australian psyche still holds that we just don't want to be told what to do all of the time.

When we come to the issue of net zero, it seems that this government decided that it knows better than Australians or, more egregiously, perhaps, that it simply doesn't trust them to do the right thing in their own circumstances. Rather than leaving it to each Australian to decide whether an electric vehicle is suited to their needs, whether for commuting, recreation with a caravan or boat, or even to suit their work from the construction site to the back paddock, this government decided to impose taxes on folks who choose an internal combustion engine vehicle, pushing up the cost, as just one example, of a new Ford Ranger by some $14,000 by 2029.

I think the truly criminal part of the government deciding they know more about what sort of car you should drive is the fact that they have cooked up a scheme of subsidies that makes a Tesla cheaper for a surgeon than for a nurse. I thought Labor was supposed to represent the workers, but they are, instead, running a scheme that gives high-income earners a bigger tax break to buy an EV, and the poor old taxpayers get to foot the bill. So we'll take tax money off a nurse to make a surgeon's novated lease for his Tesla cheaper. Astonishingly, the Parliamentary Budget Office expects this rort to cost some $23 billion over a decade and, yet, Labor stand by it. Why can't we end all subsidies, taxes, penalties and every other way that Canberra is trying to direct how Aussies drive and live their lives and just leave it to them?

Internationally, the evidence is clear. Labor's net zero zealotry is doomed to fail Australians, with no country in the world having lower power prices once wind and solar account for more than 20 per cent of generation in the grid. I've been asked by local media about CSIRO's GenCost report and other government modelling that somehow, miraculously, always shows power prices coming down with more renewables. The reality is that none of this modelling has ever been right in terms of cost at the meter, the only place that it counts for Aussie businesses and households. On page 5 of the GenCost report it literally says that it is:

… focussed on the investor's perspective and not the long-term value to the consumer.

If that doesn't bell the cat I don't know what would.

Nobody wants to talk about the Labor Party's RepuTex modelling of $275 power price cuts for Australians by 2025, least of all the minister responsible for the mess, who's now cutting back his hours to spend more time junketing with the COP set. But the Prime Minister of Australia said, 'I don't think; I know that prices will come down.' Here's something else the Prime Minister said in Longford on 12 April 2022:

From time to time, if ever I make a mistake, I will own it and I will accept responsibility.

Well, Prime Minister, why won't you own this? Why won't you take responsibility, as you promised the Australian people you would? If you did, you'd do the right thing by Australians and dump your net zero agenda that has pushed power prices up while seeing emissions flatline and Aussie jobs exported overseas.

A lot has happened since the member for New England proposed this motion to the House. We now know that the party the member may or may not be a member of—the Nationals—has rejected net zero. We also know that their partner in coalition—the Liberal Party—has obediently followed suit, sort of. They tried to have a bet each way, with the opposition leader saying they were abandoning net zero but that somehow they were going to stay in the Paris Agreement while also going against the entire principles of the agreement, no matter what their talking points say. Their commitment to reducing emissions only goes as far as entertaining it as a possible outcome that would be 'welcome' but certainly not worth trying to achieve. That all sounds very confusing and like a word salad that's trying to please everybody or at least not offend anybody—but, of course, it really fails to do anything. But fear not: it must be a real policy because they've also released a glossy leaflet!

It's full of dot points of lovely motherhood statements that sound great but have 'net zero' detail on how they intend to achieve them. There's no detail on addressing the shortfall in energy caused by 24 of the 28 coal fired power plants announcing their closures under the Morrison government with nothing done to replace them—nada. There's no detail on addressing the unreliability of ageing coal fired power plants that their owners know are uneconomic to repair or replace—zilch. There's no detail on addressing the lack of market interest in investing in coal fired or nuclear powered stations—zip. There's no detail on addressing the costs of energy for households or businesses that will be made worse by going away from the cheapest form of energy generation and instead backing more expensive forms of energy generation that need major capital injections—nil.

Bizarrely, this reminded me of the TV series South Park. Stay with me, and I'll give you a brief synopsis to explain. It's an episode called 'The underpants gnomes'. Our heroes, Cartman, Stan, Kyle and Kenny—you pick who is whom—meet another boy who insists the gnomes are stealing his underpants. It turns out that he's right. Our heroes trace the gnomes back to their cave, where they can see the cunning plan. On the wall is a chart. One the left, it says, 'Step 1: steal underpants.' On the right, it says, 'Step 3: profit.' And, in the middle, next to step 2, is a large question mark. That's pretty much the coalition's energy plan in three easy steps. Step 1 is get rid of net zero—tick! Step 3 has the possibility of 'welcome' outcomes. Step 2 has a big question mark. But don't you worry your pretty little head about it; it's all good. Here, look at this glossy brochure!

While this refers to their lack of energy plan, there is also a complete lack of plan to deal with climate change. The irony is that the coalition seats are largely based in rural and regional areas—some of the areas most at risk from the impacts of climate change. They are represented by people who don't believe in climate change or don't understand the science or are not willing to do anything about it or all three. Droughts, floods, cyclones, increasingly powerful and more frequent storms, algal blooms and marine die-offs as we have seen in South Australia—these affect us all, but they particularly affect farmers, aquaculture, commercial fishing and tourism, which are all largely based in the regions. The flow-on effects are felt by the towns and regional communities that support them.

Those opposite say they understand the science of climate change, but what are they going to say to their communities about their lack of action on climate change? A lack of a target or plan shows they don't care. It isn't a priority. To say, 'If it does happen, it would be welcome,' is an insulting crumb thrown from the table to keep the supplicants quiet. To those who say they care about the costs of electricity, what will you say to the households, businesses and industries in their electorates about a credible way to replace the energy generation that left the system under your watch or announced its imminent closure under your watch? When the evidence is there that coal and gas are an expensive form of generation and that nuclear is the most expensive form of generation for a country like Australia, how can they seriously look at the renewables transformation already well underway and say they want to stop progress? Will they look in the eyes of the next generation—our children, our grandchildren—and show them a glossy brochure with no substance, no plans, no targets and only the meaningless word 'welcome'? How insulting!

I rise today to oppose the Repeal Net Zero Bill 2025. First introduced by the member for New England in his individual capacity, this is now the official stance of the coalition. This bill would unravel Australia's emissions reduction framework without putting anything else in place. It would close the Net Zero Economy Authority, which supports the workforce transition across regional Australia. It would repeal vehicle efficiency standards that drive down fuel costs. Turning away from renewables would jeopardise almost $10 billion in direct payments to farmers and landholders by 2050. It would rob regional communities and councils of another $1.9 billion in community benefit-sharing programs. It would threaten the thousands of jobs expected to be created in the next five years. There is no alternative proposal nor positive vision for the future—just repeal, rescind and omit.

This bill is a missed opportunity to make sure Australia's path to net zero delivers substantial, tangible and lasting benefit to regional and rural communities such as those that I represent. I support the transition to a net zero economy, but not blindly. It must be done with regional and rural development front of mind. That's why, when I identified serious deficiencies in the community engagement on renewable infrastructure projects, I didn't just stand on the sidelines. I went to the government and I worked with the minister to secure the Dyer review, which is helping shape best practice and will ultimately lead to community benefit.

In Indi and across regional Australia, people are ready to share in the benefits of the energy transition. These are communities who want fair warning, fair process and fair intergenerational community benefit. Their demands for meaningful engagement should not be contorted into blanket opposition, because there is support. Recent polling shows strong support for the transition to renewable energy across regional Victoria, Queensland and New South Wales, including in New England. The member for New England may be interested to know that the majority of respondents in his own electorate support Australia shifting to renewable energy and agree that investment in renewables will be a good thing for regional Australia. While the member for New England says no to net zero, his own constituents are actually saying yes. The energy transition is an opportunity for regional Australia. Many of us in this chamber represent regional towns whose origins trace all the way back to the gold rush. Australia's unique geography drove a wave of prosperity that changed our nation's fortunes and future.

Today, regional Australia is on the cusp of another gold rush, powered not by what is under the ground but by the energy sources of the 21st century: solar, wind and hydro. Dynamic regional communities are seizing the opportunities. One of the largest local governments in New England, the Armidale Regional Council, is establishing a multimillion-dollar future fund to put revenue from renewable energy straight back into the community. Rural Goorambat in my electorate has secured support for a new mobile phone tower as well as a $2 million community benefit fund, and Hay Shire Council has negotiated community benefits amounting to $26 million over the next 30 years for one of its projects.

I want all communities contributing to the transition to share in the benefit. In 2021, we were told:

We cannot pretend the world is not changing.

We were warned:

If we do, we run the risk of stranding jobs … especially in regional areas.

Who said that? It was the Morrison government's then minister for energy and emissions reduction, the member for Hume. He was right; we cannot pretend that the world is not changing. Business and industry have made it clear they want policy certainties, not U-turns. Last week the Australian Energy Council released a survey confirming that the sector is committed to net zero. CEOs agree it is too late to turn back.

It's been a little over a week since the Leader of the Opposition confirmed the coalition had abandoned net zero. I say this to my northern neighbour, the member for Farrer: it's not too late to reconsider. Instead of denial and division, I invite the coalition to bring constructive policies to the table. I invite the National Party to consider how to best promote the interests of their communities. I should not be the only regional MP pushing to make sure net zero works for regional Australia and results in intergenerational net benefit.

I begin by offering my congratulations to the member for New England because something remarkable has happened. Every single part of the bill he has dumped before this parliament, the Repeal Net Zero Bill, is now official coalition policy. Every line, every sentence and every bold claim have all now been adopted by those opposite, which is truly remarkable, seeing as everyone opposite, except the member for New England, voted against debating on this private member's bill. Even the member for New England's seconder didn't want to have this debate.

A point of order—

Member for Indi and Member for New England! I'm having difficulty hearing the debate over here. I ask you both to refrain from conversation in the chamber. By all means, pop outside and carry on the conversation.

It has now been endorsed by the members for Goldstein, Moncrieff and Berowra. It has been backed by Senators Hume, Kovacic and Bragg, which is confusing, seeing as Senator Bragg threatened to quit the front bench if the Liberals dumped net zero. Does this mean there's a vacancy in the shadow cabinet? Is the member for Canning eyeing it off?

The party that introduced net zero targets when last in government have now dumped them—but then stated they support the Paris Agreement—and the former cancels out the latter; it simply doesn't make sense. From the number of backflips on policy we witnessed during the election campaign and continue to see now, you'd think they're eyeing off the green and gold jerseys of the Australian Olympic gymnastics team! The party that once claimed the legacy of Menzies has now proudly transformed itself into the party of Barnaby Joyce. The coalition are opposed to net zero emissions, but they are committed to winning net zero seats.

While they're busy trying to reinvent themselves—or, rather, regress themselves—here are the facts. The Albanese government is delivering a responsible, sensible and effective energy plan. We have delivered three rounds of targeted power bill relief, we capped gas prices when it mattered and we have invested heavily in cheap, clean renewable energy, and those opposite voted against every one of those measures. Every time we backed Australians, those opposite backed higher bills. And what happened when we took action? Wholesale electricity prices fell by a third in the last quarter, not by accident and not by chance but by this government acting when the opposition refused to. We want wholesale price drops to flow through to retail bills as fast as possible, and the experts warn that delays would do the opposite. The Australian Energy Market Commission reported that delaying renewable generation and transmission would put upward pressure on electricity bills. If you delay, you pay, and delay is exactly what the coalition is offering.

Our plan is working. Last month, renewables supplied half of the national electricity market. Last year alone, more than five gigawatts of new solar, wind, battery and gas capacity entered the system. We have approved 111 renewable and related projects, which will be enough to power 13 million homes. More than one in three Australian households now have rooftop solar, with over four million solar installations, and the great state of Queensland is leading the way. Since July, more than 120,000 household batteries have been installed, which has boosted the national battery capacity by 50 per cent. We have introduced overdue energy market reforms to ensure consumers get the best deals possible. Compare that to the decade of disaster delivered by those opposite. During those opposite's time in government, 24 out of Australia's 28 coal-fired power stations announced their closure. And what did they do? Absolutely nothing. There was no replacement plan, no transition plan, no grid modernisation—net zero action. They announced 23 different energy policies and did not land a single one—not one! Their chaos created the energy mess that Australians are still paying for today.

We know what doing nothing looks like. Research shows household power bills could rise by $449 a year by 2030 if Australia slows renewable investment and leans on coal and gas. Prices could climb by more than $600 a year if a major coal plant fails unexpectedly. Treasury warns that abandoning net zero would mean lower growth, fewer jobs, higher prices and less investment. A disorderly transition would cost the economy $1.2 trillion by 2050. Recent research shows that electricity prices today would be 50 per cent higher if Australia had relied entirely on coal and gas instead of investing in renewables.

While the coalition argues about whether climate change is real, this government is lowering emissions, driving investment and modernising the grid, fighting for a safer and cleaner and more prosperous future. (Time expired)

There being no further speakers, the debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.

I move:

That this House:

(1) notes that:

(a) south-east Australia is at risk of seasonal gas shortfalls by 2027 as a 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.

This motion speaks to the heart of our energy security and our economic future. It asks a simple question: will Australians have access to affordable, reliable energy in the years ahead, or will we allow uncertainty and inadequate regulation to undermine our prosperity? My motion is about effective gas market regulation, and, upfront, I want to make something very clear. We have enough gas in this country. We do not have a gas supply problem. We have a gas export problem. To the extent that we have shortfalls predicted on the east coast, it is an infrastructure and distribution problem, not a problem of production. As always, we need to be clear about the facts.

Two developments have transformed our gas market. First, in 2015 liquefied natural gas exports began from Gladstone, Queensland, and within a decade 75 per cent of total east coast gas demand was being exported overseas. Overall, around 80 per cent of gas produced in Australia is being exported. Second, production from traditional, south-eastern fields, particularly Gippsland, is falling sharply. Peak day production capacity there will drop by 58 per cent between 2024 and 2028.

Governments have tried to manage this risk since 2017. We've seen the Turnbull government's Australian Domestic Gas Security Mechanism, codified to become a Heads of Agreement under the Morrison government, and then the Gas Market Code introduced by the Albanese government. These measures have helped avert shortfalls—but at a cost. Buyers and sellers alike are frustrated. Long-term contracts have shrunk, and short-term deals have surged from 28 petajoules in 2021 to 79 petajoules in 2024. This is not stability; this is volatility, and Australians deserve better. They deserve a gas market that's predictable, reliable, affordable and transparent. It should not be difficult to achieve this, and yet, today, our system depends on ad hoc ministerial decisions and quarterly negotiations with LNG exporters.

This is no way to run a market—a market that underpins manufacturing, electricity generation and household energy security. Worse still, the fact that a huge majority of our gas is exported means Australians may be in the absurd position of paying more for our gas than people in international markets do. Japan has even started reselling the Australian gas that it imports, which is surplus to requirements, at a substantial profit. Something has to give, and my motion sets out a clear path forward.

First, it calls for the government to ensure that uncontracted gas is offered to the domestic market at a reasonable price before it is exported. This principle is not radical; it's common sense.

Second, it calls for an end to the cycle of changing interventions. We need a single, integrated framework that operates continuously, not a patchwork of mechanisms that require constant activation. Export licences should carry an ongoing obligation to supply the domestic market.

Third, the motion calls for a thorough review of the Future Gas Strategy, and that review must go beyond supply. It must consider demand management, the impact of gas users across the economy and our climate commitments. Gas will play a role in the transition to net zero, but what role and for how long? Without clarity, investors cannot make decisions about pipelines, storage or regasification of terminals, and, without those investments, the risk of a south-east gas shortfall will increase.

Fourth, the motion calls for transparency. Today, the ACCC monitors the gas market while the AER oversees the broader energy system. This duplication creates confusion. The monitoring role should move to the AER, supported by AEMO's forecasting, with a requirement to publish aggregated price and contract data and market imbalances. Transparency is the foundation for efficiency and trust.

Finally, the motion anchors reform in two objectives: an ongoing obligation on LNG exporters to supply the domestic market and improved transparency through regular publication of market data.

These changes will give suppliers, investors and large users the confidence that they need to invest in clean technologies and infrastructure—and this is not just about gas. It's about energy security, economic competitiveness and the credibility of our transition to net zero. If we fail to act, manufacturers will face higher costs, householders will face even higher energy bills, and our electricity system will face greater risk during peak demand. If we succeed, we'll have a market that works—one that delivers affordable energy, supports jobs and aligns with our climate goals. (Time expired)

Is there a seconder for the member for Bradfield's motion?

I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.

Thanks to the member for Bradfield for this resolution—I agree. Australians deserve a gas market that's predictable, reliable, affordable and transparent, not a radical proposition. Right now, our gas system defies even the gravity of basic economic logic. The consequences of this are felt in households, factories and businesses across the country. We face a projected seasonal gas shortfall by 2028, not because we don't have enough gas but because the gas that comes from beneath Australian soil is prioritised for customers offshore rather than customers onshore. Pre-pandemic gas prices sat at around $3 or $4 per gigajoule; today they're at around $10.30.

When I said that our gas prices defy the gravity of conventional economics, I meant this: domestic gas demand has actually fallen. Supply has sustained but been shunted off overseas. That's why falling demand hasn't been reflected in prices. The market is fundamentally distorted. Over decades, governments have entrenched this, largely by inaction, hoping the problem would go away. I'm proud though to say that, in the last term, this government was the first to have the guts to tackle this, even with the active resistance of the coalition. In late 2022, the government capped prices at $12 per gigajoule despite warnings from exporters and foreign buyers, who predicted the worst. Those predictions soured. We stepped in at a moment of crisis, and we were right to do so. Access to stable, affordable gas is not an industrial preference; it's a sovereign capability necessity. It'll be essential to the transition to net zero.

Predictable voices will tell you, 'All we need is more supply.' That's misleading. We need supply at the right prices, and we need contracts that are fair. Manufacturers often tell me they're unable to get contracts longer than 12 months because of the profiteering obsession of gas companies holding out to ramp up prices beyond the contract period. This is intolerable. Tinkering at the edges is not enough to fix this. The ACCC has doubted that past interventions aren't having a perceivable effect. We need strong action—a complete rethink of the terms on which Australian resources serve the Australian national interest.

In this country, it's almost like we're embarrassed about possessing so many resources and are so timid we feel we just have to cop what overseas companies and buyers tell us—what rot. Or we are spooked by this argument: if we demand too much these companies won't invest in new fields—lame. Former WA premier Alan Carpenter stared down that threat and established a west coast reservation system. Our generation trades on the courage of past generations without displaying the spine to do the same today. This timidity has allowed a structural flaw to fester, with domestic prices influenced by export prices and Australian users competing with Tokyo, Seoul and Singapore for Australian gas. We beg for the scraps—forced to cop globally indexed pricing that has absolutely no relationship with the cost of production. Our gas, our prices—that should be the bedrock, the cornerstone, of our thinking. The cost of doing business in this country, for multinational gas firms, is that they must provide a gas price in line with historic pre-pandemic levels. This should apply to any new field that's open, too. We absolutely need to establish a gas reservation policy to meet our local needs in this decade, not in the next.

We must stand firm on another issue. We cannot tolerate being lectured to by overseas buyers telling us what we can do with our gas when they on-sell the gas they get from us to make a massive profit. Last year, Japan resold a third of the LNG it had purchased from Australia, making over $1 billion in profit and in quantities large enough to supply our domestic industry for a year. We should reshape the Australian Domestic Gas Security Mechanism to allow the government to intervene, adjusting future supply based on past resold volumes. This nation should not be reduced to pauper status. We should be an energy superpower, and that should translate to economic strength. That's the ambition we should have no hesitation in pursuing. We may also need to prevent the sale of uncontracted gas offshore and ensure companies don't sidestep this by ramping up sales of uncontracted gas to drain what's available for locals.

We cannot wait for a better deal for this country. We should have the ambition to pursue better for this nation, and we should reject the naysaying and the fearmongering by those who want to tell us that we should cop something that we all in this place know we should not.

I rise to support the motion from the member for Bradfield. Australians deserve a fair, affordable, transparent and predictable energy system and not the export distorted market that we have today. This motion highlights an underlying truth in Australia's energy debate—Australia does not have a gas shortage problem. We have lots of gas, but, instead of prioritising our domestic markets, we allow companies to exploit it for great profit. We do not need more gas approvals. What we need are rules that ensure gas in Australia stays for Australia and that we fast-track transition off gas for households, where electrification is much more efficient, affordable and better for their health and their wallets. We don't need more gas; we just need to be smarter about where we use it, what we have and who we prioritise.

It's been ten years since we started exporting LNG. We now export around 80 per cent of the gas that we produce. A small group of LNG exporters control 90 per cent of our proven and probable gas reserves. You will hear them crying poor and complaining about transition, and the ads on radio and TVs have accelerated—all talking about the natural benefits of gas and how gas is part of our transition and we should all need it. What they don't say is the price that Australians are paying.

Australian users of gas have been paying the price of poor policy. Instead of benefiting from their natural resource, domestic users are forced to compete with international markets. Since 2015, consumption for gas in eastern Australia has fallen by 32 per cent, but prices have tripled. Pressure on our domestic households and business remains unacceptable. Australians pay four to seven times more for gas than other large gas-producing nations, including the US, Russia, Qatar and Canada. According to ACOSS, people on low incomes bear the brunt of this, spending five times more of their income on energy than high-income earners. This is not a market that's delivering for Australians.

In 2023-24, Australians paid more than four times on HECS or HELP debts than our gas companies did on PRRT. Instead of rules to protect our domestic requirements, exporters have strong incentives to maximise exports. Projects like Santos's GLNG project in Queensland have siphoned gas from the domestic market to fulfil export commitments. It is wrong. For too long governments, have been applying temporary bandaid solutions to avoid shortfalls, building an energy system reliant on fossil fuels and continuing to let the gas industry shape policies long after the science shifted. However, as the government looks to reform the gas market, we must recognise the broader climate reality—1.5 degrees is not just a goal; it's a threshold, beyond which things will change dramatically. Here we are, the week after COP30, and very little was achieved.

Gas driven by methane emissions is a major contributor to global warming. Australia's methane accountability is jeopardising our emissions reduction targets. We still do not have proper accounting, measuring and monitoring of methane emissions from LNG facilities. We know methane emissions are expected to account for 68 to 95 per cent of Australia's targeted emissions by 2035, and, unfortunately, Australia continues to underreport methane by as much as 60 per cent, according to the International Energy Agency. We cannot fix the gas market while ignoring the parallel climate failure that it represents.

Last week, I sent an open letter, alongside 100 other leaders from across politics, academia, NGOs and business, to the Prime Minister and Minister for Climate Change and Energy, to sign on to the Mutirao road map. The pledge would look to construct a phase-out of fossil fuels. I'm pleased to hear that, over the weekend, Australia signed up to the declaration, on a just transition away from fossil fuels, recognising the need to phase out inefficient fossil fuel subsidies as soon as possible. With the lack of funding received by Australians on the PRRT—I was strongly opposed to the way the government structured that legislative change—I look forward to hearing from the government on how they propose to now meet these new commitments. There are many inefficient fossil fuel subsidies in the Australian system that we can talk of—in particular, the diesel fuel tax credit.

I support this motion because it moves us towards a fairer, more secure and more climate aligned energy system—simple measures and ones that the government should have the political will to pursue. Now the government must act with ambition and integrity to ensure reforms actually deliver for Australians.

I am open to a conversation about how sometimes the gas industry does not work for all Australians. This is a government that believes in the national interest and is not afraid to stand up for it. Similarly, antagonising industries that Australia relies on is not the answer. We will defend the public interest in the names of jobs and energy security. I know this because I remember when, before Labor governments state and federal, in WA 15 years ago, we had $170 billion' worth of LNG projects happening in the North West Shelf but not one of those projects was being developed in WA. Hundreds of engineers lost their jobs, and the workshops were empty. That experience taught me something important: when governments fail to plan, Australians pay the price. We cannot afford to repeat the mistakes.

Today the Albanese Labor government is taking gas supply and energy transition seriously. We know that gas markets must work for households, businesses and our economy, not just for exporters. That is why we opened a comprehensive gas market review earlier this year. We received 112 submissions, and the departments are now working through them to make sure our regulatory framework is strong, stable and fit for the future. We have acted.

Since coming into government, we have strengthened the heads of agreement with LNG producers so gas is offered to Australians before it can be exported. We have reformed the Australian domestic gas security mechanism, giving us the power to reserve gas if there is a shortfall. We have also introduced the gas market code, securing more than 644 petajoules of gas for Australian homes and businesses. Given the market operator's stronger powers to prevent supply crises, let's be clear, there's been no gas shortfall under this government. We are delivering practical solutions to keep gas affordable, reliable and, at the same time, we are driving the transition to clean energy. We've legislated emissions targets, reformed the safeguard mechanism and invested in renewable energy at record rates. Since May 2022, we have added over 18 gigawatts of wind and solar, enough to power six million homes. Wind and solar capacity is up 45 per cent since we came to office.

But while we accelerate renewables, we do not ignore the five million Australian homes that still rely on gas for heating, cooking and hot water. Industries also need gas to process critical minerals and to manufacture batteries, solar panels and wind turbines. Gas, unlike coal, is flexible. It can be switched on and off in minutes, making it essential to back up the variable renewable energy generation. Our future gas strategy makes this clear. As existing sources decline, we need to replace them to keep prices down, keep the lights on and maintain energy security.

The Albanese government is not a caricature the opposition makes us out to be. However, the opposition does beggar belief lately, especially regarding gas, energy and resources. How is this certainty for industry and households—net zero or maybe not net zero, or definitely not net zero? That is possibly in Paris or not in Paris, if the National Party will let them. We won't sugar coat it. We're too exposed, we were too exposed leaving COVID, when the war in Ukraine began a global gas price shock and exposed the weaknesses. Sometimes there is still too much exposure. Thanks to a decade of neglect by the opposition, we are fixing the mess, planning for the future and doing it in a way that supports jobs, industries and households.

We know gas will play a key role in the orderly transition to net zero. We are ensuring that Australians also have the energy they need, while preparing for tomorrow. When people say that the government isn't taking gas supply or energy transition seriously, we must look at the facts and recognise that defending the national interest cannot be done with just ideals. We are guided by real consultation and experts and we work constructively with industry to get results. I note that when we needed to intervene into the gas market and cap prices at $12 a gigajoule, we did that to make sure we help Australians because that's what the Albanese government does.

Debate adjourned.

I 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.

It is with a heavy heart that I rise to speak on this motion marking the 16 days of activism against gender based violence. Gender based violence manifests in many ways, from coercive control to physical assault and, at its most devastating, the loss of women's lives. Since I last read the names of women killed by violence, 52 Australian women have lost their lives through acts of violence. Every year, I read this list in the hope that it will be the last, but, heartbreakingly, that day has not yet come.

Today, as we begin the 16 days of activism, we must recommit ourselves to ending this national emergency of violence against women and children   , and we honour the women whose lives were stolen this year. Let us honour and remember Sandra Dobrila, aged 41; Pauline Slater, in her 40s; Heang Kim Gau, aged 68; Zhuojun 'Sally' Li, just 33; Charlyz Hayter, aged 19; Khouloud Hawatt, aged 31; an unnamed woman aged 32; Chloe Mason, just 23; Yvonne Beres, 59; an unnamed woman aged 51; Merril Kelly, age unknown; Lilian Donnelly, 88; Rachel McKenna, aged 35; Rachel Moresi, aged 55; an unnamed woman aged 41; Crystal Beale, aged 49; Kara Weribone, 27; Irene Herzel, 78; Audrey Griffin, just 19; Cecilia Webb, aged 79; Czarina Tumaliuan, aged 42; Louise Hunt, age unknown; Thi Kim Tran, aged 45; an unnamed woman, 39; an unnamed woman, 28; Pheobe Bishop, aged 17; an unnamed woman aged 48; Muzhda Habibi, aged 23; Lauren Hopkins, 47; Norma Dutton, aged 85; Krystel Paul, aged 41; an unnamed woman aged 22; Leanne Akrap, aged 47; an unnamed woman aged 81; Amanda Rahman, aged 62; Shafeeqa Husseini, aged 41; Zoe Walker, 38; Athena Georgopoulos, aged 39; Summer Fleming, aged 20; Anu Kumar, aged 32; an unnamed woman aged 30; Carra Luke, aged 48; an unnamed woman aged 31; an unnamed woman aged 23; an unnamed woman aged 52; Irene Selmes, aged 84; an unnamed woman, age unknown; Jordana Johnson, just 36; an unnamed woman aged 58; Lisa Ward, aged 55; Rhukaya Lake, aged 39; and Marcia Chalmers, 86.

These are not just names on a page; they're daughters, sisters, aunties, mothers, grandmothers, friends and colleagues—women who should still be here today. We know their names and their stories because of the tireless and painful work of Counting Dead Women Australia researchers of Destroy the Joint, who maintain the national register of women killed through violence. They in turn rely on the responsible reporting of journalists across the country whose work documents this epidemic and makes sure these women are not erased or forgotten.

Ending gender based violence is a national priority for the Albanese Labor government and, I hope and I sincerely suspect, every single member of this parliament. It is something we all commit to. We can honour those women we have lost with action now, with urgency and with the unshakeable resolve that every woman and child has a right to live free from violence.

Is the motion seconded?

I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.

Today, I rise to mark International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women. Sandra Dobrila, Yuko, Heang Kim Gau, Pauline Slater, Charlyze Hayter, Sally Li, Khouloud Hawatt, Chloe Jade Mason, Kristy Louise Hunter, Yvonne Beres, Mrs Multa, Katie Tangey, Merril Kelly, Lilian Catherine Donnelly, Rachel McKenna, Rachel Moresi, Justine Hammond, Elizabeth Pearce, Kara Jade Weribone, Crystal Beale, Audrey Griffin, Irene Herzel, Cecilia Webb, Czarina Gatbonton Tumaliuan, Louise Hunt, Claire Austin, Thi Kim Tran, Jocelyn Grace Mollee, Kylie Sanders, Kim Duncan, Talulah Koopman, Samia Malik, Caroline Smith, Muzhdah Habibi, Lauren Hopkins, Norma Diana Dutton, Krystel Paul, Pheobe Bishop, Leanne Akrap, Julia Neira Marican, Angela Gauld, Sally Bartlett, Shelley Spinks, Jeanette McIver, Amanda Rahan, Shafeeqa Husseini, Zoe Walker, Athena Georgopoulos and her unborn child, Summer Fleming, Anu, Ali Lauren, Carra Samantha Luke, Diane Harness, Ashleigh Grice, Carolyn Campbell, Ms Chainsaw, Rajwinder Kaur, Jordana Johnson, Lisa Ward, Rhukaya Lake, Irene Selmes, Marcia Chalmers and 12 more unnamed women from across our wide land, including those not named publicly for cultural reasons. These names are women, women taken from us—mothers, daughters, sisters, friends.

These women have been identified by the Red Heart Campaign, and I acknowledge Counting Dead Women Australia researchers of Destroy the Joint for recording the stories of these women. Today, I stand here in our national parliament and read these names into our national record, as I have done before and will do again, because these women matter. These names should echo through this building and across our country. Seventy-four women have been killed in Australia since this time last year.

Imagine these women surrounding us here today. What would they say? What would we do? Can we imagine what the response would be if 74 Australians were killed on a single day at a single event? It wouldn't just be me or the member opposite reading out their names; our nightly news would have them emblazoned across news packages. We as a country would stand together. We would lower flags. We would pause to reflect and to mourn. Their names would be etched into marble and memorialised and, year after year, we would reflect on the loss. These women's names and the names of those who have come before them are all too often lost—lost amidst the noise and lost amidst the silence—or spoken once in a blaring moment of national attention and then never again. It takes yet another horrific event to force us to reckon with the scale of the challenge this list of women represent.

But we don't need new horrors to remind us here today that violence against women is pervasive and present in every corner of our country. So how do we maintain the rage? How do we cut through? How do we overcome the fatigue? Let us use that hope to drive us, because we must not look away. We must continue to go into the dark places. We must continue to shine the light. These women have stories. These women have names. We must not ever forget them.

The date 25 November marks the United Nations International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women and the start of 16 days of activism against gender based violence. The statistics are sobering. I, too, join with my colleagues to acknowledge all those who have lost a loved one as a result of gender based violence. One in four women and one in 14 men have experienced violence from an intimate partner. Women with a disability are more than twice as likely to experience sexual violence. These are not just numbers. They represent lives shattered and trauma.

Recently, I met Lauren at a mobile office I held in Petrie. Lauren bravely shared with me her long and harrowing experience of domestic and family violence. Lauren's ordeal began in 2015 when her partner harmed her baby at just three months old. He was charged and incarcerated. But, for Lauren, that was only the beginning. She told me about the lack of support she received from police and the hospital. She was doing everything she could to protect her child, but the system made her feel like the criminal. After that, Lauren endured further violence and coercion from another partner. She became homeless. She fought court battles. Her child was placed into care. At one point, that abusive partner took out a domestic violence order against her, a move that prevented her from completing her nursing studies and left her as a single mother with significant student debt. Lauren told me that, at one stage, she stole petrol because she couldn't afford to fill up her car.

Lauren's story is heartbreaking, but what is even more confronting is that her story is not unique. There are thousands of Laurens across this country, women who are doing everything they can to protect themselves and their children yet find themselves trapped in systems that compound their trauma instead of alleviating it. Lauren's trauma reminds us that gender based violence is not just about physical harm. It is about power, control and the structures that allow abuse to persist. It is about the barriers that women face when they seek help—the fear of not being believed, the shame of being judged, finding a new home and the crushing weight of navigating complex legal and child protection systems while trying to survive.

The Albanese Labor government is committed to changing this. Since coming to government, Labor has invested more than any Australian government ever, more than $4 billion, in frontline services and preventive programs. We made the $5,000 leaving violence payment permanent, providing support for women leaving violence. We are investing in emergency accommodation and legislated 10 days domestic violence leave. Importantly, we expanded discretion for Centrelink so perpetrators can't use the social security system to leave survivors with tens of thousands of dollars in debt. And we have reformed the family law system so that it is safer, simpler and more accessible. But we know there is more we need to do. We know this because women are still dying, and fighting to keep themselves and their children alive and safe.

We're committed to making changes to prevent perpetrators from using the tax and social security systems for coercive control or financial abuse. We must ensure that, when women like Lauren reach out for help, they are met with compassion and tangible support. Lauren said something to me that has stayed with me. She said, 'The shame I felt was indescribable.' No woman should ever feel that way for seeking help, and every child has the right to grow up safe. I commend this motion to the House.

I thank the member for Dickson for her contribution and for sharing that story, and I thank the member for Newcastle for moving this motion. The member for Newcastle is correct that an issue like this has bipartisan support. To sit here and listen to the member for Newcastle and the Leader of the Opposition share those names is a reminder for us all that we need to do more. We need to be better. We would love to be in a world where there were no lives lost to violence, but that world doesn't exist. We need to strive every day to get better.

The statistics are shocking—74 women lost in the last 12 months. In 2023-24, one woman was killed every eight days in this country. One woman was killed every eight days. One in four women have experienced domestic violence by a partner, which is 25 per cent of women in this country. That is completely unacceptable. Behind those statistics—the member for Dickson shared one story—we know there is a story for every one of those women. And it's not just the women that are impacted. It's their children. It's their parents. It's their loved ones. There are so many people in society impacted by this.

We need to understand—and this is the reason I'm standing here to speak—that it is not just the women of this parliament and the women of Australia that have a role to play. The leaders of the country, the men in this place and the men in communities have a role to play. We need to call out any inappropriate behaviour made by our friends, our colleagues and our workmates. We need to make sure that all men understand that violence is not acceptable in any circumstance. We need to hold them to account. We need to show courage and call it out when we see it. We need to understand that there is a better way and there is a different way. Early intervention is a key part of that.

I don't believe that men are evil, clearly. Of the men that perpetrate this, there are clearly a percentage that are evil. But I have to live in hope that, while we can't change what people have done, we can intervene with the younger generation. Can we stop this violence from occurring at an earlier age? I am proud to be part of Parliamentary Friends of Healthy Masculinities, which launched last week, with the member for Hunter, Dan Repacholi, and Senator David Pocock. It's an example of an organisation that is engaging with young men in their teenage years by having conversations with them and explaining to them that it's okay to share their weaknesses and be vulnerable. I, and so many others, grew up in a generation that was told that it was weak to speak. You had to be strong and you had to show strength at all times. And, once that armour is put up, day after day, week after week, year after year, some men can lose some of their humanity and lose touch with what they believe in, with who they are and with what they think is acceptable.

We need to continue to support organisations like the Man Cave to make sure that young men learn to be in touch with their emotions and to have conversations. They can't bottle it up and then have it come out in violence—whether it's against their partner or against another person that's just having a beer with their friends at the pub. We need to stop that cycle. We need to make sure that, if people do the wrong thing, there are serious consequences. The perpetrators have to be held to account. The families and the victims have to be protected by the police, by our court system, by the justice system. If you do the wrong thing, you deserve everything that is thrown at you.

This is not an issue, and not a challenge, that will be solved tomorrow. We wish it would be. It will take every day of this parliament, state parliaments, the judiciary and the police force working to improve these outcomes. The sad reality is that, even with all the goodwill that we have, we know we can't solve this problem overnight. Just because you can't solve a problem overnight doesn't mean that you stop trying. We can make a difference; we will make a difference. Motions like this are very important. As the member for Newcastle and the Leader of the Opposition did—those women that we lost should never be forgotten. Their names will now be in the Hansard forever. That is an important statement as we continue to improve as a society and make sure, hopefully, that one day there are no more names to be read out.

The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is therefore adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order for a later hour.

I 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.

Families across Australia are paying the price for the Albanese Labor government's broken promises on Medicare. Labor's new bulk-billing policy is already unravelling. Figures released by the Department of Health, Disability and Ageing reveal that just 13 per cent of metropolitan GP clinics have signed up to Labor's new bulk-billing program. That means the vast majority of Australian will still face out-of-pocket costs when visiting their local doctor, costs which health department officials admit now average almost $50 per visit and are expected to continue to rise. When the Prime Minister stood before Australians and promised that all you'd need to see your doctor was your Medicare card, he gave a commitment of affordability and access. The reality has proven very different. Under Labor, more and more Australians are finding that they also need their credit card because GP costs are at record highs.

Since the coalition left office, Labor's mismanagement of Medicare has seen bulk-billing collapse across the country, including in my electorate within the Redlands, where it has fallen from 84.7 per cent under the coalition to just 71 per cent today. Only 1,051 of Australia's 6,940 GP practices have joined Labor's new incentive scheme. Why? Because, like many small businesses, local clinics are struggling under Labor's cost-of-doing-business crisis, with sky-rocketing energy, higher rents and insufficient rebates that simply don't cover the real cost of providing quality care. One GP clinic in Cleveland, within my electorate, recently emailed its patients to tell them exactly why they could not afford to join Labor's new plan. Their email reads:

While we support initiatives that aim to improve access to healthcare, the new program does not provide the level of funding required to cover the true cost of providing high-quality, comprehensive GP medical care. The Medicare rebates, even with the new incentives, continue to fall well short of the cost of delivering the time, expertise, equipment, and staff support involved in your care.

Signing up, they told patients, would mean shorter appointments, rushed consultations and compromised care. So, instead, they've chosen to remain with private billing to protect the quality and time their patients deserve.

The Queensland president of the Australian Medical Association, Dr Nick Yim, said in October:

We all know across the country expenses are increasing. That includes mortgages, electricity, staff wages, insurances. And obviously, when we see these rebates, if they're not keeping in touch with the cost of living expenses, it just means that we cannot bulk bill everyone.

  …   …   …

we also know that our population is getting older, diseases are increasing, becoming more complex, and we do want to incentivise those longer consultations for those increased complexity as well. We want to incentivise taking the time, seeing the patients and for those long consultations.

It is clear that Labor's cost-of-living crisis is largely to blame for the inability of many GPs to sign up to the bulk-billing scheme. The bulk-billing scheme does not give GPs the ability to take the longer consultations they need to understand increasingly complex health issues. This is encouraging shortcuts and a preference for quantity over quality when it comes to receiving health care.

When you or your child gets sick, you shouldn't have to check your bank balance before seeing a doctor. But that's exactly what more and more families in my electorate and right across Australia are having to do. I've heard from a single mother in Wellington Point forced to choose between petrol and a check-up. A retiree in Victoria Point recently contacted me, outlining that she's delaying an appointment because she simply can't afford it. And a young family from Russell Island who I met recently told me they're now forced to travel deep into Logan, quite a distance from Russell Island, just to find a bulk-billing clinic. These are the real stories of real Australians being failed by this government and its promises to strengthen Medicare. Unfortunately, it's only become harder and more expensive to see a doctor.

Australians deserve a government that delivers solutions, not spin. The Prime Minister must stop using Medicare as a political slogan and start addressing the real pressures facing patients and GPs. They deserve a health system that rewards doctors for time and care. It's time for Labor to listen to the families, clinics and communities crying out for support. Australians deserve more than just broken promises and political slogans. They deserve affordable and accessible health care. That's what my motion is calling for, and I commend it to the House.

Is the motion seconded?

I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.

I rise to speak against the motion moved by the member for Bowman, which is really laughable, because the reduction of bulk-billing over the past 10 years is a direct result of the nine years of coalition policies—a direct result of the big six-year freeze on GP rebates implemented by my opponent, Peter Dutton, in 2014, when he was Minister for Health, and then continued under the now opposition leader, Sussan Ley. And let's not forget the ill-conceived GP fee in 2015, where those opposite actually publicly campaigned for people to be paying for a GP visit, with the former minister, Sussan Ley, now opposition leader, saying, 'If you don't pay for something, you don't value it.' We all know that this led to an unprecedented decline in bulk-billing as doctors found it increasingly difficult to recover their practice costs without charging a fee. So I would say to those opposite, if you want to know why we are now doing everything possible to bring back bulk-billing, you should just look in the mirror and say to yourselves, 'It was the coalition that destroyed bulk-billing,' because that is the truth.

After a decade of cuts and neglect under the former coalition government, bulk-billing was in freefall. Many patients who had only ever been bulk-billed were having to pay a fee for the first time to see a GP, and as a result some were skipping care because they couldn't afford it, resulting in poorer health outcomes for vulnerable Australians. The Albanese Labor government is turning that around. I've heard too many stories over the past eight years of campaigning in Dickson—parents forced to choose between groceries and a visit to the doctor; people going without treatment because they couldn't afford to pay upfront and ending up in A&E. That was the reality of the system that was neglected for far too long by those opposite.

That's why the Albanese Labor government, since its election, has been delivering the single largest investment in Medicare. When we first came to government, we moved to triple the bulk-billing incentive for vulnerable patient groups, children under 16 and concession card holders. Now, for the first time, we're expanding the bulk-billing incentive to everyone—to all Australians. We're providing incentives to general practices that bulk-bill every patient, and we are seeing GP practices take up that offer right across the country. Well over 1,000 have switched to be fully bulk-billed. This is on top of the 1,600 GP practices that already fully bulk-bill. By 2030, we aim to have nine out of 10 GP visits bulk-billed. This investment will deliver an additional 18 million bulk-billed GP visits each year across the country. At the same time, we are rolling out our urgent care clinics across the country, reducing waiting times in A&E and providing more out-of-hours services. Our local Murrumba Downs urgent care clinic recently celebrated over 25,000 visits—now over 27,000. The feedback I get from locals on this service is all positive. It's a great local service. We are also opening walk-in free Medicare mental health centres right across the country, and we now have one in Strathpine in my electorate.

On this side of the House, we are restoring bulk-billing, strengthening Medicare and making sure no-one has to choose between their health and their household budget. Whether you need urgent care, mental health care or a check-up at your local GP, we want every Australian to have access to the health care they need, with their Medicare card. That's the promise of Medicare. That's the legacy Labor created, and that's the legacy the Albanese government is strengthening and will always fight for.

I might remind the member for Dixon that this government has been in power for 3½ years. It might be time to take responsibility for the failures under your watch. Talking about decades ago has a bit of limitation.

Opposition members interjecting—

Order! The member for Casey doesn't need an echo.

There was an awkward moment where the member for Dickson said that this government's ambition is to get to nine out of 10 visits bulk-billed by 2030—that's their ambition. The awkward part about that is that's roughly 90 per cent of visits bulk-billed, which is, coincidently, the exact number of bulk-billing rates under the former coalition government when this prime minister took over—90 per cent in the data. The whole ambition of this government is to match what the former coalition government did. The reality is that, under this government, from the facts by the department of health, not my facts—very independent—is that bulk-billing rates have plummeted under this prime minister and under this government's watch. That is the reality they do not like to admit.

In my community, it has gone from 84.3 per cent in 2019 in the Yarra ranges in the electorate of Casey—in 2023, under the Albanese Labor government, it dropped to 73.2 per cent in my community. My community knows that this prime minister might hold up a Medicare card, but he's not delivering when it comes to health. It really sums up everything that is wrong about this government and this prime minister. It is big on spin and it is big on optics and it is low on delivery. It does not deliver for the Australian people. The Prime Minister stood, during the campaign, and said, 'All you will need is your Medicare card,' knowing that that is not true, deliberately misleading the Australian people, because the Minister for Health and Ageing confirmed that you would still need your credit card to go to the GP. This is what this prime minister does. He spins. It's now about $50 short that you need to go to the GP, because, on average, it costs $50.49 to see a GP under this government.

This is the same prime minister that was very happy to cut the Medicare funded mental health sessions for Australians from 20 to 10. One day, he stands up and holds a Medicare card, talking about how important Medicare is, and, the next day, he makes the heartless decision to cut Medicare funded mental health sessions from 20 to 10, abandoning the Australian people when they need it the most. Coming out of the pandemic, cost-of-living pressures, young people struggling with mental health, needing the support—what does this prime minister do? He heartlessly cuts that support for the Australian people. He's happy to say one thing but delivers the complete opposite for Australians.

What are we seeing for Australians now? Not only is bulk-billing harder to get; fewer and fewer people are going to the doctor to get the medical support they need, because they can't afford it. Under this government and this prime minister, 10,000 GP visits are cancelled and delayed every day because the Australian people cannot afford it. What is the health impact of that? For those single mums who need to see a GP to maybe get a breast scan or to get something else—what is the long-term health impact on our communities and families of people not being able to afford to see a GP? That is the lived reality of 10,000 Australians every day.

Each week, 70,000 Australians cannot afford to get the medical help that they need, yet this prime minister and those opposite have the gall to stand up here and talk about how important Medicare is despite it failing under their watch. That is the most frustrating part about this prime minister. This prime minister lives in an alternative reality. He talks a big game but fails to deliver, and, when this prime minister spins but doesn't deliver, it's my community in Casey—it's communities across the country—that pays the price. Spin doesn't get it delivered for the Australian people. Whether it's health, energy bills or the cost of living, this prime minister always fails to deliver for the Australian people, and you pay the price.

I love holding mobile offices in my electorate of Bonner. I recently met with Garry at my mobile office at Mount Gravatt Westfield, in my electorate. Garry had lots of things he wanted to talk about, but at the top of his mind was health care. Bulk-billing, cost of medication—these are the things that people in my community of Bonner care about. We made time to chat some more just last week, and, when I caught up with Garry, I talked to him about the fact that, from 1 November this year, every Australian is eligible for bulk-billing under Labor; around 1,000 GP practices have already indicated that they will become 100 per cent bulk-billing, which is on top of the 1,600 that are already bulk-billing right across our country.

I was able to let him know that, in Queensland alone, bulk-billing has increased by 1.2 million additional visits under Labor and that we take a different approach to that of those opposite. That means more doctors, more bulk-billing and more urgent care clinics. That is our approach to strengthening Medicare. I told Garry that no Australian should ever have to choose between buying groceries and seeing a doctor and that the phrase 'I can't afford to see a doctor' is something that should never be spoken in a country like ours. Labor has tripled the bulk-billing incentive, the single biggest investment in Medicare's history. That means more Australians seeing a doctor for free and fewer families putting off the care that they need.

Over the next four years, 4,800 clinics across the nation are expected to convert to be fully bulk-billing practices, and it's already started in my electorate of Bonner. In my electorate, we now have 11 fully bulk-billing GP clinics; that's doubled. These include Archer Medical Centre; Doctors On Manly Road; Garden City Family Doctors; Good Health medical centres in Garden City, Mount Gravatt and Carindale; Mansfield Family Practice; Mount Gravatt Family Practice; Realcare Medical Centre; Tingalpa Family Health Care Centre; and Yulu-Burri-Ba. These clinics are delivering real relief for households and real confidence that, when you're sick, you can see a GP for free.

Tripling the bulk-billing incentive goes hand in hand with cheaper medicines. In Bonner alone, families have saved more than $12.8 million across two million scripts. In just over one month, more savings are on the way. From 1 January we will see the cost of PBS medications drop to $25 per script. During the election this year, my community made it very clear that they wanted to see a Medicare urgent clinic in our community. Labor has already opened 90 Medicare urgent care clinics across the country, and there are 47 more on the way. I am so excited that in the coming months we will see one of those 47 right in my electorate of Bonner. The new Karridale Medicare Urgent Care Clinic is on the way. We know that over 2.1 million patients have walked through the door of a Medicare Urgent Care Clinic right across Australia, and that includes 360,000 Queenslanders who have now received free, urgent care for non-life-threatening conditions through these clinics seven days per week and close to home. The Karridale clinic will cut out-of-pocket costs, and I cannot wait to cut that ribbon in the coming months.

No Australian should be punished for their gender when accessing health care but we know that women still pay more, wait longer, and their concerns are too often dismissed. Last year, the Medical Journal of Australia reported that 9.4 per cent of women delayed or did not fulfil a script because of cost compared with 5.5 per cent of men. Labor's $800 million women's health package is changing that. Some 300,000 more women will save $400 a year in Medicare rebates on IUDs, and 365,000 women have already accessed 715,000 cheaper scripts for contraceptives and menopausal hormone therapies through changes to the PBS. This is one of the largest health investments by any government, because women's health must be a priority and healthcare gender bias must be eliminated.

Labor are delivering and will keep delivering because we know that all you should need is your Medicare card, not your credit card, to get free health care in this country.

Yes, all you should need is your Medicare card, but, sadly, that is not the case in my electorate of Cook. The numbers are absolutely damning. Since 2022, there has been an 18.8 per cent fall in bulk-billing rates in my electorate. This is the biggest drop of any electorate in all of New South Wales. This is what breaking Medicare looks like. In my electorate of Cook, we only have two clinics that bulk bill. We have no federally funded urgent care clinic. Why, Prime Minister, are you denying the people of Cook essential medical services while parading a Medicare card around through the election campaign saying 'all you will need is this'? In my electorate, having seen the doctor only a couple of weeks ago, the out-of-pocket cost is over $100.

Take for example one of my long-standing clinics, the Caringbah Family Medical Practice. It has explained publicly why it cannot join Labor's new bulk-billing scheme. The message was both blunt and honest: the government's promises do not match the financial reality, it claimed. Caringbah Family Medical Practice said, 'No business can survive while losing money on every transaction.' This is the truth behind Labor's so-called reform, a policy that sounds generous but that leaves doctors and their practices fitting the bill, and patients far worse off.

The Prime Minister told Australia at least 71 times, 'All you need is your Medicare card, not your credit card.' He said it would be free to see a GP under Labor. But today the reality is very different. Paying $100 for a GP consultation is an everyday reality for the people who live in Cook. Parents who simply need a script, pensioners managing chronic disease, and young people who cannot get in to see a doctor without paying fees they cannot afford. Fewer Australians are now seeing doctors, 10,000 fewer a day. They are skipping potentially life-saving appointments, not because they don't need them but because they cannot afford them. Unfortunately, more Australians are paying to see a doctor than ever before. Some 43,000 extra Australians a day are now paying for a GP visit, many of them in my electorate of Cook. This is exactly what happens when a government uses Medicare as a political football instead of really supporting doctors and clinics like those in Cook.

Even with Labor's new incentives, the rebate does not cover the cost of providing quality medical care in my electorate. Once you add rent, staff wages, medical equipment, digital compliance, insurance and, critically, the skyrocketing bills under this government—for rent and energy costs in particular—clinics are losing money on every consultation. That's why my electorate of Cook has had the largest drop of any electorate in all of New South Wales in bulk-billing rates. It's why we have only two clinics, that are booked out and you cannot make an appointment to, that offer bulk-billing. That's why in my electorate people are paying over $100 on average to see a doctor, and it's not good enough. Prime Minister, start serving the people of Cook and start serving their needs.

To qualify for Labor's incentive, a clinic must bill every single patient every single time. This all-or-nothing requirement might sound good in a press conference, but in the real world, where rents are skyrocketing and energy prices are skyrocketing, it's impossible. These small community practices cannot survive on this government's slogans and wishful policy. This government continues to talk about strengthening Medicare, but every number, every clinic and every patient tells a different story. The truth is simple: access is weaker, costs are higher and the system is failing the very people this Prime Minister promised to help.

You cannot strengthen Medicare by driving clinics out of bulk-billing, you cannot help families by making it more expensive to see a GP, and you cannot promise Australians won't need their credit card while forcing them to use it more than ever before. Our GPs deserve respect and a funding model that works. Instead, Labor has delivered the exact opposite—a Medicare system under strain and tens of thousands of people in my electorate out of pocket.

I rise to speak against the motion this morning. My neighbour the member for Bowman is actually the mover of this motion, and it just proves the old adage that you can choose your friends but you can't choose your neighbours, because I feel as if I would like to offer a little bit of political advice. Maybe they're better off not talking about this issue. Maybe there needs to be a little bit of self-reflection here, because when it comes to the reason people are finding it difficult to access health care today, it is because of the policies that they presided over for more than nine years. The member for Bowman mentioned a woman who has to come deep into Logan to access a bulk-billing doctor. Perhaps that's because in Logan, on the northern Gold Coast, we managed to increase the number of bulk-billing clinics overnight from nine to 20. That's more than double, and that number has only gone up. That was overnight, between Friday night and Saturday morning. Now we have gone up to at least 21, and that number is going to continue to rise. So I would suggest the member for Bowman direct more people to Logan because that's where they are going to find it. He won't need to, because that's not the only place this constituent of his is going to be able to find a bulk-billing doctor; that number is going to continue to rise in his electorate as well.

The opposition whip mentioned that we have been in power for 3½ years and it's time that we took responsibility. We are taking responsibility for the solution—if they won't take responsibility for the problem. When I was campaigning in 2021 for the seat of Forde—unsuccessfully, mind you—and in 2022 we all noticed that bulk-billing was beginning to ebb. You could see that one clinic had decided to stop bulk-billing, and then another clinic. You got the sense that this was the beginning of a landslide, which did happen. Unfortunately, as we came to government that landslide came crashing down, and while it came crashing down as a result of the policies of the former government, thanks to the practical incentives for kids and pensioners, we have now begun to turn things around. In Queensland, for instance, as a result of those incentives, we have gone from a bulk-billing rate of 73.6 to 77 per cent. After 3½ years we are taking responsibility and we are turning it around.

The member for Casey made the misleading claim that Albo heartlessly cut, from 20 to 10, the number of mental health appointments for which you could access assistance, but I think the point needs to be made that the 20 visits was a temporary measure due to COVID, just like the bulk-billing rate was artificially high due to COVID, as people got their vaccinations. That underlines the point that the collapse was even greater, because that number was kept artificially high as people sought vaccinations. The real problem was masked by that fact.

We're talking about mental health, and, in Forde, we've not only invested in the Medicare mental health clinic in Logan but also upgraded it since the last election, and we'll be opening up a new one on the northern Gold Coast. In terms of responding to what the member for Cook had to say, unfortunately there wasn't anything I could find that merited responding to. I'd underline the fact that this is a problem 10 years in the making, and it's turning around.

I visited the Holmview clinic and the Bannockburn clinic, and there are a list of other clinics that want to get me out there, as the local member, because we have, in the words of one clinic, saved bulk-billing. One clinic had bulk-billed for 10 years, and it was going to stop bulk-billing, and, had these new incentive payments not come in, it wouldn't have been able to continue bulk-billing.

Only Labor has Medicare at its heart. Only Labor protects Medicare. While Peter Dutton was voted the worst health minister in history, perhaps those people voted too early, because there's one health minister that has the dubious record of having never approved an increase, and that's the Leader of the Opposition. (Time expired)

In good news, from 1 November more people in my electorate of Gilmore will be able to see their general practitioner for free. I know that, for too long, too many people have been paying too much out of pocket when they go to their doctor, and that's why I welcome the Albanese Labor government's expanded bulk-billing incentives for GPs.

Labor are making the largest investment in Medicare since its creation to ensure people can afford to see their GP. The expanded bulk-billing incentive for all Australians plus the creation of an additional new incentive payment for medical practices that bulk-bill every patient mean nine out of 10 GP visits will be bulk-billed by 2030. I'm really thrilled that more than 20 GP practices in Gilmore have already switched to being Medicare bulk-billing practices; 11 were mixed-billing practices. I've spoken to lots of local doctors on the South Coast who are making the choice to switch their practice to be fully bulk-billing clinics. They are taking up the incentives because it's good for their business and, of course, good for their patients as well.

Grand Pacific Health in Nowra and the Queen Street Medical Centre in Moruya were among the first on the South Coast to sign on to become fully bulk-billing practices. They want to make a difference in the community and want to help their patients, many of whom are older with multiple conditions or are young families feeling the cost-of-living pinch. Grand Pacific Health Nowra Practice Manager Charise Morris said, 'Being sick was not cheap, especially for families and the chronically ill.' She told me that the change would make a huge difference, because, when people don't have to pay a gap fee to see their doctor for a general consult, that's money that can put food on the table.

In three weeks since its introduction, I can see that Labor's investment in bulk-billing incentives is working. It had already been working for pensioners, concession card holders and families with kids, and now it has been expanded for every Australian. The Albanese Labor government's $8.5 billion investment into Medicare will deliver an additional 18 million bulk-billed GP visits each year, hundreds of nursing scholarships and thousands more doctors in the largest GP training program ever.

We are also opening more Medicare urgent care clinics across the country, and I'm so pleased that, from 10 November, the very popular Batemans Bay Medicare Urgent Care Clinic has been operating 18 hours a day—the longest of any clinic in the country. We promised to expand the hours from 6 am to midnight before the busy summer holiday period, and that's what we've done. More than 20,000 people have walked through the doors since the Batemans Bay clinic opened. The community was crying out for longer hours to take pressure off the hospital and local doctors. The population swells over summer, so now locals and visitors will be able to seek urgent non-life-threatening care for all those pesky summer colds, holiday injuries, sprains and stings until midnight every day of the year without having to wait hours in the ED. I also can't wait for the doors to open on the brand new federally funded Medicare urgent care clinic in Nowra very soon; watch this space.

We're making it cheaper for people to see a GP, no matter where they live. That's real, tangible cost-of-living relief for ordinary Australians.

I rise today to speak on Medicare, built by Labor and delivered by Labor. This extra commitment adds $8.5 billion for people to get in to see GPs and get the health care they deserve.

When I was playing in the United States, I took a hit to the face. My bottom lip was almost torn. The university I played for spent hundreds of thousands of dollars repairing me. A couple of years later, I blew out a shoulder—another quarter-of-a-million-dollar bill for those who were looking after me. In 2019, I had a stroke. Thanks to Medicare, I spent three days in hospital and was able to come out with a clean bill of health and no bill to pay. That is the beauty of Medicare—the equity of health care for all Australians. It is something we on this side of the House are proud of every single day. That little green card opens so many doors and gives people so much quality of life.

That's why it's exciting that we've added extra urgent care clinics right across the country, including, very soon, one for the northern suburbs of Cairns. For those unfamiliar with the geography of Cairns, the northern suburbs are cut off when the floods come through almost yearly. We are isolated from any kind of medical help. An urgent care clinic will address that need. The aged, the young and the people who need a top-up of their medication will be able to get in to see a doctor, get checked out and get home where they belong without having to brave the floodwaters that come across our highways.

I'm very excited that bulk-billing has been extended. I'm happy for the people of Australia and for my children, knowing they will have continued access to excellent health care.

There being no further speakers, the debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for a later hour.

by leave—I move:

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

Question agreed to.

I rise today to speak on the Strengthening Oversight of the National Intelligence Community Bill 2025. The coalition will support this bill. Australia currently faces real, emerging and serious threats to its national security. That fact was borne out in the recent despicable attacks on places linked to our Jewish community—the Adass Israel Synagogue in Melbourne and the kosher Lewis' Continental Kitchen in Sydney.

The director-general of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, ASIO, recently attributed at least two of those attacks to the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, the IRGC. This parliament has separately taken action, long called for by the coalition, to address state sponsored terrorism targeted at Australia by the ability to list foreign state entities as state sponsors of terrorism, with associated criminal offences and penalties. The coalition understands and believes that, to meet these real and ongoing national security threats, intelligence and security agencies must have the powers and resources necessary to protect Australian citizens and our national interests.

By way of overview, the national intelligence community comprises 10 agencies: the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission, the ACIC; the Australian Geospatial-Intelligence Organisation, the AGO; the Australian Secret Intelligence Service, ASIS; the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, ASIO; the Australian Signals Directorate, ASD; the Defence Intelligence Organisation, DIO; the Office of National Intelligence, ONI; the Australian Federal Police; the Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre, AUSTRAC; and the Department of Home Affairs.

Given the importance of our democracy, the parliament must ensure that we deliver these agencies with the right tools to protect Australia's essential security and national interests while also safeguarding our essential rights and freedoms. An important way in which to do so is to ensure that we have strong and effective oversight of our national intelligence community. We know that public trust and confidence in our security and intelligence agencies can only continue to be assured through rigorous, effective oversight and, to the greatest extent possible, public accountability.

I turn now to an overview of the bill before the House. The Strengthening Oversight of the National Intelligence Community Bill 2025, commonly referred to in the intelligence community as the SONIC, amends the Intelligence Services Act, the IS Act, and the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Act 1986, the IGIS Act. It does so to ensure comprehensive oversight of all 10 agencies in Australia's national intelligence community. This improved oversight will occur through the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, the PJCIS, on which I've had the great honour of serving, and via the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security, the IGIS.

The bill expands the jurisdictions of the IGIS and the PJCIS to include oversight of four additional agencies under their remit: the ACIC, and only the intelligence functions of the Australian Federal Police, AUSTRAC and Home Affairs. This is an appropriate recognition of the significant national security powers exercised by these agencies, as well as their regular, integral role in joint intelligence operations. The coalition considers this to be a prudent measure that would bring the oversight of these agencies in line with their national intelligence community counterparts.

The limited intelligence functions of the Department of Home Affairs pertain to the collection and analysis of intelligence for the purposes of immigration operations—namely, those of the Australian Border Force—some domestic cyber operations, and activities concerning countering foreign interference. Home Affairs also exercises coordination roles concerning counterterrorism operations, counter-foreign-interference operations and cyber incident responses that require access to and sharing of classified intelligence. The department's intelligence-collection functions and its use of intelligence for operational purposes has placed it within the NIC, the national intelligence community. It is also the basis for its work being subject to oversight by the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security.

The bill also strengthens the relationship between the PJCIS, the IGIS and the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor, the INSLM, and provides the PJCIS with a power to request the IGIS to conduct an inquiry, complementing the committee's existing ability to request that the INSLM undertake a review. The coalition welcomes the granting of the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor with the power to initiate reviews into the full suite of contemporary counterterrorism or national security legislation at the Commonwealth level rather than the current defined list of legislation. The bill, importantly, provides an own-motion power to the PJCIS to review certain legislation and a requirement that the IGIS and the Director-General of the Office of National Intelligence provide briefings to the committee. These are critical and measured reforms to ensure that the parliament, through the PJCIS, has oversight of intelligence and security matters across all the national intelligence community.

Turning to other specific aspects of the bill, schedule 1 would also require the inspector-general and the Director-General of the Office of National Intelligence to provide annual briefings to the PJCIS. It will also make a number of technical amendments to the Intelligence Services Act 2001 to modernise and clarify the provisions to ensure the PJCIS's enabling legislation is adapted to contemporary circumstances. It will remove the ACIC from the oversight jurisdiction of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement, the PJCLE, noting that the ACIC will be oversighted by the PJCIS in its entirety—I apologise for the acronyms in this speech! Schedule 1 will also make consequential amendments to ensure that information protected by secrecy offences under relevant legislation can be disclosed to IGIS officials performing duties or functions or exercising powers as IGIS officials.

These amendments would allow for the transfer of complaints regarding AUSTRAC and Home Affairs between the IGIS and other integrity bodies to facilitate effective consideration of those complaints by the appropriate body. It will also make consequential amendments to address overlap in jurisdiction between the IGIS and other relevant oversight bodies.

Schedule 2 of the bill would amend the review and access of ACIC criminal intelligence assessment records under the archives law. Schedule 3 of the bill would amend the Criminal Code to introduce an exemption from civil and criminal liability for Defence officials and others for certain computer related conduct connected to an effect outside Australia.

Schedule 4 of the bill would amend the meaning of 'counterterrorism and national security legislation' for the purposes of the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor Act 2010, the INSLM Act, to ensure the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor is able to review any Commonwealth legislation relating to counterterrorism or national security. Schedule 4 will also make a number of minor amendments to streamline and modernise provisions in the INSLM Act to ensure the INSLM's enabling legislation is adapted to contemporary circumstances. Finally, schedule 5 of the bill contains application and transitional provisions.

Turning now to the issue of ongoing oversight: as with the ever-present requirement to consider how best to protect and safeguard our national security, an ongoing obligation for this parliament and its successors will be to ensure that Australia's intelligence oversight legislation remains fit for purpose for how technology is likely to disrupt intelligence practices. In particular, the use of artificial intelligence will expand the capability and lower the barrier to entry for those departments and agencies, including those outside the NIC, wishing to undertake so-called open source intelligence collection—and that is information that is freely accessible.

Open source intelligence, OSIT, activities are increasingly being used by a wide range of government departments and agencies. The information that can be collected, as well as the analysis that can be performed on such information, can rival covert collection methods in some instances. The question of proper oversight of OSIT practices should be an ongoing consideration for the PJCIS, including whether it is the appropriate remit of the IGIS or whether other bodies should fulfil this function. Lawmakers should regularly consider if new intelligence oversight legislation is suitably future proofed in the face of how emerging technologies may interact with intelligence practices.

On the topic of proper oversight by the PJCIS, I am obliged to observe that we do have significant concerns about how the Albanese Labor government has handled consideration of a number of national security bills, with disregard for the proper work of the PJCIS. This is regrettably emblematic of this government's approach to national security matters in this parliament. The important oversight of intelligence and security matters performed by the PJCIS has been restricted and impeded by this government, including through truncated and rushed consideration of legislation. That must stop. The imposition of unrealistic timeframes places an unnecessary burden on stakeholders, secretariat staff and members of the PJCIS and, ultimately, more importantly, potentially leads to unintended consequences and/or poorer legislative outcomes for our national security. The coalition will continue to call out this government's perfunctory approach to parliament's vital oversight role and to national security matters.

I also want to acknowledge the work of the PJCIS in its inquiry into this bill. The committee's report recommended the bill be passed and set out 11 further recommendations to strengthen oversight of the national intelligence community. The government has advised that it will adopt several of these recommendations and move amendments accordingly. I have been provided just this morning with a number of those amendments, which I am still trying to get my head around. When those amendments are moved in this House, I will be speaking to them more closely.

The coalition will be constructive where we can, especially on important reforms to improve our national intelligence architecture. We recognise that this bill is an important strengthening of the oversight of our national intelligence community but we will continue to hold the government to account in relation to how it develops and implements these measures.

The Australian people deserve transparency wherever possible in relation to intelligence legislation. They deserve accountability and confidence that their parliament is doing its job. While we will support this bill as outlined, the coalition has misgivings about how the Albanese government approaches the parliament's oversight of national security matters, including in relation to this bill. We will continue to insist that the government allows proper legislative and parliamentary processes to run their course before seeking to ram legislation through this parliament so as to ensure we deliver the best national security legislation to protect the Australian people, their institutions and assets.

As is my want to do in this place when I am talking all things national security, I do acknowledge the efforts of all of those men and women in our national intelligence community. I am joined at the table by my good friend the shadow veterans' affairs minister and also the veterans' affairs minister. In this place we rightly acknowledge our men and women who serve this country in uniform, but not often enough do we acknowledge the efforts of our men and women of our national intelligence community, who often are placed in harm's way and often 27 million Australians will never know about it. These are men and women who serve this country with great pride, loyalty and passion across this country and across the world in what can be very difficult and dangerous circumstances. I want to use this opportunity at the dispatch box to encourage and ask all of the directors-general and secretaries of our national intelligence agencies to pass on the thanks of a grateful nation to those men and women who serve this country in our national intelligence community.

Australians expect nothing less of this place than to ensure that we uphold appropriate scrutiny of our national intelligence community and the intelligence legislation that comes before this House. I commend this bill to the House.

I rise to make my contribution to the debate on the Strengthening Oversight of the National Intelligence Community Bill 2025. The purpose of the legislation is to strengthen the oversight of the national intelligence community. The bill builds on two strong Labor legacies: the creation of the roles of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security, the IGIS, and the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, the PGCIS, among others. These agencies were established under the Hawke government in 1986 and 1988 respectively. The bill will ensure the oversight of the national intelligence community will be holistic and appropriate in relation to significant powers invested in these agencies. The bill was developed in consultation with agencies from across the government. The government is committed to strengthening Australia's security agencies and to ensuring they are subject to appropriate public and parliamentary oversight.

The national intelligence community is made up of the following agencies: the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission, the Australian Federal Police, the Australian Geospatial Intelligence Organisation, the Australian Secret Intelligence Service, the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, the Australian Signals Directorate, the Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre, the Defence Intelligence Organisation, the intelligence division of the Department of Home Affairs and the Office of National Intelligence. These agencies do important work, and they have significant powers. As a result, it is critical to maintain public trust and, to do this, effective oversight of these agencies is required. The work done by these agencies is of a covert nature, and work and decisions are rarely overseen by the courts; therefore, robust and independent oversight is essential and extremely important.

The bill implements recommendations made over the past several years that were failed to be implemented by the previous government. They include: recommendations from the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security in its advisory report on the Intelligence Oversight and Other Legislation Amendment (Integrity Measures) Bill 2020; the comprehensive review of the legal framework of the national intelligence community, known as the Richardson review, conducted by Mr Dennis Richardson AC; and the 2017 and 2024 independent intelligence reviews. The bill includes measures proposed in bills introduced by colleagues in the other place, including the Intelligence and Security Legislation Amendment (Implementing Independence of the Intelligence Review) Bill 2020. This was introduced by Senator McAllister as the newest iteration of the 2015 bill introduced by Senator Wong, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security Amendment Bill. Further, the bill complements measures in a bill passed by both houses on 6 September 2023, the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Modernisation) Bill 2022.

The bill amends several pieces of legislation, including the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Act 1986, the Intelligence Services Act 2001 and the Criminal Code Act 1995. The bill will expand the jurisdiction of the PJCIS and the IGIS to include all the ACIC and intelligence functions of the AFP, AUSTRAC and the Department of Home Affairs. It will also provide the PJCIS with its own motion power and requirements for regular briefings.

One of the purposes of this bill is to strengthen the relationship between existing intelligence oversight bodies that supervise the national intelligence community, particularly the PJCIS, the IGIS and the INSLM. These bodies perform distinct yet complementary work in overseeing the NIC and its legislative framework. The three bodies require a strong, statutory relationship. This bill proposes to strengthen this relationship by amending the IGIS conduct with an inquiry into the legality and propriety of operational activities of the agencies within the jurisdiction and providing a report to the PJCIS and the relevant minister.

Furthermore, the bill will ensure that the PJCIS has a necessary and relevant context to support the extremely important work that it does by amending the IGIS Act and the Office of National Intelligence Act 2018 to require that the PJCIS be briefed annually by the IGIS and the Director-General of the Office of National Intelligence. The bill also amends the IS Act to add the INSLM to the list of people and agencies from which the PJCIS may request a briefing. In addition to these measures, the bill aims to expand the jurisdictions of the PJCIS and the IGIS. To do this, the bill will amend the IS Act to allow the PJCIS to review its own motion proposed reforms to counterterrorism and national security legislation.

The IGIS plays an extremely important role in assisting in the oversight and review of the activities of the agencies within the NIC, and for legality, propriety and consistency with human rights. The bill expands the jurisdictions of the IGIS and the PJCIS to the ACIC, in full, and the intelligence functions of the AFP, AUSTRAC and the Department of Home Affairs. These amendments will ensure that the whole of the NIC is subject to holistic and specialised intelligence oversight. Another primary purpose of this legislation is to minimise duplicate oversight jurisdictions where appropriate. The bill also includes technical amendments to modernise and enhance the efficiency of the PJCIS.

Lastly, the bill contains amendments to provide immunities for certain computer related acts carried out by intelligence and security agency officials. Amendments to the Criminal Code will provide defence officials, and others, with an exemption for civil and criminal liabilities for relevant conduct for computer related conduct engaged in Australia that cause an effect outside Australia. This will address recommendation No. 72 of the Richardson review and has been drafted on a similar basis to the existing immunities for officials of other agencies in the national intelligence community, specifically in relation to the Australian Secret Intelligence Service, the Australian Signals Directorate and the Australian Geospatial Intelligence Organisation.

The national intelligence community, and the PJCIS in particular, play a critical role in overseeing the national intelligence agencies and scrutinising national security legislation. An important function of these agencies is to ensure that national security legislation is necessary, proportionate and effective. Strong and effective oversight mechanisms for national security and intelligence agencies are an essential part of protecting and advancing Australia's national security interests. The measures in this bill will ensure that Australian intelligence and oversight bodies are well placed to provide the appropriate oversight of the NIC now and into the future. It also builds on the strong Labor legacies of providing strong and effective oversight of Australia's national security and intelligence agencies. I commend the bill to the House.

I rise today to speak on the Strengthening Oversight of the National Intelligence Community Bill 2025. Earlier this year, the director-general of security delivered the annual threat assessment, which had a number of key messages, including the importance of looking forward; of anticipation; of identifying trends, patterns and fundamental long-term shifts in behaviour. The past and present are, of course, still relevant, but a future-facing outlook was described by the director-general as being critical at this junction in our security environment—as being necessary to be prepared to meet the varied, dynamic, unpredictable and constantly moving and changing risks and challenges that we face.

To do this, the director-general and his dedicated and committed team scrutinise open-source information, rely on subject matter experts, draw on expertise in analytical techniques and review and analyse classified intelligence. This painstaking and important work is done with a view to producing full, frank, indepth assessments about future trajectories and vulnerabilities, underpinned by data and evidence that has been verified and validated. This sort of knowledge helps us anticipate the security environment and, in turn, helps us prepare so Australians are kept safe. There can be no argument: there is no greater responsibility for a government than keeping Australians safe.

Intelligence and security agencies must be appropriately equipped and resourced, and the legislative framework must facilitate this without hindrance by prescribing specific powers that allow our intelligence and security agencies to detect, disrupt and respond to threats to the nation's security. Given the significance of these powers and their potential to infringe on individual rights and freedoms if not clearly and precisely defined, they must be balanced with proper and appropriate oversight to ensure public trust is maintained and the rule of law is upheld. This is especially critical given that the COVID-19 pandemic and its associated lockdowns and restrictions on freedoms have, in some settings, driven anti-authority and conspiracy messaging.

Our security and intelligence agencies conduct themselves not only with dedication and commitment but with integrity and propriety and within the bounds of the law. This is a critical strength. In Australia, we trust these agencies, and this trust allows them to carry out the difficult and complex work that they do, and I thank them for this difficult and complex work. As this work grows increasingly more complex and challenging, reforms must also adapt. In this respect, this bill will extend consistent statutory and parliamentary oversight to all agencies exercising intelligence capabilities. Public trust and confidence in our security and intelligence agencies can only be assured through rigorous and effective oversight and, to the extent possible, public accountability. It goes without saying that the greater the potential for the powers of agencies to infringe on individual freedoms and liberties, the greater the need for accountability in the exercise of that power.

This bill will operate to amend the Intelligence Services Act of 2001 and the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Act of 1986 to ensure holistic and robust oversight of all 10 national intelligence community agencies, which the member for Werriwa outlined in her remarks. Firstly, schedule 1 of the bill would expand the jurisdictions of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security and the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security to oversee the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission and the intelligence functions of AUSTRAC, the AFP and Home Affairs. Schedule 1 will also facilitate the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security to request that the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security conduct an inquiry into the legality and propriety of particular operational activities of the agencies within the IGIS's jurisdiction.

Schedule 2 of the bill would amend the review and access of a ACIC criminal intelligence assessment records under the archives law, and schedule 3 would amend the Criminal Code Act to introduce an exemption from civil and criminal liability for Defence officials and others for certain computer related conduct. Schedule 4 would amend the meaning of 'counterterrorism and national security legislation' for the purpose of the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor Act 2010 to ensure that that monitor is able to review any Commonwealth legislation relating to counterterrorism or national security. The expansion of this mandate is illustrative of the fact that legislation is moving beyond only terrorism related activity to address national security threats of a more varied, complex and interconnected nature.

The measures contained in the bill are designed to ensure that robust and holistic oversight of Australia's intelligence community is achieved. This is a bill that delivers on the commitments of the Albanese Labor government to maintain the trust and integrity of our institutions and, fundamentally, to keep Australian safe. This bill is also compatible with the human rights and freedoms recognised or declared in the international instruments listed in section 3 of the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Firstly, with respect to the right to humane treatment in detention, the inclusion in the bill of the IGIS's expanded remit over the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission, which can detain persons under the Australian Crime Commission Act 2022 in limited circumstances, means the right to humane detention is promoted, because the effect of the bill is to enable independent oversight of places of detention.

Secondly, the right to a fair trial and a fair hearing is engaged by schedule 1 of the bill, which requires the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security to consult the head of an intelligence agency on whether the terms of a proposed response to the PJCIS would prejudice the fair trial of a person or the impartial adjudication of a matter. Prior to sharing ACIC examination material, the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security will be required to consult with the CEO of the ACIC as to whether the sharing of that information could reasonably be expected to prejudice the fair trial of a relevant person. These consultation requirements therefore promote the right to a fair trial by ensuring there are safeguards for the disclosure of information in connection with that trial.

Thirdly, the prohibition on interference with privacy should be understood to comprise freedom from unwarranted and unreasonable intrusions into activities that society recognises as falling within the sphere of individual autonomy. It should also be understood that the right to privacy may be limited in the pursuit of a legitimate objective and where the limitation is rationally connected to the legitimate objective and is not arbitrary. Schedule 1 contains several measures that engage with the right to privacy, and each of these measures has a legitimate objective in that they are designed to ensure that the national intelligence community is holistically and appropriately overseen by oversight bodies. Each of the measures is proportionate in achieving the legitimate objectives outlined in the bill and is subject to safeguards.

Given the current dynamic security environment, underpinned by challenges that are unprecedented in number and nature and that point to unprecedented harm if not managed, there can be no argument that the nature and scale of the threats facing Australia are significant. Intelligence and security agencies need to be able to do the work required to anticipate and manage these threats but in an oversight environment that is appropriately robust and fair, driven towards ensuring that public trust and confidence are maintained to the highest standards. This bill strikes that balance. I stand with the Attorney-General and thank her for her work on this important bill, which I commend to the House.

Australia faces an increasingly complex and challenging security environment. Both state and nonstate actors have shown increasing sophistication in the way they try to advance sometimes nefarious causes. We need a strong and robust intelligence framework, and our national intelligence community delivers that. There is no doubt our security agencies do a fantastic job of keeping Australians, individuals, businesses and communities safe. But we live in a democracy, so we need to make sure that, as with all government organisations, there is robust oversight and accountability and that our democratic system remains at the apex of our system.

This bill, the Strengthening Oversight of the National Intelligence Community Bill 2025, ensures two layers of protection. We have the expert oversight of the inspector-general as well as the democratic oversight of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. The joint committee is a very special part of our democratic system. It is a committee that has historically sat, and continues to sit, above partisan lines, where there is a genuine commitment from people all across the political spectrum to ensuring the safety and security of Australians, and good faith efforts to ensure that is the focus of that committee. It is well placed to provide that democratic oversight in a way that balances the need to ensure secrecy where required and subtlety when that's sufficient, and ensure there is nevertheless still robust oversight of the use of what are extraordinary powers of our intelligence organisations.

The member for Sturt gave the example of the compulsive powers of the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission. That is one example of exceptional powers given to our intelligence organisations to enable them to do their jobs. But, for public trust and confidence to be safeguarded, we need to ensure that there is oversight and that members of the public can be confident those exceptional powers continue to be used appropriately, in the national interest and proportionately, and that their use is appropriately adapted to the threat environment we face.

This legislation is probably the most significant update to the oversight of our intelligence community since the royal commissions of the 1970s and 1980s—the Hope royal commissions. It is ensuring that there is a consistent framework for the oversight of the 10 agencies that sit within the national intelligence community and that there is a consistent, robust and democratically accountable framework for overseeing the important work they do. It strengthens democratic accountability and supports the effective and robust delivery of a modern intelligence suite of services. It ensures that, while oversight is there, we are still able to confidently empower those organisations to do the important work they need to do. It is an increasingly challenging, sophisticated and multipronged threat environment.

We know our intelligence organisations work incredibly well together, sharing intelligence where appropriate and ensuring they're coordinating with partners to the extent that that falls within their legal remit. That coordination is essential because criminal organisations and nefarious state actors don't follow the same rules we do. We need to ensure our framework enables flexibility for our security agencies to do their job well and to conduct themselves in a way that is consistent with the parliamentary democracy we find ourselves in and a society and culture that maintains respect for the rights and freedoms of individuals—and ensures that those rights, when they are limited through the right to privacy or the right not to participate in legal proceedings, are curtailed only to the extent necessary to protect human life or the essential interests of the country, and makes sure that we are always ensuring that the legal frameworks that sit around these things are proportionate and fair.

That is why we have independent oversight of national security legislation. We have a dedicated monitor that looks at our antiterrorism laws to ensure that they are not disproportionate, continue to meet the needs of intelligence organisations, continue to ensure it is possible for us to respond effectively to the threats and challenges faced by our country but at the same time not go overboard, and continue to ensure that Australians can remain confident that there is accountability, that our organisations do no more than is appropriate and reasonably adaptable to the important work they do, and that a mistrust that can sometimes develop from a lack of oversight and accountability can be addressed.

We know that, when things are kept secret, there's always more room for suspicion, more room for innuendo and more room for unfair assumptions to be made. We do need to ensure that, to the greatest extent possible, there is transparency about the way we do things and that the rules of the game are nice and clear, but that obviously doesn't mean that every single intelligence operation and every security threat is going to be openly disclosed to the public. Obviously that would adversely impact the important work the agencies do. So, while there needs to be a level of secrecy, Australians should be able to be confident that the rules of the game balance their rights and interests appropriately and that there are those two layers of oversight and checks, both from experts, such the inspector-general, and through their democratically representatives on the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. This will ensure we can, as a people, remain confident that our security agencies are continuing to do the good and important work they're doing, that they're keeping Australians safe and that the frameworks we have in place will continue to enable them to appropriately respond to the environments they find themselves in.

I proudly commend this bill to the House and look forward to seeing its passage.

I am pleased to speak to the Strengthening Oversight of the National Intelligence Community Bill 2025. It does not stand alone; rather, it is one of a series of steps the government has taken over the last 3½ years to create a more democratic system of effective oversight across the executive government.

When I spoke in this place on the Ministers of State Amendment Bill in 2023, I said that our system of government requires transparency, disclosures, checks and balances. On that occasion, we passed legislation to ensure that no future Australian Prime Minister would be able to take on ministries in secret. Prior to that time, no parliament conceived that such legislation would be necessary. Events proved otherwise, and the Albanese government took action.

I was a member of the Joint Select Committee on National Anti-Corruption Commission Legislation. The National Anti-Corruption Commission is an important part of our system of effective oversight and was already long overdue at the federal level when we passed the legislation in 2022. In 2024, I spoke on the Administrative Review Tribunal Bill. We inherited an AAT that was simply not working, beset with delay and inappropriate appointments. Without a solid system of administrative review there can be no public confidence in government. I'm pleased to see the government's reforms in this area are coming into effect—a legacy that the former attorney-general can be proud of.

The Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence) Bill is before the Senate—and not for the first time. That committee, once constituted, will act to enable this parliament to, in an appropriate way, more effectively monitor the Department of Defence and defence supply ecosystem. We've seen in recent days how necessary such oversight is. All of these examples and more are part of an underlying attitude on the part of the Albanese government that our institutions must be strong and that part of this strength is a formidable system of effective oversight that allows the parliament and the people to have sufficient knowledge that will engender trust in those institutions and in our democratic system as a whole.

Support for effective democratic oversight is, as I have said, a hallmark of the Albanese Labor government. I can say further that it is a significant feature of Labor governments generally. ASIO was established by the Chifley government, by executive action, in 1949. In 1974, the Whitlam government established the Hope royal commission, the Royal Commission on Intelligence and Security. That commission reported in 1977. In 1986 the Hawke government enacted the legislation for an inspector-general of intelligence and security, which had been a recommendation of the Hope royal commission. We passed legislation in 2023 to update and improve the Office of the IGIS, and it's fair to say that, today, that body has broad support across the parliament. In 1986, when the Office of the IGIS was established by the Hawke government, it was not supported by the coalition. There was a view that the intelligence agencies should not have their work disturbed by oversight. It was a James Bond-ish view of intelligence and security that perhaps we, as a society, have grown out of.

About 15 years ago, I was a principal policy adviser to WA Labor Premiers Gallop and Carpenter and Liberal Premier Barnett. I advised on security and emergency management. As part of my role I advised the premiers on WA's response to terrorism. I worked with my national counterparts and provided input to the COAG processes and decision-making with respect to the same. The fundamental importance of checks and balances and the role of oversight mechanisms such as IGIS was instilled in me then, and I have regard to this knowledge whenever I'm called to consider, debate and legislate on extraordinary powers that are largely carried out in secret.

The bill before us does a number of useful things and is the result of deliberations, reviews and committee inquiry over the past decade. As the Attorney-General stated in her second reading speech, the security threat environment is evolving and requires the intelligence community, which involves 10 agencies, to be increasingly interconnected in this work. Our oversight, therefore, needs to evolve likewise in order to ensure that both the parliament and the public have sufficient assurance that the work of the intelligence agencies proceeds appropriately and according to law.

The bill expands the role of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security, particularly in relation to the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission and the intelligence functions of the Australian Federal Police and the Department of Home Affairs. The bill provides for expanded oversight by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, and I note that the government has budgeted $1.3 million over four years from 2023-24 and $0.3 million on going to support that expansion. The committee's expanded powers include greater capacity to review functions of the ACIC, the AFP, AUSTRAC and Home Affairs; the capacity to request an inquiry by the AGIS, which the AGIS, being independent, will consider, but it will not be compelled to inquire; and a greater scope for the requesting of briefings to the committee from relevant agencies, with heads of many agencies named and the list of agencies explicitly non-exhaustive. From my experience on that committee, these expanded powers will be helpful in providing for greater assurance.

The bill also brings a greater focus on security clearances for committee staff and underlines more explicitly the independence of the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor, or INSLM. I have studied the work of INSLM's present and past and appreciate the frank and clear advice that they have provided. It's important for us to bolster and protect the independence of that office in whatever way we can. The bill also broadens the scope of the legislation that the INSLM may consider and review.

The PJCIS inquired into the bill, and its report has been taken into account. In the hearing for the inquiry, the Department of Home Affairs welcomed the bill. Mr James Robinson, First Assistant Secretary, Strategic Policy, said:

Oversight by the IGIS and the committee would enable the implementation of a consistent best-practice approach for managing proportionality, propriety and governance across our intelligence functions.

There is such a contrast between that statement and the statement of the Liberal member for Menzies back in 1986, the Hon. Neil Brown, who said:

… the very notion of having an Inspector-General to second guess an intelligence agency is utterly absurd and it is a severe restriction on its effectiveness.

Times and attitudes have changed, and the Office of the IGIS is broadly viewed and accepted as an integral part of our security architecture, as are the committee and the INSLM. This bill will make their functions more effective still, and I commend it to the House.

I thank all members for their contributions to the debate on the Strengthening Oversight of the National Intelligence Community Bill 2025. Our primary responsibility as a government and a parliament is to keep Australians safe. Against the backdrop of an increasingly challenging security environment, we have vested our intelligence agencies with significant powers to protect our national security interests. At the same time, the national intelligence community must continue to be subject to strong and holistic oversight. This will ensure the public continues to have confidence that intelligence agencies are acting lawfully, with propriety and in a way that is consistent with human rights.

In recent years, Australia's intelligence and security agencies have grown and become more interconnected as they are called upon to detect and confront threats of an increasingly complex and varied nature. While our intelligence enterprise has evolved, its oversight framework has not kept pace and is in need of reform. The bill will address this by expanding the jurisdictions of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security, the IGIS, and the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, the PJCIS, to ensure uniform and holistic oversight across the national intelligence community. It will also strengthen the relationship between the IGIS, the PJCIS and the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor and enhance existing oversight arrangements. I commend the bill to the House.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

I present a supplementary explanatory memorandum to the bill and ask leave of the House to move government amendments (1) through (11) as circulated together.

Leave granted.

I move:

(1) Schedule 1, item 6, page 5 (lines 17 to 25), omit subsections 3A(5) and (6), substitute:

(5) Before the Governor-General makes regulations for the purposes of subsection (4), the Minister must:

(a) consult the Inspector-General; and

(b) be satisfied that the Inspector-General has had the opportunity to be briefed by the Department of Home Affairs in relation to the proposed regulations; and

(c) obtain the agreement of the responsible Minister for the Department of Home Affairs to the making of the regulations.

(6) The regulations may prescribe additional consultation or notification requirements in relation to changes to the intelligence functions of the Department of Home Affairs.

(7) If the Governor-General makes regulations for the purposes of subsection (4) or (6):

(a) the Minister must inform the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security of the regulations; and

(b) the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security may request a briefing on the regulations from one or more of the following:

(i) the Department of Home Affairs;

(ii) the Inspector-General.

(2) Schedule 1, item 54, page 18 (line 8), omit "and inquire into".

(3) Schedule 1, item 54, page 18 (line 16), omit "and inquire into".

(4) Schedule 1, item 55, page 18 (line 22), omit "to monitor and".

(5) Schedule 1, item 55, page 18 (line 29) to page 19 (line 1), omit paragraph 29(1)(bae).

(6) Schedule 1, page 19 (after line 6), after item 57, insert:

57A Subsection 29(2)

After "paragraph (1)(b)", insert "or (bad)".

(7) Schedule 1, item 59, page 19 (after line 30), after subsection 29(2B), insert:

(2C) If the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security decides not to inquire into the matter, the Inspector-General must notify the Committee of its decision.

(8) Schedule 1, page 22 (after line 9), after item 75, insert:

75A Subclause 2(7) of Schedule 1

Repeal the subclause.

(9) Schedule 1, page 23 (after line 27), after item 82, insert:

82A Subclause 20(3) of Schedule 1

Omit all the words from and including "At a review" to and including "may be present.", substitute "The Committee may give directions as to the persons who may be present at a meeting conducted in private.".

(10) Schedule 1, page 24 (after line 4), after item 83, insert:

83A Subclause 22(2) of Schedule 1

Repeal the subclause, substitute:

(2) The Committee must ensure that any document with a national security classification provided to the Committee is returned or destroyed as soon as possible after the members have examined it in accordance with an arrangement acceptable to the agency that produced the document.

(11) Schedule 1, item 213, page 46 (lines 18 to 22), omit the item.

Strong and effective oversight mechanisms are an essential part of advancing Australia's national security interests. The Strengthening Oversight of the National Intelligence Community Bill 2025 will enhance existing parliamentary and statutory oversight mechanisms to ensure that oversight of the national intelligence community is holistic and commensurate with agencies' responsibilities and powers. Government amendments would make minor changes to address certain recommendations made by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security in its advisory report on the bill.

The committee made 12 recommendations, seven of which relate to amendments to the bill. The government amendments would address five of those seven recommendations. The bill would expand the jurisdiction of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security and the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security to include oversight of the intelligence function of Home Affairs as defined in regulations. Amendment (1) would provide additional consultation and notification requirements in relation to the making of these regulations, implementing recommendation 1 of the committee report in principle. Amendment (1) would ensure appropriate consultation with the inspector-general occurs before any regulations are made, providing for or varying the means of Home Affairs' intelligence function. This will allow the inspector-general's views to inform the drafting of the regulations to ensure they can be operationalised effectively and allow for robust oversight. Amendment (1) will also ensure that the committee has the opportunity to obtain briefings on any regulations made to support the committee in their oversight of Home Affairs.

In addition to expanding the oversight jurisdiction of the committee, the bill would make a range of amendments to provisions establishing the committee functions and procedures. Amendments (2), (3), (4), (5) and (6) make minor technical amendments to the Intelligence Services Act to clarify and streamline the committee's expanded oversight functions and its procedures. These amendments would implement recommendations 3 and 4 of the committee report in full.

The bill would also enable the committee to request that the inspector-general conduct an inquiry into a matter. Amendment (7) would insert a requirement that, if the inspector-general decides not to inquire into a matter referred to the inspector-general by the committee, the inspector-general must advise the committee of that decision. This would ensure the committee is advised of the status of any referrals it makes to the inspector-general, and would implement recommendation 5 of the committee report in full.

Amendments (8), (9) and (10) would modernise procedural provisions for the committee contained in schedule 1 of the Intelligence Services Act, and would implement the majority of recommendation 9 of the committee report. These provisions relate to outdated arrangements for travel costs, clarifying the ability to provide directions to persons present at private meetings and improving arrangements for the destruction of classified material.

Finally, amendment (11) would remove an item from the bill that would have amended the Ombudsman Act to provide that the Commonwealth Ombudsman is not authorised to investigate action taken by the part of the Department of Home Affairs prescribed by regulations. Home Affairs now maintains a distributed intelligence capability, making it no longer possible to prescribe 'a part of' Home Affairs in the regulations. In removing this item from the bill, Home Affairs would be treated in the same way under the Ombudsman Act as AUSTRAC and the AFP. Existing provisions in the bill would allow the Ombudsman to consult with and refer complaints about the intelligence functions of AUSTRAC, the AFP and Home Affairs to the inspector-general to ensure that complaints are directed to the appropriate oversight body. I commend the bill to the House.

Question agreed to.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.

by leave—I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

I'm proud to stand here in this place today to support this important piece of legislation. The Communications Legislation Amendment (Australian Content Requirement for Subscription Video On Demand (Streaming) Services) Bill 2025 is yet another example of the Albanese Labor government delivering on its commitment to ensure that Australian stories continue to be told, shared and celebrated on Australian screens. It is a commitment rooted not only in policy but in our understanding of who we are as a nation.

The importance of telling our stories has been part of our conscience's fabric for over 65,000 years. Storytelling is not simply entertainment; it is a way of passing on knowledge, shaping identity and strengthening community. It is how cultures endure.

There is a well-known Indigenous proverb: those who lose Dreaming are lost. Those words are a reminder that, when a people lose their stories, they lose a sense of themselves, their past, their place and their purpose. Simply put, if we don't tell Australian stories, we lose part of our national identity. We lose the ability to understand ourselves through our own eyes rather than through the lens of others, and in a media environment increasingly dominated by global platforms and global content, that risk becomes greater every year.

This legislation recognises that reality. It mandates that, whether Australians flick on channel 2, tune into Foxtel or log into Netflix, Disney Plus, Prime Video or any other major streaming service, they will be able to hear their own voices and have their own experiences and their own stories reflected back at them.

For the first time, large streaming platforms with more than one million Australian subscribers will be required to invest 10 per cent of their Australian sourced revenue into local content, into Australian made dramas, children's shows, documentaries, arts, programming and educational material. This is not a burden on these companies; it is a responsibility that reflects their enormous presence in the Australian market and the vital role they now play in shaping our cultural landscape. They benefit from Australian audiences. It is only fair that Australian audiences and Australian creators benefit in return.

This obligation will provide vital and ongoing support to our domestic screen sector and to the tens of thousands of writers, performers, directors, set builders, camera crews, animators, visual effect artists and production workers who bring Australian stories to life. It will ensure that quality local content continues to be produced here in Australia, building a sustainable pipeline of work and opportunity.

This is important because Australian stories are world-class stories. We know this. The rest of the world knows this too. We only have to look at the extraordinary success of Bluey, a show made in Brisbane that has captured the hearts of families across the globe; Heartbreak High, which has been embraced from Sydney to Sao Paolo; or Boy Swallows Universe, a story deeply rooted in Brisbane life yet universally loved for its humanity. These programs not only have been hits in Australia; they've shared pieces of our culture, our humour, our struggles and our joy with millions beyond our shores. They demonstrate—

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

Last week in Rockhampton, providers from across Central Queensland came together for an important NDIS provider forum which I was proud to co-host with the shadow assistant minister for the NDIS, Phil Thompson MP. The theme of the day, 'Sharing challenges, shaping solutions', gave frontline providers a desperately needed opportunity to speak about the reforms they need. Providers know better than anyone where the system is working and where it is falling short. We heard reports of NDIS participants being dumped at hospitals because of the lack of resourcing. Recent changes to pricing structures, coupled with growing pressures across the sector, are causing confusion, delays and inconsistency in service and, importantly, are putting lives at risk.

In regional communities like Capricornia, these challenges are amplified and deeply felt. Workforce shortages, extensive travel requirements and rising operational costs continue to place strain on local organisations. Our providers want to deliver the best support, but they need a system that enables, not restricts, their work. The insights gathered in Rockhampton will play a vital role in shaping the coalition's ongoing work to strengthen the NDIS, ensuring it remains sustainable, fair and, above all, centred on the needs of participants.

Just over three years ago I lost a dear friend, my community lost a true champion and a family lost their much-loved mother and partner. Alison Megarrity, former Liverpool councillor and local member for Menai for approximately 12 years, fought a heroic battle against cancer. Friendships in politics are hard to form, but with Alison it was impossible to be anything but her friend. Coupled with a hardworking disposition that would never give up, she was also a very effective local member.

So I was delighted, along with her husband, Robert, sons Liam and Glyn, and many state colleagues, including the Minister for Transport, to recently attend the opening of the Alison Megarrity Bridge over Harris Creek on Heathcote Road. It's a fitting tribute to Alison because she fought tirelessly to see Heathcote Road upgraded. Funding for the road was provided by the New South Wales and federal governments. The upgrade fixes access and makes the route safer, especially during flood events, meaning access to houses, the M5 and Holsworthy station will stay open. The opening of the bridge was accompanied by a community walk to raise money for cancer. It raised over $2,000.

I congratulate all those who made this special day happen. Alison's name and achievements will never be forgotten.

As Christmas approaches, families look forward to a season of celebration, but for an increasing number of households the festive season brings more stress than joy. Rising grocery and power bills, higher rents and mortgages—the general squeeze on everyday expenses means that Christmas has become increasingly difficult for too many Australians. In the cost-of-living crisis under Labor, more households are struggling to afford the basics, let alone the extra expenses that come with Christmas. That's why initiatives like Wests Group Macarthur's Giving Tree Appeal in my electorate are so important. This year Wests Group has once again partnered with Big Yellow Umbrella, a local charity, to run the 2025 appeal, an effort that has become a lifeline for families who are doing it tough.

My electorate office is proud to support the appeal and help encourage local generosity. From early November through to 7 December, people across the region can drop off new, unwrapped gifts at several Wests locations, including at my electorate office in Camden. These go directly to children, parents and carers who, without this support, may have very little to unwrap on Christmas morning. Even small gifts can have a profound impact, especially for families who are feeling the weight of these cost-of-living pressures.

I want to recognise everyone involved—the volunteers, the partner organisations, the donors and the staff—for their enormous effort. At a time when so many Australians are feeling forgotten or left behind, this appeal shows that generosity runs deep in the community.

I rise to acknowledge the life of radio personality Leon Byner, who passed away on Remembrance Day, 11 November. Through his top-rated mid-morning talkback program on 5AA, Leon became a trusted household name throughout South Australia. Leon was not just a host but a problem solver and a justice advocate for people who had no-one else to turn to. He cared for people who were treated unfairly and was a straight talker, holding government and business leaders to account.

Leon would always begin his program with a thoughtful commentary on a current issue of public concern, never taking political sides but focusing on the issue where a local, state or federal government or, at times, industry response was needed—and always giving every person in the firing line a chance to be heard. Through his callers and regular expert guests, Leon's program was filled with helpful everyday information. When Leon referred a caller to one of his many contacts, he would always ensure the referral had been followed up. Nothing slipped his mind.

Poor health, sadly, brought Leon's six-decade radio career to an end. For the thousands of listeners who regularly tuned into his program, Leon will be remembered fondly and with much respect and gratitude. To Leon's family, his long-time producer, Tammii Caught, and all his radio colleagues and friends, I extend my condolences.

I recently visited the Cerebral Palsy Alliance in St Ives, in my electorate of Bradfield. The alliance hosts an awesome group of highly-valued people in our community. In a minute I'm going to read a statement from one of the clients there, but firstly I want to say that I have and have had family members living with CP. Despite what so many in our communities may think is a disability or disabling condition, I would stridently argue that it's our communities that are disabling.

People living with CP could much more easily participate in communities and their spaces if provided physical access and emotional safety such as smoother footpaths and longer traffic light periods for crossing safely at the lights when using wheelchairs. Emotional safety is something that so many in broader society need to understand. When speaking to someone with CP, it's important to address the person, not just the carer. Likewise, it's important that our shopping centres offer quiet places away from the noise, lights and busyness.

When I visited the St Ives branch and met Magsy Karvouniaris, a client of the alliance, I was thrilled when she shared with me her perspectives on living with CP:

Cerebral palsy isn't about limitations—it's a SUPERPOWER.

It's a source of unique strength, courage and resilience that inspires me every day.

Cerebral palsy is a condition that gently shapes how a person moves and experiences the world.

It comes from a difference in the brain that happens early on in life but does not define the beautiful and amazing spirit that lives inside the person.

With love and support this superpower helps me shine in my own special way and reminds me that being different is something to celebrate.

Mid this year, I gave birth to my first child at Dandenong Hospital, where I experienced firsthand the peace of mind that comes from a strong public health system supported by Medicare. There were no bills, no gap fees—just compassionate, high-quality care and the freedom to focus on my son, not my finances.

That experience reminded me what Medicare truly stands for—the simple but powerful idea that no Australian should ever have to choose between their health and their wallet. The Albanese Labor government's expansion of bulk-billing incentives is delivering on that promise. It is the single-biggest investment in Medicare in more than 40 years, ensuring Australians can see a GP with their Medicare, not their credit, card.

Recently I visited Our Medical Cranbourne and Clyde North Medical Centre, which is now bulk-billing every patient. Doctors told me this change has meant that more locals are coming through the door seeking care earlier and without fear of cost. Already, 23 GP clinics across Holt have signalled their intent to become fully bulk-billing practices. This is the Australia we are building, where health care is accessible, affordable and universal.

Recently I hosted a briefing by the Royal Automobile Club of Tasmania on the issue of bushfire resilience, something which unites many Tasmanians, who see bushfire risk rising alongside their insurance premiums. As a nation, we often speak broadly about bushfire risk, but Tasmania is uniquely impacted. The Tasmanian Fire Service estimates 98 per cent of Tasmania's land area is bushfire prone. This would come as no surprise to Tasmanians, with an astonishing one in six living within 50 metres of the bush—a fact that becomes apparent as we head into summer and Tasmanians begin reviewing their bushfire plans.

Alarmingly, bushfire risk is projected to increase by between 19 and 30 per cent by the 2040s. If we continue to plan poorly, this will come with additional difficulty in finding insurance and protecting Australians. Clearly, it would be negligent for the federal government and for the state governments to wait for another catastrophic event and then to absolve themselves of responsibility by simply claiming it was 'unprecedented'. No, federal and state governments must instead pull every lever available to ensure the experts we have can work hand-in-hand across every level of government to plan appropriately, mitigate risks and protect Australians, and that work must start now—not after the next disaster and not after all of the funerals.

Yes, for those wondering, I am wearing a very bright trademarked TIAC suit. No, your television is not broken and, yes, your eyes will recover. But I am wearing this loud get-up for a loud reason: to start conversations about men's health and men's mental health because too many blokes are suffering in silence. Australia has some of the healthiest men in the world, who also happen to be world-class at avoiding the doctor. Sixty per cent of blokes wait more than a week to get checked and one-third wait over one month. We service our cars every 12 months or every 10,000 kilometres, but try getting a bloke to book a GP appointment—good luck.

The stats are no joke: seven men per day die by suicide; 40 per cent more men die from cardiovascular disease than women. More than 3,500 men lose their lives to prostate cancer every year, one of the most treatable cancers if we get on top of it early. In male-dominated industries like the construction and mining workforces across Newcastle and the Hunter, the mental health risks skyrocket and yet nearly one-quarter of men say they would not seek help from anyone. So if a loud suit like this can start one conversation, nudge one mate to speak up or get one bloke through a tough patch, I will happily look like a hi-vis packet of skittles in this House any day of the year. Let's keep on talking. Let's keep blokes alive. Thank you to Dan and Ed up in the gallery. Thank you for what you do for men's health.

I rise to mark a sombre chapter in the history of the lower mid-north of South Australia. On 25 November 2015, just after midday, a single spark near Pinery unleashed a vicious grassfire, changing the landscape and many lives forever. In a matter of hours, a 50 kilometre trail of devastation carved through 80,000 hectares. We saw 91 homes reduced to ash. We saw the backbone of our local economy, critical machinery, unharvested grain, and over 70,000 head of livestock and poultry lost to the flames. While structures can be rebuilt and machinery replaced, some things will never be the same.

I pause to remember the two lives lost that day, Janet Hughes and Alan Tiller. To their families, our community has not forgotten you and we never will. We also acknowledge the 90 people hospitalised and those who carry the physical and emotional scars of that terrifying afternoon. However, amidst the darkness there was light. We owe a debt of gratitude to 1,700 firefighters from the CFS and MFS who surged towards the danger. Your courage saved lives.

As the heat returns and we face another summer, the greatest way to honour those we lost and thank those who fought is to be prepared. Please, do not be complacent. Have a bushfire action plan. Talk to your family. Know when to leave. Let's honour 2015 by keeping each other safe today.

Over the weekend Australians were treated to something truly special on the cricket field. In Adelaide's north, we felt just a little bit prouder than most, because Travis Head, a proud product of Craig Moore, walked out in the first Ashes test and delivered one of the great modern innings—a century off just 69 balls, the second-fastest in Ashes history, made under pressure against a full-strength England attack on a pitch. And he did not just survive; he dominated. He took the game on in a way only he can, with a mix of intent, fearlessness and pure striking ability. His 123 off 83 balls didn't just win a test; it lit up a series. It made jaws drop in lounge rooms across the country and heads drop in the Barmy Army.

It reminded us why our national sport matters so much in communities like mine: because kids in Salisbury, in Elizabeth, in Gawler and in Craigmore see one of their own stepping up on the bigger stage. It tells them that talent from the north can go anywhere. Travis Head is more than a world-class batter; he's an example of what hard work, resilience and local pride can achieve. And, because of Travis's work, we're already one step closer to another Ashes victory in Australia.

Prohibition didn't work in 1920s USA, and taxing ciggies out of existence simply won't work in today's tech enabled world. I'm referring to the catastrophic failure of government policy to control illicit tobacco sales that is burning a hole in our national budget, seeing local shops firebombed and undermining children's health. For decades, Australia was a global leader in tobacco control, yet today we have simply become the world's most lucrative market for organised crime. Excise has increased by 282 per cent since 2013. By refusing to acknowledge basic human behaviour, the Albanese government is allowing tobacco policy to go up in smoke, and organised crime is holding the match.

I've met a local IGA owner in the South West of WA for whom it is cheaper to buy black-market cigarettes on Facebook Marketplace, delivered by none other than Australia Post, than it is for a wholesale IGA to buy them. That means $8½ billion in excise revenue that is now funding gang warfare, not our schools and hospitals, in Australia. Excise should be dramatically cut, making lawful cigarettes cost-competitive with the black market. But, before the health set start, the thing to remember is that these unlawful cigarettes are not branded and do not carry the requisite warnings under Australian law. The price difference is stark. We simply need to understand reality whilst beefing up enforcement.

I rise to congratulate and commend a tremendous young sailor from my community, Bridget Conrad. Bridget is a rising sports star in the world of sailing and recently was named as a finalist for Sport NSW's Athlete of the Year and for Australian Sailing's Female Sailor of the Year. Bridget grew up on the Central Coast and first discovered sailing on a school excursion to the Gosford Sailing Club to celebrate Tom Slingsby's Olympic gold medal in 2012. She says that after Tom autographed her hand that day she was inspired to learn how to sail and instantly developed the goal of following in his footsteps into the professional SailGP circuit and the America's Cup. When Bridget was 12, she started sailing the Optimist and went on to represent Australia at several international events as part of the Australian Optimist Sailing Team. Following this, she moved into the 420 class, and she and her crew became back-to-back female national champions. In 2024, Bridget placed third at the SailGP WASZP grand final in San Francisco and seventh female at the WASZP Worlds in Norway. If that wasn't enough, she was recently awarded the 2024-25 NSW/ACT Female Sailor of the Year. Bridget tells me that she is super excited for future competitions, including the SailGP grand final qualifier in December, the Asia-Pacific championship in January and the world championship in March. Congratulations, Bridget.

Sadly, the great Australian dream has become a nightmare under this Labor government. In fact, Labor's housing policy is so bad that it's been compared to England's performance in the Ashes just this week.

Here are just a few of the points that are of concern to everyday Australians trying to break into the housing market or find a rental that's affordable. Labor had an ambitious target, they say, of 1.2 million homes over five years. But, quite frankly, this is entirely misleading, because in year 1 they missed that target by 80,000 homes—just in the first year. Secondly, chaos and dysfunction are reigning at Housing Australia. They've lost their chair, and of course there's a $24,000 secret report that the government won't release. Thirdly, the government has expanded the five per cent deposit scheme knowing full well that there are not enough houses to meet the demand. Fourthly, the average mortgage holder—lots of these people sitting up there in the gallery today—is paying $1,800 a month more in interest under this Labor government than they were under the coalition. And, finally, over 100,000 tradies and apprentices have dropped out of the construction sector. Without those trades, we simply cannot build houses. Labor need to fix their mess.

This weekend, I will be back in Leichhardt. Let me tell you, the group text has already fired up and we are planning to grab beers on Sunday. I've known this group of men for decades. We all used to be basketball players, but now we're construction workers, firemen—I just realised we sound like a super-sized version of the Village People! But that's not the point. The point is I will be home.

Thanks to the Albanese Labor government, home is a whole lot better this week. My daughter has just finished year 12. She's not really sure what she wants to do, but fee-free TAFE is available to her and thousands of others around the country who are just finishing their high school journey. My other daughter is recovering from a knee reconstruction. When she initially hurt herself, I was very thankful for the urgent care clinic where she could go grab a quick X-ray and get home. On the subject of Medicare, this week there are now 24 fully bulk-billing clinics right across Leichhardt.

But back to Sunday with the beers and the super-sized Village People—the beers will be cheaper because of the freezing of the beer excise. My mate Schooner can shout because his HECS debt has just been reduced by 20 per cent. The bloke pulling the beers is going to get his super at the same time as his pay, his penalty rates are enshrined and he can now save for a house, thanks to five per cent deposits. That's why the Far North is going to be better this week—all thanks to this Anthony Albanese Labor government. I'm really looking forward to getting home.

My electorate of O'Connor is ground zero for net zero. I've spoken recently about the devastating effects of Labor's safeguard mechanism, capacity mechanism and vehicle emissions reduction scheme on our miners and primary producers. Now they're coming after the diesel fuel rebate scheme.

Just to be clear, the diesel fuel excise is designed to fund the maintenance of Australia's public roads, so the fuel credit scheme rebates diesel used for off-road business activities—activities like the seeding and harvesting of grain; the irrigation, mechanised pruning, picking and packing of our fruit and veg; and the fuelling of boats used to sustainably harvest O'Connor's premium finfish, abalone and southern rock lobster.

For our mining operations that extract gold, coal, bauxite, nickel, lithium, graphite and rare earths, this will add to the already considerable costs of complying with the safeguard mechanism. An O'Connor miner recently stated that they are investing in solar and wind power at twice the cost per megawatt hour of diesel generation and are installing battery storage at twice the cost per megawatt hour, and they still need diesel generators to back it all up.

Climate Change Authority chair Matt Kean recently described the diesel fuel rebate scheme as insane. But what is insane is to further harm the primary producers who feed and clothe our nation and the miners extracting the very minerals on which this government's net zero aspirations rely.

I rise to speak in solidarity with female rail, tram and bus workers all over the country. The Rail, Tram and Bus Union's recent report shows us the uncomfortable truth. Women's health is suffering because of a lack of access to workplace toilet and sanitary facilities.

The report shows that, horrifyingly, 73 per cent of female transport workers have suffered health issues because they were not able to access toilets or sanitary bins. Women are forced to carry their used period products all day because there's nowhere to dispose of them. Women are being told by their managers that not having access to adequate facilities is just part of working in the industry. This is unacceptable, and it should concern all workers.

This isn't just a matter of comfort; it's a matter of safety. When women are forced to use inappropriate facilities, they are put in unsafe situations. This should never be acceptable as an adequate working environment. The RTBU national office is calling for a mandatory national standard for all transport workers, to guarantee them access to safe, clean and private toilets. I'd like to thank the RTBU for bringing such an important topic to light.

I'd also like to give a shout-out to the mighty Transport Workers' Union, who also represent transport workers across the country. I was proud to stand in solidarity with the TWU and the SDA at their recent protest at Amazon in Ravenhall. These workers are fighting for better pay and conditions, and it's time for Amazon to pay up. (Time expired)

The Albanese Labor government's energy mix just becomes more and more of a mess every single day. Now we've got the Minister for Climate Change and Energy more focused on the United Nations than he is on delivering energy affordability here in Australia. Meanwhile, manufacturers, small businesses and households suffer because you will not put energy affordability first.

Last week we visited Jamestrong, a manufacturer in Taree which has actually brought manufacturing back, from overseas, here to Australia. The CEO of Jamestrong had this to say: 'If we continue down this path'—which is the 40 per cent increase in electricity prices that we've suffered because of that side over there—'there won't be a future made in Australia. There will be a future made overseas.' That, sadly, is what industry, manufacturing and households are facing today—electricity prices going through the roof and no focus on delivering energy affordability to this country.

It's time that the focus of the Minister for Climate Change and Energy went from the UN back to everyday Australians. Energy poverty is rising in this country. We're seeing manufacturing going offshore. And yet we've got a minister who's more focused on New York than he is on this country here—shame!

At Highbury Primary School, in the north-eastern part of my electorate of Sturt, the students care deeply about honouring our Defence Force personnel—those who serve and those who have served our country, particularly those who made the ultimate sacrifice and lost their lives in battle. Under the leadership of Principal Belinda Smith, the commitment of the student body to honouring our veterans is apparent not just on Anzac Day or Remembrance Day but every day because their school houses are named after soldiers who grew up in the Highbury area and who signed up to serve our country.

When I recently visited Highbury Primary School to present them with pristine, new Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander flags for them to fly on Remembrance Day, year 3 students Ariana and Connor and year 6 students Johnathan and Dario gave me a tour of the school, showed me the flagpoles and spoke to me about why their school houses are named the way that they are. Foggo, Elliot, Smart, Tolley—four young men, not significantly older than the students who attend Highbury Primary School now, whose acts of bravery and stories are being remembered and celebrated by the students and whose lives and sacrifice are a continual reminder to the students of how to live the school values of persistence, resilience, respect and responsibility. I congratulate and thank the students for acknowledging and remembering the service of these four local veterans.

Do we all remember when the Prime Minister promised $275 power cuts—on 97 occasions, no less! After three years of Labor, families and small businesses are being hit with some of the highest electricity prices that we have ever seen.

In Fisher, the stories are starting to pile up. Craig from Miles Plastics told me his bills have risen so sharply that he's had into increase prices just to stay afloat—all while struggling to find workers. Dave from BokaBites, just near my office, said his electricity tariff has jumped from 22c to more than 27c per kilowatt hour. That's a 20 per cent increase in just five months. And Howard, who runs a convenience store in Aroona, is paying 62 per cent more for power than he was a year ago. That is not sustainable for any business.

This is the real cost of a Prime Minister who made a promise he never intended to keep and a part-time energy minister who's more focused on politics than policy. The coalition backs responsible emissions reduction, but we will never support a path to net zero that punishes families or shuts down local businesses. Our plan puts reliability, affordability and Australian jobs first.

Honourable members interjecting—

Order! There's far too much noise.

The Albanese government is busy cutting student debt. While we're cutting student debt, the coalition are busy cutting each other down. We're backing Australia's future; they're backing nuclear. I'm surprised that they didn't have a nuclear meltdown in the last fortnight. Let me be clear: when we invest in clean energy, Australia wins. We're backing critical minerals, and the coalition is blocking net zero. We're going up the value chain. They're going down on investment and down on Aussie jobs. They opposed cheaper medicines, they opposed energy security and now they're opposing each other. While they're busy building their own cases to take over their own party, we are building the nation. We're building roads, ports and renewable infrastructure, including in WA. And, of course, we are backing the WA GST to make sure that we get our fair share.

We're building WA. We're doing that in the heart of Swan, working with the WA government to build the elevated rail line METRONET. This is a game changer for the community of Swan. We're also activating spaces underneath this rail line. We now see seven kilometres of amazing parkland in my community. The Boorloo Bridge was just the beginning. I can't wait to see what the Albanese Labor government can continue to do.

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

I inform the House that the Minister for Climate Change and Energy will be absent from question time today. The Treasurer will answer questions on his behalf. The Minister for Emergency Management will be absent from question time today. She's visiting the impacted areas of Tropical Cyclone Fina in the Northern Territory. The Minister for Home Affairs will answer questions on emergency management. The Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government will answer questions on regional development, local government and territories.

I'm pleased to inform the House that present in the gallery today is a delegation from Vietnam led by His Excellency Mr Tran Hong Ha, Deputy Prime Minister of Vietnam. Accompanying the delegation is His Excellency Mr Pham Hung Tam, the Vietnamese ambassador to Australia. On behalf of all members of the delegation, welcome to question time.

My question is to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has said that the Minister for Climate Change and Energy will have 'unprecedented influence' in global climate negotiations as the president of COP31 negotiations. Why isn't this part-time minister, full-time president using this unprecedented influence to lower energy bills for Australians? And, Prime Minister, by what date will the average household power bill be lower than it is today?

I thank the Leader of the Opposition for the question. I can imagine question time tactics discussions this morning, because there are about five different questions in there! But the opposition has two consistent points in there. One is the consistent position that those opposite have of always talking Australia down, including talking down Australia's national interests and the interests of the Pacific.

I spoke with Prime Minister Rabuka, Prime Minister Marape and other Pacific leaders last week. They are delighted that Australia and the Pacific will be able to play a role in international climate change engagement. I attended the G20 meeting in recent days. There, a communique was issued by every single country supporting the Paris Agreement, supporting a reduction in emissions and recognising that it's not a choice between a strong economy and sustainability—that, in order to have a strong economy, you need to deal with the challenge and the threat of climate change, which is real.

Since we rose just a couple of weeks ago, of course, we've had treaty negotiations with Indonesia. Indonesia is a place that is pretty important for Australia, one would have thought. Indonesia is looking at building a seawall around Jakarta. The decision of the COP to give Minister Bowen the additional position of being in charge of negotiations is something that I would have thought was pretty good.

I'll tell you about a meeting I had with someone over the weekend as well. I had a meeting with the OECD secretary-general, Mathias Cormann, who we backed to be OECD secretary-general and who we backed to get a second term. So both here and overseas we build Australia up.

The coalition talks Australia down. They don't have a plan; they just have a pamphlet. It's a pamphlet which is a continuation of the 23 policies that they had, and they didn't land one. It will, of course, lead to higher prices because less investment means higher prices. That is why it is friendless in the energy sector and friendless in the business community. That is perhaps why 'don't know' is the frontrunner to lead those opposite.

My question is to the Prime Minister. What are some of the ways that the Albanese Labor government is delivering for Australians and making a positive difference to their lives? Are there any risks to delivering that agenda?

I thank the member for Bendigo for her question. On Saturday, 100,000 Australians got a text message from the government. It was a short message, but it will have a massive impact.

They'd love that!

Well, they do love that because it told them that their student debt that had gone down by 20 per cent, something that was opposed by those opposite—like they oppose every single cost-of-living measure there is. These are the first 100,000 of about three million Australians who will be better off. By the end of this week, more than a million Australians will have got their text message informing them that this will make a difference to them, making it that bit easier to get the start in life they want, whether it's starting a family or saving for a house.

I want our government's policies to help Australians achieve their priorities—just like our five per cent deposit scheme for homebuyers, which is helping young Australians to get into the housing market. Since 1 October, nearly 10,000 Australians have bought their home using a five per cent deposit—promised by us and delivered by us to the benefit of Australians. That is our government's focus.

The coalition are focused on themselves. They're focused on tearing each other down and talking Australia down. Nothing's changed. They are divided, divisive and despairing. We're delivering right now in real time. That's what we do every day and it's what drives every single member of our government.

My question is to the Prime Minister. Australians have a part-time energy minister delivering a part-time energy grid. This part-time minister for climate change and energy, full-time president, is absent from parliament today, prioritising global summits ahead of reducing power prices for Australians. Prime Minister, how many days will the part-time minister spend overseas in his new role as full-time president?

I thank the member for her question. It goes to a couple of issues; it goes to energy and it also goes to the role that Minister Bowen will have in the COP negotiations. I don't know if those opposite have participated very much in international forums, but, if they had—it's a bit like other things. The crunch points of negotiations come at the end; they come when the conference is on. That's what happens.

But in the lead-up to that there will be a meeting in the Pacific about climate change. You know why? Because it's the priority. It's the first priority, the second priority and the third priority because, without action on climate change, countries like Kiribati and Tuvalu will disappear underwater. Those opposite thought it was fine to make jokes about water lapping at the doors. That was what they did when they were in government to improve relations with our Pacific island families. That was their response. And every single one of them remembers that. But it indeed should be a source of bipartisan pride when Australians succeed. Just like when we bid for the UN Security Council, those opposite talked it down, opposed the bid just like they opposed people running for positions at the United Nations. We on this side don't do that. We on this side back Australia. Backing Australia is what we do.

Now, I'm asked about power and I'm asked about the difference it will make. There have been some business reactions to the coalition's dumping of net zero, a policy that the Leader of the Opposition supported before a few weeks ago, a policy that was put in place by the Morrison government.

Government members interjecting—

Order! Members on my right, the manager is entitled to raise his point of order, and he shall do so now.

On relevance: the Prime Minister wasn't asked about our policy. He was asked about President Bowen's overseas schedule.

The Prime Minister has outlined his answer to the question that he was directly asked about, so I don't know where else he's going with this, but I will make sure he's being directly relevant to the question he was asked. The Prime Minister in continuation.

I was asked about power prices in Australia, and the Australian Industry Group said, via Innes Willox:

There's no industry interest in going backward on net zero. Reopening that debate is akin to asking Australian businesses to stop investing and stand by to watch the political equivalent of a refight of the Battle of Stalingrad. It serves no good purpose …

The ACCI chair, Andrew McKellar, said of their policy:

To characterise it at the moment, it seems to be a bit of a plan not to have a plan, unfortunately.

Dead right.

Opposition members interjecting—

Order! The Manager of Opposition Business, members on my left, we're not going to have that level of interjection.

My question is to the Minister for Education. What is the Albanese Labor government doing to build a better and fairer education system, including helping Australians with student debt? What other approaches have been put forward?

I thank my friend the member for Forde for his question—and that handsome mo he's growing there and all the work he's doing to promote Movember! On the weekend, 100,000 Australians had their student debt cut by 20 per cent, and that is just the start, because, this Thursday, 1½ million more Australians will get their student debt cut by 20 per cent. Next week, another 1½ million young Australians will get their student debt cut by 20 per cent. You don't need to do a thing; just wait for the ding, wait for the text message, wait for the email that you will get from the office to tell you that it's done.

This is the biggest cut to student debt in Australian history. The average Australian with a student debt will see it cut by about $5½ thousand. That's a lot of money that's going to help a lot of Australians. We promised it, Australia voted for it and now we're delivering it. And the Liberal Party, remember, are still opposed to it. In fact, they hate it. Today, earlier in parliament, the member for Goldstein described this as one of the most despicable things that he has ever seen a Labor government do. I think I know three million Australians—and their mums and dads, and their grandparents—who might disagree with him.

But it's not the only thing that we're doing. Next year, we'll train more doctors than ever before. Today, the Minister for Health and Ageing and I are announcing more medical places to train more doctors at 10 universities across the country. Next year, more Australians will also start a university degree than ever before. We're funding an extra 9½ thousand places next year and an extra 16,000 places the year after that—and the year after that and the year after that. The number of Australians at uni will jump by 27 per cent over the next 10 years, to help build the sort of workforce that we're going to need: more doctors, more nurses, more teachers, more engineers and lots more. A lot of those young people will be from poor families and from our outer suburbs, from our regions and from the bush. That's what the reforms that we're implementing are all about. It's what the Prime Minister calls opening the 'doors of opportunity' for more Australians, building a country where your chances in life don't depend on how wealthy your parents are, where you grew up, what school you went to or the colour of your skin.

I'm pleased to acknowledge and welcome a few guests to the parliament today. In the gallery today are representatives of Netball Australia as well as current members of the Australian netball team, the Diamonds. We also have a delegation from the Country to Canberra 2025 Leadership Competition, which aims to empower young rural women. I'm also advised that Dr Jim Turnour, the former member for Leichhardt; and Dr Kay Patterson AO, former senator for Victoria and minister, are with us today in the gallery. I welcome you all.

Honourable members: Hear, hear!

My question is for the Minister for Housing and Minister for Homelessness. Today's data from rental affordability index shows that only two per cent of rentals are affordable for essential workers, like teachers. The New Homes Bonus was supposed to incentivise new homes and help fix this, but, with just the ACT likely to meet the target, the effectiveness of this incentive is under question. Will you consider restructuring the bonus scheme so there are interim payments to help the states do critical rezoning, speed up approvals and build the infrastructure they need to actually deliver these targets?

I thank the member for Wentworth for her question. It's a really good one, and I think it reflects the real seriousness with which she engages in the housing debate. For many of the wonderful people on the crossbench here, housing is a critical issue in their community, and they work collaboratively with our government, and the member for Wentworth is one of them.

The member for Wentworth asked about the situation facing Australian renters, and I agree with her. This is a really critical concern for our government. We've got a housing crisis in our country that's been cooking for 40 years, and the people who are bearing the biggest brunt of this are people in rental accommodation. They're feeling it in rents going up too fast and too frequently. They feel it in the lack of power they have in negotiating with their landlords, and a very distressing share of the nation's renters tell us they are actively fearing becoming practically homeless, and that should not be happening in a country like Australia.

One thing that the member for Wentworth has been constructive on, when working with the government, is understanding the crux of this issue facing our rental population—that is, for the 40-year period, our country hasn't been building enough homes. For a long time in Australia, the Commonwealth government washed its hands of this problem. For most of the time those opposite were in government they were so checked out of housing that they didn't even have a housing minister to negotiate with. We have changed that, and one of the main ways that we're engaging with states and territories is through something called the National Housing Accord.

Instead of saying that our government wouldn't take any responsibility, the Prime Minister has stepped up. He's sat down with state and territory leaders across the country, as well as with local government and the private sector, and said, 'If we want to make a change here, we need to make a difference to how our housing system works.'

I'll hear from the member for Wentworth on a point of order.

On relevance, the question was specifically about the New Homes Bonus.

The minister was asked a question regarding the home bonus, and the minister was also asked about restructuring to help the states deliver the target. I'll caution her to make sure her answer is being directly relevant. It was a fairly specific question that the member for Wentworth asked, and, if the minister could provide more information regarding that, I think that would assist the House and help with the standing orders as well.

The reason I'm talking about the National Housing Accord is that the $3 billion New Homes Bonus, which the member asked me about, sits at the end of the National Housing Accord. We are in constant negotiation and discussion with the states. We've got a problem in our country that it's become too hard, too difficult, too expensive and too lengthy to get a home built, and the states are critically important to solving that problem and have more power over that, frankly, than the Commonwealth does. That's why they are such key partners of ours.

The $3 billion incentive the member asked me about sits, as she's mentioned, at the end of the accord targets, and of course the states are always keen to see that money flowing to them faster. But I would say to the member regarding the $43 billion package that sits across all our housing policies—whether it's building more homes, getting renters a better deal or getting more Australians into homeownership—that quite a deal of that money actually flows through the states. We had, as part of the original negotiation, $1.5 billion in infrastructure funding; much of that flowed to the states. Round 2 of the Housing Australia Future Fund completely went to the states. We've got $10 billion going to the states to deliver 100,000 homes, and $2 billion went to the states for social housing. So there's a really strong partnership there and quite a lot of money flowing through those states at the moment. (Time expired)

My question is to the Treasurer. What is the Albanese Labor government doing to ease cost of living and modernise the Australian economy? How does that compare to other approaches?

I thank the member for Swan. It was only last week that the employment minister and I joined with the member for Swan to celebrate the news that Australia has just ticked over two consecutive years of real wages growth in our economy—the eighth consecutive quarter of real wages growth in our economy. That comes after real wages had been falling for five consecutive quarters when we came to office. In fact, real wages were falling sharply. They are now growing again. That's a deliberate design feature of our economic policy. So, that's the news we got last week.

The week before that, we learned that unemployment had gone down once again and is, under this government, the lowest average unemployment rate of any government in half a century—1.2 million jobs, four in every five of them in the private sector. So, what we are doing—with our tax cuts, with our approach to the labour market—is ensuring that more Australians are working, earning more and keeping more of what they earn, at the same time as we roll out cost-of-living relief in our economy. Two more tax cuts are on the way. We've got more bulk-billed GP visits, because we know that means less pressure on families. We've got cheaper medicines. And, as the education minister said a moment ago, we're providing student debt relief.

At the same time as we're rolling out that cost-of-living relief, creating jobs, getting wages moving again and creating opportunities in our economy, we're also modernising Australia's economy over the medium and long term. We're approving more homes. We're slashing tariffs. We're winding back red tape where we can. We're revitalising national competition policy. We're strengthening and streamlining the foreign investment regime. And we're reforming EPBC, which will deliver faster approvals for projects that are in Australia's interests and faster knockbacks of projects that are not. Also, on Friday I'll meet with the state and territory treasurers to advance our very substantial agenda to make our economy more productive and competitive across the federation.

We know, as a government, that we have much more work to do. But we have made good progress, cleaning up the mess we inherited from those opposite as well as modernising our economy. We've made good progress since the Economic Reform Roundtable as well. We acknowledge that in the lead-up to the budget we will do even more.

Opposition members interjecting—

As I hear them chirping away over there, I finish on this point. Whether it's cost-of-living relief or economic reform, what is really clear is that this government finishes the year united, focused on Australians and delivering for Australians. Those opposite finish the year focused on themselves, recklessly divisive and hopelessly divided.

My question is to the Prime Minister. An energy sector CEO recently said of power price rises, 'I think it's the calm before the storm, and the storm is coming around cost and competitiveness.' Prime Minister, if the 40 per cent price rises that Australians have faced under the Albanese government are just the calm, what percentage power price rise is the storm going to bring?

Government members interjecting—

Order! Members on my right will cease interjecting. The member was given the courtesy to be heard in silence. The Prime Minister will be given that same courtesy.

I thank the member for his question about what the energy sector and the business community think about energy policy in this country. The Australian Energy Council CEO, Louisa Kinnear, has said: 'Keeping coal open for longer is likely to increase costs rather than decrease costs. It also means there are not the right market signals for new renewable investment to come in, because coal is still sitting in the system. We can't keep coal in the system forever. There is a large proportion that do need to exit.' The Australian Industry Group's Innes Willox, who I have quoted before, said that there was 'no interest' in going backwards on net zero. The Business Council of Australia CEO, Bran Black, said:

We need to make sure that we continue to guarantee Australia is a competitive place in which to do business. What that means in very practical terms is that we need to have a clear plan and pathway towards what net zero looks like.

…   …   …

… so that there is confidence to invest.

Andrew McKellar, the CEO of ACCI, said:

Business does need certainty … If we're going to get the investment in place for the future, we need to understand what is the policy …

To characterise the policy of those opposite at the moment, there seems to be a bit of a plan not to have a plan, unfortunately. Louisa Kinnear of the Australian Energy Council, when talking about the way forward, said: 'We are now in a trajectory for a high-renewable system supported by gas, battery storage and pumped hydro, and that is generally going to deliver the lowest cost outcome.' That's what the experts actually had to say.

When those opposite were in office, we had an energy system that was 50 years old. So 24 out of 28 coal-fired power stations announced their closures and nothing replaced them. They had four gigawatts leave the system and one gigawatt enter the system. As a result of a lack of supply, costs increased. What we are dealing with now is how you transition. Those opposite pretend that that's not the case. They pretend because they are too busy fighting the ongoing climate wars that have been in place, on their side, for decades now, holding Australia back.

Speaker, I have a point of order on relevance. The question was around power prices. He has not mentioned power prices once, and they are going through the roof.

The member for Wannon knows that he can raise a point of order but doesn't need to add extra when he is stating the point of order or any other theatrics. The Prime Minister has been talking about power prices and quoting directly on the comments he was asked about. He's being directly relevant.

I have spoken directly about power prices and what the lowest cost for a transition is. Those opposite have 23 plans and they're still fighting each other. One thing is very clear: love is not what will stop them tearing each other apart.

My question is to the Minister for Defence. How is the Albanese Labor government progressing AUKUS, and what other approaches are being put forward?

I thank the member for her question. Last Wednesday, the Prime Minister and the Premier of Western Australia were at HMAS Stirling in Rockingham, which right now is hosting the USS Vermont, a US Navy Virginia class submarine which is undergoing the most extensive maintenance on an American nuclear powered submarine outside of America ever. This work is being undertaken by 120 Australian workers, and that too is unique in terms of non-Americans working on a US submarine.

But, well before the Vermont reached Australia, it already had a distinctly Australian character because, of the 130-odd crew, 11 submariners and two officers—10 per cent of the crew—are Australians enlisted in the Royal Australian Navy. This is a powerful example, but it's just one example of the way in which, today, AUKUS is happening. That's what serious defence policy looks like.

It also could not be further from what we see from those opposite. The very next day, the Leader of the Opposition delivered a keynote speech on Defence. Amidst various utterances on Defence spending, there were no details about the platforms on which they would spend the Defence budget. There were no details about the kind of Defence Force the coalition would build. There were no details about their strategic intent. Indeed, the speech was reminiscent of the 'Defence policy vacuum', which was so eloquently described by the Liberal Party's own election review. Overshadowing all of—

Order! The manager will make his point of order.

On relevance—the member asked a relevant question about AUKUS. There's been a serious change of leadership in AUKUS that the minister hasn't advised the House about. He's talking about Liberal Party reviews—

Resume your seat. He was asked about what other approaches are being put forward. So, whilst it wasn't a straight AUKUS question—

Ms Bell interjecting—

The member for Moncrieff! I'm dealing with the manager's point of order. The Deputy Prime Minister wasn't asked about alternative policies, but he was asked about alternative approaches being put forward. He's got one minute remaining. I'll ask him to be directly relevant to the question he was asked. The remainder can't be completely about the opposition, because he wasn't asked about opposition policy; he was asked about approaches.

What overshadowed the Leader of the Opposition's Defence speech was that, within 24 hours, we had the shadow minister briefing out that he'd absolutely not been consulted on it, which is a demonstration that, no matter what they are talking about, what fundamentally characterises the coalition is that they are deeply divided. Then again, why would the Leader of the Opposition consult with this shadow minister when, in this very week, you've got Brutus 1 here and Brutus 2 up there engaging in the most unedifying knife-sharpening competition, while those opposite—

Order! The Deputy Prime Minister will pause. We're not going anywhere until—

The member for Bruce is warned! I know it's the last week. I'm going to ask the Deputy Prime Minister to temper his language. He has eight seconds left.

While those opposite are focused on themselves, the Albanese government is focused on delivering for our nation to keep Australians safe.

My question is to the Prime Minister. There are less than five weeks left in 2025. When will Australian families receive your promised $275 reduction to their power bills?

Honourable members interjecting—

Order! We're not going to continue in this way.

Thanks to the Leader of the Nationals for his question. As we have made really clear and as the relevant experts—the Prime Minister read out a few of them a moment ago—have made really clear, Australia's best chance to put downward pressure on electricity prices is from introducing cleaner, cheaper, more renewable and more reliable energy sources. That, for a long time, wasn't an especially controversial proposition; even those opposite held that view. I'm asked this question by the Leader of the Nationals. The Leader of the Nationals said once before, when he had a more sensible position on this, that it was a good thing that renewables were coming on. He said:

The disruption that's happening with the technology, moving towards renewable energy, particularly in storage for base load, is exciting. I think it is a good thing.

He also said:

Economics will win out in the end and if base load power can be stored in particular, that's an exciting thing for the environment and everyone's hip pocket.

He says:

In my own electorate, people are self-sustaining through solar. The reality is that type of disruption is happening and that is an exciting thing not only for the environment, but for the hip pocket.

The Treasurer will pause. I want to hear from the member for Page.

The point of order is on relevance. It was a very tight question about the $275 promise from the Prime Minister to lower bills.

I understand the Treasurer is quoting the person who asked him the question. If you're asking a question, the person will probably open themselves up to comments for what they have said as well. I think that's a long-established tradition. If he's going to go into too many other alternative policies, he won't be able to do so, but he's halfway through and I'll make sure he's being directly relevant to the question he was asked by the Leader of the Nationals. But, if the Leader of the Nationals asked a question, ergo you're going to get some blowback or pushback from the person asking the question.

I'm asked about power bills and I'm answering a question about power bills, reminding the House that the Leader of the Nationals once had a more sensible position on this. The upward pressure on electricity prices in our energy grid doesn't come from the new, cleaner, cheaper, renewable, reliable energy. It comes from the legacy of 22 failed energy policies which saw four gigawatts of energy come out of the grid on their watch.

Honourable members interjecting—

The Treasurer will pause. This yelling is not going to continue. Interjections are one thing, but the carry-on is way too much. Everyone in the gallery can see that, so just cool it. Interject, but don't yell. We're not having that. To assist the House, the Treasurer can remain directly relevant as well.

The reason that there has been upward pressure on electricity prices is that the ageing parts of the grid are becoming less and less reliable as they get closer and closer to exiting the grid. That's why it is so dangerously irresponsible of those opposite to abandon net zero in a way that will push power prices up, not down, and will create serious investor uncertainty which will weaken our economy. If they cared about energy prices, they wouldn't be abandoning net zero and they wouldn't be turning their backs on renewable energy.

We've already had one point of order on relevance from the member for Page.

An honourable member interjecting—

Order! The minister on my right will cease interjecting. I want to hear from the Manager of Opposition Business, which will have to be on another point of order.

We recognise this was the biggest hospital pass from the Prime Minister to the Treasurer that we've seen in a long time—

No, absolutely not. Resume your seat. You are now warned. I've been very lenient today. You simply can't just jump up and say whatever you feel like. I gave you the benefit of the doubt and you took advantage when I gave you that, so you are now warned. I don't want any more of that behaviour. Everyone will be shown respect when they raise their point of order on relevance, which I've been crystal clear on today. But to do that is not fair on everyone else. I think everyone can realise that. I want the Treasurer to be directly relevant to the question, and he has 36 seconds to go.

As the Treasury and others have made very clear, if we want to see downward pressure on electricity prices, the best way to do that is through an orderly transition to net zero. That's why it beggars belief that those opposite have taken a different tack. Their policy would push power prices up, not down, and that is the view of a dozen energy retail CEOs and a number of other experts that we would quote if we had more time. As I said a moment ago, it was bad enough that they opposed our cost-of-living help. It was bad enough they opposed our tax cuts. It's worse now that they want to push power prices— (Time expired)

Order! I'll just bring a little bit of order and decorum back to the House, because I would like to inform the House that present in the gallery is Mr Marco Primorac, the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance for the Republic of Croatia. I would like to acknowledge a great friend of the parliament, Her Excellency Betty Pavlich, the Republic of Croatia Ambassador to Australia. Welcome to you both.

Honourable members: Hear, hear!

My question is to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. How is the Albanese Labor government delivering for Australian workers, and what could place this at risk?

I thank the member for Corangamite for the question and also for her advocacy on behalf of working people right around this country. The Albanese government has delivered the most significant workplace relations reforms since the Fair Work Act was introduced and is delivering higher wages for Australian workers. Of course, as mentioned by the Treasurer, the latest ABS data released last week shows that, under the Albanese Labor government, we've seen the longest run of real wages growth in a decade. One policy delivering significant pay increases for hardworking Australians is our same job, same pay reforms. The Albanese Labor government introduced this change based on a very simple idea: if you're doing the same work, you deserve to be paid the same. But this wasn't happening, and we had seen workers employed by labour hire receiving significantly less than other staff that they worked alongside. Well, our government has fixed this. It's been just a year since pay rises started to flow as a result of our same job, same pay changes.

On Friday, I met with a group of flight attendants who, before our laws, were wearing the same uniform, doing the exact same job and getting paid $20,000 less than direct employees working alongside them. Our laws have fixed this, delivering fair pay for thousands of workers across a range of industries. Domestic flight attendant Thomas told me that, since these pay rises under the same job, same pay laws kicked in, he and his co-workers now have 'dignity' and 'equality', and he can now afford to take a holiday. Our government is working hard to deliver for people like Thomas.

I am asked: what could put at risk these pay increases? I want to be very clear. The biggest risk to working people's wages and jobs is those opposite. Just a few weeks ago, while the Leader of the Opposition was trying to deflect attention and save her job, she reignited the old Liberal Party industrial relations playbook by threatening to roll back the very reforms that were delivering better wages and conditions for working people. The Liberal and National parties haven't changed. They aren't listening, they have no ideas and, of course, they are just focused on themselves. The only job that the Leader of the Opposition cares about is her own job. And while those on the other side fight and bicker and argue, there's only one side of this parliament that's committed to working Australians, and that's the Albanese Labor government, and we'll get on with that job.

My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, I refer to warnings in the recent Australian Energy Council report in which a CEO of an energy company said, 'Bills will increase for the next decade.' Prime Minister, why is the part-time energy minister, full-time president, more concerned with the next decade of COP negotiations than he is with the next decade of power bills for Australian households and businesses?

Thanks to the honourable member for his question. Those opposite have been quoting an Australian Energy Council report. I think I heard shadow minister Tehan quoting from that report earlier on. Either they are being tricky or they are wilfully misrepresenting the report of the Australian Energy Council. Here's what it says:

The AEC supports the transition to net zero emissions by 2050 on the premise that the least cost, lowest impact pathway is an energy system dominated by renewables (wind and solar, including rooftop solar) and firmed with battery storage, gas and pumped hydro. There is generally broad alignment across industry about this energy mix …

They also say:

AEC members understand the urgency of climate change and the crucial role the energy industry must play to support Australia's net zero ambitions. Australia's energy transition is irreversible; there is no turning back.

In arguing to abandon net zero, those opposite are arguing for even higher power prices. They are smashing investor confidence and investor certainty, and they would be weakening our economy as a consequence. For what? Just so they can win this unedifying race to the far right in their own party room—one after the other trying to outdo each other on having a more extreme position on net zero.

When it comes to renewables, and when it comes to the orderly transition to net zero, this is what a dozen energy retail CEOs have had to say:

… the least cost, lowest impact pathway is an energy system dominated by renewables … and firmed with battery storage, gas and pumped hydro,

as I just said.

Joel Gilmore, an expert from Griffith University, said:

It's very clear that relying on coal and gas is going to be more expensive than renewables.

To fight against net zero is fighting against gravity.

Rob Wheals from Squadron Energy said:

We know that Australia's coal fleet is nearing the end of its economic and technical lifespan with coal plant outages driving high price periods.

Coal is killing affordability and reliability.

What about Frank Calabria from Origin? He said:

… the cost of renewable energy and battery storage is increasingly competitive … which means our cost of energy is expected to be more economical through a combination of renewables, storage and Origin's fleet of peaking power stations.

Tony Wood of the Grattan Institute said:

The existing, ageing coal plants will continue to be retired or become very expensive to maintain … There is really nothing in the Liberals' announcements that will reduce power prices.

We know what's really going on. Those opposite have completely vacated the field when it comes to rational, responsible economic policy. We see in Niki Savva's book that they're all lining up to dump on the former leader. They're all trying to blame Peter Dutton for their woes. In Peter Dutton's defence, look what he had to work with over there: the least talented, most divisive and most divided front bench in memory. (Time expired)

My question is to the Minister for Communications. How will the Albanese Labor government's world-leading social media minimum age law help to protect young Australians?

I thank the member for Spence for his question and his commitment to keeping South Australian kids safe online.

Delaying access to social media until the age of 16 will protect young Australians at a critical stage of their development. Don't just take my word for it—last sitting week, the PM and I met with 12-year-old Florence from the Friends' School in Hobart, her mum, Romany, and her idol and mentor, neuroscientist Dr Lila Landowski. Last term, Flossie did a school assignment on the scientific understanding of brain development through neuroscience prompts. The motivation for her assignment was to help her schoolfriends better understand the evidence behind our social media minimum age laws, to show that parliament didn't just increase the minimum age because we're all old and boring and out of touch, but because we want what's best for them.

In her research with Dr Lila, Flossie found out about the dopamine loop. Dopamine is a hormone that makes you happy, and it triggers your reward system. Flossie found the problem with social media is that it's like we're hooked up to a dopamine drip, getting constant hits, watching videos and getting likes and comments. But this is bad for our brains, because we get used to feeling happy all of the time, and it can make real life feel boring.

Flossie's findings were backed up by Dr Lila, who shared that young brains are particularly vulnerable to social media because they're developing brains and they're going through a huge rewiring process, learning how to navigate the world and be the best versions of themselves. During these vulnerable times, young people are driven to doing risky things that feel good. They learn, 'if I behave this way, people will like me, and if I behave this way, people won't like me.' That's necessary to becoming a fully functioning adult, but, because young brains are so attuned to needing social approval, they're more likely to be influenced by the content that they are consuming.

That is exactly why, last year, the Albanese government legislated a minimum age to access social media accounts. It will give young people like Flossie and her schoolmates three more years to build their community and their resilience in the real world, to become the best version of themselves and to find out who they are before platforms assume who they are. And it will give parents like Flossie's mum, Romany, a bit of peace of mind that their child isn't the odd one out in their class because they don't have social media. Because from 10 December nobody under 16 should have a social media account.

My question is to the Prime Minister. The government's recently reported retreat from banning online gambling advertising would be a terrible sellout to Peta Murphy's legacy and a failure to protect the millions of Australians whose lives are ruined by relentless gambling advertising, which preys on vulnerable Australians. If the report is true, gambling harm will continue to increase unchecked. So is it the government's position that relentless gambling advertising online, on vulnerable Australians, is acceptable?

No.

My question is to the Minister for Home Affairs. How is the Albanese Labor government helping to protect communities from people who would seek to undermine social cohesion and spread hatred?

I thank the member for Hughes. It's good to have somebody so committed to bringing people together, in his own community as well.

People may have seen that AFP commissioner Krissy Barrett is currently heading off to the Interpol conference. Working with police around the world, she has indicated, among other issues, that she'll work 'to ask relevant partners to share more information about hate groups, including Nazi supporters, and to provide advice from their lessons learned over the years.' As well as this being a police issue, it's been an extraordinary issue in the Australian community for scenes that we have seen recently.

Earlier this month, there was a disgusting demonstration of Neo-Nazism and racism on display outside the New South Wales parliament in Sydney. Rows of men, evenly spaced and all clad in black with the same blank and hateful expressions, held an antisemitic banner and chanted slogans of the Hitler youth. One of the participants was not an Australian citizen. He was a visa holder, he was a guest in this country, and he is no longer welcome here. His visa was cancelled, and the Australian Border Force detained him. The man is currently in immigration detention awaiting removal from our country. There's a really simple principle where, if you're on a visa, you're a guest in the country. And, just like if you're a guest in somebody's home, if you turn up to wreck the place, you'll be asked to leave.

We're setting a standard for Australia. The last thing people want is for the conflicts or hatreds from overseas to be imported here. Modern Australia and multicultural Australia are the same thing, and someone who gets involved in that sort of movement should not pretend that somehow they are being patriotic about our country. They are people who hate modern Australia. The priority of this government and, I would say, this parliament is to defend the right of every Australian to be safe and to feel safe. The Neo-Nazi who is now in immigration detention had a view that there are people who should leave Australia. Well, he can lead by example and leave by example.

on indulgence—The Minister is to be commended on his swift and urgent action in relation to this. We stand ready to assist the government—especially to get to the bottom of exactly how a movement like the Nazi movement can officially apply for and have a protest outside New South Wales parliament—to make sure that these extremists are tackled in every way possible.

My question is to the Prime Minister. The CEO of one of Australia's energy retailers recently warned:

… the cost of this transition is really going to affect the people who can afford it the least, so people that are already struggling to pay their power bills are going to get slammed with more cost …

Prime Minister, why is the part-time energy minister, full-time president globetrotting around the world seeking to broker global climate conference communiques instead of helping struggling Australians at home?

Those are not conflicting objectives, because the global shift to net zero is a massive economic opportunity for our country, for our economy and for its people. I think if anybody is scratching around for a reason why those opposite are unfit for office, it's all these questions that suggest that Australia should not have an influential voice in the direction that the world is taking on energy. On this side of the House, we're providing electricity bill relief, we had the gas caps, we've got the battery subsidies, which are working extremely well, and we're introducing cleaner, cheaper, more renewable, reliable energy into the system.

If those opposite really cared about power prices for Australians, they would support our efforts to introduce that cleaner and cheaper energy. Also, if they really cared about lower electricity prices for Australians, they wouldn't have come up with this economic insanity of trying to run interference on an orderly transition to net zero in our economy.

Now, I'm asked about energy CEOs. I've made it clear that, whether it's Frank Calabria from Origin, the dozen energy retail CEOs who issued the report, Mark Collette from Energy Australia—

The member for Barker has asked his question. Cease interjecting!

or Damien Nicks from AGL, sensible, rational, responsible people all have the same view, which is that, if you care about energy prices, it's about cleaning up the mess that we inherited from those opposite when they let four gig go out of the system and only put one gig back in. We have been working away very urgently to try and introduce more of that cleaner and cheaper energy.

If they cared about energy prices in this country, they wouldn't be going out of their way to create this extreme investor uncertainty, which will weaken our economy.

The member for Cowper is now warned.

I say this to those opposite: it is a fair effort to have a less responsible approach to net zero than Scott Morrison did, but that's what they've achieved, and we know why they're doing it. They couldn't give a toss about electricity prices for Australians. All they care about is the internal politics of the coalition party rooms, and that's what we're seeing with this unedifying spectacle.

Has the Treasurer completed his answer? Yes. The member for Cowper was continually interjecting after he was warned. I'm feeling generous. I know you look like you're packing up, but I'm just reminding everyone that it's a definite signal not to interject once you've been warned.

My question is to the Minister for Social Services. How is the Albanese Labor government delivering on its commitment to strengthen paid parental leave, and what other approaches has the government been asked to consider?

I want to thank the member for Holt for her question and welcome her back with Baby Ilia. Congratulations. I know that she is a big supporter of paid parental leave.

It's hard to imagine that, before the Rudd and Gillard governments, Australia was one of the very few developed countries that didn't have a paid parental leave scheme. It was Labor that first introduced the scheme, and it's this Labor government that has expanded it. In fact, under this Prime Minister, Australians receiving paid parental leave are about $12,000 better off. In fact, we've almost doubled the paid parental leave entitlement, and about 180,000 families are benefiting every year.

Those families are getting more time—an extra two weeks this year and an extra two weeks next year. They're getting more money, with higher payments, and paid parental leave will be getting superannuation for the first time. So, in retirement, those people will be $4½ thousand dollars better off. They're getting more flexibility, with parents able to take more time off together, and more people are eligible than ever before. Of course, when those parents get back to work, they also benefit from cheaper child care—thousands of dollars off the cost of child care.

But, of course, those opposite have always been deeply divided on paid parental leave, from the days of Treasurer Hockey calling mums getting their paid parental leave 'double dippers' and the former prime minister Scott Morrison calling them 'rorters'—'double dippers,' by the way, was on Mother's Day, in a stunning act of timing!—to, more recently, the member for Goldstein saying to me: 'PPL is a very bad scheme. It's not my choice that women have children—it's genetic.'

Of course, if that's not enough, we've had the members for New England, Bowman, Barker and Canning try and hijack the debate on Baby Priya's bill. To her credit, the Leader of the Opposition properly supported that bill and, indeed, it should have been above politics. Instead, we had these blokes trying to hijack the debate, implying that women would get pregnant and have a late-term abortion to receive an entitlement to paid parental leave.

While the Liberals and Nationals continue to be divided on paid parental leave, on this side of the House we are absolutely clear: we support families, we support new mums, we support those families with their beautiful new babies and, if a family has that terrible tragedy of stillbirth, we will support them too.

My question is to the Chair of the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs, the member for Boothby. The 2023 Murphy report of the social policy and legal affairs committee recommended implementing a comprehensive ban on all forms of gambling advertising. Can you confirm for the House that this was the recommendation of the committee and that the government has not responded to the report and inform the House of any procedural steps taken by the committee to secure a response to the report from the government?

I have a problem with that. Under the standing orders, those sorts of questions can only be asked on specific details, not on the policy content that the chair would be responsible for. So you'll have to rephrase it. Otherwise, I will rule that question out of order. It's got to be about the process and timings, not about the policy.

I'll rephrase the question and ask the minister, if that's acceptable to the Speaker. My understanding was that, under standing order 90, a question like that could be asked of a committee chair.

Only on specific details, not policy. To be fair to the member for Ryan: address the question to a minister, and it will be a lot easier for the House to deal with.

It has now been almost 2½ years since the Murphy report recommended banning gambling advertising. In that time, Australians have lost well over $60 billion. Why are you putting the interests of Sportsbet ahead of the interests of ordinary Australians?

That was the question to the Minister for Communications? You'll need to indicate, Member for Ryan, who the question is to.

The Minister for Communications. Thank you very much, Speaker.

The Minister for Communications will be able to address that—the topic of the question she was asked.

Thank you very much for the question, Member for Ryan. As you would have heard before, the government has delivered the most significant online-wagering harm-reduction initiatives of the past decade, including launching BetStop and banning the use of credit cards for online wagering. BetStop is the most significant gambling reform of the past decade, and it was this government, the Albanese government, that delivered these reforms. We're really proud of the positive impact that they're having. I am pleased to inform the House of Representatives that BetStop has now officially reached 51,079 registrations, and 38 per cent of those registering have chosen a lifetime ban. That is over 50,000 people who have been able to block access to all phone and online gambling providers. I've had meetings with harm-reduction advocates, broadcasters and sporting codes as we seek to further minimise the harms of gambling, and I have not met with any gambling companies.

My question is to the Minister for Health and Ageing. How is the Albanese Labor government strengthening Medicare and making it easier to see a bulk-billing doctor? Why is it so important to lift Medicare and bulk-billing after a decade of cuts and neglect?

Thanks to the member for Banks. He and I visited the health hub at Narwee only a few weeks ago. I'm delighted to say that the health hub has registered as a bulk-billing practice for Medicare—bulk-billing all of their patients, all of the time. As well as receiving bulk-billing payments for all of their patients, including those without a concession card, for the first time, that practice will also receive an additional payment of 12½ per cent on top of their Medicare income, because they are 100 per cent bulk-billing. The health hub is just one of 18 clinics in the Banks electorate who are now 100 per cent bulk-billing clinics. Almost 2,800 practices have now registered as 100 per cent bulk-billing clinics. That number includes well over 1,000 who, last month, were charging gap fees but, this month, are bulk-billing all of their patients, all of the time. And that number is increasing every single day.

For Labor, for the member for Banks and for everyone on this side of the House, that matters, because, for Labor, bulk-billing is the beating heart of Medicare. That is why, back in 2023, we tripled the bulk-billing incentive paid for bulk-billing concession card holders, pensioners and kids, turning that bulk-billing rate around, which now sits comfortably at over 90 per cent. It's why we delivered the three biggest general increases to the Medicare rebate since Paul Keating was Prime Minister, easing the squeeze after the Liberal Party's Medicare freeze, and it's why we delivered this record investment this month.

Unapologetically, some of our biggest commitments at the last two elections, from this prime minister, have been to deliver a stronger Medicare, and we're delivering on every single one of those commitments. We're delivering more bulk-billing for more patients more of the time. We're delivering more urgent care clinics—47 of which will open over the next several weeks. We're delivering more doctors, including medical school places, which the education minister talked about that earlier today. And we're delivering even cheaper medicines again, on 1 January.

These are all essential after the decade of cuts and neglect, which the Leader of the Opposition interjects about time and time again—the Leader of the Opposition who, as health minister, distinguished herself as the only health minister in history never to increase the Medicare rebate once. A big doughnut from the Leader of the Opposition—a health minister who extended Peter Dutton's Medicare freeze from two years to six years. It's no wonder the Australian people know who to trust with Medicare, and it's not those opposite.

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

In accordance with standing order 105(b), I wish to draw your attention to overdue questions in writing—questions Nos 26 through to 56. On 25 August, I asked the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Tourism a number of questions of importance to the Australian community; 91 days later, I still have no response to any of them. Mr Speaker, I ask that you write to the minister and seek their explanation as to why they have chosen not to answer my questions in writing within 60 days.

I shall write to the minister as the standing orders allow.

The member for Wannon is claiming to be misrepresented?

Yes.

You may proceed.

In question time today, the Prime Minister stated that the coalition opposed Australia's bid for the United Nations Security Council. He said, 'It should be a source of bipartisan pride when Australians succeed, just like we did for the UN Security Council.' We actually supported—

The Leader of House on a point of order?

This standing order is not available when you believe your party has been misrepresented. It has to be the individual, otherwise this standing order is not available.

Under the standing orders, it is a personal explanation. We've dealt with this matter before. If it's a collective—the opposition, a government, previous governments—it's hard to take offence on the part of everyone. I'm just trying to work with the member for Wannon here. If the Prime Minister had said, 'The member for Wannon had not supported'—that's the way the standing order is intended. It's not a global collective effort.

How can we get the Prime Minister to correct the record? Is there a means for us to do that?

If you feel that there's an error or you're disagreeing with what a minister has said, you may wish at the time to jump and say that that is a mislead or perhaps an inference on a member. But, once again—we had that issue last week as well—it's difficult when it is a collective.

I do have a press release saying we support it.

I think you've also made your point, so we've had the best of both worlds in that one as well.

I present the Auditor-General's reports Nos 5 to 9 for 2025-26. Full details of the reports will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.

Documents made parliamentary papers.

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.

Documents made parliamentary papers.

by leave—I present a corrigendum to the report of the Standing Committee on Procedure of the 47th parliament entitled Maintenance of the standing and sessional orders.

On behalf of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, I present the committee's report for 2025: Referrals made in July 2025. I ask leave of the House to make a short statement in connection with the report.

Leave granted.

This report is the fourth report of 2025 and the second for the 48th parliament. This report considers two proposed works by Airservices Australia. The first proposal deals with the Aviation Rescue Fire Fighting Services' NexGen project for the upgrade of end-of-life facilities for phase 1A in Queensland and Victoria, which has a budget of $163.4 million. The second proposal is for PFAS remediation works at the former firefighting training grounds at Rockhampton Airport in Queensland, with a budget of $24.975 million.

Phase 1A of the NexGen works proposes to rebuild end-of-life facilities at Airservices Australia aviation rescue firefighting stations, complete minor works and build cold-drill firefighter training grounds across Queensland and Victoria. The proposed works are intended to support training objectives, comply with regulations and meet workforce capability needs. The works will also ensure that stations receiving the first newly procured ultralarge firefighting vehicles are fit for purpose and capable of storing the new fleet.

The PFAS remediation at Rockhampton Airport propose to manage PFAS contamination from affected infrastructure and soil at the former firefighting training grounds at the airport. The objective of the proposed work is to reduce the risk of PFAS contamination to humans and the surrounding environment. This will occur by removing 90 per cent of the estimated 140 kilograms of PFAS mass residing in the soil and around the former firefighting training grounds.

After conducting site inspections in Rockhampton related to the two inquiries and holding public and in camera hearings into the proposed works, the committee is satisfied with the proposals. The committee acknowledges the efforts of Airservices Australia to ensure that its firefighting stations are up to date and fit for purpose, and there are modernised training facilities to support the expanding workforce. Further, the committee acknowledges the proactive steps Airservices Australia has taken to ensure remediation works on PFAS contaminated sites are carried out efficiently and effectively. The committee, therefore, recommends it is expedient that the proposed works are carried out. I commend the report to the House.

I move:

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

the Member for Calare presenting a Bill for an Act to protect Australia's prime agricultural land, and for related purposes;

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

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

Today is a historic day for Australia. Today I bring to this House our country's first bill to protect Australia's prime agricultural land. It is legislation that is crucial to the future of our country. This bill will secure and safeguard not only Australia's prime agricultural land but also our nation's food security. It's hard to believe that a country which relies so much on agriculture to sustain it has never before passed legislation to protect the land that is the source of such bounty and prosperity. The member for Kennedy and I are committed to bringing this legislation before the parliament because this matter is urgent. Our prime agricultural land is at serious risk.

The gross value of agricultural production has increased by 34 per cent in the past 20 years to $82.4 billion in 2023-24. The Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences has forecast that the gross value of agricultural production will be $95 billion in 2025-26. Agricultural exports were valued at $71.5 billion in 2023-24 and accounted for more than 10 per cent of all goods and service exports. In 2024-25 the value of Australian agricultural exports surged to $77.2 billion, or 15.1 per cent of Australia's total exported goods. These statistics demonstrate how important agriculture is to our country and also to the future of regional Australia.

As the population of the world continues to increase, so too does the importance of food and water resources. Their social, economic and strategic importance can't be underestimated. This being the case, why hasn't anyone made any effort to safeguard our prime agricultural land? Other countries, like Canada, are way ahead of us. British Colombia, for example, has been protecting its best agricultural land for many years. As the Australian population grows, the footprints of our cities, towns and villages continue to grow as well. Around our country, including regional Australia, residential developments and urban sprawl are encroaching onto some of our finest agricultural land. This is the land that feeds and nourishes us, yet we're building houses on it. It's wrong, and it must stop.

It's not just residential development that poses a threat to prime agricultural land. Across regional Australia, foreign corporations are rolling out renewables projects, some of which are on prime agricultural land. I'm not against renewable energy, but at some point our national interest has to be the paramount consideration. To be clear, we should not have foreign corporations or anyone else effectively deciding how our prime agricultural land is used. Our prime agricultural land should be off limits. Residential and industrial developments need to go elsewhere. Our prime agricultural land should be preserved for agriculture. I should haven't to spell it out, but food security is a key part of national security. A nation which can't feed itself is a vulnerable one. It would be a national tragedy if we continued to squander this extraordinary resource by building residential and industrial development on top of it.

The Protecting Australia's Prime Agricultural Land Bill provides that, if a person, which includes a corporation, is in possession of prime agricultural land, the person must not use the land for a purpose other than agriculture or permit another person to use the land for a purpose other than agriculture. It also provides that, if a person purchases prime agricultural land, the person must ensure that the land is not used for a purpose other than agriculture. The bill also makes it a requirement that a person in possession of prime agricultural land that is being used in part for a purpose other than agriculture at the date of commencement of this proposed act must not expand or extend such usage. The bill further requires that, if prime agricultural land is being used for a purpose other than agriculture as at the date of commencement and such non-agricultural use ceases, the prime agricultural land must once again be used for agriculture.

The House needs to urgently consider this bill because our prime agricultural land is under threat and it can't be taken for granted. The general public listening to this debate may well be asking: 'How has this been allowed to happen? How come nobody has stood up to protect our prime agricultural land?' The truth is that there has been a shocking failure of politicians at all levels of government to do their jobs—lazy local councils prepared to rubberstamp developments regardless of their impact on agriculture, lazy and derelict town and city planning and lazy state governments failing to pass planning laws to properly protect our prime agricultural land. At a federal level, the major parties have also been asleep at the wheel on this issue since the time of Federation.

Where have the so-called guardians of the bush, the National Party, been on this? They claim to be the protectors of agriculture, but in 12 years in New South Wales government and nine years in federal government they utterly failed to live up to one of their founding tenets and very reason for existence—not one piece of legislation. They have completely and abjectly failed to protect our vital and irreplaceable prime agricultural land. And let's not forget that it was the National Party that created renewable energy zones in New South Wales and which also passed laws to put wind farms into state forests and then abrogated its responsibility to properly regulate them. They've created chaos, pitting neighbour against neighbour, failing to ensure that there is genuine consultation between developers and communities and failing to properly protect the rights of neighbouring landholders. The failure has been epic. It's been of epic proportions.

Since being in opposition, instead of getting on with the job of formulating legislation like this, the National Party have spent their time fighting each other and their coalition partners. Who could forget the attempted forced retirement of the members for New England and Riverina. Well, the member for New England has taken the hint, and they may well live to regret it. I don't think he's going to go quietly into the night. Then they split from the Liberals over what they said was a matter of extremely high principle, only to call it off two days later when they realised they would lose staffing positions, take a pay cut and have Liberals running in their seats. In the spirit and tradition of the English cricket team, they still claim to be the victors in the seat of Calare, despite that not being reflected on the score board. Things are so bad that they are going to be out of power for years, and yet the country is crying out for effective opposition. The public is sick of the petty political power plays and the back-stabbing.

Because of the chaos, the grandstanding, the veritable bonfire of the vanities on the opposition benches as they scrap over the spoils of defeat, it falls to the crossbench to do the heavy lifting for Australia, and that is what this bill is all about. Australia's farmers are the best in the world. Our prime agricultural land is a precious gift that must be protected. It defies belief that we continue to build houses, parking lots and industrial developments on it. If we don't act now, it will continue to disappear before our eyes. I urge members of the House to come into this chamber and support this bill right now. To the National Party: don't just say you support agriculture. Come in and vote for it. This bill is the Independents doing your jobs for you. To those Liberal and Labor Party members and, indeed, to all members, I say to you: remember where your food comes from. It doesn't just magically appear on supermarket shelves. To all members of this House: I remind you that our nation's ability to feed itself comes from the great food baskets of country Australia and its prime agricultural land. It's also where the fibre comes from that makes the clothes we wear. To all members of this House: this is your moment to stand up for agriculture, to stand up for our nation's food security. Come into this chamber and support the Protecting Australia's Prime Agricultural Land Bill.

I commend the bill to the House and I seek leave to table a copy of the bill and the explanatory memorandum.

Leave granted.

Is there a seconder for the motion?

I second the motion because it is imperative and it is urgent that we debate this bill today. The reason why is that God's not making any more land but in Australia we act like he is. We continue to concrete over our best farmland in our nation. We don't value our farmland. We think that there will just be more of it, and there won't. It is a finite resource that belongs to all Australians.

Look at South Australia, my state. Only 11 per cent of our land is considered arable, only nine per cent is under production and only four per cent of the total land area of South Australia is considered highly arable farmland, where you have 500 millimetres of rainfall a year on average. And yet it is that four per cent that is under the most threat in my state, and it's under threat from the expansion of housing—the continual urban sprawl. We are going to get to a point in our nation where we have nowhere to farm, nowhere that has quality land, because it's all going to be housing. What are we going to eat?

These decisions that we make in this place today affect generations to come. The decisions that we make in this place today are decisions about which in 100 years time fellow Australian are going to say: 'What on earth were you doing? Why did you not protect our most important resource?' That is why we must debate this today.

I commend the member for Calare. I second this motion and commend him for this bill, for his foresight and for his insight, because right across Australia our local and state governments, through greed and through laziness, are continuing to carve up every decent bit of farmland, turn it into 300-square-metre blocks and stick a house on them. We're going to have nowhere to grow food. And what does that mean? Where do we get our food from? We're still going to need to eat as a nation. Do we import all of our food? Does our milk come from overseas? Does all of our food—everything you buy in the supermarket? It's bad enough now how difficult it is to find Australian food on our supermarket shelves. In generations to come, that will become worse. We must support this bill and we must debate this bill today, because in my electorate, whether it's down at Sellicks; at Mount Barker, outside of my electorate; out to Roseworthy; or further out, we are just carving up more and more of the nation's best farmland.

In fact, in South Australia back in 1991, the South Australian government's natural resources management standing committee did a report on the alienation of rural farmlands. They said that, if rural lands continue to be alienated at the rate and in the manner permitted in the past, the state will be faced with a serious conflict between commercial farmers and other land users and, ultimately, significant losses in primary production are likely.

That was 34 years ago, and I can tell you that, in my state, since that time, we have gone further and further. The urban sprawl just continues to go further and further. I look at where we used to grow wheat. I look at where we had cattle, where we had strawberry farms, where we had mushroom farms—just beyond. And now it's all housing, and it's going to get worse and worse. We should be making decisions in this place that protect that farmland.

As the member for Calare said, over in Canada—if anyone here travels to Europe, they will see that they value their farmland. They value their food security. But, here, we just think God's going to make more of it. Well, he's not. We know that, with climate change, we're going to get drier and drier as a continent. We know that where that line is—we have Goyder's Line in South Australia. They say that it's going to become lower and lower and that the arable land will get smaller and smaller.

In South Australia, just four per cent of our farmland is highly arable farmland. That should be protected for that purpose. It should be farmland. We need to have national leadership, and that is why this is being called on in this parliament. I would urge the parliament to act on this today for future generations tomorrow that deserve our doing something today, while we still can, to fix and address this.

I move:

That the debate be adjourned.

The question is that the debate be adjourned.

On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on the National Disability Insurance Scheme, I present a committee report, incorporating additional comments, entitled NDIS participant experience in rural, regional and remote Australia.

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

by leave—I'm proud to table this report on behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on the National Disability Insurance Scheme. This report, NDIS participant experience in rural, regional and remote Australia, explores how the scheme is working for people with disability in these communities. Listening to people with disability, learning from them and acting on their experiences to enhance the scheme is what our committee is all about, and that commitment is reflected in this report.

During our inquiry, we received over 100 submissions and held five hearings across the country, from Western Australia to Tasmania, from the Northern Territory to Victoria. We heard from participants, families, advocates, providers and government services. The committee thanks every person and organisation who contributed to this important work.

While the NDIS is available to people wherever they live, accessibility can be challenging. In response, the report makes 10 recommendations to improve the experience of NDIS participants and applicants. We recommend options be explored to simplify the NDIS application process and to develop accessible, plain-language guidance materials tailored for rural, regional and remote communities. We call for enhanced training and cultural awareness programs for NDIA staff and providers to ensure people are treated with understanding and respect. We also recommend that the NDIA collaborate with the medical profession, providers and local stakeholders to improve access to health and disability services and to explore practical solutions to better support local workforces in regional and remote communities. Recognising that travel costs can be a major barrier for people in remote areas, the committee also recommends greater flexibility in funding and support for travel under the NDIS to these communities. The report also calls for continued investment in training and for greater use of First Nations community controlled organisations as preferred providers in delivering NDIS supports.

The NDIA continues to change lives for the better, but this report shows there is still work to do to make sure it delivers fairly and consistently for every Australian, no matter where they live. I know the government recognises this, and the NDIS ministers are acting. On behalf of the committee, I again thank everyone who contributed to this inquiry—participants, families, advocates, providers and community organisations. Your experience, your insights and your honesty have helped shape this report and its recommendations. I also thank committee members from the last parliament who contributed to this report. The committee commends the report to the House in the hope it will support the government's ongoing improvements to the NDIS so that it truly works for every Australian, wherever they call home.

Australian stories matter. They reflect the community we live in, they show us the faces that look like us and they put Australian culture and creativity on our screens. No-one knows this better than the first storytellers, the First Nations Australians, who have been passing their stories through the generations for over 60,000 years.

The Communications Legislation Amendment (Australian Content Requirement for Subscription Video On Demand (Streaming) Services) Bill 2025, led by the Minister for the Arts, requires for the first time that streaming services invest in local Australian content. This is a commitment we made in the National Cultural Policy, and the Prime Minister recommitted to it during the election. With this bill, we deliver on that commitment, making sure that Australians, no matter where they choose to watch their media, have access to Australian content.

Australians are embracing new ways of watching media, including through online subscription services like Netflix and Amazon. In any given week in 2024, 63 per cent of Australians used a streaming platform to watch their shows and movies, while 70 per cent watched on free-to-air platforms, either broadcast on their TV or through an app or website. Younger people are more likely to watch on streaming services, with 76 per cent of people aged 25 to 34 using a streaming service. Streamers have brought rich and entertaining content from overseas to Australia—shows like The Diplomat, The Summer I Turned Pretty and Yellowjackets.

More importantly, they've provided a new place for Australian content to flourish. This was clear at this year's Logie Awards, where shows like The Twelve on Binge and Apple Cider Vinegar on Netflix were winners, alongside content from our Australian broadcasters. The success of these shows demonstrate how powerful Australian content is also good business for streamers. It is important for Australians to see themselves on screen. It helps us to better understand our neighbours and ourselves, and it allows the world to better see us. Australian stories help shape our national identity, define who we are and make us recognisable on the international stage. We need more shows like these. While many streamers are producing great content, we want every streamer to be doing their fair share to help our Australian production sector to grow and to thrive.

Australian content requirements on our public and commercial free-to-air broadcasters have been in place for over 65 years. The ABC Charter requires the ABC to broadcast programs that contribute to Australia's sense of national identity, inform and entertain and reflect the cultural diversity of the community. Last financial year, they more than met this requirement, investing $147 million in Australian content. The ABC is the largest commissioner of Australian scripted content, partnering with the independent production sector to bring the best and most ambitious Australian drama and comedy to TV screens. Kitty Flanagan's Fisk on the ABC was the standout at this year's Logie Awards, winning in five categories. It's the ABC that does the heavy lifting on Australian children's content, investing $21 million last financial year.

Australian content quotas for commercial television were first introduced in the 1960s to ensure that Australians had access to stories and could see their culture, language and values reflected on screen. Since then, Australian content has thrived on these networks. In 2024 the Nine Network reported an average of 81 per cent Australian programs across its primary metropolitan channels. The Seven Network reported 77 per cent and Network 10 reported 64 per cent. Shows like Home and Away and Neighbours have helped shape Australia today. Who would we be without the people of Summer Bay and Ramsay Street, or without McLeod's Daughters, Offspring or Blue Heelers? Shows like these have been central to our cultural identity. Until now, no requirements have existed for streaming services.

In October I had the opportunity to visit a beloved Australian production in my home town of Brisbane, Bluey. The Ludo crew showed me, along with my twins, the incredible craftmanship they put into every episode. They even let the twins have a hand at helping the animation team and tried out a suggestion from Dash to turn Bluey's fur from her famous blue to red. From script to storyboard, animation and sound design, Bluey isn't just a show to the Ludo team; it is a labour of love. At the end of every week they sit down as a team to watch the episode they have made together. Once they are done, they release that show out into the world, and families across Australia and the world do exactly the same. Not only is that little Aussie blue heeler the most streamed show in Australia; it is topping the US charts. Driving around Brisbane you see inspiration for Bluey everywhere, from New Farm Park to the Brisbane Powerhouse and in our weekend sausage runs to Bunnings.

When I sat down with Charlie and Dan from Ludo, along with Matt and Jane from the Screen Producers Association, they told me that putting a local content requirement in place for streaming services was critical. I want to thank the Bluey team, especially Charlie and Dan, for sharing their story with me. They told me that the shows they produce today are the ecosystem of tomorrow's creators and producers. The more shows that are produced in Australia, the more Australia's production sector will grow.

That's why we are legislating that streaming services in Australia with one million or more Australian subscribers will need to invest at least 10 per cent of their total expenditure for Australia, with 7.5 per cent of their revenue to go on new, local content. Eligible content includes drama, children's, documentary, arts and educational programs. Total program expenditure includes expenditure for all eligible programs available on a regulated streaming service for its Australian service, except news or sports programs. This includes an Australian portion of programs that are globally commissioned or licensed.

Some streaming services will already be meeting the future obligations, while others will need to spend more money than they currently are. Any services operating in Australia that are not currently commissioning Australian content will need to start doing so in order to meet their obligations under the new requirements. These requirements are the outcome of a lot of consultation with streaming services, broadcasters, producers and creators. I thank everyone who participated in the consultation process and those who have engaged with me and my team since I became Minister for Communications in May.

The requirements in this bill will give vital support to our domestic screen sector and our arts workers, by ensuring that quality local stories continue to be produced in Australia. The legislation delivers on our commitment in the National Cultural Policy—Revive to set local content requirements for streaming services. It recognises that Australia's people and their stories are our greatest cultural asset. The goal of this legislation is simple: we want Australians to be able to see Australian stories, no matter where they choose to watch. We want Australia's screen sector to thrive. We want to see new technology bring opportunities for Australian producers, writers and actors, and the many crew members who help bring a show together.

In July I watched Australian icon Magda Szubanski be inducted into the Logies Hall of Fame. I looked around the room wondering where our next Aussie icon will come from. Whether they get their start on the ABC, on a free-to-air broadcast, on an Australian streamer like Stan or a global streamer like Netflix, this legislation means there will be more opportunities for our future icons. It means Australia's production sector will continue to grow. It means that, no matter where they watch, every Australian will be able to see Australian stories on their screens.

When we think about what has shaped the cultural identity of most of the people fortunate enough to sit in this place, we think of the stories told on our screens. We recall with fondness Skippy the Bush Kangaroo, A Country Practice, Hey Hey It's Saturday and, particularly for those of us who grew up in Melbourne, Neighbours. Old people like me think of Seven Little Australians and The Sullivans. Some of us picked up career inspiration from shows like The Young Doctors, and some of the more wily members of this house likely picked up a few tips on how to win friends and influence people from Prisoner, Total Control, or even Underbelly.

Those shows did more than just entertain us; they reflected who we are on screen. We recall films like Picnic at Hanging Rock, The Getting of Wisdom and Breaker Morant, which captured our unique continent and our history. Those productions didn't just create memories; they created jobs—thousands of them—in writing, acting, directing and the trades that underpin our arts sector. Those stories mattered. They told us who we were and who we could be. They gave us Australian voices, Australian artists and Australian landscapes. They built an industry that trained generations of creative professionals, legends like Jack Thompson, Jacki Weaver, Kylie Minogue and Peter Weir, and they exported a unique talent to the world.

Today, that cultural foundation is under threat. Australians are consuming less Australian content than ever before. For the first time, in 2023 less than half of Australians watched free-to-air TV, where local content has historically dominated. Last year, more Australians watched subscription video on demand services like Netflix than live free-to-air or broadcast video on demand. On the other hand, nine out of ten of us use an online streaming service, where global giants like Netflix, Disney+ and Prime dedicate only a small fraction of their catalogues to Australian content.

The proportion of Australian-made drama and children's programming commissioned to these platforms has been steadily falling for years. Instead, our screens are dominated by high-quality, well funded, aggressively marketed overseas content, while local stories struggle to find a local audience.

It's not because Australians don't want to see or hear Australian stories; in fact, well over two-thirds of us think it's important to have new and diverse Australian dramas and documentaries. We're not watching our own stories because the playing field on these global platforms is tilted in favour of global content. For years now, overseas streaming giants have operated here without any obligation to invest in our culture. They take billions in subscription revenue from Australian households but return only a fraction of that to Australian creators. Quotas for local content have long been mandated for commercial free-to-air television. We've also mandated that subscription television services providing drama channels must meet local drama expenditure requirements, and commercial free-to-air broadcasters have been subject to licensing fees, so it is by no means a novel that users of our airways pay for their use or are required to show certain forms of content. For some time, though, the outlier has been the subscription services, which are currently essentially unregulated in Australia.

That is why this bill matters, but it's also why this bill is really disappointing. It sets a baseline of 10 per cent of program expenditure or 7.5 per cent of Australian derived revenue must go to the production of new Australian programs. This is not a content requirement; it is an expenditure requirement. Major subscription video-on-demand services are required under this bill to meet a certain level of expenditure on new, eligible Australian programs, but there is no requirement to carry or to provide a defined amount of Australian content. This is at odds with the government's own national cultural policy, Revive, released in January 2023, which recommended the government introduce requirements for Australian screen content on streaming platforms to ensure continued access to local stories and content, and that it do so no later than 1 July 2024. This requirement is at odds with the minister's claims in this chamber in the last half hour that a content quota is absolutely critical—we do not have one.

The concern is that in the absence of content quotas we will see the odd big-budget production based in Australia, with lots of bucks spent here over a short time, but not the ongoing grassroots support of the industry that it so desperately needs. The government has set the bar very low in requiring a 10 per cent program expenditure or 7.5 per cent of Australian derived revenue for new Australian programs. That's not nearly enough. It's significantly lower than the level previously suggested as desirable by the Albanese government and advocated for by industry. The interim report of the Senate Standing Committee on Environment and Communications' inquiry suggested two models for local content requirements: a progressive model requiring up to 30 per cent obligation for services with more than five million subscribers; or a revenue model in which specified services would have to spend 10 per cent of their Australian revenue on new local drama.

Many nations which we would consider to be our peers impose significantly greater levies or investment obligations than we are proposing in this bill. Compare the requirements set out in this bill to those of France, where streamers must invest at least 20 per cent of local revenue in French content. Across the European Union, catalogues must include at least 30 per cent European works. Those nations understand that local stories and local jobs matter, and that without strong protections local voices will be drowned out by global giants.

Media reporting suggests the government believes that all but one current streamer already meet the expenditure requirements outlined in this bill. If that is true, it suggests that, rather than encouraging additional expenditure in Australian content, this legislation will act only to ensure that the current levels of spending are maintained. If those reports are accurate, it's inadequate and it's disingenuous of the government to project that this legislation is a step forward. That's why I and my crossbench colleagues called on the government earlier this year to deliver on its promise and to legislate for streaming platforms to invest at least 20 per cent of Australian revenue in Australian stories as a matter of urgency. I note that a 20 per cent requirement was also proposed by the Australian Writers Guild and by Screen Producers Australia.

If we want Australian stories told and Australia's creative industries to thrive, it's absolutely critical that our most popular streaming platforms serve them up to Australian audiences. We have to stand up for what we believe to be important. Australian culture is important to us all.

Our creatives are bold. They're adventurous. They're challenging. But this legislation is none of those things. We should double the requirement in this bill, to match the ambition of our peers and the expectations of our creatives, and we should improve the legislation so that there is no wiggle room for streaming services to apply Hollywood accounting to how they ascribe proportionate value to programs. The Senate inquiry heard from Screen Producers Australia of its concern that the legislation in this current form is unclear on how proportionate value would be calculated. The regulator needs to be able to see the platform's books. This can't be a matter of self-reporting and of self-regulation by the industry.

This isn't just about culture; it's about jobs. Investment in Australian content supports writers, actors, producers and technicians. It sustains regional economies. It builds pathways for young Australians who dream of telling their stories on screen. But it's also about telling the world about us. It's about increasing trade and tourism to this country.

Australians deserve to see themselves front and centre on their screens. We deserve shows that speak to our lives, our communities, our history and our country. Our creative workers deserve a fair share of the revenue flowing to global platforms, and because we and they deserve this, it is critical to set content production requirements that protect, promote and progress our cultural identity for this generation and for every generation to come.

I rise to speak in support of the Communications Legislation Amendment (Australian Content Requirement for Subscription Video On Demand (Streaming) Services) Bill 2025. This bill is a significant step forward for our cultural influence, for our local screen sector and for every Australian who deserves to see their own stories reflected in shows they watch, no matter what screen they view them on.

When Australians think about stories that have shaped us, connected us and helped to define who we are, they are not thinking about content created overseas; they are thinking of shows, characters and worlds that feel distinctly Australian. We think of classics like Kath & Kim, which captured the humour and charm of Aussie suburban life. We think of Bluey, which has become a world success because it speaks to families everywhere while staying very much true to Australians. We think of The Secret Life of Us and its portrayal of friendships and young adulthood in St Kilda. We think of documentaries like Fire Front, which helped the nation understand the summer bushfires through the voices of those who lived them.

Australian storytelling is not just produced by large studios or major broadcasters; it is nurtured in our communities, in our suburbs and in grassroots creative organisations that provide pathways for people who would otherwise never get the opportunity to see themselves on screen or contribute to the creative process. My electorate of Barton is home to two extraordinary organisations that embody the spirit of Australian storytelling: Shopfront Arts Co-op and Bus Stop Films.

Shopfront Arts has been a local establishment for youth arts development for decades. It is a place where young people come to tell their own stories and to learn the craft of performance, filmmaking, writing and collaboration. It is a place that celebrate difference and creativity. When you walk into Shopfront in Carlton, you feel the energy of young people who are being empowered to speak in their own voices. They create short films, theatre works, digital media and documentaries that reflect the world as they see it. These are not just creative projects; they are the early seeds of Australian content, nurtured locally and driven by authenticity.

Bus Stop Films is another organisation that makes our community proud. They have become a global leader in inclusive filmmaking, working with people with disability to deliver world-class film production, training and storytelling. Their films have travelled internationally and have won awards. But, more importantly, they have changed the landscape of representation. They have given people with disability the opportunity to be in front of the camera, behind the camera and part of the creative process at every single level. Bus Stop Films shows us what modern Australian storytelling should look like: inclusive, diverse, meaningful and empowering.

These organisations prove that Australian content does not start with big studios. It starts with local talent, community support and opportunities to be seen and heard. Shopfront Arts and Bus Stop Films are the incubators for the next generation of creators, producers, actors, editors and cinematographers. They demonstrate what is possible when local stories are invested in and when diversity is embraced.

This bill ensures that the platforms with the greatest power in the screen landscape also carry their share of responsibility to support content and production like this. The bill requires major streaming services with more than one million Australian subscribers to invest at least 10 per cent of their total program expenditure on new Australian commissions or first release acquisitions. For those who choose the alternative, it will be 7.5 per cent of their gross Australian revenue.

This is fair, balanced and essential to ensure that creativity does not become centralised in overseas content pipelines. It ensures that organisations like Shopfront Arts and Bus Stop Films will have a stronger future because the broader industry will be healthier, better funded and more committed to telling stories from every corner of Australia. These stories matter. They help us understand each other. They reflect our culture back to us. They build pride, they challenge us and they connect us.

Yet the reality is that more and more Australians are watching content on streaming platforms. But those platforms are not currently required to invest in Australian stories in the same way that free-to-air broadcasters have been required to do for decades, and that has created a growing imbalance. It means that, unless action is taken, Australian storytelling is at risk of being overshadowed or underfunded in the new streaming era.

The Albanese Labor government promised that our national cultural policy, Revive, would restore, rebuild and restrengthen our creative sector. At the heart of Revive is a simple truth: Australian stories are our greatest cultural asset. This bill delivers on that truth. It delivers on the commitment made by the Prime Minister and the Minister for the Arts during the election campaign. It delivers on a promise to protect and promote Australian content for generations to come.

This bill introduces an Australian content obligation on major streaming services with more than one million Australian subscribers. These services will be required to invest at least 10 per cent of their total program expenditure in Australia on Australian commissions or first release acquisitions and key formats. These formats include drama, children's programs, documentaries, arts programs and educational programs. These are the kinds of programs that shape culture, influence imagination and spark creativity.

This policy is fair, balanced and future focused. It recognises the scale of the major streaming platforms and the significant influence they have over what Australians watch. It ensures that investment is linked directly to their presence in the Australian market. It recognises that consumers deserve continued access to local stories across all screens, not just traditional television.

The bill uses the same definition of Australian content that already applies to free-to-air broadcasters. It provides a three-year carryover period for program expenditure to give companies flexibility in meeting their obligations, and it requires a statutory review to take place four years after the scheme begins. This ensures transparency, accountability and the ability to adapt as new technologies and audience behaviours evolve.

Importantly, this bill applies only to major streaming services. It does not apply to platforms with user-generated content, to services that rely solely on advertising revenue, or to niche services with limited public appeal. It does not apply to services that rely solely on one-off transactions or that operate for short-term special events. The bill is carefully targeted to the services with significant reach and financial capacity. This legislation is not only about economics, although the economic benefits will be quite substantial. It is about the value of culture. It is about identity. It is about ensuring that future generations grow up with shows that reflect their lives and their communities. It is about making sure that young people in suburbs like Hurstville, Carlton, Clemton Park and across the electorate of Barton can see themselves on the screen. When a child sees themselves represented, it expands their sense of possibility. It shows them that they belong. When a community sees its story told with accuracy and respect, it strengthens social cohesion, it creates pride and it makes Australia a richer and more inclusive society.

For decades Australian television has nurtured the carers of our actors, writers, producers, directors and crew. People have gone on to succeed on the world stage. I'm thinking of Nicole Kidman, Chris Hemsworth, Deborra-Lee Furness and so many others. Their journeys began because Australian content was funded, supported and valued. This bill ensures the next generation will have the same opportunity. Without this reform, Australian stories are at risk of being left behind. Other countries already have strong local content rules for streaming platforms. Canada has required investment in Canadian content. Europe has mandated quotas for European works. Australia cannot afford to fall behind, especially when we have one of the most talented and innovative screen industries in the world. Our actors, screenwriters and production crews deserve certainty, our local production companies deserve stability and our audiences deserve authenticity.

In the electorate of Barton we have families who watch Bluey together on weekends, seniors who love watching local documentaries, young people who binge Australian dramas and new migrants who learn about Australia through the stories we tell. Representations matters, fair access matters and cultural visibility matters. We should not underestimate how important it is for Australians to see themselves on screen, whether this is through shows like TheNewsreader, which explores the media landscape of the 1980s, or Heartbreak High, which reconnects young audiences with stories of contemporary Aussie high-school life. These shows reflect our humour, diversity, challenges and triumphs. They show Australia in all of its complexity and beauty. This bill ensures that these kinds of stories will continue to be made.

While this bill strengthens Australian content obligations, it also sends a message to the world. It says that Australia values its creative industries, that we trust our artists and storytellers, that we believe in our capacity to create world-class content that can reach global audiences while staying proudly Australian. I am proud to be part of a government that is investing in culture, creativity and the stories that hold us together. This bill supports jobs, the economy and our national identity. It supports the idea that Australia should not simply consume stories from abroad but also contribute stories that enrich the global conversation.

As the federal member for Barton, one of the most culturally diverse electorates in the country, I know how important it is for people to see their heritage, languages and experiences represented truthfully. From the children in our multicultural schools to the families I meet at community festivals, people want to see themselves reflected on screen like they want to see themselves reflected in this Parliament House. They want to see Australian stories that acknowledge their contributions and their place in our national story. This bill makes it possible.

I commend the Minister for the Arts and the Prime Minister for their leadership. I'm incredibly proud to represent a community that is home to creative organisations with such heart, purpose and talent. Shopfront and Bus Stop Films are shaping the next generation of Australian storytellers. They prove that when we invest in local creativity we do not only produce content; we produce confidence, belonging, pride and opportunity. This bill supports them, it supports the broader industry and it supports every Australian, who deserve to see themselves reflected on screen.

I commend the screen sector and Screen Producers Australia for their continued advocacy, and I commend the many Australian creators whose talent, passion and perseverance has kept Australian storytelling alive even during the most challenging years. This bill is for them. This bill is for our future children. I proudly support this bill and encourage all members of the House to do the same.

The Greens have long campaigned for local content quotas on streaming platforms. Big tech companies, like Netflix and Amazon, who make massive profits from Australians, should be required to have Australian content that gives back to the Australian economy and contributes to a stable, thriving local screen industry. Australians deserve to have ourselves, our community and our stories reflected on our screens. It helps us make sense of who we are. It's even more important that these stories are told in our kids' content. Generations have grown up on shows like Play School, Round the Twist, which was a favourite for my kids—was that really last century?—and Bluey. Our kids deserve better than a diet of generic American cartoons. They need to hear stories told about our community, too.

The Greens will support this bill in the House, and reserve our position in the Senate. I want to speak a bit more about the importance of our local screen industry and perhaps one of Brisbane's greatest home-grown success stories. I am very proud to say that Bluey and the Heeler family live in my electorate of Ryan. That's disputed by some. There are people out there who claim that Bluey lives in Red Hill. But I know they live in The Gap or maybe Bardon, or the western part of Ashgrove or Auchenflower or Toowong or indeed Paddington. In any case, I'm proud of what Bluey represents—that is, Brisbane at its best.

Everyone should be able to live the Heeler family dream and own a beautiful home, have secure jobs and a heap of time for the kids—whether that is playing keepy-uppy, octopus or zoo—access to beautiful natural spaces and natural surrounds. Everyone should be able to walk up to the lookout at Mt Coot-tha, play a game of cricket in Wittonga Park in The Gap, or head to the city for a day at South Bank. Sure, the parents are tired—being a parent is tiring—but they've got what they need to live a good life. They could use more public transport, to be honest. Here is the thing though: the Heeler family wouldn't be able to afford their place if they were buying now. More and more people are further and further away from this Bluey dream. In a wealthy country like Australia, that's just not right.

For many of us, Australian stories live in our memories as moments on screen that marked out whole chapters of our lives. We remember Scott and Charlene's wedding on Neighbours with the classic 1980s big hair and big shoulder pads, when it felt like the nation pressed pause to watch two young Aussies say 'I do' and then talked about it at school and work the next day. Who can forget sitting around the television for Molly's death on A Country Practicea heartbreaking scene in the garden—tissues in hand, as families right across the country cried together. That slow fade to black still feels like a punch in the gut to me today. We remember the collective shock and outrage when Dr Patrick died on Offspring. That gut punch of an episode had people texting other as the credits rolled, wondering how a fictional character could make us feel we had lost a friend. Even the New South Wales Police joined in the drama, posting, 'We appreciate your calls but we cannot arrest anyone at Channel 10 for killing Patrick.' Who could forget the visual of Maggie, clutching her proud bargain purchase of roadside oranges on Mother and Son or the chaotic moment as a dozen oranges wreaked havoc at the graveside—my mother threatened to buy some oranges on the way to a recent funeral—or Ernie Dingo in the house auction skit of Fast Forward.

With my remaining minutes, we could barely scratch the surface of the countless incredible scenes and iconic lines from Kath and Kim. I'm sure we could hotly debate our favourites. We all know of course, it's when Kath fake-tanned her wrong arm. These moments stayed with us because they were ours—Australian characters, Australian heartbreak, Australian humour—beamed into living rooms and woven into our shared story.

In Griffith, I see every day how much stories matter. On week nights in West End, Woolloongabba, Coorparoo and Carina, families pile on the couch after dinner, kids in school uniforms or pyjamas, flicking through channels trying to find something to watch together. Sometimes it's an Australian drama like Home and Away or Neighbours that looks like the beaches and cul-de-sacs in the community. Sometimes it's an original docuseries like Annabel Crabb'sCivic Duty, which highlights to us the remarkable story of the uniquely Australian democratic system that we all rightly treasure. Sometimes they land on Bluey, that little blue heeler from Brisbane who has become global superstar. Whilst I hear the member for Ryan's comments, I have heard some argue that Bluey, in fact, does live in Griffith. What this amendment is about is very simple: making sure that, no matter which platform the people of Griffith and across Australia choose, they can still find Australian stories on their screens.

Revive, our national cultural policy, is a five-year plan to renew and rebuild Australia's arts, entertainment and cultural sector. It sets out a simple but powerful vision: 'a place for every story, a story for every place'. At the heart of Revive is a recognition that our people and our stories are our greatest cultural asset. Stories shape how our kids see themselves. They tell migrants and refugees that their experience belongs here and enriches our country. They help us understand First Nations cultures, which have cared for this continent for tens of thousands of years.

Revive also identified the need for Australian screen content requirements on streaming platforms, recognising that, as audiences shift from free-to-air and pay television to subscription video-on-demand, we must make sure local stories are not crowded out or allowed to disappear from our screens and platforms. For many years, Australian content rules have applied to free-to-air television and subscription broadcasters. The Broadcasting Services Act 1992 and the Broadcasting Services (Australian Content and Children's Television) Standards 2020 require commercial broadcasters to meet Australian content quotas, including a minimum of 55 per cent Australian programming between 6 am and midnight on primary channels and specific first-release quotas for Australian drama and children's content. These rules exist for a reason. They make sure that our screens reflect our own identity and diversity and that local creators have a fair go in their own market.

The way we access and watch our content has changed. Families in Griffith, including my own, are watching more streamed content than ever before. Platforms like Netflix, Disney Plus, Stan, Amazon Prime and others have brought extraordinary choice and some remarkable shows, but, unlike traditional broadcasters, they currently have no baseline obligation to invest in Australian stories. Industry has been clear about the risk: without local content requirements on streaming platforms, Australian drama, kids programs and documentaries will be squeezed out by cheaper imports and global productions; producers will struggle to finance local projects; crews will face insecure work; and Australian will kids grow up seeing fewer and fewer shows that sound like them and look like the streets they walk down.

Revive promised a renewed commitment, and now we are putting this plan into action. This bill amends the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 to introduce Australian content expenditure requirements for subscription video-on-demand streaming services. It also makes consequential amendments to the Australian Communications and Media Authority Act 2005 so the regulator can oversee and enforce the new framework. For the first time, major streaming services operating in Australia—those with more than one million Australian subscribers—will be required to make a minimum investment in new Australian content.

The first thing the bill provides is a 10 per cent expenditure obligation. Regulated streaming services will be required to invest at least 10 per cent of their total program expenditure for their Australian service on new Australian commissions or first-release acquisitions of eligible programs. Total program expenditure includes spending on all eligible programs available to Australian subscribers, except news or sport, and includes the Australian share of globally commissioned or licensed content. Eligible formats include drama, children's programs, documentaries, and arts and educational programs.

The second thing is a flexible 7.5 per cent revenue option. As an alternative, providers can choose a voluntary pathway where their obligation is calculated as 7.5 per cent of their gross Australian revenue, again limited to those same eligible program types. This hybrid model recognises that different businesses have different expenditure patterns while still guaranteeing a meaningful level of local investment.

The third thing is a clear, consistent definition of Australian content. The bill uses the existing definition of Australian content in the Broadcasting Services (Australian Content and Children's Television) Standards 2020, the same framework that currently applies to free-to-air and subscription broadcasters. That means a level playing field across platforms and continuity for producers who already work within those rules.

The fourth thing is a three-year carry-over period. Screen production works in multi-year cycles. Some years will be heavier on commissions than others. To reflect that reality, services will have a three-year carry-over period to acquit their program expenditure. Over-delivery in one year can be carried forward to assist in meeting obligations in subsequent years.

The fifth thing relates to review and accountability. The bill requires a statutory review four years after the obligations commence to make sure the scheme is effective and fit for purpose, and to consider whether adjustments are needed. Breaches of the new obligations will be subject to civil penalties, with ACMA empowered to monitor compliance—just as it does for existing television content rules.

The sixth thing relates to targeted scope and sensible exemptions. These obligations are aimed squarely at major subscription streaming services. They do not apply to services that offer predominantly user-generated content, services that do not have paying subscribers and rely wholly on advertising, services that only make money from one-off transactions, services with limited appeal or special interest audiences or services that only operate for a special event or provide content of very limited appeal. This ensures that we do not burden small or niche platforms, and focus obligations where they will have the greatest cultural impact.

In short, this amendment guarantees a minimum level of investment in Australian stories on the platforms Australians increasingly use while giving services flexibility in how they meet that obligation. People in Griffith are not thinking about the Broadcasting Services Act when they sit down to stream a show after work. They just want good content that feels like it belongs to them. What this amendment means for them is that, when they open a streaming app, there will be Australian stories there. There will be stories with our accents, humour, landscapes and diversity. It means more shows like Bluey being made here and shared with the world. Content like Bluey connects Australians with who they are and helps us share that worldwide.

For workers in Queensland's screen sector, this amendment means greater certainty. Queensland's screen industry is already a major contributor to our state economy, generating hundreds of millions of dollars in production expenditure and providing jobs for skilled Queenslanders and diverse local businesses. We see that in studios across Brisbane, on sets around our suburbs and at the Screen Queensland facilities that are attracting domestic and international productions to our state.

A stronger pipeline of Australian commissions on streaming platforms means more work for writers, directors, actors and crew. It means more opportunities for post-production houses, costume and set builders, caterers and small businesses. And it means more chances for students in our local schools and TAFEs who dream of a career in film, television or digital production. For First Nations storytellers in our community, this also means more platforms to share stories that are so central to who we are as a nation, which is a key focus of Revive. And for parents in Griffith it means our children will be able to grow up with new Australian kids shows that reflect their world and values, not just imported content. The voices on the screen will not just come from somewhere else; they will sound like the kids in their classroom.

The 10 per cent expenditure obligation with an optional 7.5 per cent revenue based pathway gives companies choice in how they meet their obligations. The three-year carry-over period reflects real production cycles. The four-year review ensures that we can adjust settings if they are not delivering the intended outcomes. This is not regulation for regulation's sake. It is carefully calibrated framework that aligns streamers with obligations that free-to-air and pay TV already meet. It gives certainty to industry and workers, and guarantees audiences access to Australian content across all major platforms. Labor has always believed that culture is not an optional extra. It is part of the basic fabric of a fair, confident and cohesive country. Revive repositions arts and culture as central to Australia's future alongside health, education and jobs.

This bill is one concrete way to give life to that idea. It delivers on the commitment made in Revive to introduce Australian content requirements for streaming services. It delivers on the commitment made by our prime minister and the Minister for the Arts during the election campaign. And it delivers on the commitments from the Minister for Communications and the Minister for the Arts to legislate an Australian content obligation on streaming platforms. It says to every child in Griffith who wants to write, act, animate or direct that there will be space for their story. It says to every worker in our screen and creative industries that their skills and jobs matter, and this Albanese Labor government is prepared to put in place the rules that give them a fair go. It says to audiences that, in a global market with endless choice, Australian stories will not be left to chance; they will be guaranteed.

In Griffith, we know that, when our kids see themselves and their communities reflected on screen, they feel that this country truly belongs to them. The Communications Legislation Amendment (Australian Content Requirement for Subscription Video On Demand (Streaming) Services) Bill is about making sure that, as technology changes, that simple truth does not. It's about putting Australian stories in front of Australian audiences on every screen. It is consistent with our national cultural policy. It is backed by industry analysis. It is fair to platforms and vital for workers. It honours the promise we made to ensure a place for every story and a story for every place for the families of Griffith, for Queensland's screen sector and for everyone who believes that Australian stories matter.

I welcome the government finally delivering on their promise to implement the local content obligations on streaming providers. It's an ambitious and progressive reform designed to safeguard our cultural identity, strengthen creative industries and ensure global platforms contribute their fair share, with Australian screen jobs, children's content and cultural representation very much at stake.

We are so lucky in Warringah to have a vibrant community of screen industry professionals: writers, directors, documentary makers, producers and emerging creators. In August, I met with a group in the industry who explained frankly the impact that the industry has felt under the current status quo. It was dwindling investment, shrinking commissioning opportunities and a deep fear that, without legislative obligations, Australian stories would disappear from our screens and through streaming platforms. These Warringah professionals are talented, innovative and determined, but they are under real pressure. Without legislative obligations, the ecosystem that sustains Australian storytelling is at breaking point. From hearing those stories, I launched the Save Australian Stories petition, which called on the government to fulfil the promise they made—first at the 2019 election, 2022 and then 2025—and to ensure that Australian content remains visible, accessible and adequately funded. The support was clear. Within a month of launching the petition, we reached more than 13,000 signatures from people across the industry and across Australia.

Australian broadcasting has long relied on local content quotas to ensure Australians see themselves reflected on screen. But, while traditional networks continue to shoulder obligations, global streaming platforms—now dominant in Australian households—have operated without equivalent responsibilities. Labor repeatedly promised to introduce Australian content obligations for streaming platforms, yet this was languishing and nothing was happening. For years the sector has been left in uncertainty. Consultations were held again and again, alongside discussion papers, roundtables and expert panels. All the while, investment in Australian content dwindled. Now what we know is that there were some 60,000 Australian screen jobs at risk without these legislative quotas. Representation is slipping. Women and under-represented creators hold only 34 to 36 per cent of key creative roles. Modelling shows that this could fall to two per cent within two decades without mandated investment.

The Communications Legislation Amendment (Australian Content Requirement for Subscription Video On Demand (Streaming) Services) Bill proposes that streamers with more than one million Australian subscribers must invest either 10 per cent of total program expenditure or 7½ per cent of Australian revenue into new Australian drama, documentary, children's and educational content. This must be a floor, not a ceiling. I've previously called for more investment—for up to 20 per cent of streamers' revenue to be the investment—which is aligned with international best practice and the needs of our industry.

I've discussed with the government where they landed and asked, in fact, for modelling to show whether or not this would result in an uplift in investment to the industry to preserve those 60,000 jobs. It's unclear, but it is felt that there is fluctuating spend from year to year. Some streamers are good players and do invest. Others are not investing at all, and so they will see an uplift in their spend. On balance I will accept the government and the department's briefing or indication that this should result in an increase in spend but also a balancing out of these fluctuations.

The government's proposal holds some warning that it may not be sufficient to address the scale of decline or rebuild the Australian screen sector, but I acknowledge this is a step forward. Currently, Australia risks becoming a backdrop for foreign projects, with little genuine Australian representation on our screens. This matters because we know that every dollar invested in the screen sector delivers around $3 to $4 in broader economic benefit, generating jobs, attracting international investment and bolstering the sector's credibility and capabilities. Not only does Australia's local screen production sector benefit directly from secure and guaranteed investment in Australian content; postproduction services, distributors and exhibitors do too. Other industries benefit indirectly with screen production such as tourism, hospitality, building, construction—so many areas. It's not just a cultural policy; it is a smart economic policy.

This bill is a significant step forward, but we need to make sure the obligation balances investment to sustain and build the industry while making sure streamers can continue to operate with regulatory certainty. We need to make sure there is balanced investment across all types of product.

The bill introduces investment requirements across Australian drama, documentary, children's and educational content, but there isn't a subquota or requirement across those different types. While this is necessary, the bill has not included subquotas around drama, documentary or children's content, to be more specific. There's no real guarantee of balanced investment across those different types—and we know it is necessary. Since quotas were removed from commercial TV, Australia's children content has almost evaporated. In the 2007-08 financial year, there was a total of 200 hours of children's content on Australian TV. In the 2023-24 financial year, that dropped to an all-time low of just 35 hours of children's TV content. The collapse is occurring despite the extraordinary global success of Australian programs like Bluey, a show that has become a cultural phenomenon, beloved worldwide, proving beyond doubt that Australian's children content is not only viable but exceptional. To address this, I'll be introducing an amendment that would reflect the intention of the bill that balances investment across all types and is expected. This would be an amendment to the objects, to ensure that that indication is clear.

Regulatory certainty is essential. While the bill provides a mandate for ACMA to determine how compliance would be achieved, this provides little reprieve for streamers who are trying to navigate this new obligation. It's not about resisting the obligations; it's about ensuring that industry has predictability, a stable operating environment and clarity on how compliance will be monitored, measured and enforced. To this end, last month I met with Netflix and the Australian and New Zealand Screen Association. I also met with Stan, which has shown strong leadership as an Australian owned platform. Stan has commissioned some of Australia's most distinctive local series and illustrates the importance of locally committed platforms. Both streamers stress the need for an effective obligation framework which requires stability, predictability and clarity around the requirements. It allows the broadcasting industry to plan ahead, commissioning pipelines and compliance systems with confidence. Any uncertainty around enforcement, definitions or reporting frameworks risks discouraging rather than encouraging investment. The government must ensure ACMA's regulatory approach is not only strong but also transparent, consistent and properly resourced.

We need to make sure Australian owned production companies are the beneficiaries of this. We must avoid a scenario where increased investment flows predominantly to foreign owned production companies operating in Australia at the expense of locally owned, independent Australian producers. To genuinely strengthen the Australian screen sector, policy and regulation must ensure that new investment supports the Australian businesses, creative talent and cultural perspectives that anchor our national storytelling. If implemented with care, foresight and proper oversight, this bill can be transformative, setting the new foundations for an ambitious, progressive and accountable future for Australian screen content.

We need clear, funded enforcement capability. ACMA must be resourced to enforce obligations and investigate ownership structures, including international corporations operating behind the corporate veil. There needs to be a reasonable transition period. Streamers have argued that the 60-day window to select revenue or expenditure obligations is too narrow and that the government should consider extending this. Of course, for them, there are also the questions around the definitions, the period of review and the fluctuating. I am absolutely sympathetic to their concern that there is a long pipeline of commissioning projects. For them, the fear is that this new obligation will change some of their forward planning.

We need accurate investment reporting. Streamers' expenditure must reflect net private investment only and not be inflated by federal or state funding through the producer and location offsets. This must be removed from the definition of 'expenditure'.

For new legislation like this, we need to make sure we have a robust review period to consider whether it's working or whether it has had unintended consequences. The government has proposed a robust four-year review to consider whether or not, by that time, we would need to be doubling the requirements for subquotas for children's and documentary content visibility and requirements for Australian titles and supporting Australian owned production companies. The point is, essentially, without being too specific in this round and on this legislation, in four years time, the government will look to see whether the things that we're warning of now have come to pass. That's why I would urge the government to consider the amendment that I will be moving to the objects to make sure that there is clarity on all streamers to comply with that need for diversity of investment. Supporting Australian owned production companies is important. We have to avoid a scenario where increased investment flows primarily to foreign owned companies operating in Australia behind corporate veils.

I welcome the government introducing this bill—the Australian screen industry cannot survive in its current form—but, let's be clear, it's well overdue. There is some complexity. There hasn't been broad consultation on where the bill has finally landed, and there are concerns from all involved as to how it's going to work in application—whether or not there is going to be sufficient certainty around the definitions of Australian content—and about some of the issues that I've touched on in terms of what will be included in that spend. Let's make sure this legislation marks the beginning of a more ambitious, progressive, accountable and optimistic future for Australian storytelling.

We know, if we go back to where this all started, the importance of safeguarding our culture and Australian stories on our screens. As more and more households turn to streamers for their content and their entertainment, we have to make sure there are good Australian stories being told. Streamers like Stan have been putting in great content—some of my favourite shows of recent years have been from there—but we have to make sure that all platforms are contributing to this incredible industry and make sure that we keep saving Australian stories.

What an exciting day for Australian storytelling. Today, we're talking about something Australians do better than anyone else—telling our own stories in our own voices and on our own screens. The Communications Legislation Amendment (Australian Content Requirement for Subscription Video On Demand (Streaming) Services) Bill 2025 is about celebrating who we are, what we value and how we see ourselves in the world. In 2025, we're not just watching television anymore; we're streaming on our phones, tablets, laptops and smart TVs. The way we watch has changed, but one thing hasn't: Australians still want to see Australian stories—stories that sound like us, look like us, make us laugh, make us think and make us proud. That's exactly what this bill does. It guarantees that, no matter what screen you watch, there will always be a place for Australian stories.

Under this bill, streaming services with more than a million Australian subscribers, like the big players of Netflix, Disney, Prime and others, will be required to invest at least 10 per cent of their total program spend, or 7.5 per cent of their revenue, into Australian stories—dramas, children's programs, documentaries, arts and educational content. This is about more homegrown productions that capture our humour, our heart, our contradictions and our community spirit. This is about more jobs for Australian crews, writers, actors, editors, camera operators and designers, and it means audiences everywhere, from Essendon to Alice Springs, can continue to see Australia on screen.

Our stories are important. When we see ourselves on screen, we understand each other better. We see the beauty and chaos of our country reflected back, and that creates connection. Let's be honest. Australian content isn't just about entertainment; it's identity. It's how we see ourselves, how we laugh at ourselves and how we introduce ourselves to the world. Take Blueyit's not just a show for kids; it's a love letter to modern Australian life. Every episode is packed with joy, honesty and imagination. It's backyard cricket, pretend play adventures and the pure chaos of trying to get everyone out the door before the bell rings. It's teaching children across the globe what 'Aussie' really means. Kids in Europe and the US now know exactly what a bin chicken is—that's soft-power diplomacy at its cutest.

Then there's Wentworth. Filmed in Melbourne, it took the humble prison drama and turned it into a global phenomenon. It's fierce, clever storytelling with women at the centre, and it's unapologetic, raw and real. It showed that Australian creatives don't just follow trends; they set them. When we invest in local content, we invest in stories that make the world sit up and pay attention. Heartbreak Highwhat a triumph! It's a vibrant, fearless portrait of young Australia as it really is: diverse, messy, funny, political and proud. It's proof that, when we give new voices the mic, they create stories that reach millions. It's not nostalgia driving its success; it's authenticity. It's young Australians claiming their space and shaping the culture of tomorrow.

Of course, there's The Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert, our sparkling, defiant gift to the world. That film rolled out of the desert in a cloud of dust and glitter, waving a feather boa and changing cinema forever. It premiered when being gay was still illegal in parts of this country, and our film industry's answer was not shame but three drag queens, a hot-pink bus and a whole lot of sequins tearing through the red dirt, saying, 'Get used to it, mate.'

Then there's The Castle. I couldn't give a speech on Aussie content without mentioning this icon. Filmed in my electorate of Maribyrnong, in the streets of Strathmore and Essendon, it's an ode to working-class Australia: family, fairness and fighting for what's right. The Kerrigans reminded us that home isn't about bricks and mortar; it's where belonging lives. It's the vibe, and it's so Aussie.

Straight to the pool room!

Straight to the pool room—that's right! These stories, from the playrooms to the prison yards and from the outback to the suburban backyard, are not small. They are Australia on full display: unpolished, heartfelt, hilarious and brave. They remind us why this legislation matters, because the world wants more of us. When we back Australian storytellers, we're funding not just art but identity, community and pride, the things that turn our country into a culture.

This bill delivers a key commitment from our national cultural policy, Revive. Revive is our road map for rebuilding and empowering Australian culture, because creativity isn't a side project; it's part of our national identity. It's about putting Australian stories front and centre again. It's about saying our voices matter just as much as the big Hollywood blockbusters, and it's about ensuring that our screen industry, one of the most dynamic and creative in the world, continues to grow, thrive and inspire.

This bill puts us back in charge of our cultural future. For decades, our free-to-air broadcasters have carried the Aussie flag, meeting content quotas and giving us generations of icons: the foxy ladies from Fountain Gate, the loveable chaos of the Proudmans and those unforgettable neighbours on Ramsay Street. Then streaming came along—shiny, global, irresistible—and our proud Aussie rules of storytelling didn't follow. Suddenly, Australians were watching more than ever, yet less of it was being made at home. This is exactly what this bill fixes. We're telling the streaming giants, 'If you're operating in Australia and cashing in on the Australian audiences, then it's your turn to create the next Aussie classic.' Fair's fair. This is about a level playing field. The same expectations that built our local screen legends should now apply to the platforms dominating every screen on every device.

Australia's screen industry is nothing short of extraordinary. We have actors, writers, directors and technicians whose talent lights up the world stage. From the Oscars to the Emmys, we've produced icons that have made the globe sit up and take notice. Think of Cate Blanchett commanding every room she enters, Sarah Snook dazzling in everything she touches and Nicole Kidman stealing every scene she's in. Think of Baz Luhrmann, George Miller, Warwick Thornton—geniuses who learnt their craft on our shores and then went off and showed the world how it's done. But let's not forget that behind every star is a constellation of hardworking Australians who make it happen: costume designers, lighting technicians, sound engineers, editors, producers, caterers and drivers. It's a thousand hands bringing magic to the screen.

When a film or story shoots in Melbourne, Sydney, on the Gold Coast or in the Northern Territory, it's more than arts. It's jobs. It's training. It's opportunity. In my electorate of Maribyrnong, you can feel it buzzing. Young film students across the river at Victoria University are learning the ropes. There are small creative collectives proving that talent, ingenuity and grit can thrive anywhere. When the Australian screen industry thrives, everyone benefits: local talent, small businesses and regional communities. It's not just a creative economy that we're building; it's a full circle Aussie powerhouse that turns ideas into careers, puts dreams onto screens and turns stories into national pride. From script to screen, this is how we back Australians to shine.

This reform is ambitious, but it's also practical. The investment requirement applies only to major streaming services with more than a million Australian subscribers. We're not putting unnecessary pressure on small or niche platforms. There's flexibility built in. Streaming companies can choose whether to invest based on expenditure or revenue, and they'll have a three-year carryover period to balance their spending. We'll review the system after four years to make sure it's working, making sure the investment is real, the content is high quality and the outcomes are strong for Australian audiences and creators alike. That's how Labor does reform—thoughtful, balanced and built to last.

This is far more than just television. It's about who we are as a nation. We're messy, brilliant, colourful and proudly diverse. When Australian stories are put on screen, we see ourselves reflected. We see our struggles, our triumphs, our humour, our accents and our landscapes. That reflection matters. It tells every kid growing up in Melbourne's north-west or in regional WA that their story, their voice, their life is worth watching and worth celebrating. Think of Rabbit-Proof Fence and Total Control. Each in its own way shines a light on the shadows of our history and the barriers that still linger today. Rabbit-Proof Fence brought the heartbreaking truth of the stolen generations to the world, while Total Control shows that the legacy of colonisation is still shaping modern Australian life, including our politics. These are stories that confront us, move us and remind us exactly why Australian storytelling matters. Narratives like these, the ones that make us laugh, cry or question, help us to understand each other. They challenge prejudice, celebrate diversity and elevate the voices that are often pushed to the margins. That is the power of culture—bold, honest, inclusive. That is exactly what this bill safeguards.

This bill isn't just about preserving what we've had; it's about inspiring what comes next. Imagine what the next decade of Australian storytelling could look like with this kind of support. Imagine the next Bluey, perhaps made by a young animator in Moonee Ponds. Imagine the next Red Dog, filmed in the red dirt of the outback. Imagine a new generation of Australian storytellers, actors and filmmakers who are given every opportunity to shine because their country backs their creativity. This bill gives them that chance.

This reform sits proudly within Labor's long legacy of backing Australian art and culture. From the establishment of the Australian Film Commission in the 1970s to the creation of Screen Australia and the revitalisation of our national culture institutions through Revive, Labor has always understood that our stories are part of our national strength. Just like Revive, this bill is a statement of confidence. It says that we are not just consumers of international content; we are the creators of it. We are a nation that makes things, that tells stories and that celebrates who we are.

This bill is about more than just fairness. It's an investment in the future and has fierce faith in Australian creativity. When we invest in our stories, we invest in ourselves—in the spark, the sass, the soul of this country—and we invest in the jobs, the skills and that unshakeable Aussie spirit that can turn a story about a girl and her wedding into cinema gold.

We make sure that, when our kids and grandkids sit down to stream something, they'll see a bit of home—a Hills hoist, a magpie swoop, a sausage sizzle or backyard cricket. They'll see who we are—bold, funny, complicated and beautiful—and they'll know they belong to a country that celebrates its own voices. It's not just one voice but many. From the world's oldest storytellers, our First Nations creators, to the countless cultures that now call Australia home, our stories weave together like a great big patchwork doona, stitched with grit, colour and heart. That's the real magic of Australia—every accent, every background and every yarn adding a new shade to our national story. They remind the world that Australia doesn't just watch culture; we create it. This bill says, loud and clear, our stories, our artists and our future are worth every frame. It's the vibe, and it's unmistakably, unapologetically Australian. I commend the bill to the House.

Wentworth is home to some of the most vibrant and dedicated people working in Australia's film and television sector, from production companies and screen writers to actors, directors, crew and many creatives who make the stories of Australia come alive. From iconic series like Kath& Kim or Rake to recent successes like Colin from Accountsa personal favourite—and Boy Swallows Universe, these stories matter. Our local screen industry is not just an economic contributor; it is a cultural treasure. These are the people who help us understand who we are and reflect our diversity, our history and our hopes for the future. These stories help create community, foster respect and build understanding. They spark connection around dinner tables, workplaces and waiting rooms.

Over the past decade, this sector has been worn down. It has endured years of neglect and underinvestment, compounded by COVID-19 and the growing dominance of global streaming services whose power far outweighs that of local creators. I've heard from constituents who have been forced to walk away from the industry they love—people whose skills, talent and livelihoods are at risk. When we lose those workers, we lose more than jobs; we lose storytellers, cultural custodians and the very voice of Australian creativity and Australian stories.

We know that streaming services are now where most people and most Australians find content, whether it be Netflix, Disney+, Apple TV or Prime. However, a large proportion of Australian screened content available on these services tends to be older content, with the commissioning of new Australian content by streaming services low by international standards. A 2023 Ampere Analysis report found that Australian content comprised just 8.8 per cent of Stan's catalogue, 5.0 per cent of Paramount+, 3.7 per cent of Binge, 4.1 per cent of Netflix, 3.6 per cent of Amazon Prime Video and only 0.2 per cent of Disney+. Screen Australia's 2023-24 report shows a 17.5 per cent drop in Australian titles on TV in just one year.

Without screen content quotas, our local industry is vulnerable. Streamers can choose to fill their slates with repeats and international reality TV that does not reflect our own. While these shows are entertaining, it's crucial that we see our lives reflected on screens. Our stories should be treasured, and, without enforcement, they are fading.

Australian content obligations for streaming services are something I've been advocating for since I was elected in 2022. I've worked extensively with Screen Producers Australia and with producers and production companies in my electorate who tell me how important this reform is. I want to highlight the incredible work of these advocates, especially Screen Producers Australia, in their tireless campaign to achieve quotas. I'm pleased to see the government finally introduce this legislation, and I commend them for taking this step. I will note—and I have been very frustrated—that it has been a long time coming, promised over three successive elections and again in the National Cultural Policy of January 2023.

While the regulatory design has required complex negotiations, the long period of uncertainty has had real and very negative consequences for the Australian film industry. Production companies have struggled to plan, and major streaming services have delayed commissioning decisions because they did not know if or when the obligations were coming, with renewals and new projects stalling as a direct result. However, I am encouraged by elements of this bill which have the capacity to make a significant impact.

The bill establishes Australia's first legislated requirement for major streaming services to invest in new Australian screen content, applying only to major platforms with more than one million subscribers, excluding specialist services. It defines what qualifies as an Australian program using existing content standard definitions. Programs must be newly commissioned with drama, documentary, factual or animated entertainment and under Australian control in development and production. The bill inserts new obligations into the Broadcasting Services Act, requiring eligible streamers to invest either 10 per cent of global program expenditure or 7.5 per cent of Australian sourced revenue in new Australian programs. Many in the sector, I will be honest, though, are disappointed, having advocated for a 20 per cent revenue model for over a decade. This model would deliver stronger investment without the capacity for services to manipulate their expenditure figures, which is of great concern to the industry. A compliance framework is also established in this legislation, with ACMA empowered to determine eligibility and publish reasons and decisions reviewable by the Administrative Review Tribunal and the Federal Court.

Finally, the bill includes a statutory review after four years. My hope is that by then we will have the data to make clearer, stronger decisions, including increasing these requirements if necessary. With an industry in crisis, I see the urgent need for this reform to be passed this year, with changes to be in effect from 1 January 2026. This is what the sector wants; therefore, I am looking to be not only constructive, as always, in my engagement on this bill, but also timely.

However, in my consultation with members of the Wentworth screen community, peak bodies and representatives across different parts of the sector, there are significant loopholes which could be rectified to strengthen the bill. First, and one of the most important ones, is weak guardrails around the expenditure model, because at the heart of this bill is an expenditure model that leaves too much to chance. We are asking ACMA to police complex financial structures used by some of the largest corporations in the world but without giving ACMA any extra resources. This is a recipe for problems discovered only after the damage has been done. The definition of 'qualifying expenditure' is so broad that streamers could sweep in costs with little connection to Australian content—internal IT allocations, corporate overheads, padding out numbers—and without creating a single Australian job or minute of Australian screen time. The requirement that costs fall under development, pre production, production or post production could be manipulated. We are relying on ACMA to scrutinise these costs with a fine-tooth comb, when we know and expect that services will work hard in some cases to minimise their obligations.

If we are serious about transparency we cannot rely on a post-hoc audit by a regulator already stretched across everything from social media to national security laws. Stakeholders have been very clear: without firm guardrails like the guidelines used by Screen Australia, this system will be easy to game and hard to fix. These guardrails may be included in regulations or published by ACMA once powers are granted but it is essential we monitor them closely and review any potential manipulation at the statutory review.

A second issue is also fundamental. Under this bill, streaming services can count taxpayer funded producer offsets as part of their Australian expenditure. That is not investment; that is substitution. Although these offsets are specifically designed to support independent producers, a growing trend, particularly with Netflix, is for the streamer to cash flow production on the condition that this government offset—the taxpayer funded offset—is handed to them.

Producer offsets exist to strengthen the independent sector, not to subsidise the multinational balance sheets of these streamers. When these offsets were first introduced, the minister for the arts said at the time, 'Its intention was that the independent sector should be beneficiaries of the producer rebate.' When a $10 million project ends up costing a streamer only $7 million yet they can count the full $10 million, the public carries the burden while the streamer claims the credit. I understand this was retained for consistency with free-to-air transmission quotas; however, no such trend is occurring in that sector, and, if it did, it too would need reform. This has been raised with me by different screen producers personally, talking about how this is a growing trend. Perhaps the government is not aware that increasingly streamers are saying 'Okay, we know how much producer offset you are going to get. We want that back to be able to fund this show.' This is of real concern because this is very, very substantial government backing of the Australian screen industry, which will be used to, effectively, subsidise the big companies whose content quotas we are trying to manage.

Thirdly, another gap is the absence of any requirement for Australian producers to retain their IP. Without their IP they lose the economic and cultural lifeblood of their work. A simple safeguard allowing streamers a 36-month licence period, after which rights revert to the Australian production company, would ensure Australian stories remain in Australian hands. It would prevent the erosion of Australian identity in the global digital market and avoid scenarios where beloved programs are reshaped for foreign audiences, for example by re-recording Bluey with American accents. We invest in Australian stories not because of their content but because of their culture.

And, fourthly, there is a lack of stipulated investment. Children's and documentary content continue to suffer from chronic underinvestment. While the bill sets an overall quota, it does not protect genres uniquely vulnerable in the market. Sub-reporting for genres would at least give us the data needed at a review to determine whether further action, including sub-quotas, is necessary.

Finally, there are quotas that simply legislate the status quo. This is the final challenge with this bill. We need to be honest about the numbers. The bill's proposed thresholds—10 per cent of expenditure or 7.5 per cent of revenue—sound ambitious, but the government's own explanatory memorandum tells a different story. It states that the total expenditure required of major streaming services would be between $175 million $200 million each year on Australian content, consistent with current expenditure for Australian adult drama, children's and documentary programs by SVODs, which is on average $193.4 million. In other words, by the government's own modelling, these quotas do not meaningfully increase investment. They simply legislate what the streamers are already spending. This bill risks locking in the status quo at a moment when the Australian screen sector desperately needs growth, ambition and renewal.

Legislating to prevent further reduction in investment is an excellent start, but these numbers are not good enough. If our goal is a thriving, world-class industry capable of telling Australian stories to Australian and global audiences, then we cannot congratulate ourselves for maintaining the current baseline. We do need settings that drive additional investment, nurture emerging creatives and build a sustainable pipeline of Australian content for the future. All of these loopholes lessen the positive impact that this legislation can have on our screen industry. This is why I've circulated three amendments which aim to fix some of these problems, which I will discuss more in the consideration in detail. These amendments are (1) excluding any producer offsets recouped by streaming services from qualifying expenditure; (2) settings terms of trade such that any agreements about an eligible program provide business and ancillary rights to the production company with primary licensing rights returning to said company after three years or after five years if the program has been renewed; and (3) mandating the reporting of sub-genres in required reporting to ACMA and the minister. I urge the government to consider these reasonable and fact based amendments, which respond to the challenges of the screen industry and the complexity of managing and regulating this industry.

In conclusion, this bill moves us in the right direction, but we cannot pretend it's enough. Our screen industry is too important, too vulnerable and too full of potential for us to settle for the status quo. Australian stories enrich our culture, strengthen our community and help us see ourselves on screen. The bill lays important groundwork, and I support it, but we should remain ambitious, and I wish I had seen a more ambitious bill. I look forward to working within this parliament and with my community to build for a stronger, fairer and more vibrant screen future that our nation deserves.

When I was growing up, watching TV was a shared experience. We'd sit around the television with our TV trays full of food, and we'd catch up on the latest Australian television, whether that be McLeod's Daughters, Blue Heelers or The Secret Life of Us. After we'd go through that experience, we'd go to school or go to work the next day and we'd talk about that Australian television. It was a cultural experience that we had collectively.

That's not how TV works anymore because, nowadays, when we watch television, our faces are aglow with the light reflecting off a mobile phone screen. It's a very different experience. But the way that we watch TV shouldn't stop the presence and the persistence of Australian content. In recent years, it has become commonplace to ask your mates, 'What are you watching on Netflix?' Enthusiastic conversations follow, with people bonding over the shared enjoyment of a show, recounting late-night binge watches and noting recommendations of the next must-see series. You could substitute 'Netflix' in this question with Amazon Prime, Disney+, HBO, Apple TV, Kayo Sports, Stan, Binge, Paramount+—and the list goes on and on.

Australians have taken to video subscription on demand with absolute gusto. Mediaweek cites figures that show that Australian households subscribe to an average of 3.7 streaming services. This is up over 60 per cent since 2021. In fact, in 2020 to 2021, Australians were for the first time more likely to watch an online subscription service than free-to-air television, whether that be live or recorded. The estimated earnings of streaming services in Australia in this period were over $2.4 billion. All these services give us myriad entertainment options on demand, an immense volume of content that is readily available at our fingertips—for the price of a subscription, of course. Streaming services offer programs from all over the world, but, as the national cultural policy stated, this risks drowning out the voices of Australian storytellers, and those voices are important. That's what this bill's all about.

As Professor Julianne Schultz wrote:

Some of the largest, richest, most concentrated companies in the world have built streaming repositories that make the grand libraries of the past look like a child's Lego building.

…   …   …

Netflix alone has more than 16,000 titles that "live practically in perpetuity, even as they are slowly entombed by new shows, new movies, new documentaries".

Professor Schultz not only has a great name; she has a point. That's just Netflix. Think about the thousands and thousands of hours of programs that exist on all the platforms I listed.

With this in mind, it is now more important than ever to protect and, indeed, to amplify our stories—Australian stories. With the Communications Legislation Amendment (Australian Content Requirement for Subscription Video On Demand (Streaming) Services) Bill 2025, Australians will be guaranteed to see more Aussie content on their streaming services. These are the stories that deserve to be told. Not only that but these are the stories that are reflective of who we are, our culture and, fundamentally, who we as a country want to be. Not only are they reflective of that; they also have a practical and tangible outcome too, because they drive economic growth, they create important skills and they create jobs that we need for our country.

In January 2023, the Prime Minister launched Revive, a five-year plan to revitalise Australia's arts sector. Revive focuses on five main pillars which encompass putting First Nations front and centre, having a place for every story, celebrating the artists, building a robust cultural infrastructure and engaging the audience both at home and overseas. I want to talk a little bit more about pillar 2—a place for every story—because it puts into context what the heart of this bill is all about. To quote from Revive:

Australia's people and their stories are our greatest cultural asset. Stories communicate shared identities and a sense of belonging to place and each other, and can be shared through an artwork, narrative, dance, screen content, music or an idea.

Stories bring people together and enable the exchange of experiences, ideas and perspectives. Stories give us a voice. All Australians benefit when they are represented by and in the nation's stories and that they can hear their own voices resounding in the national narrative.

Our stories are shaped by histories, places, identities, languages, cultures, families and communities.

The importance of sharing and celebrating our Australian stories is absolutely clear. I think that is widely agreed upon. Indeed, there are rules regarding broadcasting Australian content on commercial television, and this is monitored by ACMA. The Broadcasting Services Act 1992 sets out the requirements. These are that 55 per cent of content must be Australian between 6 am and midnight on primary channels, and there must be 1,460 hours of Australian content between the same hours on non-primary channels. There are also requirements around first-release Australian program quotas.

Up until now, there have been absolutely no Australian content requirements for subscription video-on-demand or streaming services. This bill resolves that astounding problem. It's important that, while our viewing habits may be changing, our access to the stories that reflect who we are as a nation is unaffected. This bill means that, whether you're watching a show on commercial television or accessing a program via streaming, you will be able to watch Australian stories being told. It means that, whether you're picking up a channel changer, pressing a button on your phone or swiping, Australian stories can still be told no matter what the screen looks like.

To achieve this, the bill amends the Broadcasting Services Act and makes consequential changes to the Australian Communications and Media Authority Act 2005. The changes apply to streaming services with one million or more subscribers. These services will be required to invest at least 10 per cent of their total program expenditure in new Australian commissions or first-release acquisitions of eligible programs. These programs include drama, documentary, arts, educational formats and children's content. Children's content is so important. It's something that we can't forget. In my home the children's content of choice is Bluey, but I must warn you the opening credits have been altered in my household. Mum, Dad and Bingo still get a guernsey, but Bluey's name is regularly replaced by Margaret's.

Importantly, this requirement covers the Australian portion of globally commissioned or licensed programs, ensuring that our creative sector benefits from international productions as well. The bill provides flexibility. Streaming providers may choose an alternative compliance option by investing an amount equivalent to 7.5 per cent of their gross Australian revenue. The bill adopts the definition of 'Australian content' from the Broadcasting Services (Australian Content and Children's Television) Standards 2020. These are the definitions which currently apply to free-to-air and subscription broadcasters.

These new requirements do not apply to services that primarily host user generated content, have no paying subscribers, rely solely on advertising, operate on one-off transactions or cater to niche audiences or special events. These exemptions ensure that the framework targets the major players in the market without imposing unnecessary burdens on smaller or specialised services.

This bill has been welcomed by Screen Producers Australia, who recognise that the legislation represents a very critical step toward restoring confidence in the Australian screen sector and lays the groundwork for a more substantial future for production. Screen Producers Australia view the Australian content requirements as far more than regulations. They see them as the cornerstone of Australia's screen industry, noting that, as a relatively small English-speaking nation operating within a global market dominated by larger players, Australia faces a unique challenge. And this bill is designed to help our industry with it.

Without the content quota safeguards, Australian stories would struggle to be financed and would struggle to be produced. Audiences would lose the opportunity to see and hear their own voices, Australian voices, and Australian values and Australian experiences reflected up there on the screen. Screen Producers Australia insists that, to ensure these stories are told, a clear cultural mandate from government is absolutely essential, and this is what the bill provides. The Australian Writers' Guild also backed this bill in, with the president and Logie-Award-winning showrunner Peter Mattessi saying:

World events move fast and impact our industry in many different ways. Meanwhile, streaming platforms are taking billions of dollars out of the country in subscription fees from Australians—Australians who tell us over and over again that they want to see more Australian content on their screens.

The legislation also reinforces the principle that Australian content is vital, while providing certainty for creators, producers and investors alike.

The Australian screen industry is a significant contributor to the national economy. It's a vital source of employment for Australians. In 2025 the market is projected to reach approximately $3.3 billion, underscoring its scale and its influence within the creative sector. In the 2023-24 financial year alone, total expenditure on screen production reached $1.7 billion. Beyond production budgets, the sector supports a vast ecosystem of over 10,000 businesses. Many of those are small businesses, ranging from production companies to post-production facilities to technology providers and creative service firms. This network has grown steadily over the past five years, creating thousands and thousands of jobs for writers, directors, actors, technicians and other skilled professionals. The economic ripple effect extends far beyond the screen itself, stimulating tourism, regional development and innovation in important digital technologies. In short, the screen industry is not only a cultural powerhouse but also a critical driver of economic growth and employment in this country.

This bill is about so very much more than regulation. It is about safeguarding our cultural identity and supporting the many thousands of Australians who work in our screen industry by ensuring that streaming platforms invest in Australian stories. We are investing in and reflecting our people and creativity and our economy. And that's what this bill aims to do. By strengthening local content rules, we are not only protecting the jobs and fostering innovation within that creative sector. We are also investing in the social and cultural fabric of the nation. We are investing in us. We are investing in our families. We are investing in our neighbours, in our mums, in our dads and in our workmates, along with their very important stories. This is why the introduction of this legislation is both significant and deeply welcome. It is a decisive move towards a future where Australian voices remain strong, where Australian voices remain diverse and where Australian voices are visible in an ever-changing media landscape. It signals a renewed commitment to ensuring our stories are told.

They say the culture you grow up with, in your childhood and teenage years, will always be the culture that speaks to you. I was lucky enough to be a child and teenager in the late seventies and early eighties. This was an era when the rest of the world discovered Australian culture. It was an era of fantastic Australian bands, and it was an era that spawned so many iconic Australian movies and TV shows. There was Picnic at Hanging Rock. Who can forget Miranda? There was Mad Max, the franchise that launched Mel Gibson—sorry! There was Breaker Morant, We of the Never Never, Dogs in Space, Crocodile Dundee'That's not a knife!'—Puberty Blues, The Lighthorsemen and Gallipoli. And on TV there were the soapies. There was Neighbours. Everyone stayed home for Scott and Charlene's wedding. There was Molly's death on A Country Practice. There was Home and Away, The Young Doctors, Prisoner, The Big Gig, The Comedy Company and The D Generation.

Australian producers, writers and artists were churning out high-quality television and movie content showcasing Australian stories, Australian humour and Australian culture. They gave jobs to Australians: writers, actors, directors, producers, camera operators, costume designers, set designers and so many more. Also, importantly, we were seeing Australian stories and Australian actors on screen and hearing Australian accents.

There had been a bit of cultural cringe prior to this era. We tended to import our culture, in particular from England and increasingly from America. Then suddenly we, the Australian industry, were kicking goals around the world. Our stories and our actors were not only on our screens; they were being exported to the world, and suddenly people in New York and London were watching our stories. We should never underestimate how important it is for Australians to see themselves on screen. It helps us to better understand ourselves, our neighbours and our community, and it allows the world to see us and understand us a little better.

Australian stories play an important role in shaping Australia's national identity, fostering social inclusion and encouraging cultural expression. Humans are hardwired to understand the world through stories. They are our greatest cultural asset. They build a sense of community, identity, collective wellbeing and shared identity. They reflect and define who we are as a nation and make us recognisable on the international stage. Australian stories help make sense of our past, define ourselves in the present and promote Australia—our people, our creativity and our country—to the world. They bring us together with shared understandings and enable the exchange of experiences, ideas and perspectives. All Australians benefit when we are represented by and can hear our voices in the stories brought to the big and small screens. It makes us proud of who we are.

But the way we consume media has very much changed since the 1980s. Major structural changes in the way media is provided to us has meant audience viewing habits have changed. Australian audiences, like audiences around the world, are increasingly engaging with content across multiple platforms. Public broadcasters, commercial broadcasters, cable and streaming are all part of Australia's television landscape now and will be into the future. We are less likely to watch free-to-air television and live broadcasts. We are less likely to go to the movies in a cinema. We are more likely to be watching on-demand streaming services.

And the shows we are being offered have changed as well. They are more likely to be relatively cheap-to-make reality TV shows or programs imported from overseas, known as global content, because it's cheaper to buy up the international rights and show the same programs around the world wherever the streaming service has a presence. It's cultural colonialism, where we are all absorbing the same stories and the same standards, becoming homogenous with the cultures of the sending countries, and this undermines the special uniqueness that is Australia and Australian society in all its many forms.

In 2023, this government released the national cultural policy, Revive: a place for every story, a story for every place. It was the first national cultural policy in a decade. As one of the five pillars of this policy, the Australian government committed to introduce requirements for Australian screen content on streaming services to ensure continued access to local stories and content. Today the Albanese Labor government is legislating for streaming services and subscription services to have guaranteed Australian content.

Public broadcasters already have this requirement. The ABC charter includes the requirement for the ABC to broadcast programs that contribute to Australia's sense of national identity, that inform and entertain and that reflect the cultural diversity of the community. The SBS charter states that the SBS's principal function is 'to provide multilingual and multicultural broadcasting and digital media services that inform, educate and entertain all Australians and, in doing so, reflect Australia's multicultural society'.

Australian commercial television stations had their first content quotas for commercial television introduced in the 1960s to ensure that Australians had access to stories and to see their culture, language and values reflected on the screen. These local content requirements were updated in the 1990s to apply to free-to-air and other subscription television broadcasters, requiring broadcasters to commission a minimum level of Australian content every year. This is based on either hours, in the case of free-to-air commercial television broadcasters, or, in the case of other subscription broadcasters, a percentage of their total drama expenditure in Australia. These requirements stabilise the market and act as a safeguard for the Australian screen production sector.

But, unlike free-to-air broadcasting services and other subscription television services, streaming services currently have no requirements to make Australian content available on their platforms. The ready availability of cheap content produced in other countries risks drowning out Australian stories. Without government intervention, there is no guarantee that streaming services will produce Australian content and make it available to Australian consumers. There are streaming services operating here in Australia that currently have zero Australian content. Without Australian stories, Australian voices and Australian content, our country will be poorer, our society will be poorer and, certainly, our creative industries will be poorer.

The Communications Legislation Amendment (Australian Content Requirement for Subscription Video On Demand (Streaming) Services) Bill 2025 amends the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 and subordinate legislation to allow for an Australian screen content requirement on subscription video-on-demand streaming services. It will mandate that streaming services with more than one million Australian subscribers invest at least 10 per cent of their total program expenditure for Australia on eligible program formats in Australia and on new Australian programs. Eligible program formats are drama, children's programs, documentary, arts and educational programs.

The requirement uses the definition of Australian content which is set out in the Broadcasting Services (Australian Content and Children's Television) Standards 2020. This is the definition that is already used for commercial free-to-air and other subscription television broadcasters, and it's therefore the appropriate, consistent definition. The requirement also includes a voluntary option for streaming services to acquit their requirements based on a calculation of 7½ per cent of their Australian revenue. Streaming services can acquit their obligation over a three-year period. This principle was put strongly to the government by the streaming services during the extensive consultation and reflects the lumpy nature of investment cycles in high-quality programs. There will also be a statutory review conducted four years after the commencement to make sure the requirement is operating effectively. This obligation will give vital support to our domestic screen sector and arts workers by ensuring quality local stories. The proposed requirement we are debating today is consistent with Australia's international trade obligations. Streaming services covered by the new requirements will report to ACMA, the Australian Communications and Media Authority, which will administer the Australian screen content requirement.

The Australian government committed to ensuring Australians have access to local stories wherever they choose to watch their screen content, and this bill fulfils that commitment. Since their introduction in Australia, streaming services have created some extraordinary shows. In the last few years, many of them have produced great Australian content. A minority, however, are yet to produce any. This legislation is not a criticism of the streaming businesses in Australia; it's an endorsement of Australian stories, a celebration of Australian creatives and a show of respect for the Australian audience. This bill will guarantee Australians will have access to Australian stories now and into the future. It will ensure that, no matter what remote you're holding, Australian stories will be at your fingertips. Australians will see themselves and know each other, and the world will meet us. I commend the bill to the House.

The legislation before the chamber, the Communications Legislation Amendment (Australian Content Requirement for Subscription Video On Demand (Streaming) Services) Bill 2025, presents an opportunity to open a new chapter for Australia's screen industry. This is the moment when we can ensure that, in the streaming age, Australian stories do not fade into the background but take their rightful place in the spotlight, centre stage.

This legislation requires streaming services with more than one million Australian subscribers to invest at least 10 per cent of their expenditure or 7.5 per cent of their revenue into the Australian sector. It will need to be invested in new local drama, children's programs, documentaries, arts or educational content. There are two clear principles at stake here. One is that Australians deserve access to their own stories, no matter which screen they're watching on. The other is that those who profit from access to Australian audiences should support Australian storytelling.

The idea of guaranteeing Australian content is not a new or radical idea. In 1942, the Curtin Labor government introduced quotas for Australian music on commercial radio stations to support local musicians and foster a distinctive cultural identity. The Whitlam Labor government built on that reform, raising the requirement to around 20 per cent. That change provided crucial support for Australian music during the golden age of Australian rock and pop in the seventies and through to the eighties.

The Menzies government introduced Australian content requirements for commercial television in 1961, and the Whitlam government strengthened them in 1973. Those changes ushered in a renaissance of Australian screen content, which my generation got to see, bringing productions like Number 96, The Sullivans, A Country Practicefilmed locally, largely in the Hawkesbury—and Prisoner to Australian audiences.

When pay TV services launched in the 1990s, they were initially exempt from content obligations until the Keating government acted in 1995 to require providers to invest at least 10 per cent of their expenditure in Australian drama. This simple measure ensured that pay TV would meaningfully contribute to Australian drama, and it has. As a result, Australian viewers have enjoyed acclaimed series such as Love My Way, Wentworth and Cloudstreet.

Radio and broadcast television reach their audience through publicly regulated airwaves. Pay TV providers operate through cable networks that, in many cases, were built with public investment. It's reasonable to expect that, in profiting from these assets, media companies deliver a measurable public benefit in return. Since the Rudd and Gillard governments began the build of the National Broadband Network, streaming platforms have had unprecedented access to Australian audiences. Without the NBN, it simply would not be possible to operate large-scale, reliable streaming platforms in Australia. Yet—unlike radio and broadcast and pay TV—global streaming platforms have until now had no specific obligation to invest in Australian content—no obligation whatsoever. That discrepancy has real consequences.

We know the way Australians consume screen content is changing rapidly and fundamentally. In 2017, just 29 per cent of Australians used paid subscription streaming services. By 2024, that number had risen to 69 per cent, and 2021 was a watershed year, marking the point when Australians were more likely to watch content through an online subscription service rather than live or recorded free-to-air TV. According to some sources the average household now has more than three streaming subscriptions. Global streaming platforms are rapidly becoming an essential element of our cultural infrastructure. It's vital that this technology be deployed in a way that supports local cultural expression rather than accelerates the globalisation and homogenisation of culture. Time and again we've seen that, without clear rules and well-calibrated regulation, local content is vulnerable not because audiences don't value it—they do, profoundly—but because global market forces won't prioritise it if they're not required to. It's for precisely these reasons that France, Italy, Spain and Canada have all introduced local content obligations. Indeed, all EU member states require streaming platforms to ensure that at least 30 per cent of their catalogue consists of European works. So Australia is not an outlier here; we're just catching up to where we should have been some time ago.

Streaming platforms can and do produce fantastic Australian content. This reform is about guaranteeing that this will continue in the decades ahead. If streaming platforms are where Australian audiences are watching—and, increasingly, they will be—Australian stories must be there too. It's the responsibility of government to guarantee that access, and that's exactly what this legislation will do. By passing this law, the House will send a clear signal that providing Australian content is not a voluntary contribution but a fundamental obligation.

The legislation creates a regulatory framework fit for the digital age. It upholds the rights of Australians to see stories that reflect our shared identity while ensuring our screen industry isn't just viable but thriving. It affirms our commitment to forging a cultural identity that's made here, not imported by default. Labor has taken this policy to multiple elections, and our commitment was reiterated in our National Cultural Policy—Revive, which voiced the aspiration that Australian stories are seen and heard regardless of platform and that our creative industries and practice are future focused, technology enabled, networked and globally recognised. This change has been talked about for many years. The government has consulted on it extensively. We've listened to feedback and adjusted the policy accordingly. The time has come to deliver.

This reform is well and truly due because it's not just the future of Australian storytelling that is at stake; it's Australian jobs. When streaming services invest in local productions, the benefits ripple outwards through the entire economy. Screen productions create valuable work not just for writers, actors and directors but for the crews and businesses who make it possible. These are real, meaningful, skilled jobs like camera operators, set builders, hair and makeup artists, costume designers, location scouts, caterers, editors, postproduction specialists, visual effects artists, accountants, drivers and so many others whose livelihoods depend on a strong and steady production environment.

The screen sector industry directly engages a workforce of around 55,000 people and contributes more than $6 billion in value to the Australian economy. With a guaranteed minimum investment in our domestic screen industry, local producers will have the certainty they need to make long-term plans and invest in the next generation of creative and technical talent. This system will help ensure that those workers have a future in their own country, and it will help prevent the loss of creative Australians to more supportive environments overseas that robbed our country of so much great talent in earlier decades.

We know that no model will satisfy everyone. When balancing cultural and commercial imperatives, it's impossible to achieve 100 per cent consensus. Some may have preferred a different figure for the investment obligation. To them, I say this 10 per cent expenditure requirement is a floor, not a ceiling. Let's be clear: what matters most is the cultural outcome, not the number itself. The legislation mandates a statutory review after four years. If the data shows the scheme has fallen short, the policy settings can be revisited. This mechanism ensures that if changes are needed they can be made, and that when the industry grows the policy can grow with it.

Others will argue that obligations are unnecessary, that streaming platforms are already doing their fair share. To them, I say this system does not impose an undue burden but it does remove uncertainty. It's a modest, predictable requirement that ensures that local content continues to be available to Australian audiences and that jobs in the creative sector are supported. If this system were already in place, the vast majority of platforms would already be meeting their obligations. If streaming platforms want to invest more, and several already do, this framework doesn't stand in their way.

Streaming platforms are already producing fantastic local content across a range of genres, with productions like Apple Cider Vinegar, Boy Swallows Universe, Heartbreak High, Totally Completely Fine, Deadloch, Colin from Accounts and Bump. This legislation will ensure that the production of great content like this continues well into the future. Our government wants to work in partnership with the streaming platforms active in the Australian market. That's why we're putting forward a system that is practical and flexible. Our system will allow streamers who've invested more than 10 per cent in one year to carry that surplus forward as a credit for a period of up to three years. It recognises that production doesn't always fit into a neat 12-month window.

The system allows platforms to choose which stories they want to tell and to meet their requirement through any mix of drama, documentary, children's, educational or arts content. They are the genres where the cultural imperatives are most at stake. They are the genres where the risk of market failure is greatest, so they are the ones that our system is most focused on. It will allow them to meet the obligation either through 10 per cent of expenditure or 7.5 per cent of revenue—whichever best aligns with their business model. The revenue approach may be particularly attractive to new entrants to the industry, which will help ensure that we have a diverse and dynamic streaming market in future years. And this system will give streamers the freedom to fulfil the requirement through one major production or several smaller ones if they wish.

This reform has been almost two decades in the making. But, as Special Envoy for the Arts, I know how intensely we have worked on this over the last few years. I want to thank every industry representative who has contributed to the extensive consultation process that has shaped this legislation—some of whom have held many meetings with me and my team.

To Screen Producers Australia, whose Make It Australian campaign has kept this issue on the political agenda for years: thank you. You and your members have made a huge contribution.

To the Australian Writers Guild, the Australian Directors Guild, the Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance and the hardworking advocates of the children's content sector: your passion and persistence have ensured that storytellers remain at the centre of this debate.

To the streaming platforms: thank you for your constructive engagement and for your willingness to meet, discuss and collaborate, and to meet again to discuss and collaborate. It is crucial to a sustainable and vibrant screen ecosystem. The government looks forward to working closely with you as the system is introduced.

To the opposition and crossbench members who voiced their support for this important reform: thank you for backing Australia's creatives.

I'd like to particularly acknowledge our Labor ministers for arts and communications, past and present, who've demonstrated so much commitment to Australian creativity and invested so much hard work in designing a system that is flexible, fair and fit for purpose.

This legislation will not fix every challenge that faces the screen industry. It will not deliver perfection, but it will deliver certainty and confidence. It will deliver investment, it will deliver opportunity for creative workers, and it will deliver Australian stories to Australian audiences. I'm confident that a decade from now we'll look back and say: 'That was the moment Australia stood up for our cultural sovereignty. It was when we said that our stories matter, our creative talent matters, and our screen sector deserves a strong future.'

Ultimately, this legislation is not about regulation. It's about identity. It's about the future of Australian stories and who gets to tell them. It's about whether our kids will grow up seeing their experiences on the screen, hearing voices that sound like theirs and recognising the landscapes. It's about telling every Australian that their stories matter and deserve to be seen, heard, celebrated and shared with the world. Our culture deserves to be nourished by content that reflects who we are, not who someone overseas thinks we ought to be. Every time we share a new Australian story on screen, we strengthen our sense of who we are.

With this reform, a strong screen industry and our extraordinary creative talent will remind the world that Australia is a nation with something to say and the confidence to— (Time expired)

Before I start, I would like to acknowledge the previous speaker, the member for Macquarie, for that very fine contribution to the House. As a special envoy, I know she carries out her duty with great passion and care. She should be commended for the work that she does. Thank you.

I stand today to speak in strong support of the Communications Legislation Amendment (Australian Content Requirement for Subscription Video On Demand (Streaming) Services) Bill 2025—a bill that ensures that, no matter where they live, where they stream or what device they watch it on, Australians will always be able to see a bit of themselves on screen. Whether you're 'home and away' or just popping in to see your 'neighbours', this bill guarantees that Australian stories remain on Australian screens. It's about making sure our voices, our humour, our landscapes and the real Australian accents don't get lost in the noise of global content. We're not just a country that consumes stories; we are creators of them.

This bill delivers on a core commitment in our national cultural policy, Revive, ensuring that streaming services invest in Australian content so that our screen industry, our creatives and our communities all share in the benefits. As someone from Adelaide's north, I know what opportunity looks like when it's backed by government and action. The same way we've supported manufacturing, defence and apprenticeships, this bill supports the next generation of storytellers, filmmakers, editors and animators. The communications legislation amendment bill makes one simple promise—if you're making money from Australian audiences, you should be investing in Australian stories. It's pretty simple.

Under this legislation, major streaming platforms with over a million Australian subscribers, like Netflix, Disney+, Amazon Prime Video and others, will need invest a minimum of 10 per cent of their total Australian program expenditure on new local drama, documentary, children's, arts or educational content. Alternatively, they can contribute 7½ per cent of their Australian revenue to meet the same goal. It's simple, it's fair, and it's long overdue. For too long, we've been told that streaming services are different, that they exist outside of the rules that apply to free-to-air and pay television. But, when you're charging Australians for subscriptions, when you're part of our entertainment diet, when our shows dominate the cultural conversation, you have responsibilities too—responsibilities to invest locally, to tell Australian stories and to hire Australian talent.

When Australians turn on their screens, they should see their stories reflected back, whether it's a gritty true crime story, an animated family of dogs teaching us all life lessons or a surf lifesaver in Summer Bay, because those moments of recognition matter. They make us laugh, they make us proud, and, sometimes, they even make us cry. This bill ensures those moments don't vanish into the algorithm. It brings streaming platforms into the same fair framework that already applies to broadcasters. If you ask me, that's just common sense. As Kath Day-Knight might put it: 'It's noice. It's different. It's unusual.'

We're a creative nation. We've given the world The Castle; Picnic at Hanging Rock; The Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert; Mad Max; Muriel's Wedding; Crocodile Dundee; Red Dog; The Dry; and Bluey. Each one is a reminder that our stories, when told authentically, have a power that resonates globally. But they also start small, in communities like mine in the north, with local filmmakers and creative graduates taking their first steps. For every Oscar-winning performance by Nicole Kidman or Cate Blanchett, there's a local production assistant working on their first short film at Elizabeth TAFE. As this bill reminds us, if we want our next generation of storytellers to thrive, we have to make space for them to start.

When it comes to the north, we have our fair share of creatives leading the way, like award-winning director Justin Kurzel, who brought the haunting story of Snowtown to the world and, just a few years later, reimagined Macbeth as a striking historical epic. His success reminds us that talent from our suburbs can capture the world's attention and that the next generation of filmmakers in Australia can turn local stories into international cinema. That's what this bill delivers—guaranteed access for Australian audiences to Australian content and guaranteed investment into the local industry. Revive, the national cultural policy, was built around the one simple belief that our people and their stories are our greatest cultural asset. This bill turns that belief into law. It makes sure that Australian stories don't just survive; they thrive. Frankly, if we can binge-watch three seasons of The Office in a weekend, we can certainly make room for Utopia or Rosehaven.

This legislation doesn't just talk about culture; it delivers for the economy. The Australian screen industry already supports more than 50,000 jobs. Every film, every series and every documentary made here creates work for actors, sound engineers, set builders, caterers, drivers and designers. The benefits ripple through local economies, and that's true for Adelaide's north too. Our communities and our TAFE campuses provide the pathways for the next generation of storytelling. This bill helps solidify that pathway. It's a jobs and justice policy for the creative sector, ensuring that, when global giants profit here, Australian workers share in the dividends. It's fair, because the same principle applies across our economy—if you make money in Australia, you invest it back into Australia. That's the foundation of the Future Made in Australia agenda, and it's just as relevant to culture as it is to critical minerals or clean energy.

We've all had that experience of opening a streaming app, ready to relax after a long day, and being flooded with options that are anything but local—endless lists of shows about New York lawyers or London detectives or maybe even a Nordic noir crime thriller. Sometimes you just want to see someone in the suburbs and landmarks you know, like Kath Knight telling off Kel for wearing a Sydney Swans scarf or Ray Shoesmith trying to balance a life of crime with trying to be a good dad. This bill generates that balance, ensuring that, no matter how global the content landscapes become, there will always be room for stories grounded in the Australian experience. It ensures that, when the next Underbelly, Offspring or SeaChange comes along, there's space and funding for it to be made.

It also helps ensure that shows like Bluey, which is now our most iconic export since Vegemite or the Tim Tam, have a future. Bluey didn't come out of nowhere; it was born from years of sustained investment in children's content. If we lose those frameworks, we lose the foundation for the next generation of Australian success stories. And, as any parent will you, if we lose Bluey, bedtime negotiations across the country will collapse overnight. Yes, this bill is partly about national security—the security of parents' sanity—but it's also about identity, belonging and opportunity. It says to every kid watching TV in Gawler, Salisbury or Elizabeth: 'Your world matters. Your story matters. You belong here.' That's powerful.

The bill also supports documentary production—a genre where Australia punches well above its weight. Our documentaries tackle big issues, from The Australian Dream to Working Class Boy, Back Roads and Australia in Colour. These are stories that educate, challenge and inspire. They capture who we are, where we've been and where we're going. This bill ensures that that kind of storytelling has a sustainable future too. Importantly, the legislation has a built-in flexibility. It includes a three-year carry-over period for investment, giving streaming services the time to plan major projects. It also mandates a statutory review for four years after commencement, ensuring it continues to meet its goals effectively.

There are sensible exemptions, too. This isn't about hobbyists uploading to YouTube or niche services streaming wedding videos; it applies to the big players—the ones with serious market presence and serious profits. That's why it is fair, proportionate and enforceable. Civil penalties apply for breaches because we're serious about this.

That's what we do as the Labor Party; we protect and solidify the arts. We recognise that a nation's creativity is not a luxury; it's a foundation—one that fuels innovation, identity and pride. We back the painters, the playwrights, the performers and the producers because we know that, when Australian art thrives, Australia thrives. We do it not for applause or accolades but because storytelling in every form is how we strengthen the social fabric that binds us together.

This bill also protects innovation. By ensuring a steady flow of investment into local production, it encourages creative risk taking—the kind that leads to new voices, new genres and new success stories. We know from experience that, when Australians tell their stories, the world listens. The Dry brought the Mallee to the big screen. Lion told of a story that spanned continents. The Twelve showed that Aussie courtroom drama can rival anything out of Hollywood. This is the pipeline we're protecting, and we do it not because we fear global content but because we value local creativity.

It's also about balance—cultural and economic. In recent years, global streaming services have spent billions worldwide on content but only a fraction of that in Australia. This bill fixes that imbalance. It ensures that Australian subscribers aren't just paying for foreign content; they're helping fund Australian production too. That's not protectionism; that's participation. It's saying, 'If you're part of our cultural ecosystem, you play by the same rules as everyone else.' I'd argue that that's as fair as splitting the bill at the pub—everyone chips in for their fair share.

We should also recognise how this legislation supports regional Australia. More and more productions are being filmed outside capital cities, and that's good news for places like the Barossa, the Riverland and Adelaide's north. When crews roll into town, they book local hotels, hire local transport and eat at local cafes. The economic multiplier is real, and every dollar spent on screen production benefits the broader community. That's why this bill matters not just to Sydney or Melbourne but to every region that wants to be part of Australia's storytelling future.

In a world of deepfakes, AI generated voices and synthetic scripts, authenticity matters more than ever. You can train an algorithm to mimic a voice, but you can't code an Aussie sense of humour. You can't fake the heart of The Sullivans or the warmth of McLeod's Daughters. You can't replicate the chaos of Rake or the absurd brilliance of Utopia. Those shows work because they're grounded in who we are. This bill ensures that that identity endures and evolves in the digital age.

I also want to acknowledge the arts workers who have been calling for this reform for years: writers, producers, directors, editors and crews—people who love this country enough to tell its stories. They've waited long enough for fair treatment. This government listened, and we're delivering. The previous government spent a decade talking about creative industries without giving them the creative certainty they needed, but we're changing that. We're turning commitment into legislation, and we're doing it because we believe that storytelling is nation building. It shapes how we see ourselves and how the world sees us.

For me, this bill also speaks to fairness—something Australians instinctively understand. If a teacher in Elizabeth pays taxes, if a nurse in Gawler contributes to super and if a tradie in Munno Para follows the rules, why should multibillion-dollar streaming companies be the exception? Everyone should do their bit. That's what fairness looks like, and fairness is what this bill delivers.

Whether you're watching Heartbreak High or Hey Hey It's Saturday, Gladiators or Glitch, you'll know that what's on your screen is part of something bigger—a fair go for Australian stories. Maybe that's the real takeaway here—that our screens aren't just entertainment; they're mirrors. They show us who we are, where we've been and what we can become. Whether you're watching from a lounge in Virginia, a kitchen in Truro or a shed in Angle Vale, you'll always have access to stories that sound like home. That's what this bill guarantees. As The Castle taught us, when you stand up for what's right, 'it's the vibe'—it's the vibe of fairness, creativity and community. It's the vibe of Australia. For that reason, I proudly commend the Communications Legislation Amendment (Australian Content Requirement for Subscription Video On Demand (Streaming) Services) Bill 2025 to the House.

When I was in my early 20s, I was renting in Sydney, working hard and loving my life and my friends. Once a week I sat down with my boyfriend and we watched The Secret Life of Us on TV. I loved it. I felt like Claudia Karvan and Samuel Johnson could easily have been my friends. They sounded like my friends, lived similar lives and dealt with similar issues. We looked forward to Monday nights and chatted about it at work. It became part of the language and culture I shared with my friends and it brought us together.

Later, as a parent of young kids, turning on Justine Clarke and Jay Laga'aia on Play School provided the window I needed to get a load of washing out, tidy up or lie exhausted next to my toddlers for a moment. I didn't want my kids to learn to talk with an American accent; I wanted them to understand, embrace and share our unique Australian culture. Although my kids were too old for Bluey, I've watched it with my nieces and nephews and seen the same thing in today's toddlers. Bluey shows the best of us, reflecting our culture and values in a way that reminds not just kids but also adults who we are. Only a few years ago I loved watching Tim Minchin's Upright, a road trip across Australia that ended with a homecoming to Cottesloe, in my electorate of Curtin. The trees, the architecture and the vibe bring these stories into our lives and make them real to us.

As our TV viewing patterns have changed, with far more choice, global content and streaming services, our cultural references are becoming more fragmented. We have fewer of these common cultural touchpoints, these collective Australian experiences that bring us together. Some of this is inevitable and positively reflects that we now accept a much broader range of ways to be Australian, and we have endless global choices available to us. But it also comes at a cultural cost, and this cost is not inevitable. TV stations are required to include some Australian content, which is how we get to hear more of our stories. But, until now, streaming platforms have not had this requirement, and this bill, the Communications Legislation Amendment (Australian Content Requirement for Subscription Video On Demand (Streaming) Services) Bill 2025, fixes that.

This bill is a significant and long-awaited reform. It's a milestone for Australia's cultural life. I commend the government, and Ministers Burke and Wells in particular, for delivering the decisive action that Australia's screen sector has needed for far too long.

The bill introduces for the first time a clear and enforceable Australian content requirement for the major streaming platforms like Netflix, Disney+ and Prime Video—the services that now dominate how Australians watch television. If a streaming service has at least one million paying subscribers in Australia, it will be required to spend more on new eligible Australian programs—either 10 per cent of its total program expenditure for Australia or 7.5 per cent of its Australian revenue. These eligible programs include the backbone of Australian storytelling—drama, children's content, documentaries, arts and educational programs. Streamers can equip their obligations over a three-year cycle, recognising the lumpy, project based nature of screen investments, and they must report annually to ACMA. Crucially, the bill brings streaming services into line with the free-to-air and subscription broadcasters who have carried these obligations for decades. In short, the bill guarantees that no matter which remote control Australians pick up, Australian stories will remain at their fingertips.

This reform is not just a technical fix; it's a cultural safeguard and a cultural opportunity. For decades, Australia's local content rules have ensured we can hear our own voices and see our own communities, histories and quirks reflected on screen. But audience habits have changed dramatically. More and more Australians watch content through streaming platforms, and those platforms have had no requirement to invest in Australian stories. This gap has left our screen sector increasingly vulnerable. Production has slumped, local commissions have declined and a highly-skilled workforce—actors, directors, writers, crew, editors, musicians and creatives—has faced deep uncertainty.

The Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance described today's reforms as 'a vital lifeline'. They stressed that the new content requirements will deliver safe and secure employment opportunities and offer real hope to thousands of creative workers who rely on a stable and sustainable production sector. Screen Producers Australia called this 'a landmark day', the result of more than a decade of advocacy built on the simple principle that Australian stories deserve a guaranteed space in our media landscape. As SPA put it, without clear local content rules, the ready availability of imported content risks drowning out our own voice.

Of course, this is about audiences too. Australians want Australian stories. They want stories that reflect our identity, humour, complexity and diversity. They want programs that understand our communities because they come from our communities. This bill honours that.

There are some small improvements that could be made to this bill. I'll be supporting the amendment proposed by the member for Wentworth to exclude the amount of the producer offset from qualifying expenditure in order to prevent international streaming services from artificially reducing their Australian expenditure. That amendment would also ensure that Australian companies, rather than international companies, retain important intellectual property rights over the new Australian programs. It requires that the streaming services report on the subgenres of their new Australian programs to promote broader assessment and monitoring and to help key sectors of the screen industry, like children's programming and documentary production. I urge the government to seriously consider this amendment.

To conclude, this is good, thoughtful, balanced legislation. It recognises that Australian stories are not just entertainment; they are part of the fabric of who we are. They help us understand ourselves and each other and they allow the world to understand us. The government have listened to extensive consultation and years of advocacy and acted, and I commend them for that. I strongly support the bill and the amendment being introduced by the member for Wentworth. I look forward to seeing it strengthen our culture, creative industries and national identity for years to come.

Australians have changed the way they consume their media. There's been a significant decline in the number of people who watch live broadcast television free to air. The year 2024 marked a key milestone in Australia's viewing habits, with fewer than half of Australians watching live free-to-air TV for the first time at only 46 per cent, down from 52 per cent in 2023. This was accompanied by a decline in the average time spent viewing broadcast television, down to 4.8 hours a week in 2024 from 5.6 hours a week in 2023.

Australians have shifted the way they consume their content, but two things have not shifted: Australians' desire for a strong Australian arts and media sector and the legislative landscape for subscription video on demand. Right now, free-to-air broadcasters have Australian content requirements. Pay TV has Australian content requirements. Streaming services do not. This gap means Australian stories are being overshadowed by a global library of content created elsewhere. That's why I'm so happy to support the Communications Legislation Amendment (Australian Content Requirement for Subscription Video On Demand (Streaming) Services) Bill 2025.

This is practical legislation that will strengthen our cultural sector and deliver clear benefits for communities like mine in southern Sydney. Fifty-sex per cent of Australians believe the arts benefits their wellbeing, but half of Australians are not attending arts events as much as they would like, with cost and location cited as significant barriers to arts attendance. It's clear that Australians want access to arts, entertainment and media right here in Australia. This legislation aims to ensure that we maintain a significant arts and culture industry in Australia.

Streaming services really took off around the world during the mid- to late-2010s. It was an enormous opportunity for regulatory reform for those who were in government during that time to ensure that Australians were positioned to take advantage of this transition in consumption. Did we have a government during those years that was innovative and forward thinking? Unfortunately not. We had those opposite in government. While overseas companies were swooping into Australia to take advantage of these changes, those opposite did nothing to ensure that Australians would benefit from it. In a challenging landscape, Australian streamers like Presto and Quickflix collapsed.

On top of that, those opposite butchered the arts sector. The 2014 federal budget slashed almost $60 million of the arts and cultural development funding and also slashed about $68 million from Screen Australia and the Australia Council—cuts that devastated the arts community and shattered the trust of artists and creative workers across this nation that Australia was a place where a career as an artist could be built. Those opposite's efforts damaged the industry. They sought to create an environment where the arts couldn't flourish, just as they sought to create an environment where manufacturing couldn't flourish. They dared our manufacturers to go offshore, and that's exactly what our vehicle manufacturers did. Those efforts almost did the same to the arts sector. As a brother to one of those in the creative sector, I know how much value is added to our society by the arts sector and how devastated the arts community were to know that the Liberal-National government didn't see their value.

Fortunately, the Australian people rejected this antediluvian and backward-thinking approach. They elected an Albanese Labor government to bring back an Australia where creativity and the arts could flourish. In its first 12 months in office, the Albanese Labor government released its national cultural policy, aptly named Revive. Revive is structured around five interconnected pillars, which set out the government's strategic objectives. Firstly, it puts First Nations first, recognising and respecting the crucial place of First Nations stories at the centre of Australia's arts and culture. Secondly, it allows a place for every story, reflecting the breadth of our stories and the contribution of all Australians as creators of culture. Thirdly, it recognises centrality of the artist, supporting the artist as a worker and celebrating artists as creators. Fourthly, it provides strong cultural infrastructure, providing support across the spectrum of institutions which sustain our arts, culture and heritage. Finally, it engages the audience, making sure our stories connect with people at home and abroad. This bill builds on the structure put in place through the national cultural policy.

For so many in my electorate, arts are an important part of life. In September, I had the opportunity to met with Eric Nash of Glasshouse Productions, a local filmmaker from the Sutherland shire. Eric wrote, directed and produced the feature film Love You Like That and shot it entirely in the shire. Starring Mitchell Hope and comedy great Steph Tisdell, the film celebrated our local area on screen and achieved national success, screening in over 90 cinemas. It's now streaming in the USA, Canada, the UK and here in Australia, proudly showcasing the beauty and heart of the Sutherland shire to international audiences.

Hughes is a photogenic place. We have the beauty of Bundeena, the marvels of Maianbar, the rare beauty of the Royal National Park, the spectacular Simmos Beach, the healthy hum of the Heathcote National Park, the gentle run of the Georges River and a thriving and healthy koala population. Hughes has a lot to offer, and Australia has a lot to offer the world of film, television and streaming. However, local gems of films like Love You Like That struggle to get the national spotlight in an environment that favours big international players. I'm sure, Deputy Speaker Georganas, that you will be rushing home to stream it online as soon as you're out the chair, now that you know what it has to offer, but other content isn't so fortunate.

When Australian film and television is allowed to shine, we know that it is highly successful on the world stage. Programs like Bluey have children all around the world saying, 'Airport? I'm not going to the airport,' in an Australian accent. Colin from Accounts brought to the screen the relatable situation of falling asleep on the T4 and waking up at Waterfall and dared to imagine a world in which Waterfall had a big Chinese restaurant. Mad Max: Fury Road had fans all around 'witness' it. This is what Australian cinema can achieve when it's given a fair go. Our films goes straight to the pool room!

But the media landscape has been stacked against Australian creators for too long. This bill builds on the government's efforts to change that. Families in Barden Ridge, Hammondville and Macquarie Fields gather at home in the evenings to watch dramas and documentaries. They love David Attenborough, as we all do, but they also want to hear Australian voices telling Australian stories that matter to Australians. That's why this bill matters to people in Hughes. It ensures that, no matter what screen they choose to watch, there is guaranteed access to Australian productions that reflect our identity and our values.

This bill is straightforward. It requires major streaming services with over one million Australian subscribers to invest at least 10 per cent of their total program expenditure into new Australian commissions or first-release acquisitions of eligible program formats. These formats include drama, children's content, documentary, arts and educational programs. Alternatively, services may choose the option of investing 7.5 per cent of their gross Australian revenue. Without a new tax and without a new levy, it's a simple requirement to reinvest a small part of the value these platforms derive from the Australian public back into Australian stories. It mirrors arrangements that already exist for other broadcasters and ensures Australians will continue to see themselves represented on screen.

Australia has always played an important global role in the film industry. The first full-length narrative feature film was created right here. On Boxing Day 1906, The Story of the Kelly Gang opened at the Athenaeum theatre in Melbourne. It was the first multi-reel, feature-length film ever produced in the world, and it was produced right here. So our history of the film industry is long and important, and for the people of Hughes this bill does several important things.

Firstly, it strengthens local industries. Our area is home to producers, editors, animators and creatives who work across the screen sector. Many residents commute into the city each day to work in production houses, studios or digital design firms. This bill helps secure jobs for these workers by giving producers more certainty that local content will be commissioned.

Secondly, it supports small business. Sydney is home to businesses that supply equipment, post-production services, sound design and filming support. When Australian productions increases, these businesses grow. It means jobs in our local communities. It means the growth of local spending. That's of direct economic benefit for Hughes.

Thirdly, it supports young people. There are thousands of young creatives in Hughes. Students in schools across the Sutherland shire, Liverpool and Campbelltown LGAs study media, film and performing arts. They are capable. They are ambitious. They are eager to contribute to an industry that feels increasingly global and competitive. By increasing Australian commissions, we give these students clearer pathways for their careers and more opportunities to develop skills close to home.

Lastly, this bill ensures strong and continued representation for all Australians. The Hughes community is very diverse. Families from many cultural backgrounds call Hughes home, and Australians want these stories, the stories of modern Australia, reflected on screen. Residents bring perspectives shaped by their heritage, their personal histories and their connection to local places. If we want a future Australia to feel seen and understood, our screens must reflect that diversity. The current market does not always guarantee this, but this bill introduces a stable requirement that improves representation and supports stories that come from communities like ours.

The bill amends the Broadcasting Services Act to introduce Australian content requirements for subscription video-on-demand services. It also makes consequential amendments to the ACMA Act so that the authority can administer these obligations. It establishes clear rules, including a three-year carryover period for expenditure and a statutory review after four years to ensure the scheme is working as intended. This balances certainty with accountability. Services have flexibility to manage expenditure across years, while the public can trust that the system will be evaluated and improved over time. The requirement only applies to major services with more than one million Australian subscribers. It excludes platforms that feature predominantly user-generated content, services that rely solely on advertising or those with limited appeal. It ensures the scheme targets the largest players without burdening small platforms.

This legislation also protects the public by imposing civil penalties for breaches. When rules exist, they must be enforceable. The ACMA will have powers to determine classes of expenditure and revenue and to request notifications from service providers. These delegated powers are made through disallowable instruments, which protects parliamentary oversight.

In relation to why the level of regulation is necessary where the market already produces Australian content, the answer is simple: without clear requirements, local content becomes vulnerable to fluctuations in global investments. Large platforms commission programs from many countries at once, and decisions are not always made with the Australian public in mind. Our content can be deprioritised or replaced with cheaper imports. Over time, this has the potential to erode the presence to Australian voices. A stable requirement ensures that, even as technology changes, our identity is not diluted.

Residents in Hughes want Australian stories on their screens. They want Australian children to grow up watching Australian programs that reflect their lives and surroundings. They want an arts and cultural sector that offers good jobs and strong career pathways. They want the creative talent in south-west Sydney and the Sutherland Shire to be supported, not overshadowed. This bill responds to those expectations. It supports economic development. It strengthens cultural expression and representation. It gives certainty to creators and businesses. It ensures major global companies that benefit from Australian audiences contribute meaningfully to Australian storytelling.

The people of Hughes are passionate, diverse and proud to be Australian, and they want their stories reflected. They value fairness and contribution. The expect that, when a service operates in Australia and profits from Australian households, it also invests in Australian culture. This bill meets that expectation in a balanced, proportionate and effective way. Australians love their television. They love their film. This bill gives Australians the opportunity to love Australian film and media like that. I commend this bill to the House.

Wake in Frightsometimes that happens when I'm in Canberra. Death in Brunswickthat happens in my electorate. Breaker Morant and Gallipoli are great historical stories. Picnic at Hanging Rock; Lantana; Phar Lap; The Castle, which is another great favourite; Strictly Ballroom; Two Hands; WalkaboutI could go on about great Australian cinema. I've got some for you, Deputy Speaker Georganas: Acropolis Now, Our Generation, The Wog Boy. There was all of that great TV that we saw growing up: The Slap, Skippy the Bush Kangaroodo you remember that one? I watched that when I was a kid. Then there's Kath and Kim. Look at me, Deputy Speaker; I'm talking about Kath and Kim. The Secret Life of Us, Mystery Road, Heartbreak High, and on and on—it's great Australian television. My kids watch InvestiGators. That was on the ABC. It's a fantastic show for kids.

This is what this is about. The Communications Legislation Amendment (Australian Content Requirement for Subscription Video On Demand (Streaming) Services) Bill is about supporting Australian storytellers, Australian cinema and Australian TV and about making sure, in amending through the Communications Legislation Amendment Bill, that we introduce content obligations on streaming services to make sure that, no matter which screen people are watching on, they have guaranteed access to Australian stories. We've always been a nation of storytellers, from the world's oldest continuous cultures—the First Nations storytellers—to the more modern storytellers that have brought to life the modern multicultural stories of ours to our screens, both the small screen and the silver screen. The screen industry is one of the most powerful platforms we have to share Australian stories—to share our stories with the world—whether it's Crocodile Dundee or Kath and Kim.

This bill ensures that our national identity, our voices, our experiences and our creativity are not only preserved but projected out proudly to future generations and to audiences across the globe. This bill will amend the Broadcasting Services Act to introduce an Australian screen content requirement for subscription video-on-demand services and will guarantee a minimum level of expenditure on new Australian content on streaming services. This is about ensuring access to Australian content and making sure that it's made readily available to and not unreasonably denied of Australian consumers and international audiences. This bill is going to require that streaming services with more than one million Australian subscribers invest at least 10 per cent of their total expenditure in Australia or 7.5 per cent of their revenue on new local drama, children's TV or film, documentary, and arts and educational programming.

The bill marks a major shift in how Australians will access Australian made content. The world has changed. We know that Australian stories are fundamental to shaping our national identity. I say that in the sense that—people might think it is just TV or movies. But what the screen does, what those stories do, is contribute to our social cohesion as a nation. It reflects back to the community the stories. Seeing ourselves on the screen is all about being able to express culturally what we're about and who we are and to help us understand who we are, what we're on about and sometimes why we are—when you get some of those deeper artistic efforts.

The national cultural policy, Revive, affirmed a simple truth that the people of Australia and the stories we tell are effectively our greatest cultural asset. They are worth every dollar because they tell the story of us. And the power of seeing ourselves on the small and large screen is so undeniably important because the stories cultivate community. They share the experiences that we have with each other, and a sense of belonging is nurtured by telling those stories, being part of those stories and seeing ourselves reflected back on the screen. As a kid, I remember getting so excited when there was an Australian film or television show with Australian accents. You'd get a lot of American television and so on, and some of the sitcoms were very funny and great, but there was a certain buzz and excitement when you'd watch BMX Bandits or shows like Skippy, or whatever it might be, with Australian accents on the screen. That was important for us growing up.

We also get to see our values reflected, our diversity and our character. In a sense, the stories on the screen show the world who we are. They also give us a way to interpret our past, to define our present and to showcase the creativity that exists here in Australia by putting it out on the global stage. We know that the world has changed the way that we consume media, art, television and film. Streaming services now dominate the media landscape in many respects. The Australian Communications and Media Authority has found that the majority of Australians use streaming services as their preferred method for consuming screen content. That's about 81 per cent of Australians subscribing to at least one streaming service. That's a significant shift in the way that we consume this content. In Australia, we're spending a whopping $3.8 billion on videostreaming services and have a total of 26.6 million videostreaming accounts. Yet, until now, until this bill, these services have had no obligation whatsoever to invest in the country from which they have profited or are profiting.

Writers, performers, producers, directors, costume and make-up artists, set designers, gaffers—I could go on, but I don't know all the technical roles that exist. All Australian creatives deserve to have the streaming giants invest in their talent and in their work, their brilliant work, and I'm not alone in saying that. The majority of Australian streaming-service users agree that it's important to have Australian stories, voices and culture platformed on these services. There have been a number of studies done on this. Australians want to see more Australian content available to them. Beyond this, we can't overstate the importance of the Australian screen industry, for not just entertainment but our economy.

This is an industry that creates Australian jobs, innovation, cultural identity and international influence. It's an industry that employs tens of thousands of people, such as writers, editors, actors and technicians, and many others whose contributions often go unseen unless you sit there—and you should, by the way—until the end of the credits. It takes a lot of work and effort to produce some of those films and TV shows. This all depends on a strong local industry. But to be clear: I've heard it said that more people go to the NGV, the National Gallery of Victoria, than the MCG. Therefore, there is this great notion of looking at all the arts and of people enjoying the arts more than they're enjoying sports. And remember that Melbourne is the sporting capital, so that's quite a statistic. But do you know what I'd say to that too? I'd say that that's great, but not all of the arts is commercially viable.

There is a place for us to provide support for emerging artists, for new art and for new film and television as it emerges. Otherwise, we won't have an industry. It can't just be totally based on the commercial value. Otherwise, we'd just be making Hollywood productions up in Queensland. That's an important part of the industry, but having Dwayne Johnson run around with his top off and pretend to be in Los Angeles while he's in the Gold Coast is not an Australian story. Let's be honest about that. It's filmed in Australia but it's not an Australian story. While it's important for work for those creatives, I'm talking about Australian stories.

When you speak to people in the industry, it's this idea of a strong local industry that is such a point of advocacy. It's been something that has characterised the debate around the streaming services and the lack of obligation to provide some of their revenue towards local content.

I recently met with a constituent, Sky Davies, who is a cinematographer and screen practitioner in my electorate of Wills. I've met with a number of creatives in my electorate. Wills, in the northern suburbs of Melbourne, has one of the highest concentrations of creatives in Australia, I would say. She was joined by all these screen practitioners. There was Ryan. There was Mike. There was Con. All of them have felt the devastating decline in Australian stories, and not having any quotas for local content on streaming services has impacted their work, particularly in Victoria.

I mentioned some of the film work that's happening up in Queensland. That's great. But Victoria and other states suffer when you don't have the local content. The number of crew members is at a historic low. There's a very high attrition rate. People are being forced out of the industry due to depleted employment opportunities. The group expressed to me that the situation is so dire that, if this continued, in one year probably only one member of the group would be sitting in our meeting as a working creative.

For decades, the Australian screen industry thrived because of the Australian content requirements on free-to-air TV. Quotas for local content have long been required for free-to-air broadcast, but they have not existed for the streaming services as they've emerged and taken over a lot of the platforms that people use to watch content. In the past, those requirements ensured that our screens reflected our lives as Australians, reflected us back to ourselves and reflected our stories. They ensured that, when we turned on the TV, we saw our cities, our unique humour, our history and our culture on the screen. But the world has changed and the way Australians engage with and watch content has shifted, as I mentioned earlier. There has been a 17.5 per cent decline in the number of Australian titles this year alone and a large reduction in overseas investment from streaming services.

Before politics, I worked as an executive at SBS. I've worked in film finance, financing independent film. I'm very passionate about the importance of local content and telling Australian stories. When I was at SBS, we brought on NITV to be part of SBS. The profound impact of telling First Nations stories, not just for Indigenous people across Australia but for all Australians, has been really felt and benefits have developed from that.

It's also about telling our multicultural stories—who we are as a nation. Earlier in my speech I referred to Acropolis Now and some of these other multicultural sitcoms, and we had a laugh about that. They were great shows—

Indeed they were.

but they told the stories of the emerging migrant groups. We saw people reflected on the screen, telling us who we are and showing us who we are.

This government is committed to delivering on our national cultural policy, Revive. That policy is pivotal to our ability to promote the cultural importance of local Australian stories, ensure that Australian content has international reach and support Australia's global brand and standing. It is also pivotal to our ability to boost the positive economic impact of the screen sector on Australia's economy. This government believes strongly that, to understand who we are better, to tell our stories and to express ourselves, we should never ever underestimate how important it is for Australians to see themselves represented on the screen.

There is nothing wrong with American sitcoms, European shows and so on. They're all great shows, but they're not our stories. Our stories are unique to us. They are also a window on Australia and the diversity of Australia, and being able to tell those stories to the rest of the world is important for Australia's standing globally.

With this bill, the Albanese government is standing with our Australian creatives. We're making sure that that percentage of revenue that the streaming services collect from their subscriptions in Australia is going to be reinvested in Australian content. It will be a steady stream. In everything I've heard from the industry, they say, 'We need that stability. We need that baseline so we know that we've got work, and a pipeline of work—not one job and then eight months sitting at home, hoping for another job to come. We need to have that steady stream coming through.'

So we as a government are always going to invest in our culture, our industries and our future. I think this is a really important bill for Australia's cultural identity and for all the creative people and all the young people, as well as older people, who want to continue to work in creative industries, to tell our stories. It's such a special part of who we are. With the arts, it's not just about the economics. It's the heart and soul of any society. It's intangible to a certain extent. It's immeasurable to a certain extent. But you know when you see it and you understand when you see it how important it is to us as a people to be able to tell those stories and how that moves us emotionally. It moves our hearts as well as our minds. I think it's so important to be able to provide this certainty for the screen industry. That is why I am very, very happy to commend this bill to the House.

I rise in support of the Communications Legislation Amendment (Australian Content Requirement for Subscription Video On Demand (Streaming) Services) Bill 2025. When this bill passes, Australians will see more Australian produced content on their streaming services. Whether you are watching on your television, iPhone, iPad or laptop, it is important that you get to see it and that our government plays a role in supporting Australian content where it can.

The first television broadcast in Australia took place on 30 September 1929 at the Menzies Hotel in Melbourne, using the electromechanical radiovision system. That's a mouthful! After 18 months of test transmissions, regular broadcasts began in Brisbane on 6 May in 1934, using a 30-line system. That reached an estimated 18 receivers around Brisbane. The test transmissions, which were an hour's duration each day, were made from the Wickham Terrace observatory tower. The programs included news headlines, still pictures—you've got to go way, way back into the early 1900s here—and silent movies, such as the temperance film Horrors of Drink.

Since the introduction of the television in Australia, there have been a number of programs and world events that have stopped the nation and we have used the box to see them. One of the first world events was the moon landing. I can't remember that one. The second, for me, was 9/11, of which there was wall-to-wall coverage. And then who could forget the Women's World Cup quarter-final, with the Matildas versus France and that penalty shootout that had the entire nation sitting on the edge of their seats? Then there was my favourite, Cathy Freeman, with the weight of the nation on her shoulders when she came steaming home to take the 400-metre gold at the Sydney Olympics. These things are in my memory just like it was yesterday.

One of my earliest memories as a kid is of coming home from school and huddling in front of the television with my sisters to watch Skippy. The famous theme song would be playing: 'Skippy, Skippy, Skippy, the bush kangaroo.' It stood the test of time. And then, when I was a teenager, as a family we would gather around the television to watch A Country Practiceabout the lives of the locals in Wandin Valley. It was a quintessential Aussie show. Who could forget that episode that stopped the nation when Molly Jones died? There wasn't a dry eye in the lounge room. Then, on a lighter note, every Saturday we would turn on the television at 6.30 for Hey Hey It's Saturday, rolling around the floor laughing at the difference skits. Who could forget Red's face? Then there was the classic Kingswood Country. We can't forget Ted Bullpitt, who himself was a TV addict, and his absolute love of his Holden Kingswood. And then there's one that others have mentioned here before—'Kim, look at moi.' I'm sure many in this House can recognise that line from the iconic Kath & Kim series. There are also classic Australian dramas, like Neighbours and Home and Away, that launched international stars such as Kylie Minogue, Chris and Liam Hemsworth, Margot Robbie, Julian McMahon, Naomi Watts, Simon Bakers, Heath Ledger and many more.

Even though we are a relatively small country, with 27.5 million people, we have always batted above our weight when it comes to producing shows that stand the test of time and can compete on the international stage. When Australian writers and performers are given the support to produce Australian stories, we always see the most amazing productions come together, and we have heard from previous speakers here this afternoon the titles of some of our greatest. But we should never underestimate how important it is for Australians to see themselves on screen. It helps us better understand ourselves and our neighbours, and it allows the world to see us. That's why, in 2023, this government released its landmark national cultural policy, Revive: a place for every story, a story for every place. It's a five-year plan to renew and revive Australia's arts, entertainment and cultural sector. It delivers new momentum so that Australia's creative workers, organisations and audiences continue to thrive and grow and our arts, culture and heritage are repositioned as central to Australia's future.

Revive is structured around five interconnected pillars which set out the government's strategic objectives: (1) First Nations first: recognising and respecting the crucial place of First Nations stories at the centre of Australia's arts and culture; (2) a place for every story: reflecting the breadth of our stories and the contribution of all Australians as the creators of culture; (3) centrality of the artist: supporting the artist as worker and celebrating artists as creators; (4) strong cultural infrastructure: providing support across the spectrum of institutions which sustain our arts, culture and heritage; and (5) engaging the audience: making sure our stories connect with people at home and abroad.

Then, sitting across these pillars are 10 principles that guide actions and investments over the next five years: (1) First Nations arts and culture are First Nations led; (2) all Australians, regardless of language, literacy, geography, age or education, have the opportunity to access and participate in arts and culture; (3) artists and arts workers have career structures that are long-term and sustainable, supported by vocational pathways; (4) Australian students have the opportunity to receive an education that includes culture, creativity, humanities and the arts; (5) creative talent is nurtured through fair remuneration, industry standards and safe and inclusive work cultures; (6) arts and cultural organisations have representation and leadership that is reflective of contemporary Australia; (7) cultural infrastructure, including galleries, libraries, museums, archives and digital collections, is restored, built and maintained; (8) Australian stories are seen and heard, regardless of platform—this is central to today's discussion—(9) creative industries and practice are future focused, technology enabled, networked and globally recognised, including through reciprocal exchange, export and cultural diplomacy; and (10) arts and culture are generative, creating new works and supporting emerging artists, and preservative, protecting heritage and conserving cultural memory.

This legislation delivers on our commitment in the national cultural policy, Revive, to set local content requirements on streaming services. It recognises that Australian people and their stories are our greatest cultural asset. Australian stories help to shape our national identity, define who we are and make us recognisable on the international stage. Once this legislation is passed, it will make sure that, no matter what screen you're watching from, you will have guaranteed access to Australian stories. It will mandate that streaming services with more than one million Australian subscribers invest at least 10 per cent of their total expenditure for Australia or 7.5 per cent of their revenue on local drama, children's documentary, arts and educational programs. This will give vital support to our domestic screen sector and arts workers by ensuring quality local stories continue to be produced in Australia.

We have Australian content requirements on free-to-air television and pay TV, but until now there has been no guarantee that we could see our own stories on streaming services. We really are in a new era where fewer people are sitting down in the lounge room to watch their favourites on the box. It's all about streaming platforms now, and we have to go where the people are going. With this legislation, we'll be able to ensure that, no matter which remote control you're holding or which laptop button you're clicking, Australian stories will be at your fingertips.

In my electorate of Brisbane, I recently visited Ludo Studio. What's Ludo Studio? Think Bluey, Dingo, Chilli, Coco and Dusty, amongst others. Bluey is now an Australian icon. I spoke with the co-founder of Ludo Studio, alongside Screen Producers Australia, about the importance of locally produced content. What I heard was that real Australian content, like Bluey, matters. It connects us to who we are and shares our culture with the world, which is why these laws are so important.

These laws will enable us to see the great work of our screen producers and artists. In my electorate office, I recently met with Rebecca and Stephen from Screen Producers Australia. They were talking about their 'Make it Australian: Give Our Stories a Fair Go' campaign. They shared real-life examples of how challenging it was to compete with big companies like Netflix, Stan, Apple TV and Amazon. They said that, when Australian industry is not invested in, we lose these skills locally and often end up importing these skills from overseas. They said that what makes the most difference is having quotas in streaming services, like the quota system that was introduced to broadcasting. Countries like the United Kingdom and Canada have quotas in place, and it has made a big difference to locally produced content.

Australian audiences have shifted to online streaming platforms, but our longstanding local content rules have not yet followed them. Australian stories are being left behind, and our audiences are missing out on the most accessible form of culture available. In fact, one artist who lobbied for quotas has gone on record to say:

There's something like 50,000 shows accessible to an Australian every day, which is just unbelievable.

He also said:

And we want to get in on that and tell some of our stories and be part of that bigger picture.

It's important that a model of streaming regulation delivers more genuinely Australian stories of cultural worth on our screens, particularly for our children.

The screen industry wanted to see a firm commitment from the government to support legislation for streaming services to invest in key genres, including children's content, scripted drama and documentaries, and that's exactly what this legislation will do. We want to work with the Australian screen industry to deliver on their priorities. Their priorities are around ensuring Australian audiences see and hear their own stories. They want to see flexible and fair local content investment obligations for streaming platforms, tied to revenue or subscribers. They want to see intellectual property protections to keep Australian stories in Australia and to ensure independent screen businesses can thrive and be autonomous. They'd also like to see strengthened national broadcasters and screen bodies through more funding for the ABC and SBS, as well as the building of a competitive and fair screen-investment framework.

By boosting local production, rewarding Australian ownership and fixing industry gaps—which can attract investment and keep production local—the screen industry really does support a diverse range of jobs across our creative industry economy. This includes writers and actors, but you also have costume designers, set designers, camera operators, audio-visual tech operators and many, many more. This industry drives economic growth across the country by creating skilled jobs, innovation and adaption of new technology. It drives tourism and exports Australian culture and values globally. It helps to shape our cultural identity through protecting local stories that strengthen our national pride, and it boosts connection with authentic Australian stories that foster belonging, community resilience and a shared experience.

As you've probably gathered, I love a good Australian production, and I've not long finished watching Mystery Road, with Detective Jay Swan. If you haven't seen it, I highly recommend it. Through a well-produced drama, the audience experiences life in the outback and First Nations struggles with inequality and the history of the Stolen Generation. It's a great Australian story. This homegrown creative force is one of the many we should be proud of and be prepared to ensure gets in front of fellow Australians.

Something a little bit lighter is the fantastic program Muster Dogs. It follows five graziers from across Australia who are given five kelpie puppies from the same litter. Who doesn't love a puppy? They are set the challenge of transforming these uniquely Australian dogs into champion muster dogs. But it is great shows like these that could miss out on being developed if we didn't support the industry with this bill. Government has a role fostering the creative forces that live here at home but, as we know, the government doesn't do creating. That role belongs to our artists, who need to be respected as both workers and as creators, who need strong infrastructure that provides training, development and space to share new works, and the nation needs those works to engage the audiences both here at home and around the world. That is why I'm proud to be part of a government that not only recognises but supports our creative industries so they can continue to thrive and tell great Australian stories.

In conclusion, I would like to quote The Castle, which to me sums up the principle behind this bill. Daryl is standing in front of the judge, and the judge says, 'And what law are you basing this argument on?' Daryl responds with 'the law of bloody common sense'. With that, I commend the bill to the House.

I am also proud to rise today in support of this Communications Legislation Amendment (Australian Content Requirement for Subscription Video On Demand (Streaming) Services) Bill 2025. I am a fierce advocate for celebrating and protecting Australian content and Australian artists in all their forms, so I was really pleased to have the opportunity to talk about the buzz happening in the Illawarra right now with some really exciting projects we have seen this year.

Supporting Australian content is crucial, not only for the jobs and economic benefit that it gives supporting thousands of Australians every year and positioning Australia on the global stage but also for sharing our stories and for protecting our culture and way of life. Because while we share many similarities with places like the United Kingdom and the United States, there is something unique and special about Australia. Seeing that uniqueness represented on our screens is so important for cementing our own national identity, for us to know who we are, who our neighbours are and for fostering that shared sense of pride and understanding. You can't be what you can't see, and Australians need to see ourselves represented in the ever-growing streaming content that we consume every day.

This bill introduces a requirement for streaming services to include a minimum level of Australian content on their platforms. Streamers with more than one million Australian subscribers will need to invest at least 10 per cent of their total expenditure on new Australian commissions or first-release acquisitions, or, alternatively, streaming providers can choose into invest 7.5 per cent of their gross Australian revenue. The eligible programs will be new local drama, children's shows, documentaries, arts and educational programs. This is part of the Albanese Labor government's commitment in Revive, our national cultural policy to set local content requirements on streaming services.

Our government is committed to ensuring that our future is made in Australia. We believe in our core that our future must start at home. That is not just manufacturing and goods exports but also our cultural exports, and we simply cannot guarantee the future of Australian cultural exports without protecting them through content requirements. We have Australian content requirements on free-to-air television and on pay television, protecting Australian cultural identity and Australian jobs.

The growth of streaming services over the past few years has been huge and it is important they be subject to the same requirements for the same reason—to protect our stories and to ensure that we see ourselves represented in arts and culture. This guarantee means there will be Australian stories on all screens. In my electorate of Cunningham in the Illawarra. we are proving ourselves to be a big drawcard when it comes to content creation. If I have one message for the streaming companies it is: the Illawarra is open for business and we have it all. We are a short helicopter ride from Sydney, as we saw with Elton John, who proved this when he flew in and out of WIN Stadium for his amazing concert a few short years ago. From memory, it took him about 20 minutes—a very short commute, if you ask me.

We have the most picturesque coastline you could imagine. Our famous Seacliff Bridge has featured in advertisements and television shows multiple times, showcasing one aspect of what makes our coastline so beautiful—where the mountains meet the sea—as beautiful a picture as you can get. And Hollywood has already started to discover our wonderful recipe. This year alone we have seen two famous and recognisable faces come to Wollongong to make their latest Hollywood blockbusters. In February the incredible Russell Crowe was spotted in Wollongong Harbour filming his movie The Beast in Me with a famous Australian line-up that included Daniel MacPherson, Luke Hemsworth and Amy Shark. Russell has felt the Illawarra magic before, filming Poker Face in Kiama and Gerringong in 2022 as well.

Then, in April, the small and very quirky and arty town of Port Kembla was absolutely abuzz. The original Baywatch girl, Pamela Anderson herself, was filming on Wentworth Street. The film, Place to Be, used the Servo as its set—a fantastic local bar and live music venue that is also committed to giving local Australian artists a platform. Port Kembla was also the set for Stan's series Exposure in 2023 and featured in the BBC's mystery series Return to Paradise last year.

Another famous Hollywood movie, Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes, was filmed in multiple spots across the Illawarra, including in the old Helensburgh Tunnel, a spot many local people would have instantly recognised in the film. At the time, Screen Illawarra's Kingston Anderson said that the production was 'probably the largest feature film to be shot in Australia'. That happened in my hometown. There's not much that gets more thrilling than that.

We have so much potential—as you know, Deputy Speaker Freelander—not just for Hollywood but for locally made content as well. Our very own Yael Stone, of Orange Is the New Black fame, filmed her recent Paramount Plus series, One Night, in the northern suburbs of the Illawarra, with many instantly recognisable landmarks, like the famous Scarborough pub, the Sea Cliff Bridge, local train stations and more. In the series, Yael's character, Hat, does what many locals do—commutes to the city on the train everyday to get to work. It was actually at Thirroul train station where I met Yael for the very first time during the 2022 election campaign. This is a piece of our community's reality—a small, but important, feature of this drama series. Produced by the company of Screen Illawarra patron Ian Collie, Easy Tiger Productions, the film employed lots of locals and helped project our beautiful coastline onto screens worldwide.

The film, Over, is a community driven production which has a cast and crew entirely made up of Illawarra artists. It was filmed across Wollongong and last year it won Best Commissioned Film at the Creative Wollongong Short Film Festival. In yet another exciting development in 2025 that has really seen our region hit some high notes for Australian film, it took out the Specsavers Award for Best Australian Comedy Short Film at Flickerfest 2025. How great is that?

These are just some examples. There simply is not enough time to celebrate all the amazing productions that have come out of Wollongong in the last few years. A lot of these opportunities have been thanks to the incredible hard work of Screen Illawarra, which has been tireless in its effort to pitch our region to the screen industry. Earlier this year Screen Illawarra took a delegation of industry representatives from Warner Bros, Disney and the BBC on a tour of our coastline, visiting local attractions like Bald Hill, Symbio Wildlife Park, BlueScope and more. I have been speaking regularly with Screen Illawarra about ways that our government can help support them to grow this blossoming market. I look forward to seeing so many more exciting exports coming to a streamer near you very soon. There are lots of exciting possibilities being worked on—I'll say that much—and I can't wait to see what is next.

I'd like to take a moment to acknowledge and thank the chair of Screen Illawarra, Nick Bolton, and all of his team for their outstanding advocacy and genuine hard work in getting the Illawarra to where it is today and where it will be tomorrow. Our region is so lucky to have you fighting for us, seeing our potential and helping to make that a reality. Thank you.

It is not just film and television where our government is demonstrating our commitment to local Australian artists. Just last week I was so privileged to get to attend the ARIA Awards—our national night to celebrate everything Australian music. I owe a huge thanks to the Minister for the Arts, Tony Burke, for helping me to get there, for one very exciting reason. For the very first time, the ARIA Awards had a brand new category of Best Music Festival, and Wollongong's Yours and Owls was nominated. We could not have been prouder of our guys getting this national recognition, and I just had to be there with them to celebrate that. They may have been pipped at the post by Laneway Festival, but that does not diminish the incredible achievement it was to make it into that category in its inaugural year. Congratulations to Adam, Balunn, Ben and all their team on this mighty achievement.

What made the night even more exciting was that, while I was there, I got the news that Yours and Owls had been awarded $250,000 under the Revive Live program—so I got to tell Adam this exciting news face to face while we waited for the announcement of their award nomination. Revive Live is supporting our live music industry, keeping venues open, keeping festivals entertaining fans and keeping Australian music alive. It was such a great moment to give Adam that news, and I am so pleased to be supporting Yours and Owls with original Australian artist fees, marketing, production and accessibility costs.

I mentioned the servo earlier where Pamela Anderson was filming. Once again, I was delighted to provide them with $75,000 under Revive Live. We're also giving $33,832 to La La La's, another local live music venue which is helping to promote local artists and ensuring Australian music is enjoyed by fans in the Illawarra.

Since the Revive Live program began this year, we have delivered over $650,000 to help support local artists and venues. I will keep doing everything I can to champion Australian music, our talented Australian artists and the venues that celebrate them. I once again highlight the strong dedication our government has to protecting Australia's culture, protecting Australian content and ensuring we don't lose valuable jobs and revenue to overseas markets. I give a special mention here to the Minister for the Arts, Tony Burke, and the Minister for Communications, Anika Wells, for their dedication to making these content requirements law.

We have a clear and defined purpose to create a future made in Australia. It's not a tagline. It's not just a motto. It is a guiding principle we are following through, with real policy and real funding to ensure it happens. This has real and tangible benefits for Australian communities, particularly in regions like the Illawarra. We have already been big winners here. We have everything you could ever need for a production. We've got the vistas, we've got the proximity to a large city and we've got the talent.

I recently went on a tour of Disney Studios in Moore Park. I wasn't surprised to learn that a significant portion of their workers live in the Illawarra, particularly in the animation field. That's a workforce ready to go for the next major Hollywood—or, hopefully, Australian—production. Big stars like Russell Crowe and Pamela Anderson know it. Companies like Disney and Warner Brothers have seen the potential. Our government will do everything we can to create the environment that attracts investment in Australian products and Australian people. It's just one more notch for a future made in Australia.

I say to anyone thinking about the next big Australian film or series: come and knock on our door. We're ready and the Illawarra is open for business. You will not regret spending your time in the mighty Illawarra. I commend the bill to the House.

I too rise to speak in support of the Communications Legislation Amendment (Australian Content Requirement for Subscription Video On Demand (Streaming) Services) Bill 2025. This bill delivers on the Albanese Labor government's commitment to introduce an Australian content obligation on streaming services, ensuring that, no matter what screen you're watching from, you have guaranteed access to Australian stories. Our National Cultural Policy—Revive, which is wonderful—recognises that our greatest cultural asset is Australia's people and their stories—our stories. It also acknowledges there have been major changes in the way audiences access and consume film and television content; we've all seen that over the past few years.

Australia's television landscape has evolved to include not just public broadcasters, commercial broadcasters and cable but, increasingly, a huge variety of streaming platforms and services. Australian content quotas for commercial television were first introduced in the 1960s, showing we have long known how important it is that the content of our screens reflects our culture and identity as Australians. These content requirements were updated in the 1990s to capture free-to-air and other television broadcasters, and this ensured a minimum level of Australian content was produced every year.

Of course, both the ABC and SBS acknowledge in their respective charters that their functions include informing, educating and entertaining audiences with content that represents our diverse identities, values and experiences. While streaming services derive very big profits from Australian audiences, often the content they deliver does reflect someone else's experience and someone else's identity. What these laws do is level the playing field. Just as free-to-air networks and pay television have long supported Australian stories through content requirements, streaming giants will now be required to invest in our people, our places and our perspectives.

Australian audiences are engaging with streaming services because these services produce some fantastic, wonderful and engaging shows, including the production of great Australian content—only a minority of services are yet to produce any Australian content—and we want to ensure that that quality Australian content continues on those services. This bill is not intended to criticise the operation of streaming businesses, but to acknowledge the fantastic content they produce and to ensure that Australian audiences invested in watching on these services are also able to continue to access important Australian stories.

The bill represents a significant step forward for Australia's creative industries as well as our cultural identity. This bill amends the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 to introduce a clear and enforceable Australian screen content requirement for on-demand streaming platforms that millions of Australians are using every day. It does this by guaranteeing a minimum of expenditure on new Australian content on those services. This is really important because, as we say, our stories matter. They reflect who we are, where we've come from and the values we all share. They showcase our unique voices to the world and ensure that future generations grow up with access to content that speaks of their own experiences.

It also highlights the immense talent and creativity of Australian actors, writers, directors, artists and other creatives. We have so many creative industries and people that we're incredibly proud of. It's not just our Aussies that want to see Australian content on their screens; we all know, worldwide, how well regarded Australian films are. Indeed, we've seen, over the decades, films that have had massive international success, like Picnic at Hanging Rock; Mad Max; The Castle; Crocodile Dundee; The Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert;Strictly Ballroom; and Muriel's Wedding, which not only was a reflection of my area in northern New South Wales but was filmed in parts of it as well. We have recently seen some other Australian made content achieve global success. We see it all the time—from Rake to Mr Inbetween, Colin from Accounts and, of course, Bluey. We all love Bluey.

Australian film and television have a global reputation for innovation and emotional honesty, and these Aussie made shows have been hugely successful, reaching international audiences, and we want to see more of that. In the words of Bluey, 'Coconuts have water in them'—sorry! Wrong quote. In the words of Bluey, 'If you can imagine it, you can play it.' This bill guarantees that streaming services will invest in telling those stories by setting a minimum level of expenditure on new Australian content. Under these reforms, on-demand streaming platforms will be required to dedicate at least 10 per cent of their total program expenditure to commissioning or acquiring first release Australian drama, children's programs, documentaries, arts and educational content, and these are the genres that shape our culture and inspire us creatively.

This bill also allows providers to meet their obligation on a revenue basis, investing at least 7.5 per cent of their gross Australian revenue in eligible Australian content. This approach ensures fairness whilst maintaining strong support for local production. Importantly, the bill adopts existing definitions from the Australian content and children's television standards, providing consistency across the industry. It also includes practical measures, such as three-year carry-over period for expenditure and a statutory review after four years, to ensure the framework is effective and responsive to change.

Oversight will be provided by the Australian Communications and Media Authority, ACMA, which will administer the Australian screen content requirement and receive reports from streaming services on their compliance with the requirements. These reforms will futureproof our screen sector. As traditional broadcast consumption declines, we know streaming platforms dominate how Australians, especially young Australians, consume media, and, without these laws, there's a real risk that Australian voices could become increasingly marginalised on platforms that prioritise high-volume international content. This legislation ensures that future generations grow up seeing people that represent them, in towns and cities like theirs, telling stories that reflect Australian humour, character and resilience, of course; and ensures that Australian stories will not be lost in an ocean of overseas content.

The development of the content requirements in this bill reflects the extensive and genuine consultation that the Albanese Labor government has undertaken with industry stakeholders. We arrived at a policy that will achieve meaningful outcomes in ensuring the representation of Australian voices and perspectives on screen—one that's also consistent with Australia's international trade obligations.

Of course, these reforms are not just about entertainment; they're about jobs, investment and employment opportunities. As the member for Cunningham said too, for regional areas like hers and like mine, it is a game changer when we have productions occurring in our regions and a lot of employment as a result of Australian made television and film. These opportunities will strengthen our screen industry, create work for thousands of Australians in production and postproduction and help our stories reach audiences both here and overseas. Economically, these reforms will, importantly, drive job creation, particularly in regional areas, where film industries are emerging as major contributors to local economies. That's certainly the case in my area in northern New South Wales. More Australian productions means more work for writers, actors, directors, set designers, lighting specialists, camera operators, caterers, accommodation providers and transport services.

In my electorate of Richmond, we have a growing film and production industry. We also have so many elements that really contribute to making it a great location for film and television. We know that we've got so many versatile locations, with pristine beaches, subtropical rainforest, stunning hinterland, historic towns, agricultural properties and coastal villages all within a short driving distance. We have a growing network of film and television production professionals, supported by organisations like Screenworks, which plays a pivotal role in building local talent capacity, connecting regional crew with inbound productions and offering really important training for screenwriters, producers and directors. Also in my electorate, FIN Ballina is a visual effects studio. Their VFX artists, designers and producers work with some of the biggest names in film, television and other visual mediums.

We also have so many international film festivals. The Byron Bay International Film Festival, running since 2006, showcases Australian and international film talent for thousands of film lovers throughout our region. Film By the Northern Rivers, another annual film festival in my electorate, showcases the work and filmmaking talent of New South Wales public school students, from kindergarten to year 11. The festival is aimed at promoting storytelling through film, and it's a really great celebration of the creativity of our young future filmmakers.

We also consistently see the secondary impacts of productions in my local area and the huge economic benefits for our local community through the demand for accommodation, catering, transport, hiring and tourism. We could never underestimate that ongoing benefit that it brings, from Hollywood blockbusters that we've had filmed—like Aquaman, which was filmed in our region, and many more—to lots of TV shows, including the very long-running British version of I'm a Celebrity... Get Me Out of Here!,which has actually been filmed in a place called Dungay just outside of Murwillumbah for more than 20 years. Having that in place—the economic benefits that flow on from that are absolutely massive. We consistently have—and I couldn't name all of the movies and the television shows that are made in our region. We certainly want to encourage that and encourage more local job creation because of it, in both those industries and the industries that support them in doing that.

In conclusion, this bill ensures that Australian content remains front and centre, and that's what our government is committed to doing. It's about protecting our culture, supporting our economy and guaranteeing that Australian stories continue to be told on the platforms that Australians enjoy and watch all the time—on our streaming services. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned.

We all know Australians have endless names for beer—a frothy, a cold one, a schooner, a pint, a middy, a jug, a stubby, a tinny, a longneck, a pony, a coldie, a bevvy or a brew. And, for many, it's simply, 'I'll have the usual, thanks.' Whatever we call it, every Australian knows this. A beer at the local isn't just about the drink; it's about the place, it's about the people and it's about the community. That's why I rise today to speak on a measure that is practical, targeted and responsible, a measure that supports small business, protects local jobs and keeps the price of every beer—schooner, pot and middy—stable for the next couple of years for everyday Australians. I speak about the Albanese Labor government's two-year pause on the indexation of the draught beer excise and excise equivalent customs duties which commenced on 1 August this year. This might sound like a technical tax change—and, yes, excise indexation is rarely the stuff of headlines—but what this pause represents is so much more than a line item in the budget. It is a recognition of the cultural, social and economic role that pubs, clubs and breweries play in communities across the country, especially in regional communities like mine.

To understand why this matters, I have to take the House back to the beginning of the year, when severe storms ripped through the Hunter region and the lower north coast. The damage was heartbreaking—homes ruined, farms under water, roads washed out, businesses forced to close and thousands of people without power, communications, or certainty. People were frightened. They were exhausted. They were not alone, though, because, as we always do in the Hunter, we showed up for one another. Neighbours checked in on neighbours. Food appeared where it was needed. Generators were shared. Warm showers were offered. Meals were cooked for strangers. Comfort was given freely. In those difficult days, something else became unmistakably clear. Our pubs and clubs once again became the beating heart of our community. When people needed warmth, they went to the pub. When they needed the latest information, they went to the pub. When they needed a meal, a phone charged or a friendly face, they went to the pub. In town after town, these venues transformed from watering holes into community hubs.

One in particular, was the Beresfield Tavern, located right in the heart of Paterson. Karla and her hardworking team at the tavern rolled up their sleeves and cooked 250 hot breakfasts each morning for locals who, at that point, had no power, no food and no phone service. They didn't ask for recognition. They didn't wait for instruction. They simply saw the community in need and stepped up, like so many small, family-run venues do time and time again. That morning, the Beresfield Tavern was far more than a pub; it was a refuge, a community kitchen and a safe haven. It became exactly what pubs across Australia have always been—a gathering place for families, sporting teams, old mates and new friends, a place where milestones are celebrated and tears are sometimes shared, a place where darts are thrown, pool balls are sunk and yarns are spun and, when the tap beer flows, a place bringing just a small piece of comfort in difficult times. Right across my electorate of Paterson, those stories were repeated time and time again. A problem shared is often a problem halved at the pub.

That's precisely why this policy really does matter. Let me be perfectly clear. For the next two years, the cost of purchasing a keg of beer is not going up—no automatic indexation, no extra tax pressure and no surprise increases for pubs, clubs or breweries. This pause gives small-business owners what they have been calling for—certainty and cost stability. It supports Australian brewers, especially small and independent ones. It helps local venues keep their doors open. It helps keep the price of a beer stable for the everyday Australian who is enjoying one at their local. It's not a handout; it's not special treatment. It is a balanced, responsible pause that maintains the integrity of our excise system while providing genuine relief to a sector that employs thousands.

In Paterson alone, we have around 340 licensed venues that will benefit from this policy. Three-quarters of them are small, family run businesses, the sorts that sponsor junior footy teams, host raffles, take on apprentices and put their profits straight back into their communities. We all know that, at this time of the year, the ham raffle is a very, very special thing.

Across Australia, around 160,000 Australians rely on this sector. These workers are not abstract statistics. They are bartenders, chefs, delivery drivers, cleaners, managers, brewery technicians—hardworking people with families and bills and stories of their own. I know this because I was one of them at one point. At 18, I worked in what was then known as the Brewery at Queens Wharf in Newcastle. We used to brew our own beer there. Bruce was the brewer. We had these magnificent, tall, copper brewing stills. The beers came in pints and half pints. It was a legendary place. My sister got me the job, although I was too embarrassed to tell anyone that I was the boss's sister. We kept that under wraps for quite a while. In fact, my grandmother's family, the Sharpes, ran the Hinton hotel as well, so, while I won't claim to be from long lines of publicans, I do have a touch of it in my veins. I also wore out the carpet at the Commercial Hotel in Morpeth, where my sister had the very first restaurant for quite a while. I worked for her while I was at school. So there's plenty of understanding in my family about this industry.

In Paterson, we have a proud craft brewing tradition as well: the Dusty Miner Craft Brewery, Maltnhops Brewhaus, the River Port Brewing Company and, of course, Murray's Craft Brewing. These businesses are part of our local identity, our regional economy and our tourism sector. They stand to benefit from this measure, just like our pubs and clubs, because, when a pub stays open, a community stays connected. When a club remains affordable, families stay included. When a brewery survives, local jobs endure.

As we move into this festive season—a time defined by connection, gratitude and community—I want to acknowledge the enormous contribution of our pubs, clubs and breweries and how they knit that social fabric of Paterson together. They will host Christmas lunches, end-of-year parties, charity raffles, community events and New Year's Eve celebrations. They will help shape the memories that carry us forward into another year.

To every publican, every brewer, every hospitality worker, every cleaner, every supplier and every small-business owner in Paterson: thank you. Be kind to those people, even if the queues are deep at the pub. It's a time of the year when we all just need to remember that civility costs nothing. To those people who work in that sector: thank you for your resilience, your generosity, your commitment to your community and, occasionally, the terrific jokes—and, especially in the hard times, thank you for just being there. To all of the people of Paterson and to all Australians—I wish you a very merry Christmas, happy holidays and a safe, joyful and restorative new year. May your days be filled with kindness, connection and community—and, yes, perhaps a cold, responsibly enjoyed beer at your local. I'll say cheers to that.

Excise tariff amendment is critical to my electorate. We have lots of pubs and clubs in the seat of Cook, from the Feros Group, which runs a number of them, to the Laundy group, which runs iconic Northies, where I spent part of my university years doing security and working. Pubs and clubs employ hundreds of hardworking people across my electorate—who pour the beers and serve the meals—and keep a lot of our economy going. The Sutherland shire has a lovely tourist clientele along the Bate Bay beaches. The beautiful pubs and clubs of the Sutherland shire adorn some of the finest views we have in all of Sydney.

That's why this excise freeze is critical. Many of the small pubs and small operators that are family operated and run have not been doing well. They've not invested in poker machines; they've been putting on live music. They're getting pushed on their margins, both their costs and their revenue, so this is welcome relief.

I'd also like to acknowledge the local Tradies club, which supports dozens and dozens of charities right across my electorate.

Debate interrupted.

I rise today to speak on behalf of the people of Barker, a vast, proud regional electorate in South Australia. I want to express my strong opposition to the proposal to reduce the default speeds on unsigned rural roads to 70 kilometres an hour. Let me begin with a simple truth: the problem on our regional roads is not the speed limit; the problem is the state of the roads themselves. For years, communities across my electorate have been pleading for the basics: proper sealing of unsealed roads, shoulder upgrades, resurfacing work and potholes filled before they become craters.

Instead of delivering what regional Australians need, this government has had the laziest of proposals—a consultation on slowing everyone down in the name of road safety. It has been called 'lazy' by the Grain Producers SA, who represent hardworking grain growers of South Australia, the largest rural commodity. They have said clearly that reducing speed limits without fixing roads will not make travel safer but it will make rural life harder. Their members are the ones travelling huge distances on poorly maintained roads every single day. They know these roads better than anyone, and they are not alone. This proposal is not just inconvenient; it is economically damaging.

In my electorate, transport is the lifeblood of the economy. Freight operators, farmers, small businesses, service providers and others rely on the efficient transport of goods over long distances. Cutting speed limits by nearly a third on many of these roads will slow down supply chains, increase costs and reduce productivity. The Australian Trucking Association has already warned that slowing freight routes will raise costs for food, fuel and essential goods. Long distance drivers are deeply concerned that spending more time on the road will increase the risk of driver fatigue, one of the most significant risk factors contributing to road accidents in rural Australia, so the government are ignoring one of the most well-documented risks in regional driving. Experts on road safety and rural planning agree that the safest and most effective approach is to actually improve the road, not simply lower speed limits. That means sealing unsealed surfaces, widening shoulders, improving line marking and proper maintenance. The government know this. Their own regulatory analysis acknowledges that most regional roads are in poor condition. But rather than fix it they have gone for the cheap answer—shift the burden onto regional drivers, regional families and regional businesses.

That would be disappointing enough, but I now want to turn to what should be one of the most concerning aspects of this proposal. While government ministers continue to market this as a 'safety measure', the consultation regulatory impact analysis tells a very different story. It is as though they want to tell that story sotto voce. On page 10, the RIA explicitly includes emissions reduction from lower fuel consumption as a calculated benefit of reducing rural speed limits. I thought that must have been a mistake, but on page 56 the document shows that emissions savings are not a side note; they form a material part of the monetised benefits used to justify this policy. And on page 70, so as to reinforce the position, the modelling integrates emissions reduction per vehicle kilometre as a key variable in the cost benefit analysis.

Let's be clear: these are not accidental inclusions; they are deliberate. What we see here is the Albanese Labor government using road safety as a convenient cover for a backdoor net zero agenda, an attempt to reduce emissions through speed productions, not proper energy or climate policy. Regional communities are being slowed down because this government wants to meet their unrealistic emissions reduction targets. But, instead of saying that honestly, they have packaged it up as a safety reform. That's not transparency, it's not good governance, and it's certainly not respect for regional Australians.

The people of my electorate—and indeed all Australians, regional or otherwise—deserve safer roads, not slower ones. They deserve honesty, not hidden agendas; they deserve investment, not excuses. Congratulations to the state Labor government, who has ruled this out as a proposal—presumably because they're in the shadows of an election. I urge the government to withdraw this proposal. And, if you think it's a bad idea as well, sign my petition. It shouldn't be about emissions reduction; it should be about safer roads.

This afternoon, we witnessed a stunt in the Senate that did nothing to advance policy and everything to inflame division. Senator Hanson chose to repeat her 2017 theatrics by entering the Senate in a burqa and demanding a ban, without a moment's regard for the people who will feel the consequences of that performance most acutely. This was not an act of leadership; it was not an act of concern for public safety. It was a calculated spectacle that was designed for attention rather than for the Australian people. Let us be honest about the repercussions of such behaviour. A stunt like this does not merely provoke commentary within these walls. It reverberates across the nation. It licenses ignorance. It emboldens hostility. It hands a megaphone to those who thrive on suspicion, division and hatred.

There are women in this country, and in my community, who already steel themselves before stepping onto a bus, into a shopping centre or down a street where they had previously been mocked or questioned. There are women who navigate their daily lives with a heightened awareness of how their clothing, their faith or simply their appearance might be judged. For those women, today's spectacle was not a curiosity. It was a reminder. It was a reminder of every sideways glance, every muttered comment and every moment when their belonging was made to feel conditional. When a parliamentary chamber becomes a platform for theatrics that caricature their identities, it sends a message far beyond Parliament House. It tells them that their safety, their dignity and their freedom can be traded away for a headline. It tells them that their lived experiences, their anxieties, their hopes for their children and their sense of place in this country are secondary to someone else's political pointscoring.

The reality is that this kind of performance does not spark debate. It heightens the risk that ordinary women—our neighbours, our colleagues and our fellow citizens—will face harassment, hostility or discrimination in their everyday lives. What we say and do in this chamber has an impact in the community. It can paint targets on the backs of people who already have to navigate a world of judgment. Today's performance was beyond dog whistling. Dog whistling at least cloaks itself in subtlety. What we witnessed was a foghorn. It was an unmistakable signal that was designed to agitate and divide. It was politics at its laziest and most dangerous, which used fear as a prop and people's identities as stage costumes.

This parliament must be better than the theatrics we witnessed today. We owe the Australian people a standard of debate that reflects the seriousness of our responsibilities and the diversity of our nation. Difficult conversations and points of disagreement can be had, but the way we conduct those debates—particularly on sensitive topics—matters. The path we take matters. It matters to the women who will walk home tonight wondering whether their parliament sees them. It matters to every Australian who wants to believe their parliament respects them and will stand up for them. So let's continue to meet that responsibility with courage and decency, and with the respect that the Australian people deserve and exercise most of the time.

With that said, I want to turn my attention to the kinds of things that make a positive difference to people's lives in communities like mine. I would prefer to talk about things like investments in social housing—the investment of 62 new social homes in Mitcham through the Housing Australia Future Fund and the 13 new crisis and transitional homes in Maroondah. I'd like to be able to talk more about this, and to talk about the 700 Deakin locals who have entered homeownership for the first time thanks to the five per cent deposit scheme. Because turning our attention to how we actually improve the lives of people is the work that matters. And I know it's the people across the chamber—we're here to make the lives of the people in this country better than they were yesterday. That's the job, and that is where the majority of us are focused most of the time. We can engage in rigorous debate in good faith while believing in our convictions, but while conducting ourselves in a way that reflects the dignity of this parliament and the solemn roles that we have on behalf of the Australian people.

I look to community projects where we can make a girls changeroom in a sports club that's excluded them for years and where we can support emergency relief organisations to deal with the most vulnerable citizens in a way that government simply can't. I go to Rotary clubs and Lions clubs where members of the community not only identify problems but spend their days being a part of the solution. I go to small businesses that are innovating and changing the way we think about problems confronted by our society, like energy and other things as well.

This country is full of amazing people doing amazing things. As their representatives, the least we can do is try to hold ourselves to a higher standard, focus on the issues that matter to them and dedicate every day to the task of making the standard of living in this country better than it was before.

Agriculture, mining and forestry are the three industries that help build Australia and Australian prosperity. They have a special place in our history and future—that is, if governments can be kept away from regulatory meddling and, worse, using them as sources of votes. The worst lamentable example is forestry.

Native hardwood timber supplies our housing, infrastructure, construction, transport and manufacturing sectors. Timber is a product we need, and it's an industry we need to look after. Its people are experienced professionals who understand the science behind healthy and sustainable resource ecosystems and work in a highly regulated and scrutinised industry. Governments of all persuasions need to rethink their orthodoxy and instead reflect on the reality of forestry, not the ideology of those opposed to it. Take, for example, the announcement by New South Wales premier Chris Minns on Sunday 7 September—yes, Father's Day—to create a great koala national park out of 176,000 hectares of state forest on the New South Wales north coast. That was a day when dads who work in the north coast timber industry were told that their jobs were in jeopardy. What a low blow. Government should be looking to grow jobs and industries, not cancel them.

When trees grow and are harvested, they grow jobs, careers, communities, industries, housing and infrastructure and provide real carbon solutions. As trees grow, particularly younger trees, they absorb and lock away carbon and, after the harvesting and processing, store carbon away in the array of timber products. The cycle is then repeated with regeneration. This is climate action in action. The New South Wales Labor premier and his ministers are tearing up timber mill contracts, and workers are losing jobs as a result.

In my own electorate, workers have lost jobs at the Herons Creek timber mill. I went to the mill last week and spoke to the workers who'd just been sacked. They were gutted, destroyed, bewildered. These were good jobs held by good men in a good industry, a sustainable industry and an Australian industry focused on looking after our forests—not to destroy what provided their livelihoods. What did they do wrong? They don't deserve this.

Communities in my electorate and up and down the New South Wales north coast don't deserve to have good jobs destroyed by the stroke of a government pen. Efforts are underway to get these workers a decent redundancy package. I want to acknowledge the Timber, Furnishing and Textiles Union for taking it right up to the New South Wales government. In addition to the worker and industry compensation, the New South Wales government has committed $80 million for the park and an extra $60 million for the NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service. It's going to be an expensive new park. But for what? The people on the ground know that there is absolutely no additional conservation value in this park—in protecting koalas or other species—and that the threats to koalas are more from urbanisation, vehicles, dogs, disease and wildfires. We also know that koala density is mostly similar between state forests and national parks and that, if these forests are not well managed by regular fuel reduction, they'll become raging infernos on hot windy days—a far bigger threat to koalas.

The heart of this matter is not koala conservation; that's the spin. At the heart of this decision is a deal between the New South Wales and federal Labor governments to deliver on its extreme net zero policy—a deal that sees the Minns Labor government lock up state forests in exchange for funding from the Albanese Labor government through earnings from Australian carbon credit units. In the New South Wales government's own words:

The final creation of the park is dependent on the successful registration of a carbon project under the Improved Native Forest Management (INFM) Method, which is currently moving through the federal government assessment processes.

I note that, on the draft method, there was less than supportive feedback from the Carbon Market Institute taskforce, and I also note that the Australian Forest Products Association is urging the federal government to withdraw support for the New South Wales government's proposed method due to validity and integrity concerns.

I urge the Albanese government to reject the methodology, and I urge the Minns Labor government to remove the moratorium on native timber harvesting, to come clean on its real agenda and to rethink the size of the park. I'm incredibly disappointed that, yet again, Labor governments, state and federal, are attacking another legitimate primary industry, attacking the workers and their families who rely on the timber industry and attacking regional communities by killing jobs and industry.

Australia doesn't replay its history in a loop, but we do see a pattern every time the political pendulum swings. When Labor are in government we build the institutions that give ordinary people security and opportunity, and, when the Liberals return, their instinct is to wind those gains back. Understanding that pattern tells us exactly what's at stake here today and exactly why this moment matters.

The real wealth of this country is not the markets or the forecasts. It is our land, our resources and our people. For most of our history, working people have had little control over that wealth. The rights we now enjoy were won by shearers, miners, maritime workers, suffragettes and migrants, people who organised because no-one else would fight for them. After the Second World War, Australians learnt something important: if we can mobilise the entire economy to win a war, we could mobilise to build a fair peace. From that came full employment, public housing, Medicare's early foundations, TAFE, universities and compulsory superannuation. These were deliberate choices that recognised what Australians want: a secure job, a decent home, health care when they need it, education that opens doors and dignity in retirement.

From the 1980s onwards a different ideology took hold. It weakened unions, privatised essential services and insisted that markets alone should rule. Its sharpest impact has been on housing. Government once built homes, and now homes are treated as speculative assets. Tax concessions reward investors. Young Australians take on life-shaping debt just to get a foothold, and, the more debt people carry, the less power they have at work. That is not an accident; it is the consequence of political choices that have treated shelter as a commodity rather than a right. When conservatives promise efficiency, discipline or reform, we must ask: better for whom? Margaret Atwood wrote:

Better never means better for everyone … It always means worse, for some.

Privatisation means higher prices. Deregulation means weaker rights, and budget repair often means cuts borne by the people who can afford them least. This is where our obligation lies.

As a Labor member I know I am part of a movement that is far bigger than myself. Everything we stand on was built by the people who came before us and who fought for rights they were never guaranteed and for institutions the conservatives have tried to dismantle ever since. Our responsibility is simple: to carry the torch forward so those who come after us inherit something stronger than what we found.

We are the custodians of a tradition defined by one idea—progress is only real when it lifts people up, not when it leaves them behind. That is why the work of the Albanese Labor government matters so deeply right now, because it speaks directly to the real, practical things Australians need in their lives. We lifted wages after a decade of wage stagnation. We made wage theft a crime. We strengthened bargaining so workers can negotiate collectively again. We're rebuilding the TAFE system and delivering fee-free TAFE places so people can get skilled without taking on crippling debt. We created the Housing Australia Future Fund, the first serious federal investment in new social and affordable homes in a generation. We expanded rent assistance. We're partnering with the states to build more homes faster, and we're shifting the national conversation away from speculation and back to housing as a basic human need.

We made medicines cheaper by cutting the PBS co-payment. We tripled the bulk-billing incentive so children, pensioners and concession card holders can see a GP without breaking the bank. We're strengthening Medicare because affordable health care should not depend on where you live or what you earn. There are energy rebates, cheaper child care and targeted tax cuts for middle- and low-income Australians—not handouts but responsible, targeted relief that actually helps households rather than inflating executives' bonuses. We put 24/7 nurses back into aged-care homes. We lifted aged-care wages. We're rebuilding a system that treats older Australians with dignity, not austerity. We're rebuilding Australian manufacturing, investing in clean energy and new industries, and backing communities in the transition, because a strong future must be made in Australia, not outsourced. This is what Australians want—practical improvements that make life easier, fairer and more secure. And that is exactly what the Albanese Labor government is delivering.

The struggle for fairness in Australia isn't a circle; it's a relay. Those before us build the foundations, we strengthen them and those after us will stand taller because of what we do now. Our duty, Labor's duty, is to run our leg with clarity and courage, and leave behind an Australia that is fairer, stronger and more secure than the one we found.

Our hospitals are caring for many people who should not be there—not because they're unwell, not because they require acute medical treatment, but because they have nowhere else for them to go. In my community of the Redlands, 60 elderly men and women are stuck in hospital beds they simply do not need. They are medically fit for discharge and their treatment is complete, but they remain in acute wards designed for the critically unwell because there are no aged-care beds available to take them.

This is being repeated in hospitals across Queensland and right across the country. These Australians are stranded because of a shortage of aged-care and disability placement beds—a shortage that sits squarely within the responsibility of the federal Labor government. These people should be in dedicated facilities where they can receive proper support. Instead, they are confined to acute hospital wards for no reason other than a system that has failed to provide them an alternative.

Warwick, from Victoria Point, wrote to me recently to share the story of his wife. His wife was admitted to Redland Hospital in early September and remains there today—not because she needs hospital-level care but because no aged-care placements are available. Despite completing the entire My Aged Care application process and meeting all the requirements, Warwick has been confronted with an impossible choice—selling the family home to have a chance of securing a place for his wife. Right now, it appears his wife will be forced to stay in hospital indefinitely.

Let me be clear about the scale of this issue. According to the GEN Aged Care report from March 2025, Australia has around 223,000 residential aged-care places spread across 2,600 facilities. On top of that, we have more than 299,000 Australians receiving a home-care package, but Senate estimates in October revealed that over 120,000 people are still waiting for the level of care they have already been approved for. National Seniors Australia reports that the longest delays are for those needing level 3 and level 4 high-care packages.

Australians needing the most help are waiting 12 to 15 months, sometimes longer, for support that has already been assessed as essential. When an elderly person can't get a home-care package, when a bed in a residential aged-care facility isn't available, when a provider can't staff the beds they have, there is nowhere else to stay but the hospital. Yet every one of these occupied beds has consequences. It places additional strain on nurses, doctors and allied health professionals who are already working under enormous pressure. It adds to the growing queues of families waiting for their loved ones to receive essential surgery. It affects every person who dials triple 0 only to find ambulances ramped outside hospitals with no available beds. The Albanese Labor government are failing older Redlanders and older Australians across our entire country.

Earlier this year, the coalition had to shame the government into releasing 83,000 additional home-care places that they promised and that should have been available from 1 July—yet by September not a single extra place had been delivered. It was months of secrecy, broken promises and a waiting list that had blown out to more than 108,000, which is a 400 per cent increase in just two years. Their explanation? That the sector wasn't ready. But that claim simply wasn't true. Providers, peak bodies and advocacy organisations all made it clear that they were ready and willing to deliver care. After days of sustained questioning, the coalition forced Labor to back down and release 20,000 long-delayed home-care packages immediately, with a commitment to release the full 83,000 by the end of the financial year. It was only after the coalition exposed the inaction of the government that they finally began releasing the in-home care packages that Australian seniors desperately needed.

One local Redlands resident—Michael, from Birkdale—wrote to me about the severe delays in receiving his approved level 2 home-care package. He described the government as 'incompetent and heartless'. Sadly, his experience echoes what many older Australians are facing. Victoria from Capalaba contacted my office questioning: What happens to the forgotten ones who need help but cannot access it? Matt from Cleveland wrote to me about the My Aged Care system, advocating on behalf of his parents. He wrote, 'It's absolutely disgraceful it has taken over 12 months to get to the stage where my parents were approved for a level 2 and now at least a further six months for the government to release the funds.'

It's time to call it out again. Our communities deserve better, our healthcare workers deserve better and, above all, older Australians deserve the dignity, certainty and appropriate care that they deserve.

I rise tonight to talk about two terrific projects delivered in McEwen, projects that demonstrate exactly what happens when a government stops making excuses, stops issuing media releases and actually gets on with the job of putting communities first. In Diamond Creek the upgrade to the much-loved community pool has finally been delivered. These upgrades give the local families a modern, accessible and safe facility that our growing community deserves. It's not just about fresh tiles and new changerooms; it's also about giving everyone in our community from young children to families and our seniors an accessible and affordable place to swim. It's about making sure that the communities of Nillumbik have the kinds of recreational facilities that keep a community healthy, active and connected.

Locals came to us before the 2022 election and let us know how important the upgrade to this beloved community asset was and we listened with a $1.5 million commitment. I particularly want to acknowledge here the advocacy of Councillor Peter Perkins, who was a hard-working local councillor. This funding saw improvements to the existing toilets and changerooms to improve accessibility, façade and painting works, updates to the plant room, with a new heat pump to come, and upgraded walkways for access around the complex. This $1.5 million commitment came from the Invest in Our Future program, and that's exactly what the Albanese Labor government is doing in our communities.

Now, over in Doreen, the Hilltop Park playground and splash park is taking shape and is already proving to be extremely popular, as I found out Saturday first-hand. This project has delivered a vibrant and inclusive outdoor area where kids can play, cool off and simply enjoy being kids. It's exactly the kind of infrastructure our community deserves and will be a drawcard for people from surrounding communities as well. We already know that there are plenty of parties taking place, with more being planned. It's somewhere where kids can do this and do it for free. The $1.5 million funding from the Albanese Labor government under the Invest in Our Communities program with an additional Victorian government and Whittlesea shire council contribution is a perfect example of what happens when federal, state and local governments come together and deliver the right things in our community.

The Hilltop playground and splash park features an interactive water play area, accessibility-friendly design and facilities, shaded seating, and upgraded landscaping to support a welcoming family-friendly environment. Projects like this strengthen our community, boost participation and improve liveability for the long-term. It's a really important investment for our community. I want to acknowledge here the support of Councillor Deb Gunn and Councillor Jarrod Lappin in getting this done. As I said, it relied on the Victorian government as well and thanks to the great advocacy of Lauren Kathage, the member for Yan Yean. We all got together and got this thing delivered in such a way that it has given an amazing rejuvenation to the Hilltop Park area. Just like the Diamond Creek pool, community voices were central in shaping the splash park and the playground. Today we see the results—a fantastic vibrant space that's designed for everyone.

But these projects don't happen by accident. They're happening because our government, the Albanese Labor government, made commitments, budgeted for them and delivered them, just as we said we would. There was no fanfare, no political theatre, no splashy promises that disappear as soon as the camera is turned off. There was just hard work, proper planning and genuine follow through, and that's a real contrast. For too long, under the former Liberal and National government, communities like ours got plenty of announcements but never any action. We got photo ops and media releases instead of progress. We got overpromising and underdelivering that became a trademark of the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison mess. Local families were left waiting, in some cases for years, for projects that were never funded properly, never prioritised and ultimately never delivered.

Our community deserves a government that treats its commitments as obligations, not as publicity opportunities. They deserve investment that actually gets it done, not grant schemes built on colour-coded spreadsheets. They deserve to see the work that's happening on the ground—Diamond Creek, Doreen, right across McEwen. We are proud that we're backing local councils to deliver community infrastructure, proud that our parents, kids and grandparents alike will soon feel the benefit of these projects. And we are proud to say when we promise something we will deliver it and we do. The Diamond Creek pool upgrade, the Hilltop Park playground and the splash park in Doreen show the differences a government with integrity and purpose can make. Our community asked for these facilities. Labor listened and Labor has delivered.

House adjourned at 20:00

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Sharkie ) took the chair at 10:30.

Victoria is experiencing a youth crime crisis. In the last year alone, offences were up 15 per cent—25,000 incidents involved children aged 10 to 17. Two-thirds of robberies and a half of our aggravated burglaries are committed by children, many from a core group of about 400 repeat offenders. Crime has hit hard in my electorate of Kooyong. I hear every week of car thefts, break-ins and aggravated burglaries in our suburbs. People are nervous, and those affected by these crimes are traumatised. The papers are baying for these children to be punished harder. The Allan state government has responded by banning machetes, tightening bail laws, reopening Malmsbury youth prison, abandoning a pledge to raise the age of criminal responsibility, and now threatening lifelong sentences for crimes committed by children.

The thing is, throwing the book at children doesn't work. Almost 40 per cent of young people in detention are there for violent crimes. But children aren't born violent; they're born into poverty and abuse. As many as 25 per cent of children in our youth justice system have undiagnosed foetal alcohol syndrome, ADHD or other disabilities. Prison won't fix that. It will compound harm, sever family ties and provide a criminal apprenticeship. And it's expensive: a million dollars a year to lock up a child—for what? Most are released within weeks back into the same unstable housing, disrupted schooling and domestic trauma that contributed to their offending in the first place. Local and international studies are clear: harsher sentences do not reduce crime, and prison often increases re-offending.

Children's brains are still developing. Under pressure, they act impulsively. Toughening bail laws and imposing adult sentences for kids as young as 14 won't make us safer, and it won't help vulnerable children. So what will help? Prevention, diversion, rehabilitation, stable housing, supportive schools, pathways to jobs, culturally safe services for Indigenous youth, youth centres, mentors, medical assessment, drug treatment and family support. Scotland's Violence Reduction Unit cut violent crime by 60 per cent using a public health approach. Victoria's new Violence Reduction Unit, announced last week, should do the same. It should invest in people, not in prisons.

Children aren't born bad. They're born into social and economic disadvantage. If we want fewer crimes, fewer victims and safer streets, we have to break the cycle. We have to invest in housing, education, mental health and culturally safe social supports.

Rubber is hitting the road on our Bruce Highway upgrades, benefiting residents and drivers right across our Moreton Bay region. Everyone knows how choked up the Bruce gets. It's bumper to bumper and enough to drive anyone around the bend. That's why I'm thrilled we've hit top gear on the next stage of upgrades to the Gateway Motorway and the Bruce Highway. The Albanese government has signed a contract worth close to $2 billion to put the pedal to the metal on upgrades from Bracken Ridge to Pine Rivers. What I'm most excited about is the Dohles Rocks Road upgrade.

My electorate is one of the fastest growing electorates in the country, and that means more cars on the road. Every day, about 160,000 vehicles travel between Moreton Bay and Brisbane on this corridor. That number is expected to increase by 50 per cent by 2041. Without action, congestion will stall our community. That's why the Albanese Labor government is investing more than $1.5 billion, alongside the Queensland government's $389 million, to deliver the Gateway to Bruce upgrade. This project combines two critical works: the $1 billion Gateway Motorway upgrade from Bracken Ridge to Pine Rivers and the $948 million Bruce Highway upgrade from the Gateway Motorway to Dohles Rocks Road. After years of my predecessor idling in neutral, promising the Dohles Rocks Road upgrade but never shifting into gear, Labor is getting on with this essential upgrade. These upgrades will reduce travel times for commuters, improve freight efficiency and make sure families can get home sooner and more safely.

It's also about supporting jobs, because this contract will create hundreds of local jobs during construction. It's about planning for the future because traffic volumes are only going to keep accelerating. And it's about spending more time in the living room with your family, not in the driver's seat.

On this side of the House, we're steering Queensland in the right direction. We're in the fast lane on delivery, not stuck in the slow lane of excuses. Queenslanders deserve more time at home and less time on the road. With Labor behind the wheel, we're driving progress, not pumping the brakes.

When the Prime Minister declared that you'd only need your Medicare card, not your credit card, he told one of the greatest untruths in Australian politics. Australians are entitled to expect that, when the Albanese government pledge to help their household budgets, they'll actually follow through. Whether they're the household budgets of parents with sick children or older Australians, they're all stretched to breaking point, and the cost of seeing a GP is an added pressure families simply can't absorb.

The facts are clear. Out-of-pocket GP costs have blown out to over $50 on average nationwide. That's an eight per cent jump in over one year. Bulk-billing rates have collapsed across the country. Under the coalition, the bulk-billing rate in my electorate of Berowra was over 90 per cent. Under Labor, this has fallen to just under 82 per cent. That's almost 17,000 people in my community who are now having to pay a fee to see their doctor because of the Albanese government's failed policies.

What's this led to? Australians are avoiding 10,000 GP visits every single day, with 930,956 fewer services given in the last quarter alone. That's more than a policy failure; it's a broken promise from this Prime Minister. On over 70 occasions, Mr Albanese said that 'under Labor all you will need is your Medicare card, not your credit card'. But the reality on the ground tells a very different story.

Let me tell you what Australians from my electorate are saying. They show up with their Medicare card and are hit with enormous gap fees. One pensioner was charged $211 for a single appointment. Another paid $44.66 for a telehealth call lasting barely three minutes. One person seeing a psychologist now faces a reduced rebate and must pay $275 per session. Another's had to cancel their mental health sessions entirely because their clinician was forced to introduce a gap fee to keep their doors open. A concession card holder is paying $109 a visit. And even last Monday, when I attended a GP myself, I was charged $96 following my consultation.

Bulk-billing rates haven't just plunged in Berowra. It's happened in 32 electorates across the country, many in outer metropolitan communities like my own, where families are already under significant cost-of-living pressure. Many facing these rising fees are the ones that can least afford to pay. They're the communities Labor claimed they would help. Instead, Mr Albanese and his government have abandoned them.

The government can't continue to blame whoever they want for these failures. The truth is it's their policies that have failed. They cannot continue to recklessly spend, impacting inflation. Their failed energy policies keep energy prices high. They expect small businesses, including GP practices, to magically absorb those costs. They can't ignore spiralling workforce shortages and expect practices to bulk-bill just because the government want them to do so. They can't tell Australians their Medicare card is 'all they need' while delivering a system where the card is no longer getting them through the door.

Labor needs to listen to patients, to doctors, to communities and to the reality that its policies are driving up costs and driving down access. It's become harder to see a doctor. It's become more expensive. Australians know that Labor has caused this. When Labor spends, you pay.

It is only right to begin my first speech in the 48th Parliament by recognising those who've honoured me with the privilege of being their voice in this House. To the wonderful people of Holt, from families I've met in our parks and at doorknocks to workers I've spoken with at train stations: thank you for placing your trust in me once again. My office doors are always open. I want to extend my heartfelt thanks to every single volunteer and supporter who stood by me not just during the last campaign but throughout the past three years, from doorknocking to handing out how-to-votes at prepoll and on election day. Your dedication made this result possible.

Campaigning while pregnant wasn't easy, but I'm deeply grateful to everyone who looked after me at the booths, brought me water and kept me going. I also want to thank my family and my campaign team for their support and encouragement throughout this journey. My partner and I have since been blessed with our son, Ilija, our greatest joy and the one who keeps us up most nights.

Over the past three years, this Albanese Labor government has delivered real cost-of-living relief for everyday Australians. We've made medicines cheaper through our major PBS reforms. We've made childcare reforms, making it more affordable and helping parents get back to work and support their families. We've strengthened wages and workplace protections after years of wage stagnation, and, through free TAFE, we've opened doors to skills and opportunities for thousands.

In Holt, that national progress is being matched by real improvements on the ground. Early works have begun at the Thompsons Road roundabout, with planning under way for Pattersons Road roundabout on Berwick-Cranbourne Road—two of our worst bottlenecks finally being fixed. A new Medicare mental health centre is being established in Cranbourne to provide free walk-in support. We've also committed $10.68 million for the Casey mini-stadium, a future home for women's sport and a major boost for our local community. Across Clyde, Clyde North and Cranbourne East, new mobile towers are being rolled out, keeping our fast-growing community connected and safe.

There is still more to achieve, and this government remains committed to building a stronger, fairer future for every Australian. Once again, to the people of Holt: thank you so much for putting your trust and confidence in me.

These are constituency statements, so I want to mention five constituents: Karin Rezkalla, Grace Smith, Madeline Ingram, James Harrison and Nick Greenberg. They are students of the University of New South Wales medical school at Wagga Wagga. Last Thursday, the member for Macarthur and I opened this facility. In excess of $20 million was provided as part of the $95.4 million Murray-Darling Medical Schools Network. That is a network with facilities and medical schools—in Victoria, at Bendigo, Mildura and Shepparton; and, in New South Wales, at Wagga Wagga, Orange and Dubbo.

We know that, when you train young medical students from end to end in a rural setting, 75 per cent of them are likely to stay in a rural setting. I hear 'hear, hear' from the member for Richmond. She knows, as every regional member would, that rural medicine is unique. And here's the member for Macarthur. I'm just talking about the rural medical school that you and I opened, Member for Macarthur, and I thanked you for your fine words at that opening. Your timeliness is, as always, perfect.

But there are snakebites and there are car crashes, and there are patients with trauma who come to emergency departments that these students would not possibly see or potentially see—one could say 'thank goodness'—in a metropolitan graduates setting. By doing the end-to-end training, there's every likelihood they'll stay in a regional setting. There's every likelihood that they'll fall in love with somebody in that regional setting.

I have to thank not only those five wonderful young students but indeed also Dr Nick Stephenson, who was chair of the Rural Medical School Implementation Committee I set up in 2011, and Professor Gerard Carroll. Those two provided thousands of hours of voluntary service and time. Associate Professor Adrian van der Rijt, Professor Graeme Richardson, Associate Professor Richard Harrison, Dr Louis Baggio, the former member for Riverina Kay Hull, the former state member for Wagga Wagga Daryl Maguire—succeeded by current member Dr Joe McGirr on the committee in June 2019—worked tirelessly. They worked absolutely feverishly to make sure that this became a reality. It was not only they, but so many others besides. We have them to thank, and we acknowledge that, in the future, this is going to make such a difference for rural medicine. We've got a doctor shortage in the bush, and this network is going to provide some, if not all, of the relief for that crisis that currently pervades our rural areas.

I rise to call on the Liberals, the Nationals and the Greens political party to support the Albanese Labor government's environmental protection bills. At the election, Australians endorsed our government's plan to keep building Australia's future—including our ambitious plans to protect our environment and act on climate change. We want to reform our national environmental laws to ensure we're protecting nature for generations to come. We know that the current laws are not delivering for the environment or for business or for the community. These measures address the critical issues identified by Professor Graeme Samuel in his 2020 independent review, which found that our national environmental laws are fundamentally broken. This isn't about making a choice between protecting the environment and protecting the economy, jobs and business. We know we can have both. We can do both. And that's exactly what we're proposing.

The reforms in these bills will deliver stronger environmental protection and restoration, more efficient and robust project assessments, and greater accountability and transparency in decision-making. We want to see decisions made faster with less duplication between state and federal processes. Too many projects, from housing developments to renewable energy projects, are just caught up in a tangled web of red tape. We want to modernise our environmental laws and establish Australia's first ever independent federal Environmental Protection Agency, or EPA. A federal EPA will be a tough cop on the beat, with real teeth. The creation of the federal EPA will bring together the regulatory and implementation functions of our national environmental laws under a single independent agency. The federal EPA will also be empowered to issue environmental protection orders, stop work orders and utilise expanded audit powers.

These reforms will also include the creation of a new ministerial power to make national environmental standards, which will improve environmental outcomes and give proponents greater certainty and clarity by establishing clear, enforceable standards for regulated activities. It will make clear that projects with unacceptable impacts cannot be approved if they do not meet specific national interest tests. Greater clarity for proponents and decision-makers will be achieved through these reforms. That's exactly what we're doing with all of these changes.

Now the challenge turns to for the Liberals, Nationals and Greens political party to support these bills. Australians are sick of the Liberals and Nationals climate change denialism; we've seen it over and over for so many years. And they're sick of the Greens enabling this by consistently teaming up with them to block vital reforms. I call on them to support these important measures.

In closing, I'd really like to thank the many environmental activists throughout the nation who have championed these reforms. Locally, I'd like to acknowledge the North Coast Labor Environment Action Group, LEAN, for their commitment and strong advocacy. We are delivering. Australians voted for an Albanese Labor government committed to protecting our natural environment, and we are absolutely committed to delivering on this commitment in this parliament.

It's a real privilege to represent the best constituents in the country. A testament to this was my 2025 Lindsay Awards last Friday evening. Attended by more than 200 people, the evening showcased the strength, leadership and generosity that drive our community forward. This is the Lindsay Awards' second year, with 91 finalists recognised across 12 categories. It's a remarkable achievement and reflection of the depth of talent in, and commitment to, our region. Each winner represented something unique in not just the success in their field but the impact that their work makes in the lives of others.

In leadership, Adam Fletcher was recognised for his work building local rugby across the Penrith region, strengthening sport from the grassroots up. The Woman in Leadership award went to Danielle Schwarzer for her work leading all-abilities programs in basketball, making inclusion a standard and not an exception. Our Youth in Leadership winner, Seamus McCauley, has already made his mark through leadership in the hospitality sector—proof that age is not a barrier to creating influence and having an impact on your community.

In our emergency services, Stephen Payne was acknowledged for his longstanding service with Fire and Rescue New South Wales—a steady presence when our community needs it most. Our Health Advocates of the Year award, presented jointly to Professor Sam Orde and Professor Ian Seppelt, recognised world-leading innovations in intensive care, research that is saving lives well beyond our electorate. I particularly acknowledge all of our doctors and nurses at Nepean Hospital.

Education remains a pillar of our community, and Supinder Bains received Educator of the Year for intergenerational programs in early childhood learning, bringing generations together through teaching and care. In sport, Hayley Muir was awarded Sportsperson of the Year for her outstanding achievements in national and international football. Accessibility in sport was also recognised, with Allen Thorpe receiving Club Member of the Year. In community service, Mark Geerin received the Individual Community Service Award for his programs, while Cancer Wellness Support received the Organisation Community Service Award.

Our business sector was also celebrated. Western Sydney Publishing Group was awarded Small Business of the Year. Finally Clover Fields was awarded Aussie Made Business of the Year. It is a family owned company leading the way in sustainable Australian manufacturing. It's not just about a single night. It's about recognising people who make our community stronger every day. Lindsay is defined by action, leadership and heart, and this year's winners prove that again. It is my honour to serve and to celebrate the best community in the country.

If we cast our minds back to 1840, we were a continent of colonies, with Queen Victoria as the ruling monarch; Queensland wasn't yet founded; and the first known photograph of Niagara Falls in the United States had just been taken—all historic moments, you will agree. However, another historic moment was occurring in Campbelltown in my electorate, with the foundational stone for St Patrick's College first being laid by the Benedictine monk Bishop John Polding after the school was founded by the Irish Catholic residents of the Campbelltown region. This makes St Patrick's College for girls the oldest Catholic independent school in Australia, and it's a privilege to work with and support this wonderful school community as they celebrate their 185th anniversary. I might add that Senator Deborah O'Neill is an old girl of the school.

I recently visited the school to meet with two of their fantastic teachers Fran Musico Rullo and Joanne Cavallin, who are extremely active in researching and recording the rich history of both St Patrick's College and the wider region. Using their incredible knowledge and passion and after extensive research, Fran and Joanne have teamed up with the Campbelltown & Airds Historical Society to publish their book titled Our Legacy of Light, which covers the 185 years of St Patrick's College—a wonderful achievement. I'm extremely thankful to Fran and Joanne for their tireless efforts in producing this book, as well as Stephen Coppins and Julie Crowley from the Campbelltown & Airds Historical Society for helping publish this incredible work.

I'd also like to thank Mary Leask, the college's principal, for her steadfast support for her community, for the wider community and for the historical society. For me I think it's incredibly important that we all know more about our history, as what we have now has been formed by those who came before us. We must remember our history. The Macarthur region is incredibly vibrant, with a rich history that predates colonial history as well with rich Indigenous history. I would like more of our residents to be made aware of this history, and, through the work of Fran and Joanne, this history is being told and delivered to those today and will indeed help those of the future.

I'd also like to thank the college for their history of the war nurses, of which my mother-in-law was one. They did a wonderful vision of the history of nurses in war throughout Australia's history and world history. That was a real celebration of these women who have done so much to improve the care of soldiers during all the wars that Australia has participated in since the beginning of white settlement. It is really a great school with a great legacy, and it was a great privilege to be part of their journey.

I rise today to thank the members of my community who joined me last week—together with the Special Envoy for Social Housing and Homelessness, the member for Macnamara—to discuss the critical need to assist those who find themselves without a home across the Mornington Peninsula. Over the last year, almost 1,000 people have sought help through our local service providers to find emergency accommodation and access to food rations, the highest need being in the southern Mornington Peninsula, where over 400 people, mostly men, are experiencing homelessness. Around half are sleeping rough on the foreshore and in bushlands alongside our major roads. Another 350 people have sought help in the Western Port region, and roughly half of that number have sought help in Mornington.

All three community support centres were present for my roundtable, together with the Salvation Army, which meets the highest demand for homelessness services, mostly among women. They are supported by Bolton Clarke, Peninsula Health, Fusion and the Lighthouse Foundation. In coming weeks I'll be working with the CEO of Southern Peninsula Community Support, Jeremy Maxwell, to seek to fill a funding hole of some $350,000 caused by recent changes in federal funding. I am so very grateful to Josh Burns for the time he gave Jeremy and all involved in a meaningful conversation to address homelessness on the peninsula. It was indeed a frank and focused conversation to see what can and must be done to help those most in need.

These are issues beyond partisanship—a lesson lost on some, who, earlier this year, endeavoured to arrange such discussion with failed candidates in the last federal election, bafflingly excluding the member for Flinders and the state seats of Nepean and Mornington, even though the member for Mornington at the time was the shadow assistant minister for housing and rental affordability. Shame on those trying to manipulate this issue for partisan passions, and my thanks to Josh for rising above petty motivations. As I said to him in the gym this morning, he is welcome on the peninsula any time.

It being the final sitting week of the year, I wish to thank my wonderful staff, who make this job both possible and inspiring: Julia Doyle, Conor Barnes, John Hooke, Katie Wilkie, Marshall Grande, Rocco Labriola, Benn Eccleston and, earlier this year, the magnificent Unity Paterson and Dana Hawtin. I thank also the wonderful leaders of my Federal Electorate Convention: Chair Richard Hurley; Treasurer Georgie Silverwood; Vice Presidents Ed O'Donohue and, earlier this year, Phil Wise; Di Kleinert, who always comes in a duo with her beautiful husband Gordon; Marg Hawker; and Marshall Grande. I thank those who lead the Nepean, Mornington and Hastings divisions, especially Jackie Hamill, Greg Dixon, Virginia Carey, Andrew and Megan Murphy, David Burgess, and Peter and Kay Grey, for all they do for the broader Liberal family.

I thank all of our hundreds of volunteers—some of them Liberal, some of them not—who have been an army of intellect, joy and passion throughout 2025, keeping Flinders blue. I hope I do you proud.

I rise today to recognise two extraordinary local legends from my electorate of Moore—people whose service shows, in very real terms, what community leadership looks like. First, I want to pay tribute to Joy Coleman, whose remarkable legacy lives through the Spiers Centre in Heathridge. Back in 1980, when Heathridge was still new, still isolated and still finding its identity, Joy opened the doors of her own home to around 40 local women. What began around her lounge room grew very quickly into the Heathridge/Beldon Women's Community Group, a place to gather, support each other and build the foundations of a stronger community.

Over the years, the group moved into what became known as the Granny Spiers Community House, honouring Frances 'Granny' Spears, whose generosity and community spirit in the early 1900s set the tone for service in our region. The house grew, the programs expanded, and in 2009 it became what we now know as the Spiers Centre, a vital community hub offering support groups, financial assistance, family and parenting programs, a creche, Foodbank services and mental wellbeing support. In the words of Mullaloo resident and Spiers Centre volunteer Marilyn Krueger: 'It's not just about food, clothing or financial help. It's a welcoming place that encourages you to join in, meet people and become a contributor in making other people's lives brighter.'

Joy passed away in August at the age of 85. Her daughter Michelle continues to serve the community through the centre. Moore is better because of Joy's kindness, her persistence and her belief that no-one should face hardship alone.

Second, I want to acknowledge Kim Pring of Hillarys Yacht Club, an organisation I am proud to serve as vice-patron. Kim is the club's training and development manager, and her contribution to local young people and families cannot be overstated. Under her leadership, Hillarys Yacht Club has opened the world of sailing to hundreds of kids and community groups, giving them confidence, safety skills and, for many, a lifelong connection to the water. Over 200 kids registered for her recent try-sailing day, with each given a safe and encouraging first step onto a boat. She also champions SheSails, creating a welcoming and empowering path for women in our community to experience sailing. Rain, shine or full Fremantle doctor, Kim and her volunteers show up. Moore is incredibly lucky to have her.

Joy Coleman and Kim Pring are two women on two different paths with one shared impact. They're leaving our community stronger than they found it. They are the quiet champions of Moore, and I'm proud to recognise them in the national parliament today.

In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members' constituency statements has concluded.

I 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.

Nearly two million small businesses operate in Australia, often forgoing the safety of a salary for the opportunity for economic progress to back them and their families and to create economic opportunity for others. Most small-business people are just Aussies backing themselves. They're the engine room of the economy. They're also the creators of employment. Small-business people are often the people who give the next generation their first job in the community. They didn't wait for permission; they're just living out the full aspect of commercial hope. They are the best of what we should want for our country, but they live a brutal reality.

Last year 14,000 small businesses collapsed—record insolvencies. They're facing higher costs and regulation. State taxes like land tax and payroll tax are crippling them. We have a cost-of-small-business crisis. Often they pay themselves last, after they pay their staff and their suppliers. They struggle to get finance, and profit is normally more theory than lived. This government assumes they all have human resources departments, tax departments, and legal and industrial relations departments. It doesn't understand they're normally sole operators or have a small number of staff that they can employ. They don't want a handout from government. They just want a fair go. What they need is a champion. They need a movement to stand up and speak out for them. But from this government, they're not getting it.

Small-business people have a right to earn an honest living without being strangled by Canberra, because it's simply about having profitability. If you can't make a profit, you can't employ, you can't invest and you can't survive. It's about fairness because a system designed for multinational unions should not be imposed on a family cafe with three staff. It's about pride because every 'open' sign in every shop window is an act of defiance and of hope. And it's about our future because the next generation of Australian jobs, innovation and growth won't come from governments or bureaucracies but from the courage and creativity of small businesses to back themselves.

That's why we need a profitability revolution. We need people to employ Australians again, through a fair work reset. And we need local economic power, where small businesses go on to employ others and create opportunities for the rest of the community. There's never been a time when we've needed more people to stand up and speak out for small business against state governments and this federal government, who do so much to cripple them. It's so important now to be part of change, because when small business stands tall, Australia stands strong. And it's so important that we stand with small business because we need to fight for shopkeepers who can't find staff. We need to fight for the tradie who's drowning in compliance. We need to fight for the cafe owner facing yet another impossible bill. We need to fight for every small-business person that feels alone and abandoned. Well, you're not alone. Some of us believe strongly in what you're doing and want to stand up for you because when small business stands tall, Australia stands strong. And it's time we did that.

This government have no vision or no hope for small business, but the opposition do. We believe in backing you because you've backed yourself. The reality is that the status quo is not good enough. We need the two million small businesses in this country to be proud, to be confident and to rally together to stand up against a government that wants to cripple them. We need those small businesses to stand up, have their voice heard in this nation's parliament and call out the overtaxation, overregulation and all of the other limitations that are stopping them from being their best selves so they can support their communities.

So often, small businesses are on the front line of community service delivery. They're the ones that are sponsoring the local footy club and the local netball club, or making sure that they can meet consumer needs. They're often on the front line of making sure that people can get access to the goods and services they need in their community when larger businesses don't see it as economically or commercially viable.

That's why small business matters so much. It's not just about providing economic opportunities for families but also about creating that first step on the ladder of opportunity for the next generation of Australians. We'll always back in small business, because it's a central pillar of the Australian economy.

I thank the member. Is the motion seconded?

I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.

I thank the member for Dawson. The question is that the motion be agreed to, and I call the member for Deakin.

We can all agree that small business needs all the support that we can provide, and I'm so proud to be part of a government that is dedicated to improving the operating environment for small business. I hope, taking the coalition at its word, that it's about supporting small business—that it will take a break from self-destruction and self-congratulation and be banging on the door of the minister for the environment in the hope of securing an EPBC Act reform that fulfils all of the needs of small business. And I hope that all of the benefits to small business are realised by the proper negotiation of that legislation. We've seen a lot of political theatre and a lot of performance, but, if you really meant what you said about helping small business, you would be doing everything you could to ensure the passage of that bill in the interests of small businesses around Australia.

Getting rid of red tape is certainly part of the mission in assisting small business, and that's why we're looking at about 400 different regulatory reforms proposed by regulators after the economic roundtable. We've got exciting innovations that will be coming in to support small business over the next few years. This is all part of the National Small Business Strategy that was released by the minister earlier this year. We have the momentum in government and in our agencies, and in working with other levels of government, to ensure that compliance is no more complicated than it has to be, that regulations are simplified, that we're not having duplication in processes and that we are being as fair, effective and efficient as possible when it comes to the regulation of businesses, because we know that regulation and red tape are holding back both small and large businesses. The focus of this government is on ensuring that we're dealing with regulatory reform in a way that makes things easier, that the reform is facilitative and that we are able to untap the potential of our economy—and that focus is going to be a defining feature of the next three years of work by this government.

In relation to tax, we've seen a tax cut for 1.5 million businesses acting as sole traders, which was opposed by the opposition. They talk about the lack of tax cuts, but they opposed a big tax cut to a whole lot of businesses not very long ago. We've also got small, discrete initiatives such as extending the instant asset write-off into the future, to ensure that tradies who need to update their tools or a cafe that needs to get a new barista machine are able to write them off straightaway to incentivise those investments within business. To have that program continue is going to be incredibly important for those small businesses to be able to invest in their future with confidence. We've also got a $400 million industry growth program to help entrepreneurs to commercialise their ideas and get the skills and support they need to have successful businesses, to ensure that their potential can be unlocked into the future.

We've got a government that is incredibly focused on easing the pathway for small businesses in the way we pay at a government level, the way we open up procurement and all of those things. To the extent that we have influence, we are doing everything possible to support small business. We have ideas that go beyond the coalition's standard 'Oh, let's just cut the working conditions of working people—that's what small business needs.' No: we need an economy that is supporting small businesses to succeed, to innovate, to increase their productivity and to thrive.

There are many aspects to this problem, and energy is one of them. I was kind of surprised that the member for Goldstein wasn't emphasising energy policy—well, not surprised, given what his own party has done since that motion was drafted. If you wanted to design a policy that would create uncertainty and a lack of investment, and fail to drive down power prices in the long term, you would have the coalition's 23rd consecutive pamphlet on energy policy—another one that says, 'Kick the can down the road and let's hope for the best.' That's been their policy since about 2009. It's achieved nothing over the last decade, and it's not going to achieve anything in the future. It's an embarrassing indictment on the coalition's inability to grapple with wicked problems that are affecting small businesses like the small businesses that might install solar panels on the roofs of people's houses or install batteries. Those small businesses matter too. Small businesses are working to be part of the energy transition. I've got a business in my own area that is using hydrogen generators—a fantastic opportunity for lower emissions power generation on islands and in small communities. There's a lot of good work being done by small businesses, and that's going to be undermined by policy uncertainty.

I would say if you want to reflect a commitment to small businesses this week, the best thing you could do is stop congratulating yourself for a minute and go to Senator Watt's office to make sure that the EPBC bill is passed and that all of the pro business aspects of it are safeguarded. That is what a serious opposition would do. That is what a serious party that cares about small businesses would be doing today.

I thank the member for Goldstein for raising this important topic. Small businesses aren't just part of our economy; they are the backbone of our economy. They are the beating heart of every main street and every regional town—someone with a dream decides to have a go. They are the bakers opening before dawn, the mechanics working late and the cane farmers handing down the family legacy from one generation to the next. They are the families who back themselves often risking everything, and today that spirit is under threat like never before.

Small and family businesses right across Australia are being hit by a tidal wave of pressure that the government either can't understand or simply refuses to acknowledge. This motions asks the House to confront an uncomfortable truth—small and family businesses are being crushed not by market forces but by government choices. Costs are spiralling. Power bills are sky rocketing. Leases are rising. Insurance is blowing out. Interest rates are pushing many to the brink. Every week I hear the same thing: 'I'm working harder for less, and I don't know how long I can keep it going.' That is not economic management. That is economic neglect.

The reasons are clear. The government's industrial relations changes have replaced flexibility with confusion, fairness with compliance, and replaced opportunity with fear. Business owners are scared of making paperwork mistakes, worried about hiring and terrified of growing because every change seems designed for big unions and big corporates, not the people who actually create the jobs. Labor needs to stop looking after their election cash cows and start looking after real Australians.

Power bills for shops, cafes, small manufacturers and workshops have surged because of this government's reckless energy experiment. Small businesses operate for customers and production timetables, not electricity markets. In regional Australia, where distance adds cost, these increases aren't inconvenient; they are lethal.

Record immigration has made the situation even worse. Labor is bringing in more people that ever, yet small businesses can't hire the skilled workers they desperately need. Businesses in Dawson are constantly telling me workshops can't find mechanics, plumbers and sparkies can't secure skilled trades and medical practices can't hire GPs. Meanwhile, the people we do want—surgeons, dentists, builders—are trapped in visa queues for up to two years. What's worse is that small family businesses can't find unskilled workers to pick fruit, to serve drinks or to deliver pamphlets because the government rolls out the red carpet to refugees, places them on welfare and hoards them in Sydney and Melbourne to build their voter base while mum-and-dad business owners work around the clock to pay their taxes that support these new arrivals.

This isn't leadership. It's bureaucratic chaos, and it's leaving Australians behind. Every new rule, every new layer of red tape, every shift of industrial requirement lands hardest on the smallest operator. A large corporation can hide behind a compliance department. A family business only has itself, its time and its courage. This is why insolvencies are exploding—the highest level in years—in a country that's growing faster than ever. That should terrify everyone who cares about Australia, because small business is not optional. If small businesses collapse, Australia collapses.

Small and family businesses employ nearly half of our workforce, train the majority of apprentices, invest their profits locally, keep regional communities alive and build generational wealth that strengthens families. When a family business closes, we don't just lose a shopfront; we lose the legacy of hard work, sacrifice and Australian ingenuity. What small and family businesses need is simple: lower power bills; a cheaper, better, fairer energy policy; a simple regulation; a visa system that delivers skilled workers they need; a tax system that rewards effort; and, above all, a government that actually backs them. On this side of the House, we stand with small and family business because we understand one simple truth: when a small business wins, Australia wins.

Anyone who has spent time in or around a small business knows the truth: the pressures are real, the hours are long and the loads on families are heavy. Small-business stress doesn't stay in the shop. It follows owners home. It affects sleep, relationships and, too often, mental health. I know this because, before coming into this place, I ran a small business for 25 years, working in the family business before making the move to federal parliament. I know the stress exists. This reality deserves honesty and respect, and yet here we are debating a motion that takes those real pressures and tries to turn them into a political punchline. We heard some of those political punchlines from the member for Dawson—all fear, no solutions. Small businesses deserve better than these fear campaigns and slogans that the opposition roll out when it comes to small business. They deserve practical support, calm leadership and serious policy, and that is exactly what this government is delivering for small business.

In Bennelong, I speak to small-business owners every week, from cafes in Gladesville navigating high merchant service costs for accepting digital payments to family restaurants in Eastwood juggling staffing to big and small tech companies in Macquarie Park struggling to find trained and skilled workers. None of these businesses I speak to are asking for the political theatre that we're seeing from those opposite. They're asking for certainty, for practical support and for government to have their backs through what is a tough economic cycle. And that's what we're doing. Nearly one million small businesses have now accessed targeted energy bill relief—up to $800 in support—since the last budget. Small businesses around the country have accessed our small business energy efficiency grants, upgrading technology in their business just like the IGA supermarket in Epping, who upgraded their equipment to save 30 per cent on their energy costs, or AustGrade Swim School at Top Ryde, who got new pool covers to trap heat from their swimming pools to save on their energy costs too.

We've got Labor's instant asset write-off giving businesses the confidence to invest and help with their cash flow. Our payment times reforms are making sure small businesses get paid faster and reliably. Our digital and cyber programs are helping small businesses navigate a really tricky policy area with the Small Business Cyber Resilience Service and the Cyber Wardens program as well. Our campaign to end surcharges and to reduce costs for small businesses just for accepting digital payments will deliver tangible savings to small businesses across the country.

Now, if you read this motion, you see that the Liberals want us to believe that small businesses are being abandoned, but the facts are very different. They tell a very different story. There are 2.66 million small businesses operating in Australia today. They contribute nearly $600 billion to our economy and employ over five million Australians. While the opposition wants to pretend that the pandemic, global inflation and geopolitical uncertainty never happened or haven't had an impact, this government has been doing the real work to help small businesses recover and rebuild.

If the opposition were serious about supporting small businesses, they would have been supporting the practical steps of this government or putting up their own solutions themselves. Let's be very clear on their record here. Energy bill relief was opposed by the opposition; tax cuts for 1.5 million sole traders were opposed by the opposition; better payment times were delivered by Labor and ignored for a decade by those opposite; Labor's instant asset write-off a couple of years ago was held up in the Senate for months and months and months, providing uncertainty for businesses across the country; and who knows where they stand on reducing merchant and payments costs for small businesses accepting digital payments. When the opposition claim small businesses have been abandoned, they mean that they've opposed the very measures that this government has put out to support small business—and it won't stop there. We'll continue to have the back of small businesses across the country.

I rise to support the motion moved by the member for Goldstein because it is indeed a matter of the utmost public importance. Small and family businesses are doing it tough under this government. Across my community of McPherson, from cafes and pubs to local grocers, sole traders and manufacturers, it's becoming harder to operate and more costly just to keep the doors open.

When small business succeeds, Australia succeeds. Creating the conditions for enterprise to flourish is critically important to repairing our economy, driving real private-sector wage growth, reducing consumer costs and building a more prosperous nation. Those opposite fail to understand that when they make life harder for small business they make life harder for every Australian. Many Gold Coast businesses do everything they can to shield their customers, but they simply cannot absorb every new cost and every new regulation imposed by this government. Those costs inevitably flow through to consumers, compounding the cost-of-living crisis.

In Labor's last term, Anthony Albanese oversaw the worst rate of business insolvencies of any other prime minister since Federation. Let that sink in. During this period, Queensland recorded more than 4,500 insolvencies. Nationally, that figure was around 25,000, with businesses in the construction sector hit the hardest. What does that tell us? Construction is becoming less viable under this Labor government. Between union pressure, mounting red tape and higher operating costs, the sector is being strangled. As a result, Australia is falling behind in infrastructure, roads and housing.

Among the thousands of collapsed businesses are hardworking tradies—Australians who backed themselves, took a risk and set up their own business to contribute to building our country. Instead of supporting them, this government is doing everything it can to hinder their growth. Why would Labor want a thriving small-business construction sector? That would hardly suit the interests of their big-business-aligned union mates at the CFMEU. Instead, this government piles on 5,000 new regulations, hundreds of new laws and nearly 3,000 pages of construction codes—enough to drown small operators and keep aspirational builders firmly at bay. In doing so, Labor is directly tilting the balance away from ambition in enterprise and towards big-business monopolisation and union power.

The government abolished effective construction oversight, looked the other way as union militancy pushed up costs and drove down productivity, and then pretended it was all somebody else's fault. These decisions are not victimless. When projects are delayed or costs blow out, Australians pay the price. When the CFMEU's grip on residential construction inflates costs by 30 per cent, it's not just the developers who feel it; it's every family trying to build a home or every small business that's trying to fit-out a shopfront. These decisions drive up rents, price out first home buyers and deepen the housing crisis.

Productivity is down five per cent. Our competitiveness has slipped. The government should clear the path, not block it. Yet, under Labor, small and family businesses aren't treated as partners in prosperity. They're treated like an ATM for taxes, a test case for regulation, and are punished for creating jobs and supporting local communities.

Energy policy is no better. On the southern Gold Coast, businesses are doing it tough, and they're staring down higher power prices while ministers chase ideology over outcomes. The greatest cost increase for business under this government has been energy. Labor failed to grasp the basic economic understanding that when business costs rise so, too, do the costs for consumers. Their mismanagement of energy policy has driven power prices up by nearly 40 per cent, fuelling cost-of-living pressures for every Australian and every Australian business. Pick ideology over affordability and you get more insolvencies, fewer private sector jobs, lower productivity and a weaker economy, followed by higher government spending to clean up the mess. Labor's energy policies are fuelling inflation and fuelling the cost-of-living crisis.

That's why we in the coalition are committed to an energy policy focused on affordability whilst lowering emissions responsibly, at a pace that technology and the economy can sustain. We want to accelerate new supply, keep existing generation online and allow investment to flow where it delivers the lowest, most-reliable prices, because when you reduce the cost of energy you don't just lower household bills; you ease one of the largest expenses facing small businesses. When energy becomes affordable again, that relief will flow through to the entire economy.

I rise to oppose the motion moved by the member for Goldstein. We all know that the member is never short on rhetoric, but today he is desperately short on facts, and small-business operators deserve better than that. Labor is and always has been the party of the real economy—the workers who power small businesses and the small businesses that power our communities. That's not just talk; that's our economic record. When Hawke and Keating modernised the nation they laid the foundations that every small-business owner relies on today. They floated the dollar. They cut tariffs and opened markets. They deregulated financial systems to expand opportunity. They introduced compulsory superannuation, creating the multitrillion-dollar national capital pool that underpins Australian investment, including the lending capacity that small businesses rely on. And let's be honest: the coalition fought Hawke and Keating on every major economic reform—the float, the tariffs, superannuation and deregulation—and they were wrong every single time. Those reforms created a competitive, stable, modern economy that allowed millions of small businesses to thrive.

The Albanese Labor government continues in that tradition. We back the 2.66 million small businesses that contribute $596 billion to our economy and employ 5.16 million Australians. Small businesses keep our suburbs vibrant. The cafes, the gyms, the clinics, the tradies and the retailers make my northern corridor a great place to live. And when small businesses thrive, Australia thrives. This government actually acts on that belief; we don't just talk about it.

This government has delivered energy bill relief to around one million small businesses. We backed that with $56.7 million in energy efficiency grants that help small businesses to permanently lower their power bills. The member for Goldstein talks about being pro small business, but his party's record tells another story. The coalition opposed Labor's tax cuts that benefit 1.5 million sole traders. They opposed the last round of tax cuts for small business. That's the coalition's record.

This is our record. We're delivering the National Small Business Strategy, co-designed with states and territories to cut red tape and reduce duplication. We invested $33.4 million to strengthen the Payment Times Reporting Scheme so that big corporates can't sit on invoices and choke small businesses' cash flow. We extended the $20,000 instant asset write-off so that small businesses can invest in tools, technology, equipment and machinery. That means tradies in Heathridge upgrading tools, cafes in Hillarys buying a new coffee machine that doubles output, and Joondalup office businesses upgrading their CRM systems, all with immediate deductibility, supporting cash flow.

We also delivered more than $80 million in digital support programs, digital solutions, cyber wardens and the Small Business Cyber Resilience Service, because modernisation is not optional for small business; it is essential. We strengthened the franchising code and invested in the ACCC to protect small franchisees from unfair contract terms and power imbalances, We expanded unfair trading protections so that small operators are no longer steamrolled by large corporations. On workplace relations, we worked directly with COSBOA and employer groups to stage reforms and introduce exemptions for small business. We established a voluntary wage compliance code so genuine small businesses aren't criminalised for administrative errors. And we funded the Fair Work Ombudsman and Fair Work Commission to give small businesses practical, accessible guidance—something the coalition never bothered with.

The member for Goldstein neglects to mention all of this because none of it fits the narrative he wants to sell. But small-business owners see through it. They know the difference between the government that shows up for them and the opposition that simply shows up to talk about them. Small businesses don't want culture wars; they want practical support. Labor delivers on that. The coalition does not.

So, yes, the Labor Party is the party of small business because we back the people who start them, run them, employ locals and keep communities strong. We invest in their tools, their training, their energy bills, their digital capability and their long-term success. The member for Goldstein wants small businesses to believe that this government has walked away from them. But small-business operators are not fools. They know who actually delivers for them.

I oppose this motion. I stand with the Labor government that is carrying forward the proud Labor tradition of supporting small businesses. I stand with the small businesses of Moore and across Australia who deserve a government that backs them every single day.

I rise to support the member for Goldstein with this motion because, like me, the member for Goldstein grew up in a family-run small business. He knows what it's like to see his parents answer phone calls at all times of the night and put their customers and their staff first, before they look after themselves. My parents and his parents had small businesses like 2.6 million other small businesses right across Australia, which represent 44 per cent of our workforce. And that's a really important workforce because, for a lot of young people in our community, particularly in regions like mine, small-business employers represent their first shot at a job. They represent their first opportunity to learn processes, teamwork, feedback and resilience—all of the things that you get to learn in a small business that help set you up for life.

But, right now, it's never been harder to be a small-business person in Australia. The facts really back this up. MYOB, the accounting business, put out a survey in October that showed that energy was the No. 1 challenge that the majority of small-business owners were grappling with, where they've got high costs and unreliability. This federal government is not doing anything to address that.

The next biggest challenge was inflation, which is affecting consumers and families right now, coupled with, of course, interest rates remaining high. That's affecting consumer confidence. It's affecting small businesses and retailers in communities like mine, where this should be a bumper season right now, heading into Christmas. Unfortunately, the economic conditions visited upon us by this federal Labor government are impacting small businesses right across Australia.

ACCI, the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, put out a survey just a couple of weeks ago, and that shows that half of small businesses are suffering from high levels of stress because it's so hard to be a small-business owner in the Anthony Albanese Labor government's Australia. It's actually impacting the mental health of a lot of people who run a small business and causing them significant amounts of stress. Together with energy, inflation and the economic environment that we're in, red tape is also significant, with 30 per cent of people surveyed worried that their businesses might be forced to close over the next 12 months.

This government has never met a piece of red tape that it didn't like. There are many examples that I could cite to support this. But, to pick one, the recent Franchising Code of Conduct reforms have lumped on a huge amount of unnecessary red tape for small-business owners. Disclosure documents will now have to be printed out—you're talking about 100 pages to be printed just to be given to prospective franchisees when they're looking at entering into a new business. Now, you don't print out an entire copy of the Corporations Act when delivering a share prospectus, to provide another analogy. But this is just one example of the onerous amount of red tape and regulation that is suffocating many small businesses across Australia.

I now want to give a shout out to a few fantastic small businesses in my electorate. We've got the Waterboy Cafe in Cowes. Their coffee is gold medal-worthy. We've got Froyo in Cowes, which is a new startup. They just opened in Leongatha a few years ago and have now expanded to open a second site in Cowes. We've got Coastal Bulkfoods in Wonthaggi; it's an incredible business. We've got the Fig and the Bay in Corinella. I love grabbing a coffee there. There is Sth Drop in Wonthaggi. Greener Life in Inverloch is an amazing nursery, and I am a huge fan of their work. When times are tough in small business, you cannot underestimate the importance of businesses like Greener Life and people like Monique, who runs that amazing business. We've got Mookah in Inverloch and Warragul, cafes like Lyon & Bair and Number 9 Dream in Leongatha, Leongatha Garden Supplies and the Foster Pharmacy—just to name a few. The coalition backs small business. I back small business. Small business needs a better go from this government.

It's Monday morning of the last sitting week of the year. The government is getting on with delivering its promises to the Australian people, and here we are, once again, responding to a private member's motion by the member for Goldstein, with all of the accompanying characteristics of ardour and illusion. Talk about ending the parliamentary year in a blaze of glory!

I want to acknowledge my colleagues who spoke before me today in this debate, and pay credit to their efforts to set the record straight on this government's support for small and family businesses. Let me be very clear. This government has a strong record of support for small and family businesses right across Australia. This is a record support in immediate and practical terms that I see every day as I travel around my electorate of Bean talking to small business owners and their employees. This is what we are delivering for small and family businesses. The National Small Business Strategy is the first of its kind to bring governments across Australia together in support of our small businesses. Through this, we are supporting the creation of efficiencies and the reduction of the duplication of effort. We are providing actionable policies and programs to support local businesses right across Australia, elevating small businesses in the government decision-making process at each level of government.

An area of challenge and opportunity for all businesses, but particularly small and family businesses, is in the cyber domain. The risks and dangers caused by exposure to ongoing and evolving threats is a real and present danger for small and family businesses. But we cannot allow these risks to get in the way of opportunity. Digital technology is key to a strong, productive and resilient economy. Small and family businesses need protection and support to take advantage of this technology. Our government recognises this, and we have taken action. We have introduced digital supports, including more than $80 million investment in the Digital Solutions program, the Cyber Wardens program, the Small Business Cyber Resilience Service and the Cyber Health Check tool. Our $18.6 million Digital Solutions program helps small businesses adopt digital tools and grasp the opportunities that going online offers. It provides support in the areas of websites and selling online, social media and digital marketing, use of business software, cyber security and data privacy. Our $23.4 million Cyber Wardens program helps small businesses build resilience against online threats, and our $11.1 million Small Business Cyber Resilience Service provides free, one-on-one tailored support for small businesses to prevent and recover from cyberattacks.

The responsibility of all of us in this place is not just to criticise but to offer an alternative action or arrangement. Let's look at what those opposite have actually offered for small and family businesses. One thing they did do was to stand in the way of a tax cut which was of benefit to 1.5 million sole traders. In fact, they didn't just didn't stand in the way of a tax cut; they, through the then-shadow treasurer, the member for Hume, called our plan a 'cruel hoax' without proposing an alternative view. In fact, the only plan they announced to support small and family businesses was to offer some personal income tax cuts. I wouldn't quite categorise that as an affirmation that those opposites stand with small and family businesses.

We are getting on with the job of helping small and family businesses to grow and prosper. We want to see them become medium and large businesses. The member for Goldstein is right about one thing. Small and family businesses create jobs and keep our communities strong. The Albanese government will always stand up for the engine room of the Australian economy and stand side-by-side with small and family businesses.

The time for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.

I 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.

To mark Mental Health Month in October, I want to highlight some of the fantastic work being done to improve mental health supports in the Illawarra. The Albanese Labor government has invested $1.1 billion to deliver new and expanded free mental health services. This includes 31 new and upgraded Medicare mental health centres, which now total 91. The Wollongong Medicare Mental Health Hub opened in December 2023. This free walk-in service aims to improve access to and awareness of mental health care, especially for those who have not accessed support before. Provided by Stride Health, the hub has helped 200 people on more than 1,800 occasions of service since it opened, showing just how important these hubs are.

We are also investing over $200 million towards new, upgraded and expanded headspace services. In another win for Wollongong, we're getting a headspace Plus, a new enhanced model of care providing additional staff and capability to support young people who are experiencing more complex and serious mental health issues. Operated by Grand Pacific Health, Wollongong headspace does an incredible job supporting local young people in our community, and I am so pleased that we are enhancing this vital local service. We're also creating the new Medicare Mental Health Check In from January next year, which is expected to support around 150,000 people each year with free digital mental health self-help tools and low-intensity cognitive behavioural therapy delivered by trained professionals via phone or video. And we are boosting the mental health workforce, with more than 4,000 psychology scholarships, internships and training places.

Just recently, I was delighted to welcome the Special Envoy for Men's Health to my electorate for the Healthier Illawarra Men's luncheon. This annual event, in partnership with the St George Illawarra Dragons, is going from strength to strength in its support for men's mental health. This year's luncheon had a stellar line up, with former cricketing legend Lord Ian Botham; Gotcha4Life founder, Gus Worland; and TV personality Karl Stefanovic rounding out the panel. All of these men have a proven track record in breaking down barriers for men's mental health, sharing their stories to show that resilience and mateship matter. I congratulate Healthier Illawarra Men on a fantastic sold-out event raising funds for local men's health initiatives. Thank you to everyone who came along and to the wonderful panel, including the member for Hunter, Dan Repacholi, for your honest and inspiring contributions.

I also took the special envoy to meet with the local group The Fathering Project to hear the stories of Corey and Dave. Both of these brave men shared how this program has changed their lives and the lives of their kids, giving them renewed purpose and connection. Healthy, happy, engaged dads are good for kids and good for communities, and I really want to thank case coordinator Tim, CEO Kati and growth manager Emma for their absolutely invaluable work. During his visit, the MCCI's Burmese men's group gave the special envoy and me a lovely welcome to their meeting in Cringila. This group speaks three different languages, and they come together in their beautiful garden, lovingly cultivated by Ple Reh to foster that sense of community and belonging. A big thank you to Chris Lacey and all of the MCCI team for inviting us along.

Lastly, I want to acknowledge a few of the other incredible local organisations that are working to improve the mental health and wellbeing of our community. There is the Raising the Bar Foundation, run by Lachie Stevens, with initiatives like Walk With Us Kokoda and Healthier Hospitality. Lachie also runs the Barstool Brothers at His Boy Elroy, helping local men to create connection and find avenues for help. There's also Talk2MeBro, founded by Jack Brown and Kristy Simpson after the tragic death of Matt Simpson, working to put an end to male suicide. I also recently met with Melissa Abu-Gazaleh, the founder of the Top Blokes Foundation, which is breaking down the stigma around mental health, particularly for young men. I put on a 10-kilogram vest for an interesting walk and talk with Darcy to help Lift the Load. We've also got Women Illawarra, SAHSSI, Better Births Illawarra and the Illawarra Women's Health Centre supporting women and mothers experiencing trauma and domestic violence.

These amazing organisations and so many more are working hard every single day to improve the mental health of local people. Thank you to everyone across government and beyond who is helping to change the lives of so many. We will keep doing everything we can to ensure our community can access the mental health support they need.

Is there a seconder for the motion?

I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.

I rise to speak on this motion on mental health and to make one simple point: that the government's spin and feel-good fuzz doesn't match the reality Australians are experiencing in our mental health system. I acknowledge that October was Mental Health Month, an opportunity to appropriately focus on this very important area of policy. I welcome genuine effort to support parents, children, young people and adults with their mental health. And, whilst I acknowledge the assistant minister's good intentions, sympathy is no substitute for competence. On 16 October, the National Mental Health and Suicide Prevention Agreementreview was handed down by the Productivity Commission.

If you strip away the slogans in this motion today, what Labor is really asking the House to do is applaud a system that the Productivity Commission has just found is 'fragmented and out of reach for many people'. Three years after the National Mental Health and Suicide Prevention Agreement was signed in 2022, the commission reported:

… services remain uncoordinated, unaffordable and difficult to navigate.

…   …   …

Key commitments in the Agreement have not been delivered and should be completed as a priority.

For example, immediately prioritise the gap impacting about 500,000 people with moderate to severe mental illness who miss out on psychosocial supports outside the NDIS. Around 3,000 Australians die by suicide each year, and that has not shifted in about a decade. The report shows outcomes are worse for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. It found that four in 10 Australians delayed or skipped mental health care in 2023-24. Three in 10 Indigenous adults report a high or very high level of distress. One in seven children experienced mental illness in the last year. So, when Labor members stand up and say they are delivering more mental health services in the heart of their communities, the independent umpire is saying the national framework that they are responsible for delivering is broken and not doing the job.

Before Labor members try to rewrite history, we should set the record straight on the very services they are boasting about in this motion today. The 'Medicare mental health centres' they keep talking about are not Labor's creation at all. They are rebranded Head to Health centres funded and designed by the former coalition government. In the 2021-22 budget, the coalition invested $487.2 million over four years to roll out a national network of Head to Health centres and satellites. We welcome the fact that Labor has acknowledged that our model works. What we do not accept is Labor spending $29.9 million of taxpayers' money simply to rebadge these coalition created centres so that they can take the credit. It's been exposed that a big share of that $29 million has gone into new signage, marketing, branding and websites while the services themselves remain largely unchanged. Mental health support should never be turned into a marketing exercise. Every dollar that goes into new logos or ad campaigns is a dollar that's not going into extra sessions, more staff or new services.

There is another problem that Labor fails to recognise. These centres were called 'Head to Health' for a reason. The name was carefully chosen after consultation, to reduce stigma and make it easier, especially for men, to walk through the door and ask for help. Rebadging them as 'Medicare Mental Health Centres' might suit a political strategy, but it ignores the thinking behind the original name and risks discouraging some Australians who are already hesitant about seeking support. We know that many sector experts were not in favour of the name change, but it was made pretty clear that it wasn't up for negotiation.

While Labor has been busy changing signs, the fundamentals have gone backwards. They cut Medicare subsidised psychology sessions from 20 back to 10, against the advice of their own experts. They abolished the National Mental Health Commission. Instead of just congratulating themselves on the list of hubs, the government should be responding to the commission's very clear set of priorities, and perhaps one of the speakers to this motion will confirm whether or not the government will adopt the report's recommendations.

The coalition is proud of the foundations we laid in government: Head to Health, headspace, universal after care and suicide prevention. Only the coalition will treat this issue as a genuine priority, and we will continue to hold the Labor government to account. (Time expired)

Australia's in the midst of a mental health crisis, and I'm not going to play partisan politics on such a serious issue. The statistics are stark. One in five Australians between the ages of 16 and 85 experiences a mental illness every year. One in two Australians will experience a mental illness at some point in their lives. Unfortunately, South Australia is no exception. One in five South Australians experiences a mental illness every year, and 43 per cent of South Australians will experience a mental illness at some point in their lives.

Chances are that you know somebody with a mental illness. It may be you. Yet, Australians are more likely to seek professional help for a common cold than we are for a mental illness. That's why Mental Health Month, which we marked in October, and Perinatal Mental Health Week, which we mark this week, are so important in bringing awareness to this health crisis.

It is a crisis that has long been underprioritised, underfunded and underappreciated when it comes to government support. The Albanese Labor government is changing all that, with an unprecedented $1.1 billion in investment in expanding and enhancing Medicare mental health services across the community and across the country, providing tailored and targeted support for all Australians and their mental health needs that is, crucially, accessible and affordable. The Albanese Labor government understands that mental health care is a right, not a privilege.

The numbers speak for themselves: 91 Medicare Mental Health Centres offering a free walk-in service delivered by a multidisciplinary team; 20 perinatal mental health centres for new and expectant parents; 17 Medicare Mental Health Kids Hubs providing early intervention support for children under the age of 12 and their families; 203 headspace services for young Australians between the ages of 12 and 25; 20 youth specialist centres for young Australians with complex needs; support for an expected 150,000 people with mild to moderate mental illness each year, with a Medicare mental health check-in, a free non-referral service over the phone and online, led by trained mental health professionals; and funding for more than 4,000 psychology scholarships, internships and training places.

In Marion, in my electorate of Boothby, we have an excellent headspace service that is much used. Next month we will welcome a Medicare Mental Health Kids Hub in the Marion GP Plus Health Care Centre. A Medicare Mental Health Centre will also be established in this area. Work on a perinatal mental health centre is currently underway in Elizabeth in northern Adelaide, and we can expect at least one more perinatal mental health centre in Adelaide as part of Labor's 2025 election commitment.

A new statewide eating disorder service will be built at the Repat Health Precinct in Daw Park, in the very heart of Boothby, providing inpatient and outpatient treatment for people living with an eating disorder. We're rebuilding and expanding the inpatient mental health service at the Margaret Tobin mental health centre at Flinders, which, when completed, will be able to accommodate 48 mental health beds, including 12 brand new beds in the psychiatric intensive care unit.

The metaphor of the black dog is often used to describe the experience of depression. While for many of us a dog is our loyal companion, the black dog of depression refers to a dark shadow that accompanies you morning and night. It interrupts your sleep. It craves your attention during the quieter hours of the day and barks even more loudly when your attention has strayed. It's the shadow on your joy, the shadow on every activity. It undermines your focus, saps your energy. Chances are, we all know somebody who is being stalked by their own black dog. Chances are, there are people in this chamber, in our offices, in our families and in our homes who know the black dog or other forms of mental illness.

The black dog can be kept at bay. Mental illness can be treated. As with all illness, often early intervention leads to a better outcome. That's why the Albanese Labor government's historic investment in the national infrastructure of mental health care is so vital. It will ensure that all Australians, no matter their age, the severity of their condition or their financial circumstances, can get the mental health support they need, wherever they need it and whenever they need it. I commend the motion to the House.

I rise to speak on this motion because it's something I deeply care about, and I think every member in this place deeply cares about the mental health and wellbeing of their community and across our nation. This comes from my time as a member on the board of Latrobe Regional Hospital, looking at how stretched and strapped our public health facilities are in dealing with mental health crises in our community, right through to my time as a member on the board of Lifeline Gippsland. Across Gippsland we would take calls on that 131114 number from right around Australia. Since my time on that board the need for Lifeline and their services has not diminished. Last year they had about 1.4 million contacts, from phone calls to text messages, and over a million phone calls to that phone line. They do a tremendous job, and in speaking on this motion I want to acknowledge the tireless efforts of many of those volunteer telephone counsellors, who take very difficult and challenging phone calls from all over Australia every day.

We've got a youth mental health crisis in my community. It's something where we need all hands on deck and all resources available. I want to commend a forum that I attended in Warragul recently, at the Village Mental Health Clinic. There was some really good coverage in the Warragul Gazette by journalist Bonnie Collings, who has taken this issue very seriously. I want to commend the Village Health practitioners and the parents and caregivers who turned up and talked really candidly and honestly about some of the things they're grappling with—wait lists, availability and visibility. When a parent is dealing with a child in crisis, knowing where to go for help in an emergency is a big challenge. I listened to stories of parents sleeping on the floor of their children's bedroom, such was their concern about their child making it safely through the night. It was a very sobering discussion that I attended with my state Liberal colleague the member for Narracan, Wayne Farnham. I know both of us will continue to do everything we can to support what is coming out of those discussions at a local level.

For me, that's calling for a new headspace facility in West Gippsland. Many young people live in more remote parts of my electorate and cannot get to the headspace facilities, as fantastic as they are, across Bass Coast and in the Latrobe Valley. We desperately need those additional resources.

I was absolutely dismayed to see the Albanese Labor government cut, from 20 to 10, the number of Medicare subsidised mental health sessions. That has really impacted people in my community, across the board, who desperately need those facilities. At the last election, the coalition committed to bringing those back up to the full 20 psychology sessions and to having them subsidised on a permanent basis because that has been a very, very important part of supporting people experiencing mental health challenges in our community. But it's not the only part, and that means making sure that we've got the proper resources and resourcing for people in my area.

One in four young Australians experience a mental health condition in any given year, and that is particularly so for people in regional Australia. I note the comments from the National Rural Health Alliance that said in August that mental health is at a crisis level in regional areas on a per capita basis. They have spoken of that being twice as high as what it is in city areas, and chronic underfunding is a big part of that. I know all members approach this issue in a very genuine way across this parliament, no matter what part of Australia we come from. But, as I always say, your postcode shouldn't determine your potential, and in this instance I really worry for regional Australians and their capacity to access the mental health support they need under this government. I urge the federal government to revisit its approach on this issue.

Can I start by thanking my friend the member for Monash for her work in the mental health space and for advocating for better mental health outcomes for her community. On Sunday 9 November 2025, I joined a small group of like minded people as we participated in a five-kilometre walk through beautiful Linear Park located in my electorate of Sturt. The walk was organised by Rotary Australia as part of a national initiative to 'lift the lid' on talking about mental health to raise awareness of mental health across Australia, with funds raised as part of the initiative going towards mental health research and noting that, in 2025, $500,000 has been raised as part of the Lift the Lid walks.

My Lift the Lid walk was championed by the Magill Sunrise Rotary Club, and I acknowledge Lindsay Davis and his team for their efforts in putting the morning together. Lindsay and his colleagues at the Magill Sunrise Rotary Club recognised that now, more than ever, we need to break down the stigma that continues to plague our society so that people are more comfortable discussing and seeking help for mental health issues. The Lift the Lid walk held in Sturt was held on a beautiful, fresh morning, with everyone in purple T-shirts and no-one racing to finish the walk first but everyone simply walking together to talk to each other, to provide company for each other and to ask how everyone was doing. Unsurprisingly, everyone that I walked with was dealing with a mental health challenge of some degree. This is not weakness; this is life.

The Albanese Labor government is determined to provide mental health help to Australians by delivering more mental health services in communities across this country, including a Medicare mental health clinic in Sturt, which will offer free, walk-in mental health support services. When the Sturt clinic opens, it will be one of more than 90 mental health centres operating across Australia and part of the government's historic plan to strengthen Medicare with a $1.1 billion commitment to deliver new and expanded mental health services to Australians. In addition, the $1.1 billion investment will provide 58 new, upgraded or expanded headspace services, taking the number to over 170. It will also provide 20 youth specialist care centres for young people with complex mental health needs and eight new perinatal mental health centres to help new parents deal with the challenges of parenting their precious newborn babies.

But these centres and services cannot operate successfully without the people to operate them, which is why the government is also facilitating more than 1,200 training places for mental health professionals and peer workers. This is in addition to other initiatives to build the mental health workforce, with more than 4,000 psychology scholarships, internships and training places available. Importantly, from early in 2026, the Albanese Labor government will also roll out a new National Early Intervention Service, which will deliver free phone and online mental health support from trained professionals. It's estimated that this service will provide support to more than 150,000 people each year.

During my campaign for the seat of Sturt, I met a young police sergeant, Kyria, who had just finished her night shift and who I, unfortunately, woke up when I knocked on her door in the suburb of Dernancourt. Kyria told me that almost every call-out she attended on each and every shift was related to mental health either caused organically or because of drug addiction. A paramedic, Josh, who I met when I was doorknocking in Campbelltown, told me that almost every call-out he attended as part of his work serving the community was caused by mental health, with some people with mental health conditions calling an ambulance 50 to 60 times a year.

The impact of mental health on individuals, on families and on communities is enormous and is growing. That is why, since coming to government, we have worked tirelessly to make mental health care more accessible for everyone—because mental health is health. Without mental health, we don't have health and, without health, we cannot contribute, we don't grow productivity, we don't grow our economic prosperity and we don't move forward. Economically successful and prosperous communities are underpinned by physically and mentally healthy populations. Compassionate, dignified and effective care and services that are accessible and affordable are essential to the success of our economy and of our country, and this government will continue to invest to provide that framework to Australians.

It is incredibly important that the government continues to support mental health and mental health services right across Australia, and that means out into regional and rural Australia as well and into my communities in western Victoria.

When we were in government, we were able to roll out headspaces in Colac, in Warrnambool, in Portland and in Hamilton. But there is one key community which is still missing services, and that is Ararat. I call on the federal government to make sure that, when they're rolling out more and more headspaces across the nation, they prioritise Ararat because the need is real, and Ararat needs a headspace service. At the last two federal elections, I committed to providing and funding a headspace in Ararat, and I call on the government to know and understand how important it is that a service be delivered into that community.

If the government need any advice, they should talk to two outstanding individuals in the local community in Ararat who have set up One Red Tree, and they are working with Federation University to provide services out into the community. Carly and Tammie, I commend you again for everything that you're doing to improve mental health services in Ararat, but you need help and support. I was pleased to see you recognised by the Victorian state government for your work, but you need help and support, especially through the delivery of a headspace centre for Ararat.

Once again, with this motion here in this chamber, I call on the federal government to listen to the Ararat community and make sure you provide those services. Carly and Tammie have been up here, along with the CEO of the Ararat hospital, to lobby for these services. The government has listened, but now it needs to act because, more and more, this is the missing link when it comes to the missing piece when it comes to mental health services in my electorate in western Victoria.

I'd also like to turn attention to what is happening to households across this nation when it comes to energy affordability and the pressure that that is putting on mental health, especially for the poorest in our community. Minister Bowen, the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, released his climate risk assessment a few weeks ago, and that talked about the mental ill health that can accrue from climate change. But where the government has been silent has been on what is happening to mental ill health when it comes to energy affordability, and the energy poverty that we're starting to see across this nation because of the bungled, bungled way that the government is approaching the transition is second to none. We're seeing that time and time again through reports as to what is happening with regard to energy poverty in this nation.

I would say to the energy minister that he should read a recent report from the University of Adelaide, which gives facts and data as to the pressure that is being placed on people, as well as their mental health and mental wellbeing, with regard to what is happening to electricity prices—they've increased by 40 per cent—and gas prices, which have increased by over 40 per cent. This is placing enormous pressure on people, and I would say to the government: read that report out of the University of Adelaide because you need to start focusing on energy affordability. If you keep allowing your minister to be more focused on the United Nations than on delivering energy affordability here in this nation, you are going to continue to increase energy poverty in this nation, which is already growing. Not only that—it's going to have a greater impact on people's mental wellbeing and mental health. So you have to put energy affordability— (Time expired)

The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned, and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.

I 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.

Incredible pole vaulting—that's what the Olympics should be about, not skyrocketing rents. Having a few drinks with mates and watching the gold-medal soccer match is what the Olympics should be about, not pushing house prices up even further and shutting more people out of the housing market. Taking your whole family to see Australia win gold in the Olympic swimming and it not breaking the bank is what the games should be about, not privatising huge chunks of inner-city land for developer profits. The Olympics should be about the people of Brisbane. They should be about us not about money or profits.

But right now Labor and the Liberals are doing just that—delivering an Olympics that'll make enormous profits for developers and wealthy property investors at the expense of the rest of us. The Queensland government has already sold off huge chunks of prime inner-city land, abolished social-housing requirements and reduced our public parkland. Every second property investor mag is talking about how the Olympics will drive up house prices. What I'm calling for is an Olympics for the people—a games that you can afford, that Brisbane can afford—not a bonanza for the megawealthy.

Brisbane, we deserve an opportunity to dream big. The Brisbane Olympic Games should be our opportunity to imagine a better city for all of us. We have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to reshape our city—a once-in-a-generation opportunity to deliver a world-class public-transport system, to build public and affordable housing for our growing city and to provide more public parkland and better sporting facilities to shape the next generation of Olympians. Locals should be able to afford to attend these games, and locals should be the ones to enjoy the investment and the legacy that an Olympics can bring. That's the kind of vision the Olympics should provide for our city.

That is not happening. Right now locals are an afterthought. Wealthy property investors are already using the Olympics as an excuse to drive up house prices. Large parts of the city are being privatised, and events will be way too expensive for many families. Profits are being put before people. The Paris Olympics delivered 50 kilometres of new bike paths linking different parts of the city. The Montreal Olympics delivered 20 kilometres of new metro lines, growing the city's public transport system. The Barcelona Olympics delivered a significant rehabilitation of industrial areas and created beaches, leisure areas and a marina for the people. There's no reason why Brisbane couldn't aim even higher. That's why I'm co-hosting the Olympics for the People Summit on 28 February 2026. This summit is our opportunity to come together and work out what locals, not the property industry, want the Brisbane Olympics to be. They need it to be a legacy.

We need to work out and discuss how we fight for that, to build a shared vision for Brisbane. That's what it's going to take: the community coming together to push back against the wholesale handover of public assets and opportunities to private capital—against the venality of the property industry. We already have a lasting example of what an historic, community campaign can win for Brisbane: South Bank. One of the ongoing legacies of Expo 88 is the beloved South Bank precinct. The original plan was to sell that entire site to developers for wall-to-wall high-rise development, instead of creating public parkland. The only reason South Bank exists as it does today—a remarkable, free, accessible public parkland and recreation area right in the centre of the city—is that the community came together to fight back against private development. The community has done it once and we can do it again.

The legacy of Expo 88 is one of the most iconic locations in Brisbane. What will our legacy for the Olympic Games be? Join me on 28 February, and let's build that vision together.

Is the motion seconded?

I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.

The countdown to the Brisbane 2032 Olympic and Paralympic Games is well and truly underway. What we do between now and then will shape not only the success of the games themselves but the legacy we leave for generations of Queenslanders.

I'm proud to say that the Albanese government is meeting this moment with ambition, partnership and responsibility. We are delivering the largest contribution towards sporting infrastructure in Australian history. This once-in-a-generation investment is designed to ensure the Brisbane 2032 Games are world class, community focused and built to stand the test of time. Just like the Matildas, we're not going to stop 'til it's done.

Our capped $3.4 billion commitment to the Games Venue Infrastructure Program has now been formally agreed with the Queensland government. Under our agreement, the Commonwealth and Queensland governments will work together to deliver 17 new or upgraded venues plus the construction for a new stadium. These projects stretch from Cairns in the Far North, through regional Queensland, right down to the Gold Coast. This will be a truly statewide Games with statewide benefits.

Our joint funding will deliver the National Aquatic Centre, an expanded Queensland Tennis Centre, a new Toowoomba Equestrian Centre and a dedicated para sport centre in Chandler. We are supporting indoor sports centres in Logan and Moreton Bay, upgrades to the Sunshine Coast Stadium and major improvements to Barlow Park in Cairns. Thanks to our investment, procurement of these projects can now get under way, giving local industry certainty and creating jobs.

Of course, this builds on the work we've already done, including our investments in the Redland Whitewater Centre, the Brisbane International Shooting Centre and the world-class Anna Meares Velodrome. These aren't just Olympic venues. These are community assets—places where kids can learn to swim, where clubs can train, where families can gather and where future champions will take their first steps.

But let me be clear: while we're proud to make this investment, we are not handing over a blank cheque. Every dollar of Commonwealth funding must stack up. This is why we require robust project validation before final funding is confirmed. We're doing our due diligence to ensure that every project is delivered on time, on budget, in a way that represents genuine value to taxpayers. For the Brisbane Stadium in particular we have set strong conditions. The Queensland government and Brisbane City Council must develop a new precinct plan for the Victoria Park area that prioritises access to green space, supports local amenity and includes a comprehensive stakeholder engagement plan. They must also produce a transport connectivity plan to ensure the precinct is accessible, sustainable and efficient during the Games and beyond.

We know there are a range of views among Brisbane residents about the idea of a stadium in Victoria Park, and that's understandable. Victoria Park is a cherished open space with a long history. That is precisely why our funding conditions emphasise a genuine consultation with local residents, with First Nations communities and with all stakeholders who will be affected. The community must be heard and respected as these decisions are made.

In the past couple of months we have also signed a new intergovernmental agreement with the Crisafulli government, setting out how our two governments can work together to deliver the games. This agreement outlines the conditions under which Commonwealth funds can be used—including requirements to maintain stakeholder and community support—to deliver comprehensive engagement for the Victoria Park precinct and to ensure the Commonwealth representation on the Brisbane 2032 Olympics organising committee board. This is what responsible government looks like: partnering with the state, ensuring transparency and making sure that Australians get the greatest possible benefit from this historic opportunity. And, of course, our commitment to the games builds on the $12.4 billion the Albanese government is already investing in Queensland transport projects that will keep people moving during the games and for decades after. That includes $7.2 billion to upgrade the Bruce Highway, faster rail from Brisbane to the Gold Coast, and stage 1 of the Direct Sunshine Coast Rail Line project.

The Brisbane 2032 Olympic and Paralympic games will be a defining national moment, but, more importantly, the games will shape the Queensland that we pass on to the future generations. Together with the Queensland government, we are working to deliver the venues, the transport links and the community facilities that will serve our state long after these games have gone. When all levels of government work together, we can cross the finish line and deliver. This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity, and we are determined to get it right.

I rise in support of the motion brought on by the member for Ryan, and I thank the member for bringing this really important issue to the House. Brisbane and Australia have a huge opportunity ahead with the 2032 Olympic and Paralympic games. But with that opportunity comes a responsibility to plan well, to plan transparently and to plan with the people who will live with the outcomes and the infrastructure long after the closing ceremony.

We don't have to look far to understand what happens when Olympic planning goes wrong. Images of abandoned venues around the world are haunting reminders—vast structures, built at enormous expense, now rusting and empty. In Beijing the iconic birds nest dazzled during the games but has struggled ever since and is largely unused. Athens had little in the way of legacy planning, and many of its venues slipped almost immediately into disuse and disrepair. Even here, in Australia, Sydney's own Olympic Park offers lessons. Despite the excitement and the civic pride of the 2000 games, planning for post games was inadequate, and it was a heavily car-dependent destination from the outset. These shortcomings weren't inevitable but were the result of decisions made without deep community engagement or long-term vision. But there are positive examples too. London's planning for the 2012 games showed what's possible when you start early, listen carefully and think long term. Their games drove major regeneration; accelerated a city-wide transformation that was already underway; and engaged best-practice, environmentally sustainable development. Barcelona did the same for 1992, investing the majority of its funds not in sport but in lasting improvements to the city, successfully integrating a mega-event into long-term urban policy and planning. This led to a sustained economic and cultural benefit for the local community.

There are already concerning signs that Brisbane may be missing the opportunity not just to host a great games but to improve the city for decades. Brisbane's initial commitment to host the world's first climate positive Olympic Games has been quietly watered down already, with the phrase 'climate positive' removed from the contract and replaced with softer language. Experts and designers have warned that, without strong oversight, Brisbane risks falling into the same traps other host cities have faced—poor planning, design compromises and infrastructure that creates more problems than it solves.

There is a real opportunity here to invest in infrastructure that works for the games and continues serving local people well after 2032, both in Brisbane and around Australia. There's an opportunity to invest in sustainable mass transport, including zero-emissions buses and electric ferries; to create better walking and cycling links, especially for those first and last miles; to convert the athletes village into desperately needed social and affordable housing after the games; and, of course, to make sure small and medium local businesses benefit too.

This isn't just about Brisbane either. If we're serious about creating a lasting Olympic legacy, we need long-term planning across all our key sporting venues nationwide. The Sydney Academy of Sport and Recreation in Narrabeen in my electorate of Mackellar, as an example, offers immense potential to be a world class facility for team accommodation, training and competitions across a multitude of sports including athletics, swimming, rowing, basketball and even sailing. This enormous site on the outskirts of Sydney has huge potential but remains rundown and underutilised. If we get the planning right, the legacy lasts. If we don't, we risk repeating mistakes that other cities and our own city have already lived through.

That's why meaningful engagement is absolutely essential. The Queensland government must genuinely engage with Brisbane residents, with local community groups and with experts in planning, architecture, sustainability and transport. The Australian Institute of Architects has put forward a comprehensive set of recommendations for the government, highlighting risks and also offering solutions. One of their key suggestions is the creation of an Olympics design integrity panel. It's commonsense and the kind of expert oversight that we should welcome. I welcome the member for Ryan's motion, and I support her call for the Queensland government to engage openly, to listen to the experts, and genuinely involve Brisbane communities in the planning for 2032.

The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned, and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.

I 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 three 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) further 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.

On 3 November 2024 at Norwood International High School in my electorate of Sturt the Prime Minister made an announcement that reflects Labor's commitment to education, to the notion that education is a right and to the understanding that education lifts people out of poverty, gives them opportunities and allows them to contribute to our community and to provide for their families. It allows them access to the employment market, to good, secure and meaningful jobs. A good education is good for working families, working families that Labor will always strive to protect.

That announcement was that Labor would slash 20 per cent from student debt, HELP and VET if returned to government at the 2025 election. Young people, who are typically the biggest cohort of those with HELP and VET debts, heard that promise. Following the election and before the opening of the 48th parliament, the Prime Minister, ably supported by the Minister for Education, said wiping 20 per cent of student debt would be the first piece of legislation passed, and it was. The government said to those Australians with qualifying HELP and VET debts, 'You will see that debt reduction before the end of 2025.' That is now happening. That is what delivery looks like. That is what good policy looks like. That is what action on cost-of-living relief for Australians looks like.

In my electorate of Sturt alone, 26,353 Australians will have 20 per cent of their student debt wiped. This is important for those people because the average student debt is around $27,000, meaning that the average debt reduction is roughly $5,500 per year for around 3 million Australians to the tune of $16 billion. We promised this, and we are delivering this.

We've also raised the minimum income amount before people have to start making repayments on their remaining debt from $54,435 to $67,000 but as a percentage of a wage above the minimum repayment threshold, which reduces each outlay each year. Under this government, some things go up, like the minimum repayment threshold, and some things go down, like student debt—all designed so more money stays in the pockets of Australians. This is real, tangible, cost-of-living relief.

This government also recognises not only that the end of the course or the end of degree debt requires servicing but that life also must be lived and costs met during the course or degree. Before we took office, too many students were dropping out because they couldn't afford unpaid placements, which in some cases run for weeks. We need more teachers, nurses, midwives and social workers, and we need to ensure that they can still pay the bills whilst they study these critical and much-needed professions. Paid prac for eligible teaching students, nursing students, midwifery students and social work students offers around $330 per week and is currently supporting 68,000 higher education students, including VET students, whilst they complete their studies. We know that almost every Australian will interact with a nurse, midwife or teacher over their life, and we know that social workers are critical to the wellbeing of all people in Australia. We are giving people who have signed up to do some of the most important jobs in this country the extra help that they need to get the qualifications.

Then, when you add the fee for university-ready places or for bridging or enabling courses that help people prepare for university—acting as a bridge between school or work and higher education—you start to understand the scale of this government's commitment to education. In 2026, the investment in fee-free university-ready places will hit $173 million, with almost 25,000 people projected to take advantage of the scheme, which is critical, given that it is estimated by the Australian Universities Accord that, by 2050, 80 per cent of the workforce will need a tertiary qualification.

Phones are pinging around the country as I speak, notifying students that their HELP or VET debts have shrunk by 20 per cent. That is the sound of a government that values education, wants all Australians to have access to a quality education and has cost-of-living relief at the centre of its policy agenda.

Is the motion seconded?

I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.

Australians are paying too much for their tertiary education. The recent changes to HECS by the Albanese government were welcome, but they were inadequate. We cannot condemn Australians to a lifetime of working off debt in the face of ongoing significant skills shortages. We need to be a clever country, and that has to include the foresight to support our citizens to gain the skills that our society needs.

In the 47th Parliament, I pushed hard on the cost of tertiary education. My petition signed by 290,000 Australians demonstrated the significance of this issue to so many students, graduates and concerned parents. We achieved a response from the government in the form of a change to the way that HELP indexation is calculated and a reduction in existing student debt of 20 per cent, backdated to 1 June 2025. Now, many constituents have told me that it was the first time that they have felt heard by the government in a way that had a meaningful and positive effect on their lives, but how we index HECS is still unfair. The cost of degrees is still far too high. We are not supporting enough young people in their practical placements—the most important time in their studies, when they get the hands-on experience which is vital for competence and quality in the care specialities in particular.

We have to put a stop to back-to-front priorities, where we tax education but we subsidise pollution. For the last three years Australia has collected three times more revenue from student loan repayments than it has from the petroleum resource rent tax. At the same time, we've subsidised polluting industries to the tune of over $30 billion. At the same time, cost-of-living pressures are leaving many students in poverty. One in seven full-time students has to work full time to support themselves. That is too much of a burden for many, and it's no surprise that non-completion rates are rising. At the same time, arts students are still being forced to pay $55,000 for their degrees. Many of them will never earn enough to pay this off, because of their low salaries and the ongoing indexation of their debt. They are effectively incurring a debt for life.

This is not the policy of a clever country. A clever country is not one where 40 per cent of year 12 students say that the cost of HECS is putting them off university. Almost half of Australians surveyed by YouGov recently believed that a worker on an average income should be able to pay off the debt for a standard three-year degree within five years; 58 per cent believed that a student should pay $5,000 or less per year, which is less than a third of what arts students are now paying; and just under one in five Australians believed that a standard degree should be free—listen to Gough Whitlam.

But this government has resiled on its position. When in opposition, it said it said it would reverse the Job-ready Graduates scheme. The Universities Accord said that continuation of current arrangements risks causing 'long-term, entrenched damage' to the Australian higher education system and that if we do not institute change then the higher education system will 'rapidly become unfit for purpose'.

That change has not been instituted by the Albanese government. This government's one-off decision to wipe 20 per cent off student debt will make a meaningful difference for graduates who are yet to pay off their debt, but it does nothing to address the problem with the level of fees in the first place. In particular, this policy offers no benefit to new students. Universities should not be sources of revenue. They should be centres where we invest in people, in skills, in nation building and in the pursuit of knowledge. This government is overseeing ongoing damage to our education system, the hollowing out of arts faculties, the loss of language schools, the defunding of science and education, and the progressive underfunding of medical research. I call on the Albanese government to act—with purpose, with courage and with generosity—to fix our broken tertiary education system and to fix it now.

Over the next few weeks, millions of Australians will have their student debt cut by 20 per cent. That's 20,336 individuals in the electorate of Lalor—more than 20,000 people in my electorate—who will receive a text or an email from the tax department to tell them their debt has been reduced. This is a big deal for young people—a big deal. The average student debt is around $27,000, and this will cut that debt by about $5½ thousand. It'll benefit around three million Australians. It will wipe around $16 billion off student debt. And the individuals involved won't have to do a thing.

Now, I know there are many young people—as I said, 20,000 young people in my electorate—who have questions about this. So let me go through how this is going to work. The tax office will process everything at their end and the cut will be backdated to June 2025. The individuals involved don't need to take any action—no claim to be made. You'll get a text message or an email from the ATO letting you know that 20 per cent has gone from your student debt—because this government promised it, and this government is delivering it.

Don't forget that at the 2025 federal election the coalition attacked this policy. They called it profoundly unfair. They said Australians would see no benefit from the policy. Well, there are 20,000 people in my electorate who are about to see a benefit. The Australian people, particularly young Australians, disagreed with the coalition's sentiment and backed this in.

We've also made student repayments fairer by raising the minimum amount before people have to start making repayments. It was $54,435. It's now gone up to $67,000. So we've lifted that payment threshold. This replaces the previous repayment system with a new marginal repayment system. The previous system was based on your entire income. Once you earned above the minimum repayment threshold of $54,435, you paid a percentage of your entire wage as a repayment. Now you pay only a percentage of your wage above the minimum repayment threshold. For example, right now, if you earn $70,000, you pay $1,750 a year. Under these changes, you'll pay only around $450 a year. This means you'll pay $1,300 less. For someone earning 70,000 a year, it will cut the amount they have to repay every year by $1,300. This is real cost-of-living relief at a time when we know Australians are doing it tough, at a time when we know that the people who have these student debts are struggling to make ends meet. This will make a real difference.

We've also made sure that we've fixed the future indexation issue that young people were talking to us about before the last election. We fixed that to ensure that student debt never grows faster than wages in the future. And that's not all we've done in the higher education space or for students. Before we took to office, too many students were dropping out because they couldn't afford unpaid placements, and we've fixed that. We've introduced new financial support for our future teachers, for nurses, for midwives and for social workers so they can get paid while on prac for the first time ever. It is practical support for those students while they're doing their practical training. The payment helps provide financial support to help students finish their degree, and it offers $330 per week for eligible students to support them while they do that training.

We've also introduced FEE-FREE Uni Ready places. These are really important for a country that aspires, for a country that is looking to increase the number of a number of people who have a tertiary qualification or have a VET qualification. These are really important. The FEE-FREE Uni Ready courses, sometimes called bridging or enabling courses, are short courses which help prepare people for university, acting as a bridge between school or work and higher ed to support people making those decisions to pursue higher education. In an electorate like mine, this is so important—so important for young people who may have left school early but want to re-engage at 20, 21, 22. This bridging can help them re-engage and head into university to pursue higher education.

I commend the member for putting forward this motion today and I commend our government for supporting students and the cost of living of young people in my electorate.

I rise to speak on this motion because I believe that students deserve a higher education system that's fair, affordable and genuinely accessible. Young Australians are not fools. They know when a policy is genuinely designed to help them and when a policy is designed to help a government's polling and win an election. Unfortunately, the policy this government stands here seeking praise for today falls firmly into that second category. The government's policy on student debt disproportionately benefits those with the biggest debts, regardless of their long-term earning capacity. This means that a lawyer or a doctor who graduated last year receives more relief than a social worker. Higher income postgraduates and those from more advantaged backgrounds can gain the most, while borrowers who worked hard and finally paid off their debt before the end of the financial year receive nothing at all. If you made significant repayments throughout the year, your relative benefit shrinks. That's not fairness. That is an untargeted, inequitable, reverse Robin Hood approach that economists across the board have called out. Economist Ashley Craig described this as 'an exceptionally bad policy which favours the rich, doesn't help with current cost of living and does nothing to encourage higher ed.'

Our HECS system is a national asset. It has enabled millions of Australians, including me, to gain qualifications and skills that are essential to our economy. Its integrity must be safeguarded. But what the government congratulates itself on today is not its safeguarding; it's sandbagging. With this motion, the Prime Minister wants a pat on the back for his temporary solution to a problem that he himself created. And let's be honest about why this measure was even needed. Turbocharged by Labor's poor economic management, indexation would never have grown so high if it weren't for their out-of-control spending, which drove up inflation. This $20 billion debt write-off isn't just money that just disappears. It becomes a cost carried by every Australian to benefit just a fraction. It becomes another line on the national credit card charged to future generations who had no say.

I spoke up when I was first elected to this place and I said that, as a representative of my generation, I feel obliged to speak about where we're at in terms of our national finances and the problems that this government has contributed to in terms of the generational debt that they are leaving. This is exactly an example of that—subsidising all degrees with no consideration of our skill shortages. That's not smart economics; that's desperate politics. And that's exactly what this measure was about, so let's call it out.

In this motion the government claims to be taking action on intergenerational fairness. Can those opposite explain how government spending, which is growing four times faster than the economy while national debt grows by $50,000 every 60 seconds—just on interest—is intergenerational fairness? How can this government even speak of intergenerational fairness while passing this exorbitant bill onto Australians who are not even old enough to vote yet?

Meanwhile, the deeper structural issues remain untouched. Our universities have suffered a 70 per cent fall in global rankings. Graduate employability is declining. PISA results show a long-term deterioration in mathematics, reading and science since the 2000s. The gap between advantaged and disadvantaged students grows even wider, even as per student funding rises. Whilst the government subsidise higher education, supporting those most likely to move into higher earning careers, where is their action to strengthen the broader education system and ensure success opportunities for every Australian?

This package is not reform. Let's call it out for what it is: it's a temporary fix for the problems that this government has created and then failed to address. It's a bandaid on a wound that requires surgery.

Young Australians should not be punished for Labor's bad management. Labor's policies are shaped by what looks good on a press release: a cut here, a rebate there. The problem is not solved; it's merely shifted. You don't fix a leak by turning on another tap. Young Australians deserve better than gestures. They deserve genuine reform—reform grounded in fairness, discipline, productivity and responsibility. Labor's policy achieves none of these.

I rise to speak on this motion and to welcome the Albanese government's delivery on the commitments made to young Australians by cutting student debt by 20 per cent and making repayments fairer and simpler.

This matters deeply to Melbourne. My electorate has more than 36,000 people carrying HELP or VET student debt—the highest in Victoria. You see them every morning walking into RMIT and Melbourne Uni, weaving through Carlton, Fitzroy, Parkville and the CBD. You see them behind the espresso machines in Collingwood, doing night shifts at the hospitals, running tutor sessions in Abbotsford or bouncing between share houses in Prahran. For them, student debt has not been an abstract line on a tax statement. It's been a weight they carry every day. The people of Melbourne have been telling me the same story even before I was elected to parliament. Their debt grows faster than their pay. Indexation felt brutal and unfair. With Melbourne's rent rising faster than anywhere else in the country, they felt like they were running on a treadmill that never slowed down.

This government heard that and we acted. This 20 per cent cut is the largest reduction in student debt in Australia's history. For an average debt of $27,000, that's a reduction of more than $5,500. Around three million Australians will benefit, including tens of thousands in my community of Melbourne. People won't need to fill in a form or fight through government processes. The ATO will do it automatically. People will simply receive a text or email telling them their debt has been cut.

That is a relief you can feel in your chest. It is the difference between whether or not you still have something left over after paying rent. It is the difference between being able to save for a deposit or staying stuck. It's the difference between exhaustion and hope. And this government did not stop there. We raised the minimum repayment threshold to $67,000 and replaced the outdated whole income repayment system with a fair, modern marginal system. For someone in Melbourne earning $70,000, that is $1,300 back every year—real money, real relief. These reforms reflect a simple truth: opportunity should not come with a lifetime of punishment.

They sit alongside broader investments that matter to Melbourne's young people and mature aged students alike. We introduced the Commonwealth prac payment, giving financial support to future teachers, nurses, midwives and social workers—people who keep our great city running; people who staff our hospitals, our schools and our community services. We expanded FEE-FREE Uni Ready courses so that more people can transition into university, including those who never imagined they would take that path. We doubled the number of university study hubs, bringing tertiary education closer to where people live.

Melbourne is a city built on brains, creativity and ambition. We are home to some of the country's best universities, but we are also home to thousands of people who feel locked out by rising rent, rising costs and rising expectations. This government is bringing those barriers down. I meet students in Richmond who work two jobs and feel like they are going backwards and young workers in North Melbourne who feel crushed between rent, groceries and student repayments. I meet parents in Parkville and South Yarra who tell me their talented kids are working hard but can't see a path to owning a home because the HECS debts keep dragging them behind—like an anchor. These reforms cut that anchor loose.

The opposition called the policy profoundly unfair. They said Australians will see no benefit. Australians saw a benefit, and they elected a government that promised to deliver. And deliver it we have. Education is not meant to trap people; it's meant to launch them. Debt should never be the thing that decides whether someone can dream of a future in a city they love. Melbourne is an electorate where people chase opportunity with everything they've got. Our job is to make sure the system does not punish them for doing so. Today, I am proud to stand here and say we promised it, we delivered it, and we are just getting started. I commend the motion to the House.

It's been interesting listening to the contributions from many of the members present in the chamber—as though students are some sort of distant concept to be observed on the way to the train station. As a student myself, I think it's always fascinating being immersed in university life and how important it is that people continue their education throughout the whole of their life. I know you too, Deputy Speaker, consider your ongoing education to be a very important part of your responsibilities as a member of parliament. We all need to continue to grow and meet the challenges of the 21st century.

Education is at the heart of the great Liberal project of this country. Universal education was one of the proudest achievements of the Liberal project, and it is something that we continue to fight for. But it's important to get it in perspective. We need to make sure that, when people pursue education, they take responsibility for themselves. They enjoy benefits from that education—not only private benefits, but public benefits as well.

In the lead-up to the last election, there were a number of occasions when I talked to residents about the Labor government's policy of wiping off student debt. I remember I was at North Brighton train station, and a lovely young fellow came up to me and asked me what my policy position was in the context of what had been put forward by the Labor Party. I said that, as somebody who's paid off all of their tertiary education debt and is representing an electorate of many people who have paid off all of their tertiary education debt, it seemed challenging to turn around to future generations—as well as to those who've done it previously—and say simply that people should pay off other debt when they've already paid off their own debt. In my case, I'd already paid off my debt, and I was now being asked to pay off somebody else's. He hadn't quite considered that, and he accepted that what was being put forward by Labor was a challenge.

I remember standing at a polling booth, and a mum said to me, 'Well, you know, I haven't got anything particular I'm voting on, but Labor's promising this, so I might as well vote for it because it'll help my kids'. And I said: 'Yes, but there's one little problem. Labor created the problem you're trying to solve. Because they can't control their spending addiction, inflation continues to be a problem. They've created a problem. Their solution then is to take that debt—it doesn't disappear—and to chuck it onto the taxpayer. As a consequence, not only are future generations going to pay for it but, in fact, your son or your daughter is still going to have to pay off that debt for their education. They're just going to give them a temporary reprieve. So, in the end, the whole of society is going to pick up the consequences of buying Labor a pathway through this election, because they can't control their spending addiction.'

This is the problem. While Labor members come into this chamber and boast about their incredible achievement because they somehow managed to take private debt and put it onto the taxpayer, what they're not doing is addressing the root cause of the problem that they created in the first place. The problem of spiralling increases in HECS debts was caused by inflation. Inflation was being driven by the federal and state governments borrowing from the future to spend today, which meant there was too much money chasing too few goods and services. That stoked inflation. That debt spending meant inflation was higher, which meant interest rates were higher, which meant the Australian people were paying more in interest rates. And, of course, it meant that they were having to pay higher repayments on their HECS debts. Labor created the problem. They haven't actually solved it. They've just pushed it further into the future.

So I can't celebrate this incredible achievement of the Labor Party, because it is the boast of a thief to claim that they have solved any problem. In fact, it is the reverse. It is the greatest example of spin over substance—the perpetuation of debt and an unresolved issue of inflation which continues to persist. We hear this regularly from the Treasurer, where he talks about how he thinks he's slayed the inflationary dragon, yet it persists. Inflation is not going down. Interest rates are not going down. And they're stoking it further so that at the next election they can promise that they're somehow going to be able to cut further HECS debts—because they are continuing to drive them up.

We need to be honest. When a Labor government actively stokes increases in HECS debts, as it's doing right now and as it did before the last election, and then comes along and moves that private debt onto the taxpayer, it's not just hurting young Australians today; it's hurting them into the future. The idea that we should celebrate that is one of the most despicable things that I have ever seen a Labor government seek to do.

You've heard from us a few times why Labor believes reducing student debt is important, but today I want to step back and I want to let the voices of the people in Bass tell you what it really means to them, because nobody explains this better than those who are living it.

In our community, more than 10,000 people will benefit from this change—not just uni graduates but those who have studied through VET courses and TAFE too. Some of these people have been generous enough to share their thoughts with me, and I want to thank them for allowing me to share their words with you here. Maddison, a doctor, has put it simply:

It's wild to end up with such a huge debt when I'm dedicating my career to help others.

I have to pay a $1,000 registration fee each year on top of my HECS—

her repayments—

I won't own a house any time soon, so a 20% reduction would be grand.

I look forward to telling Maddison about our five per cent home deposit scheme. Tiffany-Rose has spoken to me about the emotional weight:

It won't wipe my balance completely, but it motivates me to keep working towards paying it off.

The reduced repayments will ease some financial stress and make it easier to stay on top of cost of living costs without feeling like my debt is controlling my budget.

Montana told me that this relief is real:

A 20% reduction isn't just a number, it's a real acknowledgement of the financial challenges that university students and graduates face every day. It shows that the government truly cares about education and is taking meaningful action to make it more sustainable for the future.

Many students work incredibly hard to balance university studies and part-time jobs, often under too much pressure.

Between bills, rent and loan repayments it can be overwhelming, and this reduction recognises just how tough that balance can be for many people.

Lucy reflected on the long-term burden:

This incentive shows the great burden student debts can be—not only immediately but also the long term effects.

When you're spending years paying off student debt, it can delay the ability to buy a home and other life decisions.

Laura, an incredible teacher that I had the privilege of working with previously, said:

This reduction gives me more breathing room to cover my mortgage and costs.

It's hard to make ends meet during study, let alone after.

This reduction will help with cash flow and stability.

And that's what this change is really about; it's about giving people that breathing space and some hope, and it's also recognising the pressures that they're carrying every day. We know it won't fix everything. Deirdre told me:

Raising the repayment threshold means more to me on a practical level than actually wiping the 20 per cent off.

That's money that I have to then go towards essentials and bills.

I guess it's just one less thing that is constantly squeezing in at me.

Elias put it very bluntly:

It makes me want to look at the debt with something other than dread.

This is just one of our steps, and it's certainly not the last. We're backing it up with real, practical support like the Commonwealth Prac Payment, so future teachers, nurses, social workers and midwives can finally get paid while on placement. We've also expanded the FEE-FREE Uni Ready courses, opening the door to people who never would have thought that university was for them. We're doubling the number of university study hubs, bringing higher education closer to home, especially in the regions.

This isn't just about helping people pay off debt; it's about helping more people start study, finish it and thrive beyond that. Most importantly, it's about listening, because the people who know what's needed are the ones who are living it. As Michael from Bass said:

It makes me feel like I'm one step closer to avoiding a lifetime of debt.

We will keep taking steps—practical, meaningful steps—guided by those who will be impacted by the decisions that we make here.

I'd like to thank the member for Sturt for bringing this motion forward, but I will say that this motion once again shines a spotlight on the government's remarkable ability to generate headlines rather than deliver real structural change for the Australians who need it most.

This motion praises the 20 per cent HECS-HELP debt reduction, a measure I fully supported. Any immediate relief for students is welcome. In my first term, I called for reduction of the HECS indexation from 7.1 per cent to 3.2 per cent, and I'm glad the government did it. As we heard, the member for Kooyong led a petition on this issue as well.

However, we must ask: what is the government's long-term plan? What we have before us today is not a solution. It is a sugar hit, a political pat on the back that masks a fundamentally broken system. The government is currently excelling at two things: brilliant marketing and clickbait announcements. We see them everywhere: cheaper medicine, help to buy, free TAFE courses and, of course, the ever-present line about reducing HECS debt. These slogans are slick. They are memorable, and they make for fantastic ad campaigns. But, for communities like mine in Fowler and across Western Sydney, the reality on the ground could not be more different.

Take the issue of student debt. A 20 per cent reduction after years of runaway indexation and skyrocketing fees is simply not good enough. It is a temporary patch on a systematic problem that continues to punish low socioeconomic students, migrant households and working families. In my electorate, young people are not just focused on their degrees; they are focused on survival. They are juggling work, study and debt, often working late-night graveyard shifts just to keep their heads above water. They are exhausted, stressed and doing everything right, yet still falling behind.

The government's recent announcements are a perfect example of this shallow approach. We are seeing the rebranding of a promised university campus into a so-called study hub. Renaming a project does nothing to address the real barriers facing young people in Fowler: the crushing financial pressure and the mounting HECS debt. The Albanese government's reckless spending is keeping interest rates high and driving up the cost of living. And, for those who manage to finish their studies, the government's mass immigration program is making it harder and harder for young Australians to secure jobs at the end of their degrees. These young Australians do not need hollow slogans. They need access and affordability. They need the genuine opportunity to be part of the new workforce without beginning their careers trapped in decades of debt.

This motion, and the policy is celebrates, is fleeting. It delivers a talking point, not meaningful change. It offers relief today but guarantees that debts will balloon again next year. We must ask: Who exactly is this policy helping, and who is being ignored? What did this policy do for those students who worked multiple jobs and scrimped and saved to pay off their student debt? Absolutely nothing. What did this policy do for those young people that didn't go to university? Absolutely nothing.

The policy is a narrow political exercise. It fails to address educational inequality at its roots. There is no structural reform to stop debts from ballooning again next year. There is no guarantee of meaningful ongoing financial support for those already at the bottom. What communities in south-west and Western Sydney need is not another round of cheap marketing slogans dressed up as policy. We need a government willing to put forward transformative long-term reform. We need real commitment to expanding fully funded scholarships for low-income students so that a disadvantaged postcode is never a barrier to aspiration. We need to break the cycle of perpetual debt that traps young people for decades. We need policies that genuinely make an impact on the lives and livelihoods of those who need it most. That's why I called on the government to support my bill to reverse the unfair job-ready graduates program or at least reform it.

We must make it more affordable and accessible for those in my community wanting to study arts degrees, be it in history, politics or media—courses which the previous government made prohibitively expensive for many young people to study. I genuinely look forward to seeing a government that is brave enough to make a real difference to the lives of Australians, instead of just making a slick announcement, and we know HECS debt will continue to grow. That's the reality. The government must offer credible, genuine, honest solutions, not just more marketing slogans.

The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned, and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.

I 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.

Air travel is part and parcel of life in regional Australia. My home town of Mildura is the most remote regional centre in Victoria. It is more than six hours drive from Melbourne and almost 4½ hours drive from Adelaide. Sunraysia's geographical isolation means that there are many instances where road travel takes far too long, is just not appropriate and, can I say, dangerous. Air travel is essential not least to access health care and to visit family and friends but also as a connector and driver for our regional businesses and economies.

Under this Labor government, two regional airlines, Bonza and Regional Express, have collapsed, leaving the domestic aviation sector more concentrated than ever. Nationally, just two airline groups, Qantas and Virgin, now represent 98.3 per cent of the market, according to the latest data. This duopoly strangles competition, drives up fares and abandons regional routes to the whims of big city boardrooms. Not only this; also under Labor's watch, major airlines have ruthlessly centralised activities, withdrawing staff, service provision and investment from the regions.

Qantas is closing bases and maintenance facilities in Mildura, Tamworth, Hobart and Canberra. In Mildura, Qantas confirmed on 1 October 2025 that it would shut its longstanding pilot and cabin crew base, forcing dozens of loyal local workers, many with decades of service, to relocate to Melbourne, Sydney or Brisbane or lose their jobs. This is not progress. It is the deliberate hollowing out of regional Australia. As I said directly to Qantas Link, this decision is a profound insult to the Sunraysia community that has supported Qantas for generations. The government has committed up to $160 million to prop up Rex in administration, yet it remains utterly unable to guarantee ongoing regional services, affordability for passengers or even whether regional creditors, including airports like Mildura, will ever be paid. Instead, we have a Commonwealth grant program, where creditors might hope to be paid.

Under Labor, programs designed to support regional airlines with capital upgrades and security screening have been withdrawn without any explanation. And let us not forget how this Labor government has botched the transition of air services for Australia's island territories, including the handover from Virgin Australia to Qantas for Christmas and Cocos (Keeling) Islands, which commenced only on 3 November 2025 after Virgin services ended on 31 October. This chaotic switchover risked stranding remote communities, disrupted essential freight and passenger links and has had financial implications for small island businesses who have contacted me. One stakeholder told me recently about events on Monday 17 November:

… weather stopped Qantas departing, but then all the passengers were effectively left without accommodation. They used to get sent to the ABF accommodation on the island, but this time.. nothing. … sadly- large groups of people, who just experienced a world event of the crab spawning, nature's greatest migration, will only talk about Christmas Island and being delayed, no food at the airport (as Commonwealth won't sign a lease with a supplier) with no accommodation, transport and pouring rain. One of the tour operators ferried people to a restaurant and another purchased food for 30 people! … and the next morning provided a tea and coffee urn.

Labor's mismanagement of the flight arrangements to these remote islands yet again highlights this government's inability to manage critical aviation lifelines for our most isolated Australians. The ACCC has repeatedly warned of the dangers of our concentrated airline market—sky-high fares on regional routes, frequent cancellations and reduced reliability. The human cost is devastating: Mildura's patients missing critical medical appointments in Melbourne, businesses struggling to attract staff and families separated by unaffordable flights. These services are not a luxury. They are essential. (Time expired)

Is the motion seconded?

The motion is seconded, and I reserve my right to speak.

Moruya Airport is the only passenger airport in my electorate of Gilmore on the New South Wales South Coast in the Eurobodalla. It is of course in the southern part of the Gilmore electorate—a very long, long drive to either Sydney or Canberra. Importantly, it provides a vital link for local people to access medical treatment and education opportunities in the city and to stay connected with family and friends. It also helps our many local food producers get their products to national and international markets. My friends, colleagues and community fly from Moruya to Canberra, Sydney and other regional areas in New South Wales.

I know how important regional air services are for local people, businesses and communities like mine, which is why I'm thrilled that the Albanese Labor government stepped up to support Rex Airlines through a voluntary administration process. We've been working with the administrators of Rex to ensure crucial regional aviation services can remain in the air. We are committed to maintaining access to aviation services for regional and remote communities and recognise the critical role Rex plays in supporting local economies. The Albanese Labor government continues to back regional aviation just like we back regional telecommunications, because we know our great country towns and villages deserve quality services and connectivity just like our cities.

This government has also stepped up to support regional airport upgrades, because we know they matter. We're investing almost $12 million to upgrade regional airports across New South Wales, including at Moruya. This funding, under round 4 of the Regional Airports Program, is delivering essential upgrades, such as runway resurfacing, fencing, lighting and drainage, which will improve safety, enhance accessibility and boost capacity at our regional airports. Work is underway to reseal the runway, taxiways and apron pavement and replace the apron lighting at Moruya Airport. This work ensures the continued safe operation of the airport, safeguarding its role as a lifeline for the community and a gateway for access to vital services and for visitors to the South Coast. Works will also support the continued use of the airport by emergency services including the Royal Flying Doctor Service and aerial firefighting, even for night and low-visibility operations, as well as by regular passenger services.

I am absolutely delighted to see improvements at Moruya Airport, which is a lifeline for our economy. Our investment is helping to create more jobs, helping local farmers and supporting our social and economic connections across Australia. It is great news for our region. Upgrades like these aren't just improvements; they're the difference between regional residents getting medical help, firefighters getting access during an emergency and economies growing through tourism.

The Albanese government represents more regional electorates than any other party, so we know the challenges they face when it comes to connectivity. That's why we have welcomed the recent announcement that the majority of creditors have voted in support of Air T's bid to acquire Rex. Air T's bid was endorsed by the government and includes a support package comprising a new loan of up to $60 million and a restructuring of existing Australian government debt. I am delighted that Air T has agreed to a range of commitments, including returning more aircraft to service and increasing the frequency of profitable flights across the Rex network.

To safeguard this public investment, the government will retain its security over all Rex's aircraft and its simulator. This will ensure Rex's Saab fleet cannot be sold without the government's permission and will continue to service communities across regional and remote Australia. To further support local communities, we've established a new program, capped at $5 million, for local government and regional and remote airports that supported Rex through the voluntary administration process.

I thank the member for Mallee for bringing forward this very important motion. I just want to take the member for Gilmore up on a little point she made about Labor representing more regional electorates. I think, if you look at the actual landmass, the actual geographical size of the electorates that the coalition—the Liberal and National parties—represent would far exceed what the Labor Party represents.

You have to be honest in politics. I will give a speech now that you would never hear from those opposite. Since my time in parliament—15 years—there have been two people who I know have really understood aviation. It's a complicated sector. It's a detailed industry that requires people who not only get it but love it. The two people foremost in that regard are Warren Truss, the previous member for Wide Bay, and Anthony Albanese, the current prime minister. They actually fully understand aviation and the complexities of making sure that aviation is well supported in this place. I worked closely with the Prime Minister when I was the transport minister, and I thank him for the role he played, with me, to ensure that we had an aviation sector that was viable, because that industry operates on very thin margins.

We saw what happens when those thin margins turn into disaster. It happened with Rex. They tried to take on the capital city to capital city routes. It was never going to work for a regional airline that was internationally acclaimed for servicing country people. They say in their logo, 'Our heart is in the country,' and it should have remained thus. But they tried to take on the big boys on particularly the Melbourne to Sydney route, and it was never going to work—never, ever going to work. Good luck to them for trying, but it then required the bailout, and I do thank the government—the Labor government—for ensuring that that bailout occurred. I had any number of conversations with the Prime Minister and the transport minister, the member for Ballarat, in relation to this. There is more work to be done. Yes, Air T have come on board—we respect that process—and it was a big sigh of relief.

I am very concerned that the Australian Airline Pilot Academy on Don Kendell Drive, as you drive into Wagga Wagga Airport, has gone to Ballarat. That academy is training pilots for the future. But they should be trained at Wagga Wagga where they've got the simulator, where they've got the accommodation, where they've got the facility and where they also have, just across the way, the hangar for maintaining the Saab aircraft for Rex, the Saab 340s. That hangar alone puts $12 million into the Wagga Wagga economy. It is perfectly set up and—a parochial call—it needs to be back at Wagga Wagga, not in Ballarat. Also, Wagga Wagga City Council is $210,000 in the red—up the gurgler—because of the Rex situation.

The government needs to work through with the new owner what is happening to the creditors. That is a big concern, and it is a big concern not just for Wagga Wagga. We just heard the member for Mallee talking about her home town of Mildura.

It is vital that we have country air services. Many, many people have said to me, 'Oh, but why should the government prop up a regional airline?' Well, why shouldn't they? These people are all city types—you know the ones—who think that it's okay for a free bus to go to and from accommodation and the SCG or the MCG or wherever they might be happening to play a big sporting event but don't think twice about country people.

I have to say this became a matter of life and death. Without the air services, without Rex flying in, those in one-airline towns of Parkes and Narrandera and Ceduna in South Australia couldn't meet their medical appointments in a capital city. They couldn't get the doctors and the health professionals and the vaccines and the nurses out to the regional and remote areas. The government understood that, and they acted and they did so responsibly. I say that as a member who understands how important aviation is not just to the regional economy but to regional people and their health concerns.

But there is more work to be done. The government needs to be on the front foot with this. I commend them for what they've done so far, but there is, as I say, more work to be done through this process. The new airline is going to require some assistance—some help, some expertise and some support—and I'm sure that the Prime Minister will provide that. He understands the situation—I thank him for it—but there's still a lot more work to be done before we see blue skies ahead.

It was an extraordinary admission there by the previous speaker that, yes, the Labor Party now represents more regional seats in this parliament than the National Party. If we're going to start counting regional seats based upon land mass, then I'd suggest he go back and read the Constitution, because, for as long as we've had a federal parliament, it's been the number of people that live in a seat that determines the size of the electorate and how many seats we have. That is what has changed in this parliament. We didn't say 'the number of rural seats'. We didn't say 'land mass'. We said the Labor Party now represents more regional seats in this parliament than the National Party, from Leichhardt in the north and Lingiari across, in fact, most of the Northern Territory to Franklin in the south. Bendigo, Ballarat—you name it. We have lots of regional seats now in the Labor Party, and it is because of that that we have continued to support regional aviation.

I'd like to put on record the investment into my own electorate, the electorate of Bendigo. The Albanese Labor government, representing more regional electorates, understands how critical our regional airlines are to connecting people. The distance between Cairns and Brisbane is the distance between Brisbane and Melbourne. That is the geographical distance that the member for Leichhardt has to ensure is covered, like we have in other regions. Even in Victoria, where distance is smaller, we still make sure there are investments in our regional airlines.

In Bendigo, prior to the election in 2013, the runway in our electorate was so run down that there was fear that it could not be used during critical emergencies like bushfire season or in medical emergencies. I do acknowledge that, after a long campaign locally with the local government, we were able to secure funding from the previous Liberal-National government to upgrade the runway. That did allow and encourage Qantas to start opening up flights from Sydney to Bendigo. It was a game changer for our town. Not only did people not have to battle the traffic to Melbourne or parking at Melbourne Airport; it opened up business opportunity—the ability for people to travel from Bendigo to Sydney and Sydney to the world, a popular flight route being Bendigo-Sydney, Sydney-Queensland, and the opportunity for people who are in those jobs to live in Bendigo and commute for weekly work—but equally encouraged business to come to Bendigo. Further to this investment we secured to upgrade the airport, we've increased investment through the Labor state and federal government. There's $4.5 million from our government to upgrade the new terminal. The terminal expansion is open and is receiving more passengers daily to the airport. Now, through this upgrade and Qantas's investment, we are able to receive larger planes. It is four times larger than the previous building, making for a more comfortable check-in and a more comfortable arrival.

What was also invested from our government through round 4 of the Regional Airports Program was safety upgrades to allow the planes to park overnight, allowing Qantas more flexibility for flights. We've also funded in round 4 of this same fund, the Regional Airports Program, upgrades to the Kyneton Airport—$413,500 towards extending and resealing the runway to ensure that not only recreational aircraft are able to use the space but it becomes a critical staging space during those bushfire emergencies. I have to acknowledge the work of the club secretary, Sophie, and her dedication towards this fund.

Labor is committee to the regions. We're committed to investing in the airports as needed and to ensuring that people in the regions have the same access to aviation travel as the rest of the country.

I rise today to speak on a critical matter of importance to every Australian who lives or works outside our capital cities. We are witnessing a slow collapse of our regional airline industry that has unfolded under the watch of Labor. The facts are stark. Under this government, two regional airlines have collapsed. First we saw the demise of Bonza, a low-cost carrier that promised to connect our regions but instead left passengers stranded and Boeing 737s repossessed. Now we've watched the slow and painful administration of Rex, an airline that has been the lifeline for bush communities for decades, including Ceduna, Coober Pedy, Port Lincoln and previously Whyalla and Port Augusta.

Although the government is celebrating Air T's acquisition of Rex, the details of the deal paint a concerning picture. The primary beneficiaries of Rex's decline seem to be the administrators, with EY collecting $25 million in fees, while the airline itself faces a heavy financial burden. The new arrangements carry forward $90 million of debt and adds $60 million as a commercial loan, and they're supplemented by $50 million from Air T themselves. This raises a critical question: how will Air T, a company with recent adjusted earnings of only US$7.4 million, finance such a commitment? When paired with their promise to expand an ageing fleet of 30 aircraft to 44, the viability of the plan is uncertain.

What happens in the future when the new owners realise, as others have, that serving our remote communities is difficult? The government has pumped over $160 million of taxpayer money into keeping Rex afloat during this administration, yet they cannot guarantee that the current network will survive. We have heard vague assurances about critical aviation links, but regional Australians know that 'critical' is corporate code for 'profitable'. We face a future where Air T could focus on select high-yield routes, leaving smaller towns even more isolated. Look at the cost being borne by our local communities right now. Rex owns several regional airports managed by local councils. The City of Albany is owed $456,000. The Shire of Esperance is owed $440,000. Under this deal it is doubtful those funds will ever be repaid. The Labor government is effectively asking ratepayers in regional towns to forgive bad debt because the Commonwealth failed to manage the aviation framework correctly.

The collapse of Bonza and the administration of Rex have left us with a sector that is more concentrated than ever. The Qantas Group and Virgin Australia now hold a combined 98.3 per cent of the market. This duopoly is suffocating competition. What is Labor's response to this concentration and soaring costs? A review. The Treasurer has asked the Productivity Commission to investigate why regional Australians are suffering high airfares. This is laughable. They don't need 18 months and a series of public hearings to tell us why airfares are high. I will tell you: prices are high because competition has been decimated by rising costs under this government. The minister's aviation white paper found that the average ticket price per kilometre was 52c higher for regional flights than capital city routes. In Grey, in regional South Australia and in the outback we know this. We live this. Yet this government's solution is to wait for a report that won't arrive for a year and a half. By the time that report lands, how many more routes will have vanished? How many more airports will close?

I'd like to know why an airport like Whyalla, which only receives one flight some days, needs eight staff for security screening? I'm sure the people of Whyalla would happily come to the airport 20 minutes earlier if they halved the cost of security from 60 bucks to 30 bucks. Even better, share the cost of security across every airfare in Australia. We are staring down the barrel of a future where regional travel is becoming a luxury for the wealthy, not a service for regional communities.

The government has botched the transition of air services. They have withdrawn programs that support regional airlines with capital upgrades and security screening costs. They have sat on their hands while fees and charges rise, hurting the ability of smaller carriers to compete with the big players. We need a government that understands that aviation is not just about Qantas and Virgin fighting for the city routes. We need one that understands that this is also about the staff at Anna Creek Station, Indigenous communities on the APY Lands and the students in Port Lincoln.

Regional Australia deserves better than a government that just manages decline while airlines fall from the sky.

The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.

Sitting suspended from 13:31 to 16:00

I rise today to recognise an outstanding initiative by Regional Development Australia Central West, the TEN4TEN Leadership Dialogue. This program connects 10 year 11 students with 10 community leaders, fostering mentorship and opportunities across the Central West of New South Wales. This year's students were Rose Kelly, Abby Foster, Nina Cuddy, Bianca Wong, Harmony Winterflood, Amelia Hatton, Sofia Howard, Lauren Day, Tully Schwarz and Milo Mages. I had the privilege of mentoring Milo, a remarkable year 11 student from Kinross Wolaroi School in Orange.

Milo joined me out on the road to the Mudgee Small Farm Field Days, where he proved himself to be an expert and able photographer and media adviser. Milo's achievements speak volumes. During Local Government Week, his debating team won the Mayor's Cup, and Milo himself was awarded the Kerry Parkes Memorial Trophy for best speaker. Looking ahead, Milo is continuing his leadership journey, serving as Gordon House prefect in 2026 at Kinross Wolaroi School.

Programs like TEN4TEN are absolutely vital. They open doors, build confidence and strengthen the ties between young people and their communities. I commend Regional Development Australia Central West for championing this initiative and investing in the next generation of leaders, just like Milo. Well done, Milo, and congratulations to all of this year's students.

I present a petition with 12,144 signatures organised by the Australasian Dark Sky Alliance. The petition is calling for legislation to limit light pollution, specifically artificial light at night. Light pollution has a number of negative consequences, which include ecological impacts on plants and animals, harming biodiversity; human health, especially sleep disruption; energy waste; and a reduction in the visibility of stars and planets, impacting astronomy. At present, there is a lack of comprehensive legislation to address light pollution and its impacts. I note that addressing light pollution does not mean forgoing useful lighting but rather going about it in a smarter way, which might include targeted lighting, choosing an appropriate intensity of lighting or eliminating unnecessary lighting.

I'm advised that the petition has been considered by the Standing Committee on Petitions and found to be in order. This petition is timely as the International Union for Conservation of Nature's World Conservation Congress recently carried a motion on this very matter. I commend the Australasian Dark Sky Alliance for their efforts in raising a matter which I suspect many people are not aware of, and I draw the matter to the attention of the minister and to the attention of the House.

The petition read as follows

Light pollution caused by excessive Artificial Light at Night (ALAN) has harmful effects on human health, is harmful and disruptive to vulnerable species of flora and fauna, and has negative impacts on the economy, including placing unnecessary loads on electrical infrastructure, which leads to increases in greenhouse gas emissions and climate change. Reducing ALAN not only helps to reduce the harmful effects listed above, but can also lead to benefits, such as making streets safer by reducing glare and light trespass, and increasing Astrotourism.

We therefore ask the House to interduce legislation to limit light pollution and ALAN, including public and private exterior illumination, ensuring that lighting is only used when and where is it necessary, and is limited to levels which are safe and fit for purpose. Countries such as France, Germany and Croatia have already successfully introduced such legislation which limits light pollution and ALAN.

from 12,144 citizens

Petition received.

I rise today to honour the life and legacy of Dr Lucie Shanahan. Lucie was a widely respected Indi healthcare executive, academic and public health leader, whose contribution to the wellbeing of communities across Albury-Wodonga and our wider region was both substantial and enduring. Across her distinguished career at Albury Wodonga Health, Dr Shanahan held several senior positions, including Executive Director of Public Health, Mental Health and Wellbeing and as Chief Allied Health Officer. In every role she brought integrity, clarity of purpose and a deep commitment to equitable access to high-quality care.

I had the great privilege of working with Dr Shanahan around the huge challenges we face locally to address eating disorders. I saw firsthand her leadership during the COVID-19 pandemic, where, at a time of profound uncertainty, she provided measured judgements, strategic foresight and genuine compassion. Dr Shanahan wrote her doctoral thesis on adolescence and brain injury, reflecting her lifelong concern for vulnerable adolescents and their families. Her legacy endures in the public health strategies she shaped, the mental health services she strengthened and the allied health leadership she championed. To her partner, Mark; her mother, Ann; her brothers Matt and Tim; and all who mourn her passing, I offer my sincere and heartfelt condolences. Vale, Dr Lucy Shanahan.

For too long, residents in Kensington Banks and along the lower Maribyrnong River have lived with the stress and uncertainty caused by increasingly severe flooding and the absence of a clear long-term plan for mitigation. Since entering this parliament I've made it my priority to bring my community's voice into this chamber, because locals in Kensington and Ascot Vale deserve action, not excuses, on flood preparedness and public safety. That uncertainty has also affected the value and insurability of homes, leaving Kensington Banks residents carrying the burden of not knowing whether their properties would remain protected or financially secure into the future. That's why I'm pleased to report that, following a strong and sustained advocacy from me and my community, the Albanese Labor government has committed more than $700,000 to progress the lower Maribyrnong flood mitigation study, with matched contributions from the Victorian government and local councils.

This is more than a technical exercise. It's the foundation of a transparent, evidence based plan to protect lives, homes and neighbourhoods. This study will assess infrastructure and non-infrastructure solutions, setting out the potential long-term protections we may need as severe weather events become more frequent. This progress is also a testament to the persistence of the Kensington community, who have long called for accountability and focus. I've ensured their voices have been heard throughout this process. There is still a long way to go, but the message to my community is clear. Your voice is being heard, and this government is acting. I will continue to work closely with the residents, agencies and all levels of government to ensure that this next phase achieves meaningful results. (Time expired)

One of our local community organisations, the Australian Chin Lien Chinese Association, based in Canley Vale, recently marked an important milestone, electing the first-ever female president in Jennifer Tran. The association has been a pillar in our community for over three decades. It began its journey in 1992, operating from a small rented house on Gilmore Street in Cabramatta before the official temple was built in 1994.

Jennifer's involvement with the association spans back to 1992, the very beginning of its operations. Her deep commitment was recognised when she was initially elected as president in March this year. I'd also like to acknowledge previous presidents Mr Henh Phong Duong, Mr Dong An Dang, Mr Wak Kau Chan and Mr Son Ha Long, as well as various vice-presidents who have built this community.

The association's contribution goes well beyond cultural preservation. Chin Lien has repeatedly stepped up in times of need, raising funds for communities facing hardship, supporting disaster relief efforts and helping to strengthen local resilience. Here in Fowler, the association generously provides crucial support to organisations such as Fairfield SES, enabling young volunteers to receive essential training and equipment. I congratulate Jennifer, the executive committee and all members of the Chin Lien association for their ongoing service, their commitment to community harmony and their generous work in bringing people together. I thank them for their contribution to the fabric of Fowler.

I rise today to speak about an issue that has deeply affected many people across Collingwood and Fitzroy: the future of cohealth's general practice service. The decision to close the Collingwood and Fitzroy clinics has caused real anxiety for the people who rely on those essential health services. These clinics are more than buildings. They are trusted places of care for thousands of patients, particularly some of the most vulnerable community members.

That is why the Albanese government moved quickly and decisively. We asked the cohealth board to pause its closure plans, recognising the significant disruption this would have caused for patients and staff. I am pleased to confirm that our government will provide up to $1.5 million in funding to ensure cohealth's GP services remain open until 31 July 2026. This support gives certainty to clients and allows cohealth to continue delivering essential care while a long-term plan is developed.

This funding ensures continuity of care while we work towards a sustainable long-term solution. To support that process the Australian and Victorian governments will commission an independent review of cohealth's general practice model, governance and finance, providing clarity and a strong foundation for the future. Our government is committed to ensuring every Australian can access high-quality, affordable primary care. The funding announcement honours that commitment and means that families— (Time expired)

I'd like to congratulate Emma Webber from Grafton High School, who has been named Australia's most outstanding regional educator at the National Excellence in Teaching Awards. Emma is an inspiring special education teacher. She believes that students should not be disadvantaged because of their location or their special needs. She dedicates her work to giving the same opportunities to regional children in our local community as those for children in the city. Emma is described as a hardworking and caring teacher that is making a real difference across the Clarence Valley. Congratulations, Emma, for everything you do in our community. I know your husband, Ben, and children Maya and Flynn are very proud of you.

I'd like to congratulate Glenn Faulkner, who is retiring after an incredible 45 years with Australia Post, 29 of them at Alstonville post office. He's a valued member of the community. All his children attended Alstonville Public School and Alstonville High School. He has enjoyed playing and coaching local footy, has been a dedicated volunteer and loves riding his pushbike. Many locals refer to him as down to earth, a legend and a friend. He has always been so helpful in his job. Congratulations on your retirement, Glenn. I hope you enjoy spending more time with your wife, Jan; your children, Jason, Alison and Brent, and their partners; and your five grandchildren, Emily, Lydia, Flynn, Rory and Arlo.

I rise today to recognise Narelle Clay, the outstanding CEO of Southern Youth and Family Services, an organisation that has had a transformative impact on the lives of many people in my electorate and across southern New South Wales. Narelle has spent her entire career supporting vulnerable people in our community, and she's incredibly passionate about social justice. Narelle was awarded a Member of the Order of Australia in 2005 for 'distinguished service to the community in the areas of direct service delivery and advocacy for vulnerable people'. In 2017 she received a premier's award for public service. Narelle has held many leadership roles, including President of the Australian Services Union, New South Wales and ACT; and chair of Homelessness Australia.

Last week I had the pleasure of joining Narelle and several of my parliamentary colleagues, including the Minister for Social Services, at the Southern Youth and Family Services awards night in Warilla, which is in my electorate of Whitlam. In particular, the organisation's accommodation service in Warilla provides transitional housing to people aged between 18 and 23, supporting their move to independence and improving their chances of completing education, accessing training and gaining employment. We heard wonderful accounts of how this service—one of many offered by Southern Youth and Family Services—has changed lives.

I thank and congratulate Narelle, an extraordinary leader who I've admired for many years, and all those involved with Southern Youth and Family Services for the life-changing work they do for our community.

Planning for the next era of public transport on the Gold Coast must start with a simple principle: seamless connection and interconnectivity. We need stronger links to the rest of South-East Queensland. A practical, high-impact step is extending the heavy rail from Varsity Lakes through West Burleigh, Elanora and Tugun right down to Coolangatta. This is a sensible nation-building project. It would deliver a direct rail link to Gold Coast Airport, one of Australia's fastest growing gateways, while easing pressure on our roads, opening access to jobs and tourism and strengthening the livability of the southern Gold Coast. Right now, congestion is stealing time from families and productivity from local businesses. Tradies trying to reach worksites, parents on school runs, visitors heading to our beaches—all are caught in the same daily gridlock.

Another priority I've been advocating for, along with local councillor Dan Doran, is a fix for exit 82 on the M1 in Robina, the source of the bottleneck that ripples across Robina Town Centre with its notorious double roundabouts. This single choke point costs thousands of hours every year, and commerce grinds to a halt.

I've already communicated these priorities to the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, and I hope that this Labor government will come to the table on funding the initial steps, such as business cases, for these projects. The southern Gold Coast deserves investment. Let's get on with it and get it built.

If you've wondered about the power of music and music therapy to heal, you would have had no doubts after hearing veterans playing at Guitars for Vets' end-of-year performance at Windsor RSL. Guitars for Vets is delivered by Noro, who received federal funding through the Department of Veterans' Affairs to run workshops, and some of the groups are now being funded through their local RSLs. Participants and their families tell me that the program has saved their lives.

The weekly meeting is a highlight for many—a session where you play and sing with people you may not have known before but are now bonded to. The eclectic music choices, from 'Am I Ever Gonna See Your Face Again' to 'Sweet Caroline', tell me there are some big discussions had about music genre.

Australia's cultural policy, Revive, recognises that taking part in the arts strengthens social cohesion, connectedness and wellbeing. It helps break down social stigma and offers a means of creative expression. In both clinical and non-clinical settings, Revive backs the role of the arts in improving health outcomes, including in mental health. What's more, we saw the musicians from the Windsor, Penrith, Castle Hill and St Marys groups create joy, and we know that, for musicians, the act of playing can ground, soothe and remind us that we are not alone.

I rise to recognise that November is Movember. This is a month when Australians across the country grow a mo, move more or start conversations to change the face of men's health. Movember began here in Australia and has grown into a global movement funding programs in prostate cancer, testicular cancer, mental health and suicide prevention. Hundreds of projects are supported worldwide. To date, they've raised around $1.8 billion in their 23 years. Behind the moustaches are serious issues. Too many men still die too young from preventable cancers, and too many families know the pain of losing a father, a brother or a mate to suicide. A big 'thankyou' to all the blokes out there growing mos and raising funds. I encourage everyone to chip in and support them.

I recently had the privilege of attending a number of school awards and presentation evenings across my electorate at the northern end of the Gold Coast. These events showcase the hard work of students, the dedication of teachers and staff and the support of parents and carers right across our communities. I want to recognise Chelsea Cox from Pimpama State Secondary College, Charlotte Tattersall from Pacific Pines State High School, Maya Nunn from Pacific Pines State High School, James Nguyen from Coombabah State High School, Eva Pager from St Joseph's College Coomera and Preston Williams from A.B. Paterson College. I presented all these students with the Cameron Caldwell MP Leadership Award. This is well deserved recognition for their great year.

The closure of St Patrick's Child Care Centre in Latrobe on the 24 December would have created a significant gap in early learning services for families in the Braddon electorate that I represent. Surrounding centres are already operating at capacity, and this planned closure placed immediate pressure on parents who rely on quality care to stay in the workforce. I was pleased to announce last week that the Albanese Labor government has stepped in to support local families. Lady Gowrie Tasmania successfully secured $334,000 in federal funding to redevelop a temporary early learning space on Gilbert Street in Latrobe. This interim solution will ensure continuity of care for children and peace of mind for parents until the permanent Cotton Street centre is completed between July and September next year. As one parent told me, 'Without this support, I didn't know how I'd keep working. Knowing there's a safe, quality place for my child means everything to our family.'

This is a great outcome for our community. It demonstrates our commitment to making early childhood education accessible and to supporting working families in Braddon. I also want to thank the Latrobe Council, the state government and Lady Gowrie Tasmania for supporting the federal government to deliver this much needed service in Latrobe when it looked like there was going to be no other opportunity. Everyone has worked really hard together, and I want to thank all of them.

There are many ways that you can make your way in this world, but you wouldn't get very far without those who build our communities brick by brick. That's why I've chosen to support a vocational student of the year in the close-to 50 secondary schools in my electorate of Parkes, which covers 51 per cent of New South Wales. I had my own start in life as an apprentice boilermaker, and I know just how important it is to have confident and competent tradespeople in our communities. Plumbers, builders, mechanics, electricians, hairdressers, chefs—where would we be without these people who provide safe places to live and work, safe vehicles to drive high quality, high-quality and nutritious foods, and a huge range of other things that we often take for granted? I want to support the young people who will go on to support us in so many different ways. We are close to the end of the school year, and there've been a number of students across my electorate who have already been awarded and presented with the Member for Parkes Vocational Student of the Year Award. I was honoured to present one recently to Zachary Finlay, a Dubbo College student who is already making his way in the automotive industry. I'm excited to be able to present this award to many other talented students who are entering a trade in the new year. To Zachary and the students across the Parkes electorate who will receive the member of Parkes Vocational Student of the Year Award, I wish you all the best and congratulate your schools and the communities who support you on your journey.

I want to thank Minister Rae for visiting my electorate in September to meet with community members and discuss the rollout of the new Aged Care Act, which commenced on 1 November 2025. We know, thanks to the royal commission into aged care, that the previous system was failing older Australians. We took that seriously. That is why this new act places the rights and dignities of older people at its centre, with stronger new penalties for providers who fail to uphold them. And we are backing that up with $4.3 billion for support at home programs, supporting 300,000 additional participants over the next decade.

As Australians age, we know that we will need to the workforce to support them. That is why Labor is delivering four pay rises for 400,000 aged-care workers, with some now up to $28,000 a year better off. I want to close by acknowledging two compassionate advocates from my electorate, Elizabeth Barton from the Aged Care Justice and Hannah Spanswick from ANMF. Every time I meet them, I learn more about the system and its challenges. Thank you, Elizabeth, and thank you, Hannah.

This is a section of the Mallacoota-Genoa Road. I picked it up on the weekend, and I brought it with me here to parliament this week, because I wanted to prove a point. Our roads in Victoria are falling apart, and the state Labor Party is doing nothing about it. Now notice the white line on this bit of road. It's important to acknowledge that, because that means that the side of the road has fallen off. You now have a small cliff. If people towing boats, towing caravans, drop a wheel over the side, they are in peril of losing their lives. This crumbling road has no shoulders. It's dangerous and is putting the lives of locals and visitors at risk.

Worse than that is that more than four years ago, in May 2021, I secured $10 million from the previous federal government, as part of the Black Spots Program, to upgrade this road—the only access road between Mallacoota and Genoa—and we are still waiting, more than four years later, for the Victorian government to spend a single dollar on the actual road. How can it be possible that it takes more than four years to spend the $10 million provided by the Commonwealth to upgrade the highest priority project in the Mallacoota-Genoa area? It's incompetence on a grand scale. Lives are being put at risk. The road is falling apart. I plead with Victorian government: just fix the bloody road.

Today I want to talk about two very important community groups in my local electorate, both from the multicultural community. They're absolutely stellar and they have one thing in common: they are both celebrating anniversaries this year. The first is FC Old Bridge, a great football club. On 26 October we celebrated their 30th anniversary. Their president, Amer Sadikovic, is a wonderful bastion of our community and a pillar of our community. He, along with the Balkan community, puts on a big show every time we go out there. The club was founded in July 1995 by a group of athletes and football enthusiasts. They've got about 150 senior players and a strong junior program, but, fundamentally, the club is a focal point of our local community.

The second organisation I want to talk about today is the Chinese Ethnic Broadcasting Association of Queensland. Just this Saturday gone, we celebrated their 45th anniversary at a dinner. Their president is Elsa Shuay. The organisation started up in 1980 and began broadcasting in Chinese on 4EB, the very same year. 4EB is the only full-time local ethnic broadcaster based in Brisbane. It brings language to so many parts of our community and is important to social inclusion and the way in which we communicate.

This government is obsessed with ideology over results and self-promotion over the needs of Australian people, and nowhere is this more apparent than in Labor's failing energy policy. Net zero at any cost is hurting families, hurting industry and hurting our nation's sovereignty. And for what? So that our illustrious minister for climate change and energy can cling to relevance by securing a COP31 'president of negotiations' title. While that might provide him with a personal ego boost, it doesn't provide a boost to our economy or the average Aussie's household budget. Household electricity bills are up a whopping 39 per cent, making power prices the single biggest contributor to inflation. If your bill is up 39 per cent, then you know that the businesses who manufacture, distribute and sell every product on our supermarket shelves are also forced to pay the increase in energy costs to consumers. Australia has already been cutting its emissions at roughly twice the pace of the OECD while producing just one per cent of the globe's total emissions. Why are everyday Australians expected to carry more of the global burden than they create? We have to focus on what is right for our country, our economy and our people, and that's affordable, reliable energy. There is a cheaper, better and fairer way forward, and the coalition are committed to delivering it.

South-west Sydney is growing rapidly. Every day, new houses are going up and farm land, once so prevalent, is disappearing. The rapid population growth brings real opportunities but also raises challenges. Foremost among those is the demand for infrastructure, not least as it relates to roads and transport. In the lead-up to the election this year, I was delighted to announce a billion dollar upgrade of Fifteenth Avenue, one of the worst bottlenecks in my electorate. The commitment of a billion dollars is a joint initiative by both the New South Wales and federal Labor governments. The project will upgrade Fifteenth Avenue but requires careful planning and staging, including extensive community consultation. I've met with the project team, and the plans are well advanced. I'm delighted to say that they are currently open for community feedback and will remain so until 14 December. This is a great opportunity for those members of my electorate to look at what's proposed and give feedback. I have some leaflets in my office. If you would like to come to my office we can give you something, or you can go on the website, but please make sure you have your say. The upgrade of Fifteenth Avenue can't come soon enough, and, for so many in Austral and surrounding suburbs, this will be a game changer. Please make sure that you give your feedback.

I want to speak to a couple of issues that are of importance to my region. Firstly, Kim Sutton is a wonderful advocate for aged care in our community. What drives her is that she doesn't want anyone to go through what her father went through in his last days—he passed in excruciating pain at a local aged-care facility. I've spoken about John many times. He was a firefighter, he was 86 years old, and I want him to be remembered for the great life he lived. Kim is fighting for his legacy. It's a promise I made to Kim that I would never politicise this issue, and I'm so pleased to say I'm grateful to Minister Sam Rae for agreeing to meet with Kim. I think it's excellent to see a minister reaching out and trying to do the right thing, regardless of where someone comes from, and I congratulate him on that.

Momentum Mental Health is a wonderful provider of mental health services in our community. They've been doing so for decades now. They are the absolute leaders in mental health in the Toowoomba region. Recently, we saw a change in funding mechanisms provided by the local PHN, which means that Momentum are facing that really difficult decision of who they can keep on and what services they can continue to provide to our community. Again, I want to thank Minister McBride for agreeing to meet with Momentum Mental Health, hear out their story and, hopefully, find a way to keep them providing the services that my community absolutely need. There's a time and a place for us working together, and I'm so happy that both these ministers are meeting their obligations. Thank you.

I want to take the opportunity to celebrate one of the good news stories in Australian democracy and thank the people that made it happen. The McKinnon Institute for Political Leadership was established to support Australian political leaders, state and federal, to become more capable, effective and legitimate policymakers while also cultivating a sense of stewardship in our democratic institutions. It was established with the extraordinary vision of Grant Rule, Sophie Oh and Sam Mellett from the Susan McKinnon Foundation, with the objective of building a world-class, structured professional development program for Australian political leaders. It has been an extraordinary success. MKI has delivered over 30 programs, including its flagship Advanced Political Leadership course, leadership coaching, political mentoring and international study. These programs aren't just world class; they are world leading. Of the 91 McKinnon scholars who have participated in programs to date, 24 are currently ministers and 32 are shadow ministers.

There are a lot of people who have made significant contributions to the success of this institution, but I want to pay special tribute today to Rod Glover. Rod has variously been the CEO, academic director and professor of political leadership at McKinnon Institute. He recently announced his resignation after six years at MKI. Rod's policy expertise, professional dedication, personal generosity and earnest belief in both best practice policymaking and the practice of democracy have left a lasting impression on all members who have participated in MKI programs. Rod is usually the kind of person who works in the background of politics and government, outside of the public eye, but I want to take the opportunity to thank him here publicly today. In working with the team at MKI to build this institution into what it is today, he's made a significant long-term contribution to the quality of the democracy that we all share.

I rise today to celebrate a genuine local hero in Dean Mullins, who, a few months ago, marked an extraordinary milestone: some 20 years of service on the road as a volunteer ambo with St John Ambulance. This is no small feat, because every single day our first responders confront the most demanding of circumstances, never knowing what the next phone call from comms will send their way.

Putting his community first has been Dean's unwavering commitment for over 20 years now. That's why, earlier this year, Dean was named this year's Harvey citizen of the year. This accolade, awarded just three years after moving to Harvey, is testament to the impact he's had on our community already. So, Dean, congratulations on this remarkable achievement. Thank you for your two decades of selfless service, and I must also recognise the sacrifices your family have made along the way.

I also rise today to recognise the power of voices in regional Australia. A few weeks ago, this government opened public consultation on its proposal to lower the open-road default speed limit to 70 kays an hour, citing the poor condition of regional roads. Today I'm pleased to announce that the voices of regional Australia have finally been heard here in Canberra. After receiving some 11,000 submissions, the government have quietly backflipped on their attack on regional Australia. Well done, Mr Albanese. Now all that's left is for you to fix our roads.

I never thought I'd come into the parliament and talk about semen, but here we are, and I'm thrilled to rise to the occasion because, while it's a topic that gets a few giggles, it's actually one that we need to take far more seriously, preferably before things go flaccid on us as a nation.

Right now, one in six couples needs help to start a family. Even though male factors are involved about half of the time, blokes have somehow managed to dodge this for decades—but not anymore, because in Newcastle we have an absolutely world-class team turning this whole field around. And, yes, they really are the masters of the reproductive arts. I'm talking about Leanne Murray, Geoff De lulliis, Rich Kahl, Eddie O'Reilly, Neredah Goodwin and Dr John Schjenken—researchers who are genuinely leading the world in understanding sperm health, environmental impacts and what actually makes a healthy baby. They are tackling everything from heat stress, PFAS, diet, stress and all the things that can shrink a bloke's—chances! Their work means earlier advice, better IVF outcomes and fewer couples going through the heartbreak of not being able to get pregnant.

Here's the big message. Male reproductive health isn't a joke, but, if a few cheeky lines from us helps get young blokes paying attention, then I'm more than happy to have them keep coming. To the team at Newcastle: keep up the hard work and make sure our swimmers get to that goal. Cheers.

While I can say I've never played netball, I know how much it's loved across the country and in the Flynn electorate. Today I'm proud to announce my support for netball's inclusion in the 2032 Olympic Games.

Here are some reasons why netball deserves to be included in the Olympics. Netball is truly a global sport. It's enjoyed by over 20 million players across 117 countries. Netball is growing rapidly with new international broadcast deals that will bring the game to over a billion households worldwide before 2032. Netball is Australia's most popular female team sport, making it the perfect choice for inclusion as the host nation. Public demand is deafening, and packed stadiums are guaranteed. Netball meets all inclusion criteria, including the IOC recognised governance, international standards of competition and Olympic values like teamwork, athleticism and inclusivity.

I'm confident that netball will be included in the 2032 Olympics and I will be advocating that the events be held in Central Queensland. We have terrific facilities in our region. With some investment, I know that they all can be brought up to scratch. Whether you're a netballer in Gladstone or Gracemere, Emerald or Eidsvold, Biloela or Bundaberg, we can all get behind this cause. Together we can all make history, and it's time to back netball.

I rise to recognise the fantastic teams at SDN Riverwood and Milperra. SDN have been providing child care and early childhood education services in Riverwood since the 1940s. Both centres consistently rate as exceeding the national quality standards and are fantastic examples for best practice in the sector. I had the pleasure of visiting Milperra just a few weeks ago with Minister Jess Walsh and Riverwood just last week, where I was greeted by the smiles of quite a number of babies and toddlers. Thank you to the staff at SDN for the fantastic work that you do and for setting the standard for others in our communities to follow.

Secondly, I want to pay tribute to Barbara Bailey, who passed away recently at the age of 82. A Revesby resident since she was 10 years old, a devoted wife to Vietnam veteran Robert and a proud mother and grandmother, Barbara was a community connector. She remembered every single birthday and anniversary and had a gift for making others feel seen and valued. She was a quiet powerhouse of warmth, always lending her listening ear and supporting others. Her legacy is one of love, one of humility and deep devotion to her family and the community she was such a valued part of. Thank you so much, Barbara, for everything that you have done for our community.

We had a rather remarkable issue this morning with the Repeal Net Zero Bill 2025 in the main chamber. The member for Indi, Dr Helen Haines, came in—I just want to congratulate her for actually turning up to the bill—and had some remarkable statements which I want to take her to task on. She said that, if we repeal the net zero bill, it will threaten thousands of jobs. Where are these thousands of jobs? Where about? What town? If you can just nominate where these jobs are, I'd like to hear it. She said there's an opportunity to make Australia's path to net zero deliver substantial, tangible, lasting benefits to regional and rural communities—while dividing them down the middle by putting in transmission lines, swindle factories, solar panels, wind towers. And I thought about it. I thought: 'Isn't VNI West in Victoria? Does Dr Helen Haines, the member for Indi, support VNI West? I wonder if Andrew Wiedemann and all these people know this.' They've got such a great supporter, and it's up to the people of Victoria to understand they actually have a champion for VNI West, a champion for the swindle factories, a champion for the Chinese state-owned enterprises that are involved in the capacity investment scheme, the domestic billionaires, the foreign multinationals, the division of the communities. Their champion, ladies and gentlemen, is the member for Indi, Dr Helen Haines. So go out, give her a bell and say: 'Thank you, Doctor. Thank you very much.'

I rise to pay tribute to two remarkable musicians. James Baker was a true pioneer of the Aussie rock and punk scene. To quote the Rockpit:

With a CV that reads like a who's who of Australian rock'n'roll greatness—in addition to the Victims, Hoodoo Gurus and Beasts of Bourbon, James co-founded the Scientists, the Dubrovniks, the Painkillers and more—James was also a genuine tastemaker and style influencer.

James Baker was a local Bassendean legend and a long-time supporter of his good friend and state member Dave Kelly. His passing has been felt heavily by Bassendean Labor. My condolences to Cath Rogers, his wife, and his daughters, Lorna and Faye. Vale, James Baker.

I also acknowledge the passing of Guy Ghouse AM. Guy was a musician, a teacher, a mentor, a leader and a beloved figure within our school community and the broader music community. To Gina Williams and his wider family: on behalf of us all, I offer my heartfelt sympathy. Your grief is shared by all who heard his guitar, who felt his passion and who saw his commitment and his kindness. His legacy will carry on in every primary school as they sing the words of 'Wanjoo'. Let us remember the transformative power of art. These men expressed themselves in very different musical traditions, but they both brought people together. They challenged us, inspired us and left a mark that will not fade. Their art lives on.

I rise today to acknowledge one of Capricornia's true community treasures, the Sarina Tourist Art and Craft Centre. Housed within the original 1906 courthouse, the old jail and the historic Mount Pelion schoolhouse, this precinct is a living reminder of our region's heritage. The Sarina Tourist Art and Craft community provides a valuable connection to its past and shares traditions and knowledge with the next generation as well as with tourism visitors to the region. Visitors will find some beautiful hand-crafted arts and crafts created by artisans from across the Sarina community—pieces that are unique to the area and made with local passion. The centre also provides ample parking, including parking for vehicles with caravans. So, to all the caravan travellers, add this spot to your list of stops. You will absolutely love it!

I should mention, too, that the team is always looking for volunteers, so I would encourage anyone wanting to establish themselves in the Sarina art scene to consider getting involved. It's a way to make a real impact. I commend all the volunteers, including the two Jennys who I met with recently and who welcome visitors with warmth, knowledge and pride. Their work keeps Sarina's heritage alive and thriving.

I rise to acknowledge the outstanding service of the Aintree SES unit and its dedicated volunteers. After more than two years of leading the unit through its establishment in Melbourne's outer west, Micah Spedding has officially passed the torch to Alex Setterfield, who will now serve as the new unit controller. When Micah first took on this role, the unit was little more than a patch of land. Through his tireless effort, commitment and countless volunteer hours, it has grown into a thriving and fully operational service, proudly serving the people of Aintree and surrounding communities in times of emergency. In addition to responding during times of crisis, the Aintree SES has become a visible and trusted presence at many local community events, promoting storm preparedness, raising awareness of flood risks and ensuring families know how to stay safe when severe weather strikes.

I extend my sincere thanks to Micah for his exemplary leadership and to all SES volunteers who give so generously of their time to help others. I also congratulate Alex on his appointment and wish him every success as he leads the unit into its next chapter. Alex is an outstanding member of our local community. Together with his partner, Tanya, he has been determined to see the unit thrive and recruit more volunteers. I'm proud to commend the dedicated men and women of the Victorian State Emergency Service who keep our community safe.

Today I want to share a powerful message from a young 11-year-old in my electorate, Harper. Harper came to see me last Thursday at one of my listening posts and approached me out of real concern for young people in my community—young people on e-bikes. Harper strongly believes safety rules are urgently needed. Although they might look like bicycles, e-bikes can vary and reach high speeds very quickly. As Harper puts it, riding some of these bikes 'is like a death wish.' They can create a much higher risk of serious accidents, especially for younger and inexperienced riders.

Harper told me about a tragedy that struck very close to her. A close friend recently lost one of her friends in an e-bike crash. The rider was thrown from the bike at around 80 kilometres per hour and collided with a pole. They did not survive. Harper has been supporting her friend as she grieves, and she's seen how devastating these accidents can be for families and communities. She wrote to me that these incidents are not isolated and many riders don't fully appreciate how powerful e-bikes are or how easily they can lose control of them. Some don't follow traffic rules, putting others at risk. Harper is calling for clearer, stricter safety measures. If an 11-year-old in my electorate can see this, I ask the infrastructure minister and our state premiers to recognise it, too.

The Albanese Labor government is backing local manufacturing and jobs at Capral Aluminium in my electorate of Blair. We're extending our antidumping protections to support locally made aluminium products for another five years following an investigation by the Australian Anti-Dumping Commission. These measures help maintain the value of Australian-produced aluminium extrusions, which are used in the construction, automotive, aerospace and electronics industries. The reality is that a large volume of underpriced aluminium extrusion imports into Australia are undercutting local industry prices and undermining Australian jobs and investment through unfair trade practices. Under our protections, these products will be subject to import duties if they are priced below local market values, so local products can compete on a level playing field.

Capral is Australia's largest producer of aluminium extrusions as a major facility employing more than 400 workers in Ipswich in my electorate. So this decision will help preserve local manufacturing industry and jobs. I've visited Capral many times and I support local jobs in the local industry. Free trade and fairer trade mean stronger suburbs and stronger industrial regions and mean that manufacturers like Capral Aluminium can invest with confidence in jobs, which is good for our local economy. It's all part of our Future Made in Australia plan to protect local manufacturers and secure jobs.

I 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.

This motion goes to the reforms of the low-income superannuation tax offset, or LISTO that the Treasurer announced in October this year. 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 the LISTO increasing to 3.1 million. Only the Albanese Labor government will protect Australian superannuation, because of our commitment that Australians earn more, keep more of what they earn and retire with more. I'm really pleased to move the motion before the House today, recognising the significant impact this reform will have for people across Australia and in my electorate of Gorton.

Low-income workers are too often undervalued in our society—retail workers, hospitality workers, administrative assistants, cleaners, disability and aged-care workers, and farm workers. They put food on our table, care for our loved ones, and keep our workspaces, schools and community facilities clean. These are people who have worked their whole lives in service of our community, and it's not fair that this sometimes means they don't get to have financial stability in their retirement. Our government's reforms to the low-income tax offset will give low-income earners more security and stability in their retirement. The changes announced by the Treasurer last month increase the offset from $310 to $810, directly boosting low-income earners' retirement savings and allowing them greater financial security in their future. By raising the eligibility threshold from earning $37,000 per year to earning $45,000 per year, more individuals will also be able to access the offset—more than 2,000 people in my electorate of Gorton.

I've worked in takeaway food service. I've been underpaid. I've been treated poorly by customers, and my contribution has been undervalued. I know that working in retail and hospitality can be a hard slog. It takes a toll on your physical and mental health. You work long hours on your feet with few breaks. More often than not, your pay doesn't reflect your skills, your experience or the challenges of your work. It's not right that people working in these jobs are held back in their retirement. The low-income tax offset is a tangible step towards rectifying this injustice. The LISTO makes a contribution into a person's super, in addition to their employer's contribution, if they meet the requirements. Depending on their circumstances, the LISTO could see an extra $15,000 added to an individual's retirement savings. This amount will make a huge difference to these individuals' lives, giving them the security and peace of mind that their retirement is taken care of.

This reform isn't just about economic justice. It's also about gender equity. Sixty per cent of low-income workers are women, and workers in industries dominated by women are still paid less than in those dominated by men. For these reasons, women end up with much less super than their male counterparts. This reform will mean 1.3 million more Australians—around 55 per cent of whom will be women—will have a more secure retirement, reducing financial inequity between men and women and ensuring that women have financial security and autonomy in their retirement.

I want to talk about how these changes will affect those in my electorate of Gorton. At the most recent count, nearly 15 per cent of people in Gorton worked as clerical and administrative workers, over 10 per cent as community and personal service workers, and nine per cent as sales workers. These are people I see in my office on their one afternoon off a month. These are people who spend their weekends at community events, even though they often work long hours in demanding conditions. These occupations are some of the lowest paid in our workforce, but without them everything would grind to a halt. They deserve the dignity of savings for when they retire, just like any other worker.

Labor is the party of super. It was Prime Minister Keating who created the compulsory superannuation system, ensuring every Australian has savings when they retire, and it is clear from a decade under the coalition that only Labor will protect super. I'm really proud to be part of a government that is building on Keating's legacy, defending the dignity of low-income workers and working towards a more equitable system.

Is there a seconder for the motion?

I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.

I rise to speak on this motion, which claims that only the Labor government will protect Australian super. Well, if that's how Labor want to be judged, they should hang their heads in shame, because the facts are clear: Labor is not protecting your super.

On this government's watch, more than 12,000 Australians—many nearing retirement—are facing over a billion dollars in losses from their super following the collapse of First Guardian and Shield. This is the biggest failure in Australian history. It happened under Labor, and they've been asleep at the wheel since. That's not what protecting your superannuation looks like.

I've met some of these people. These aren't rich people. These aren't wealthy people. I've met a detective from Queensland. I've met members of the Save Our Super group like Melinda Kee; Peter Spencer-Franks, a bus driver; Brad Waterman; Denise Cocquyt, a teacher; and Mike Poland, who I met last week in Perth. They've lost everything. On a personal note to them: thank you for coming to see me to tell me your story. More so, thank you for stepping up despite what you're facing, despite you working all your life and now having no super because of a failure by government and a failure by ASIC, which I'll get to. You stand up, and you will be the face, and you will fight and advocate on behalf of those 12,000 other Australians. Thank you.

These are Australians who played by the rules. They trusted that the system would protect them, but it failed and they tell me they've been left with nothing. The government ignores them. Their letters go unanswered, or they're answered by bureaucratic nonsense. They just want the government to acknowledge that they exist—that's all—and to work with them. People caught up in these failures have been pushed to the brink, and there is a real human cost. Very, very sadly, one person has taken his own life over this.

I want to say this to those impacted. I will work with you. Please take one day at a time. Lean on your family and friends and the Save Our Super group for support. If you need help, please go and get it. There is nothing wrong with that. There will be brighter days ahead. I acknowledge what you've gone through. I'm listening and I'm working with the minister to try and find a solution.

I truly hope I can work with the government. I've mentioned that the minister, Minister Mulino, is working well with me. He's very engaging and—credit where credit is due—he's doing the best he possibly can under a very difficult set of circumstances. But let's be clear. This government have failed. First, in 2022 they commissioned a review by the Treasury into regulation of the managed investment schemes, the very structures used by First Guardian and Shield. Submissions to the review called for tighter regulation, stronger oversight and greater transparency. The response by this government—nothing. The review was buried, with no reforms and no action.

Second, they let ASIC fail and haven't held them to account. ASIC was warned about First Guardian back in 2019 but took years to take any serious action. Later they raised concerns about Shield with Macquarie but failed to tell the other platforms about it. That silence led to super losses that could have been avoided. ASIC is now taking action, which is good to see, but the horse has bolted. It's too late. Twelve thousand people have lost their superannuation. They're acting like the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff. And what has the Treasurer done? Absolutely nothing. He hasn't even bothered to update the statement of expectations for ASIC, a basic tool every government has used to set standards for the agency—and when I say 'he hasn't' I'm talking about the Treasurer, not about Minister Mulino.

Instead of protecting your super, Labor is focused on raiding it. We saw that in the paper today, with Premier Allen, who has bankrupted a state and now is talking about raiding your superannuation to keep it afloat. The motion claims Labor will protect Australian super, but their record tells a very different story. This government has overseen the biggest superannuation failure in history, left Australians exposed by allowing ASIC's enforcement shortcomings to go unchecked and looked for ways to raid your super themselves. Australians deserve better.

Every Australian worker deserves two simple things: to keep more of what they earn and to retire with dignity. But for too long low-income workers—those keeping our cafes running, caring for our elderly and cleaning our schools and hospitals—have been left behind. The Albanese Labor government is fixing that. The low-income superannuation tax offset, the LISTO, exists to make sure low-income earners don't pay more tax on their super contributions than they do on their wages. It's automatic, it's fair and it's essential. Under the Liberals, it was frozen for eight long years. Labor is changing that. From 1 July 2027, we will increase the LISTO from $310 to $810 and lift the income eligibility threshold from $37,000 to $45,000. This means low-income workers will finally receive a fair tax concession on their super. This change will benefit 1.3 million Australians, with an average boost of $410 to their super. That's around $15,000 extra at retirement. In Bonner alone, over 7½ thousand workers will keep an extra $415 a year. That's the barista in Belmont, the hairdresser in Hemmant and the cleaner in Carindale—real workers keeping more of their own money.

What did those opposite do when they had the chance to support workers in their retirement? The answer is nothing. The LISTO remained frozen for eight long years. Wages went backwards for five consecutive quarters. Under Labor, we now have the strongest annual real wages growth in five years and the longest period of real wages growth above 0.7 per cent in a decade. We've legislated to protect penalty rates because workers rely on them. Only Labor backs workers. The coalition never have.

Economic inequality is gender inequality. Women face higher health costs, carry more unpaid care and retire with less super. More than 750,000 additional Australians with income between $37,000 and $45,000 will now become eligible for LISTO, including more than 450,000 women. Almost 500,000 Australians with income below $37,000 who were already eligible will also receive a higher LISTO payment, including almost 300,000 women. The workers who stand to benefit from this change include over 100,000 sales assistants, over 50,000 admin workers and over 50,000 aged-care and disability carers, the majority of whom are women.

We know the facts. Women take more time out of the workforce to care for children and ageing parents. Women are more likely to work part time or casually. Women earn less across their lifetime. The result? Between the ages of 60 and 64, men have a median super balance of $205,000; women have $154,000—almost a quarter less. From the age of 60, 62 per cent of men have super, compared with just 52 per cent of women, and one in four women over 60 live below the poverty line. Almost 60 per cent of older female renters live in poverty. This is unacceptable. Labor will not allow another generation of women to retire poor. Because Labor unfroze and expanded the LISTO, women—especially those in aged care, early education and health—will keep more of what they earn.

This sits alongside expanding paid parental leave to 26 weeks, paying super on parental leave and passing payday super laws to stop employers from ripping off workers' retirement savings. Together, these reforms are life changing. Superannuation is a Labor idea and a Labor achievement. It was built so Australians could retire with security earned through work, not inherited through wealth. By reforming the LISTO, the Albanese Labor government is ensuring a fairer superannuation system for the many, not the privileged few. Australian workers deserve dignity in retirement, and this Labor government will always fight to deliver it.

In September this year, I was privileged to be invited to participate in a panel run by Super Members Council to discuss this LISTO, the Low Income Superannuation Tax Offset. It was an excellent event with a sterling line-up of talented women. Panellists included Georgia Brumby, the Deputy CEO of Super Members Council; Jo Kowalczyk, the CEO of Women in Super; and Georgie Dent, the CEO of the Parenthood. Collectively, these women have worked for years to make the everyday lives of Australian women better. The topic for discussion on the day was the subject of this very motion: the need to reform the Low Income Superannuation Tax Offset, or LISTO.

The LISTO was introduced in 2012 and provided a payment of $500 into super for people earning less than $37,000 a year. It was designed to ensure that low-income earners don't pay more tax on their super contributions than on their take-home pay. The problem was that it had not changed since 2012, when it was introduced. The income threshold of $37,000 was out of date, and the amount of the payment itself had been devalued as a result of not keeping up with inflation. With 63 per cent of people benefiting from LISTO being women, the panel and I that day were in firm agreement that it was in need of updating. So I was pleased when the Treasurer announced in October that the government had listened and would be increasing both the amount of the LISTO and the threshold for eligibility in line with what the experts and industry had been calling for.

I was equally pleased to see the way in which the government proposed to fund the changes to LISTO. The LISTO changes, it was announced, would be paid for by tweaking the government's proposal to reduce tax concessions on earnings in superannuation accounts with balances over $3 million. Tax reform is another topic entirely—one which, although needed, successive governments have shied away from. I welcomed the announcement during the last term that the government planned to reduce tax concessions on earnings of super balances above $3 million but held concerns about some of the finer details of that proposal.

The first area of concern was that the $3 million threshold for the change to the tax concession would not be indexed. The LISTO is a perfect example of a situation where tax policy that is not indexed will soon become unfit for purpose. Within 13 years of the introduction of the LISTO—and some would probably say sooner than that—the LISTO was not operating as it was intended, and the $37,000 threshold for eligibility for additional superannuation payment needed updating. In the last term, in arguing against the need to index the $3 million threshold for super tax changes, the government said that unindexed amounts are regularly included in legislation and that it's simple to amend it when it's necessary. The crossbench's counterargument was that not only would it be simpler to index the amount from the outset but also it would ensure that the legislation remained fit for purpose year in and year out. The LISTO thresholds demonstrate the force of this argument. It has taken 13 years and much advocacy from civil society to achieve legislative change to the LISTO thresholds and make them work as intended in 2025. LISTO recipients, mainly women and those in low-paid—often shift or part time—casual work, such as those in the care industry, would have received a greater benefit for longer with indexation.

So will it be for taxpayers affected by the changes to the superannuation tax concessions for balances over $3 million. They will not have to start paying more tax sooner, because the threshold will be indexed. A secondary concern about the superannuation tax concession changes was that the changes would apply to unrealised capital gains. That was going to hurt farmers and small businesses, who quite legitimately and compliantly often hold large assets inside their superannuation and who would have been forced to pay a tax bill on assets they did not intend to liquidate during the tax year.

Again, the government listened to that concern, raised squarely by the Independents on the crossbench during the debate on the legislation, and have decided that the tax should not apply to unrealised capital gains. These LISTO changes are necessary and overdue. The retirement savings of Australians on low incomes will be boosted, the burden on government during those people's retirements will be reduced, and it's a positive change, which I welcome.

Every dollar saved for retirement matters. I'm proud that our government is delivering more help to low-income workers with changes to the low-income superannuation tax offset, or LISTO. The government is raising the eligibility threshold from $37,000 to $45,000 from 1 July 2027 and boosting the maximum payment to $810. We are ensuring that the superannuation system is stronger and fairer for low-income workers, many of whom are women and young people. This change will ensure that low-income workers receive a fairer tax concession on their super contribution. The average increase in the LISTO payment will be $410 for affected workers, and workers could receive a potential benefit of around $15,000, depending on the individual's income over their career.

In 2027-28, more than 770,000 Australians will be eligible for the LISTO, and 490,000 Australians will receive a higher LISTO contribution. These changes are meaningful. I meet with women in my electorate of Tangney who work as sales assistants or in the care sector as aged and disability carers. I speak with young people who are balancing work and study. These changes mean that a total of 3.1 million Australians will be eligible for the LISTO. Around 60 per cent of these Australians are women.

The gender super gap is an issue my constituents regularly raise with me. According to research by the Super Members Council, the gender super gap between men and women in my electorate of Tangney is the worst in Western Australia and also in the whole of Australia. As people near retirement, the median super balance of women in Tangney is 41 per cent less than the median super balance of men. The Super Members Council estimates that more than 9,300 people in Tangney will benefit from the LISTO payment. In my electorate of Tangney, 62 per cent of the beneficiaries will be women. The Albanese Labor government is focused on women's economic equality, including action to promote better and greater equity in women's superannuation. Since July, parents have been eligible to receive superannuation on their government funded paid parental leave, a change I'm very proud to have supported. Paying super on government funded paid parental leave will benefit around 180,000 Australian mothers each year. Families in Tangney, including my own, have told me about how important this change is to reduce the super gender gap.

I also want to briefly touch on the legislation the government passed to deliver pay day super. This legislation will be of particular benefit to women who are overrepresented in paid, casual and insecure work. It will also benefit people in Tangney, which has some of the highest rates of unpaid super in Western Australia. The Super Members Council estimated that almost $40 million in super went unpaid in 2020-21.

The Albanese Labor government is working at every point across women's lives to make sure they are earning more and keeping more of what they earn. This is working. The gender pay gap is the lowest on record, and we continue to invest in increased wages, support increases to the minimum wage and deliver tax breaks and important reforms to superannuation.

There being no further speakers, the debate is adjourned, and the resumption of debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.

I 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.

The Albanese government's lack of investment in residential aged care has been laid bare. Residential aged care supply increased by just 578 beds in 2024-25, less than one-tenth of the 10,600 additional places needed per year to meet demand as projected by the department. The Boxwell & Co analysis confirms that Australia's aged-care supply crisis has reached a critical tipping point, with occupancy levels hitting 94.4 per cent and full capacity projected within three years. Three states—New South Wales, WA and Tasmania—have had no growth at all; in fact, they went backwards. They have had a net decrease in aged-care beds thanks to Labor.

Already, the failure of the Albanese government to open new beds is leaving elderly people stranded in hospitals when they should be recuperating and staying in an aged-care bed. The state and territory leaders held an emergency meeting last week on aged-care beds and hospitals. The Queensland and Tasmanian premiers specifically issued statements calling on the federal government to rescue older Australians left occupying hospital beds instead of being in aged care. The Queensland health minister, Tim Nicholls, said some patients were waiting 250 to 280 days in hospital with one patient staying in hospital for more than 400 days. Elderly South Australians experience the longest wait times nationally, 253 days, for a Commonwealth aged-care bed, leading to equally high rates of hospital bed use. In Western Australia, a shortage of aged-care beds is leaving about 300 older patients stranded in WA hospitals daily, occupying beds necessary for acute care. In Victoria, there are 246 older patients stuck in state hospitals. New South Wales health minister Ryan Park said, 'The number of patients waiting for placements has surged by over 60 per cent in the past year leading to mounting human and system costs and an immediate reduction in available acute beds.'

Urgent action is needed to protect older Australians who are being failed by Labor's incompetence. Only five per cent of the required new aged-care beds were provided last financial year, leaving 238,000 older Australians waiting for home-care support. We shouldn't have elderly Australians languishing in hospital beds with nowhere to go. The Prime Minister promised to put the care into aged care, but instead we have a crisis that is crippling our hospital systems, failing some of the most vulnerable people in our community and forcing the states and territories to deal with the fallout. Elderly Australians across our cities and regions deserve much better than this. Elderly Australians, particularly in regional areas, have been let down with delays to home-care packages. Thanks to coalition pressure, some of those aged-care packages—not all, but at least some of them—were released earlier. It took a lot of advocacy on our part to make that happen.

Our elderly Australians deserve to age in the communities that they built. They deserve dignity. They deserve comfort, like the elderly residents at the aged-care facility called Ottrey Homes in Cobram, on the Murray River in my electorate, which I visited last week. Those elderly Australians built that community of Cobram. They built the shops, the orchards and the dairy companies. They taught at the schools. They worked in the local businesses. As they age, they have the right to age in place and to take deserved advantage of the community and the society that they have helped to create. We've got to make sure that, as a country, we look after these elderly Australians. All of the statistics and all of the facts that I've just outlined indicate that they are not being looked after. The Albanese government has got to stop with the rhetoric, get on with some action and make sure more aged-care beds are made available for elderly Australians so that they're not languishing in hospitals when they should be in aged-care facilities.

Is there a seconder for the motion?

I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.

I want to thank the member for the opportunity to talk about some of the difficulties facing the aged-care system. I don't think it's any surprise that there are challenges out there. After decades of neglect from those opposite, the LNP, we are working hard to rebuild a system that fell apart. I am not the one who came up with the word 'neglect'. The royal commission told us that the system was broken, neglected by the LNP, and Australians agreed. Neglect—let that word hang in the air. The greatest honour that we have is to take care of our old people. When the word 'neglect' is used, thrown around by nothing less than a royal commission, then those who are responsible should hang their heads in shame. It is a disgrace, a national disgrace. Our old people built this country. They provide the culture. They provided opportunity for all of us. Neglect!

Do you know how many residential aged-care centres there are north of Cairns? One—the Star of the Sea, on Thursday Island. That's it. It is 2½ days of driving from Cairns to Bamaga. From there you hop on a boat and go to Horn Island, where you hop on another boat to get to Thursday Island. There are a lot of people between Cairns and the Torres Strait who deserve aged care, have deserved aged care and have never received it. In areas where culture breathes and lives, it is important to elders and their community that they live their ageing days on country and that they die on country. Neglect has robbed that from those communities.

There is a massive amount of work to be done. It is something that we are tackling—83,000 aged-care packages into people's homes to keep them longer where they grew up. Everybody knows there has been a problem, but only one side seems interested in fixing it. If those opposite had been interested in fixing it, we wouldn't be having this conversation right now. I wouldn't be advocating for residential aged care right across the Cape. We wouldn't have to bring the elders down to the Pinangba Hollingsworth elders centre, where there are wings for each individual community. People could stay close to home, where the Songlines are, where the Dreaming is.

But it's not just Indigenous communities. It's Cooktown. It's Weipa, Mossman, Mareeba—large towns of up to 10,000 or 15,000 people. The old people built these towns. I was sitting at the funeral of an elder in the Torres Strait whose family was telling me how he'd built the school, cut down the trees and then worked his way down the Cape. These are the people we owe everything to—everything—and for 10 years they were left to languish. Now, as a political pointscoring job, we're taking a swing, when work is being done right now to improve the situation and the lives of our elder Australians.

We care and acknowledge what our older Australians have given to us. One day I will have the privilege of looking after my parents. I've got to convince them to move from Victoria to Cairns, but they'll get there—the weather will probably help! That is an honour that I don't shirk, it is an honour that we in this place do not shirk, and it is an honour that we on this side do not shirk. When aged care continues to be rolled out, our programs matter. The word 'neglect' will never, ever be able to be used in conjunction with the way a Labor government treats our elders.

We've heard a lot from the Albanese Labor government, whenever there is an issue, that they blame the previous coalition government. Well, the Albanese government has been in power for over 3½ years. When will this government take responsibility for its failures?

The sound that echoes along the busy hallways of our regional hospitals and through stricken aged-care facilities in my electorate is the sound of a ticking time bomb. This government is sitting on an aged-care crisis that is, quite frankly, about to explode—and I don't think Labor even realise it. This bomb sits right in the middle of our aged-care system. On 1 November, when Labor's new Aged Care Act came into effect, they supercharged the problem. There was no proper education campaign. No-one explained what these changes meant. There were just confused elderly Australians opening letters, wondering why they were suddenly paying more than before. We promised older Australians they would be no worse off. That was the guarantee. But that guarantee is gone, and right now the clock is ticking.

Between now and July next year is open season for providers to crank up their costs. In my electorate, this is no exaggeration. The offices in Kadina, Port Pirie and Whyalla are inundated by calls from people with questions about aged care. In fact, we've had to dedicate staff to handle the influx of emails and calls from people in need. It truly is a desperate situation. For every second that Labor waits to act, a pensioner in regional South Australia loses a little more dignity. This is the reality of the aged-care time bomb. It is going to cost lives.

This government loves a one-size-fits-all plan, but a plan made for the city does not work for the bush. My electorate is bigger than the whole of New South Wales. Older constituents must drive or be driven hundreds of kilometres for the most basic care. City solutions do not work in Grey. Imagine finding out that the extra money you spent on fuel must now stretch even further because your provider increased prices. It is truly heartbreaking. This bomb is ticking in hospitals as well. Labor has failed to deliver beds—only 802 new residential aged-care beds, when the system needed 10,000 new beds every year just to keep pace. That is a total and abject failure. Because there are no beds, our elderly are trapped in hospitals when they've no medical need to be there. They are effectively homeless within the health system.

I'd now like to share, not for the first time in this parliament, a harrowing story of a constituent in Grey who has been totally let down by Labor and this aged-care crisis. This is a confronting tale. This story comes from Virginia in Kadina, whose partner, James, was diagnosed with dementia last year and has been stuck in Wallaroo hospital since January—since January! He cannot return home. His condition has become violent and he is a flight risk. Police have had to retrieve him from the main street four times. James was bounced between Maitland, the Lyell McEwen and respite care, only to be returned to a hospital bed because there are no secure memory support units available on the Yorke Peninsula. The system is failing them. Virginia has been pressured by hospital staff to provide daily care because they are too thinly stretched. She was even terrified by a recent discharge request, fearing he would be sent home where neither of them would be safe. Her only hope is to wait for a bed in Gawler, which would force her to uproot her entire life. James is being forgotten, and Virginia is being left behind.

This government must stop neglecting older Australians. The problem is absolutely real. Time is running out, and the pressure is critical. If the government do not act, if they do not cap these prices, if they do not deliver the beds and if they do not clear the waitlist backlog, this crisis will explode. The consequences for Labor won't just be political; they will have lives on their hands. Stop the clock, fix the mess, and give our elderly the dignity they deserve before it is too late.

Gilmore has an ageing population. In fact, compared to other electorates, Gilmore has one of the highest numbers of age pensioners, so I am acutely aware of the many issues facing our older residents.

Almost daily, my office receives emails and calls from older constituents or their family members, seeking support for their aged-care needs, whether that's arranging lawnmowing, meals, help around their home or access to health services, or assisting with the transition to residential care. I know that for too long older residents in Gilmore and right around Australia have been left waiting for the care they deserve.

Under the previous government the system wasn't fit for purpose, and that's exactly why we're rebuilding our aged-care system from the ground up. We want to ensure older people in our communities get the care they need, when and where they need it. Every Australian deserves dignity, respect and quality care as they age.

Saturday 1 November was a historic day for aged-care reform in this country with the start of the new Aged Care Act. I'm so proud to be part of a Labor government that is turning things around. With our overhauled Aged Care Act now in place and the new Support at Home program providing a higher level of care for people in their homes, this is great news for our most vulnerable citizens. A higher level of care available at home means that more older Australians will be able to get the support they need without going into a clinical setting. Importantly, it means they'll be able to stay at home as they recover, without bouncing back into hospital.

While the Commonwealth has responsibility for the aged care system, we're working closely with the states and territories, who manage our hospitals, because we know too many older people are spending far too long in hospital when they should be in a more appropriate care environment. This has been an ongoing issue in our aged-care system, and the pressures are being felt particularly in regional areas like Gilmore, where hospital beds are sometimes the only care options for our elderly. We know that every day an older Australian spends in hospital, when they should be in a more appropriate care environment, puts pressure on their wellbeing and, of course, on our hospital system. We don't want people stuck in hospital beds when they could be receiving the care they need in the comfort of their own homes, surrounded by loved ones, or in dedicated short-term or permanent aged care.

The royal commission told us Australia's aged care system was unacceptable and unsustainable, broken and neglected by those opposite for nine years. After almost a decade of inaction, the Albanese Labor government has taken major steps to bring about real change that will change lives now and for generations to come. We are delivering safer, fairer and more transparent care for older Australians that puts their rights and their quality of life at its heart. Our additional Support at Home places mean our older residents—our parents, grandparents, family members and neighbours—can get back to the people and places they call home. It means they can stay independent for as long as possible. Our new Aged Care Act is a major step forward that ensures people can stay connected to their families and friends, remain involved in their communities and enjoy enriched lives in their twilight years.

In my electorate I love visiting the many seniors groups that are buzzing with life and that keep our older residents engaged, entertained and connected. As local people age, social support and connection become even more important, especially in regional multicultural communities that can be more heavily impacted by social isolation. I'm pleased to continue supporting seniors groups like those run by the Multicultural Communities Council of Illawarra, which received a $332,000 funding boost under the Commonwealth Home Support Program. Participants enjoy activities, games, dancing and singing, community outings and a home cooked meal for lunch. Importantly, this group has become a trusted entry point for people who might help with home-care packages and other aged-care services.

We need to celebrate and respect our vibrant seniors and ensure their needs are met as they transition from supported living at home to aged care. There's more to do, but we're building a new aged-care system that will stand up to the challenges our nation will face as our population ages.

I have had the great privilege of representing my community for nearly a decade in this place, and in that time I have seen changes to aged care. I was here before the royal commission. I was here during the royal commission. Of course, I am fortunately still here representing my community now post-royal commission, post this new act, and I can stand here and say that aged care in Australia is worse today for older Australians than what it was five years ago and what it was eight to 10 years ago along every single area where older Australians touch into the system. If we're looking at CHSP, Commonwealth Home Support Program, no new funding's been put in that, and you can't get CHSP—you just can't get it. Places have closed their books. Forget it. The government will give you a code and say, 'Ring up. Ring these places,' and people in my community ring up and tell me, 'They're not even taking my name.' That's the CHSP. That's the low-level support.

Then we look at the new program with respect to home care, and we see that if you are a part pensioner or if you are a self-funded retiree under Support at Home, you're paying anywhere between 50 and 80 per cent of the cost for simple basic help around the home. It's 50 per cent co-charged for a shower if you're a self-funded retiree. It's up to 80 per cent for help with meals and shopping. That's the new system. Then there are the people that are paying those costs if they're not grandfathered. There are 116,000 people who are waiting for an assessment nationally. It has never been so bad. There are 120,000 people who have been assessed who are waiting for a package, and that is why we have so many people in our hospital beds. We have so many older Australians who are desperate for home help, haven't received that home help, then injure themselves, have an infection and end up in our hospital systems. In South Australia, 245 patients, as of 18 November, were in our South Australian metropolitan hospitals while they were waiting for a residential aged-care place.

Let's talk about residential aged-care places. The government in 2024-25 funded a net 578 additional operational residential aged-care places across the nation. Yet there were more than 10,000 places, according to the Department of Health, Disability and Ageing, needed per year. So we have all these people stuck in the hospital system because they can't get support at home. There is no support at home for them, and they can't get a residential aged-care place either. And so they are paying, in many cases, a very high bed fee per day and they are in there, in many cases, for months and months on end. And they don't want to be there.

Across our nation, we have more than 3,700 patients in that very experience, who are probably going to be spending Christmas in a hospital bed instead of being properly supported at home or, indeed, in a residential bed in an aged-care facility. I talk with older people in my community, particularly those who are trying desperately to support their partners with dementia. They need to get them into residential aged care, but they can't, because there are no places, because the government hasn't funded the places. In fact, if you look back at the last couple of budgets, you will see that they've cut funding for residential aged care. And so we have a system right now where we have state Labor ministers getting up and complaining to the federal government about this situation. They've been left with older Australians in hospital care when really they should have been properly cared for at home or they should have been properly cared for in residential care. So, while people can have all the talking points in the world in this place, I can tell you it's worse today than it was nearly a decade ago. That is the fact. That is the reality for older Australians. So, when you say you're going to put the care back into aged care, do it. Don't just say you're going to do it; actually do it, because you're not doing it right now.

It is a blessing to get old, to age, to have lots of birthdays, to be surrounded by children and grandchildren, like Norma Boyce, who lives at the Estia aged-care facility in Myrtle Bank in my electorate of Sturt and who I recently visited to celebrate her 100th birthday—or like Elodie, who lives at the aged-care facility in Rostrevor, who I was also lucky enough to see on her 101st birthday. You might even be as lucky as my nanna, who made it to the grand age of 90 and who, when she passed, was surrounded by not only her six children and 14 grandchildren but also 10 great-grandchildren. Not everyone gets that opportunity, so to get old is a blessing, and elderly Australians still have a contribution to make as they age. They still have value.

Norma and Elodie are still sharp. My nanna had very strong opinions on the performance of the Adelaide Crows, on politics, on her community. More candles on the birthday cake does not mean fewer opinions, contributions or views or less value. In Australia, being old should not mean being forgotten or overlooked or provided with anything less than exceptional care. Being an older member of the community should not mean you don't have a choice in how you live your life, where you live your life or what support you need to continue to live your life to its fullest. Every day that an older Australian spends in hospital when they should be discharged home or in another, more appropriate care environment is not okay. Every day that an older Australian waits for the service they need to enable them to continue to live their lives the way they want to is not okay. A higher level of care available at home means that more older Australians will be able to get the support they need without going into a clinical setting. Importantly, they'll be able to stay at home as they recover from the health challenges that they face without having to return to hospital. Now, all of these reforms do not happen in one weekend. A major milestone was 1 November 2025, but there is much more to do in order to ensure that every older Australian can live their life with dignity and respect while receiving quality, targeted care. The Albanese Labor government will continue that work to ensure that that goal is achieved.

There are also other groups who are involved in the rebuild of the aged-care system, and I would like to pay tribute to them. The government may set the reform agenda, but those on the ground execute it—primarily the dedicated, compassionate staff who work in aged care, like Megan McNaughton at Bupa Campbelltown, in my electorate of Sturt, whose patience, good humour and empathy are on display every single day. Every day Megan and her team, some of whom have been working in aged care for over 20 years, provide patient, dedicated and empathetic care to residents and their families in often challenging, complex and sometimes sad circumstances. Megan, thank you. Please keep doing what you're doing. You and your team are so valued, by me and by this government, for what you do for others.

The other cohort I would like to acknowledge and thank are those who work tirelessly to ensure that the legalities, policies and guidelines associated with the government's reform agenda are digested, simplified and then conveyed to relevant stakeholders and users. To the legal professionals and advisers—including one of my constituents, Rebecca—I also say thank you. Thank you for your tireless work in going through guidelines, regulations, legislation and policies to try and help your clients—the aged-care providers and the users of aged-care services—understand how the system works and how they can best navigate it. I know that this has not always been easy for you, and that sometimes it has been overwhelming, so I thank you for your contribution to working with the government to reform the aged-care sector so we can all work together to ensure that older Australians receive the dignified care they deserve, where they want to receive it.

I rise to support the motion moved by the member for Nicholls, noting the government's failure to deliver adequate aged-care beds, with an annual shortfall of more than 9,000 beds.

I serve the community with the second-highest number of people aged over 65 in Australia. I also represent the community with the highest number of people living with long-term health conditions. In my electorate of Hinkler, the aged-care crisis is real. Resort-style living for over 50s is booming, and this simply emphasises the desperate need for real action now to address a critical shortfall of aged-care beds. The demand for beds is dangerously high, and it is rising. Aged-care facilities that have applied for extra beds are being knocked back. Dementia patients are taking up public hospital beds while waiting for permanent aged-care spaces. Hinkler is losing our elderly, who are being forced to relocate out of their hometowns, away from family, away from friends and away from their community, because they can't find a local aged-care bed.

The Queensland health minister, Tim Nicholls, announced only last week that people waiting in public hospitals for more appropriate care are costing Queensland $2.5 million every day. That's money that's not being diverted into emergency departments or other surgeries. Petronella Davis is in Bundaberg Base Hospital waiting for an aged-care bed. Her husband, George, thought retirement would be the best time of his life—as it should be—but 80-year-old George spends every single day travelling 100 kilometres to sit by his wife's side in hospital. Petronella is not in need of a hospital bed. At 79 years old, Petronella has rapidly progressive dementia and is no longer able to be cared for in her home. Mrs Davis is a stranded patient, one of around a thousand people in Queensland taking up a public hospital bed while waiting for a more permanent care solution.

Forest View Care, in the country town of Childers, has 30 beds. Childers is in the heart of my electorate of Hinkler and is Petronella and George's hometown. In October, I wrote a letter of support for Forest View as it appealed the department's decision to refuse funding for new beds. Forest View General Manager Andrew Ainscough had unsuccessfully applied to the government four times for an additional 44 beds. Andrew says it's never been harder to find care for patients, and he is searching for answers to why they continue to be knocked back when the need is so great.

In Childers, Andrew says there are currently 472 people on their waitlist alone. Andrew, who has almost 30 years of experience in nursing, tells me that this is the hardest it's been to find adequate care for our community. He is over it. He is angry. He's desperate. This is dire. Put the money into beds. We must reward the services who are trying to make lives better and enable them to help more.

Hinkler is home to a high percentage of people in the prime of their life and moving into their golden years. So the demand for medical services is being stretched, and we are struggling to find enough support. Aged-care facilities are full. Wait times are up to three years. I support the concept of allowing people to stay at home longer, but with that you need affordable and reliable support mechanisms. This is clearly not happening, and the current system isn't working. The government must change and adapt. Locals and pioneers of my region are the reasons we live in a great place, and they shouldn't be told to move away just because we can't find them a bed.

This government is forcing older Australians to remain in hospital beds when they have no medical need to be there, leaving them effectively homeless due to a severe shortage of aged-care placements. This is at the expense of other patients needing urgent care. The warnings from state health ministers couldn't be clearer. These Labor government failures are blocking hospital beds, contributing to bed block in emergency departments, cancelled surgeries and gridlock across public hospital systems.

While the government claims to be investing, 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 federal government is failing stranded Australians. The current model for aged care is not working.

You may be a little taken aback by a paediatrician talking about aged care, but it is something that has been very close to my heart for a long period of time—in fact, long before politics. My mother-in-law was the matron of our local nursing home, the Campbelltown nursing home of Kilbride, for many, many years—over 20 years, in fact. My children grew up being taken to the nursing home to be cared for by their grandmother until we could pick them up after our work et cetera, so I've had a long involvement with aged care. Of course, upon entering politics, I've had involvement with all my local aged-care providers, all of whom I'm pretty impressed with. I'm very grateful for the efforts of the staff in local nursing homes around our area, of which there are many.

One of the surest facts of life, of course, is that we all age. We live in an ageing country, and aged-care needs have increased over the last couple of decades. To develop proper aged-care policy takes time and takes really hard work. I was part of the Standing Committee on Health, Aged Care and Sport when we started an investigation into aged care in 2016, when I was first elected. This ultimately led to the royal commission. What we found was disgraceful; it was dreadful. There'd been years and years of neglect under coalition governments. We saw dreadful care—in fact, no care in many areas.

That's why, as a party in opposition, we worked hard on developing aged-care policy. Our new Aged Care Act, which came into effect on 1 November, marked a really significant turning point for aged care in Australia. This, alongside our new $4.3 billion Support at Home program, will provide a high level of care for people in their homes and shows how we know what people need from in-home aged care and that we care about people in aged care.

Whether it's the aged-care residents themselves or their families or the staff and carers who provide these services, everyone requires our government to commit to improving outcomes for all those involved. I've met with hundreds of constituents who are either aged-care residents themselves or have family involved in this important sector. One thing has been certain: people want and need change.

For too long, older Australians were left waiting for the care they deserve. They were waiting for assessments. They were waiting to get people to provide support for them in their homes. And then later they were waiting for aged-care positions. The royal commission told us that the system was broken and neglected by those opposite, and Australians all agreed.

According to the royal commission, in exposing the failures of those opposite, the system they left behind was unacceptable and unsustainable. They had nine years to fix it and they didn't. That's why the Albanese Labor government has acted. Instead of applying patchwork policies here and there, like the coalition opted to do for so many years, we're instead reforming it from the ground up. This takes time. It means stronger accountability, legally enshrined rights for older Australians, mandatory care minutes and major investments in workforce and infrastructure.

In our 2024-25 budget, we allocated $111 million to strengthening the regulatory capacity of the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission. We are also well underway in allocating an additional 83,000 supported home places this financial year to help with wait times and get older Australians back to the people and places they love. I know that there is a problem with people waiting in our acute hospital beds for aged-care placements. There are some also waiting for NDIS placements, that is true, but we as a government are working on policies that will gradually, over time, reduce those numbers waiting for beds, reduce those numbers waiting for support and provide high quality care that older Australians need.

We're working closely with state governments around the country to address the unique issues they face in their health systems when it comes to aged care. Our government is working to reduce the risk that aged-care providers will only profit from federal funding, by attributing increased funding to stronger standards and protections. We are doing what it takes to make our aged care system sustainable for the long-term, for the future. I want our aged residents to get the best care possible, and I am very proud to be part of a government that is providing the best care we can for older Australians.

The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made in order of the day for the next sitting.

Tomorrow is the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women, and it also marks the start of the 16 days of activism against gender-based violence. Labor stands with the millions of women and children whose lives have been shaped by fear, coercion and abuse. Ending gender-based violence is not aspirational; it is urgent, it is necessary and it is achievable.

Before entering parliament, I spent my career working with victims-survivors as a domestic violence lawyer, as a founder of Australia's first dedicated domestic violence law firm, as the CEO of Basic Rights Queensland and as principal lawyer at Women's Legal Service Queensland. I've sat in court where I have seen 90 domestic violence matters a day, I've seen the intergenerational impact of abuse and I've supported women navigating complex systems at the very moment their lives were at risk. I bring their voices into my work every day, but especially during these 16 days of global advocacy.

The Albanese Labor government has delivered the National Plan to End Violence Against Women and their Children, a blueprint to end violence in one generation. Labor has backed this plan with over $4 billion for prevention services, housing and long-term change. We've legislated 10 days of paid domestic violence leave; invested $1 billion in crisis and transitional housing, including 24 new homes in my electorate of Bonner, in Wynnum Manly and Mount Gravatt; we've made the leaving violence payment permanent, giving women escaping abuse up to $5,000; and we've acted to prevent government debts being weaponised, because financial abuse affects 43 Australian women every hour. That is what systemic change looks like.

But today I want to talk about one of the most dangerous and least understood forms of gender-based violence: non-fatal strangulation. It is not a minor assault. It is not a moment of loss of control. It is a red-flag predictor of homicide. When a woman is strangled by a partner, even once, her risk of later being killed by him increases by up to 800 per cent. Yet strangulation often leaves no visible injury, allowing perpetrators to avoid accountability and victims to be disbelieved.

Research shows that even brief oxygen deprivation can cause traumatic brain injury, memory loss, cognitive impairment, depression and anxiety, and long-term neurological damage. Repeated strangulation can change the structure of the brain itself, and now violent pornography is mainstreaming strangulation as normal sexual behaviour, despite medical experts confirming there is no safe way to strangle someone. A recent UK government review found that violent pornography is directly contributing to the rise of choking in sexual encounters, especially amongst young men, shaping expectations and distorting consent. The UK is now moving to criminalise pornography depicting strangulation and to require tech platforms to block it, because children who view violent pornography are three to six times more likely to display harmful, coercive sexual behaviour. These harms demand urgent national attention.

Leading the national conversation on non-fatal strangulation is the Red Rose Foundation based in my electorate of Bonner. They have been a driving force behind recognising strangulation as a distinct and serious offence, educating police, courts, medical professionals and frontline workers; building community awareness about the signs of injuries; delivering specialist trauma support for survivors; and pushing for stronger laws around coercive control. The Red Rose Foundation has changed the national understanding of this crime. Their advocacy helped establish non-fatal strangulation offences in law in Queensland, their training is equipping professionals to identify brain injury and coercive control, and their message is clear and unequivocal. Strangulation is a lethal form of violence. There is no safe level, no safe way and no context that makes it acceptable. During these 16 days of activism, I honour their leadership and recommit to supporting their work

This year we have seen 62 women murdered. Labor continues to stand with those still living in fear, and we amplify the voices of those who have survived. Ending gender based violence must be a national mission, and together we can end it within a generation.

I spent a decade on the road as a volunteer ambulance officer, and I've been to more than my fair share of houses after dark to see the kids trembling in the corner and the female partner's voice cracking with emotion as she says, 'It's fine; it's fine; no, no, no, I'll be alright.' The statistics that we've heard today in this place tell the real story, and that's a stain on our national story. The reality is that women around Australia today and the kids growing up in those homes aren't fine. Indeed, when we talk about prosperity in this place, about our true wealth as a country, I think we need to measure it not only by how high we can reach economically but by how low and how broad our safety nets in this country really are. We can't lay claim to being a prosperous nation in the true sense of the word with our blind eye turned to so many.

Unfortunately, it has manifested as it has across the country in the south-west of WA. In my own community there's an organisation called Harbour refuge who are dedicated to providing support to victims of family and domestic violence. Of course, this was a city recently visited by the Prime Minister and his whole cabinet, so I think it's an appropriate time to put on record what Bunbury can be like for a largely unseen cohort of our community who are pretty much focused on survival. I want to put on the record today the numbers that evidence the failings of the 'system' in Australia today.

In a single month this year, Harbour refuge received 122 calls for assistance, and 84 of those were in direct relation to a domestic violence incident. In the course of the financial year, Harbour refuge reported it received 1,410 calls from domestic-abuse survivors in that period alone. To put that into context, the Harbour refuge in Bunbury has only seven beds for women. That's 1,410 calls for assistance and seven beds. Reporting in my local community has highlighted that significant gap, and Harbour CEO Ali White has gone on to say to local media that 817 vulnerable women and children were unable to be accommodated in the most recent financial year. So, while they've managed to support some 246 women through their Safe at Home program, the capacity to deliver that outreach service is constrained, with just three FTE funded through to 2027. That's 817 left on the street, with nowhere to flee to, being told there is no room. Of course, in a regional community, unlike in a metro area, the ability to flee is further compounded by issues like limited public transport. There's no room for mothers who have summoned the courage to flee violence and no room for the children who witnessed the fallout.

We need to do better as a country. Although more federal money is not the answer to everything, the reality is that we simply do need to do better in terms of funding ongoing operational staffing and providing resources to organisations like Harbour. On a day like today, when we're discussing these sorts of issues, I think it is fair to say that we can do better, because only through backing our non-profit and our community based organisations can we truly provide wraparound services in every community in Australia.

This is not a 'one size fits all' sort of problem. Indeed, it's not a problem that we can simply announce a particular program for and expect that, magically, we will have resolved one of the great and intractable problems of our society. But the failure of our governance really, as I said earlier, is a stain on our national character, and, unfortunately, in that plight of every mother and her children sleeping rough, we see a tragic loss of humanity in our country. If taxpayer dollars are allocated to that human indignity, then we need to see some long-term, compassionate and specialised solutions for safe accommodation in every community across Australia. I'm very pleased to advocate for organisations like Harbour refuge because the work they do is truly meaningful.

I rise to speak in support of the motion marking the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women. I commend the member for Forrest and the member for Bonner for contributing to this motion. It is an area that is sometimes devoid of male voices, and it should not be. First, a statistic—we know that one in four women and one in 14 men have experienced violence by an intimate partner since the age of 15. This is a shocking statistic, and, sadly, one that we know to be very true.

My own electorate is obviously not immune. We are incredibly overrepresented in domestic violence. It is, unfortunately, something that I've been dragged into. A friend of mine, a work colleague, at the most dangerous time of her life, was preparing to leave her intimate partner, the father of her child. When it was time to go, he killed her and then he killed himself, leaving that child an orphan who has to live with that. It is a stain on our country and our community that that little girl will grow up knowing what her father was capable of and without her mother's love.

This happened during the campaign, and it has driven me to reach out to the families commission and to work with the member for Hunter to find a way through and find a way to stop this, because this is a man problem. This is men—primarily men; not always, but mostly men—inflicting damage on the people that we're meant to love, the people that we should protect and the people who should feel the safest around us. And the help's not coming. The manosphere, the internet, toxic masculinity—all these things are contributing to create a world that is less safe for our women and children, and tackling that is the purview of other men. Statistically, one in 11 men will admit to committing an act of physical violence on their partner, which means, if you have a cricket team, one of your teammates—statistically—is a perpetrator. That's a very sobering reality.

But it is not hopeless. I visit many women's and domestic violence shelters. I speak right across the Cape to rural and remote communities. And I know that the women are taking the lead. They want to help the men. At a recent forum of remote Indigenous domestic violence shelters, the women implored me: 'We have to help our men. They are broken. We can build them back up to be who they want to be, to be who they should be.' Nobody wants to behave like this. The perpetrators don't want to be this way. The victims certainly don't want it to be this way. So we have to find a way, together, to shine that light, to deliver that help. If you are one of those people who can't control themselves, who are having trouble with domestic violence, then seek help; find a way.

Let's be worthy of the people who love us. Let's be strong enough to stand up in the pub or the locker room or at work and say: 'This isn't acceptable. This is where you go to make that change. This is what your family deserves.' I'm not going through this again. I'm not going to get that phone call. I'm not going to walk into a place where somebody I spent time with used to be. I'm not going to go and help my friends and her friends pack up her office because she's not coming back to work on Monday. That's got to end. It's not acceptable anymore. And I am so relieved that other men stood to talk on this today, and I hope more men will stand up and follow their lead and take control of this once and for all and stop this. We are better, our nation is better, our men are better and our women deserve better.

I thank the member for Newcastle for raising the very important issue of gender based violence and our colleague the member for Leichhardt for his very generous contribution. But I really feel that I need to draw attention to the government's failure to address one of the key drivers of gender based violence, that being gambling. Less than a month ago this parliament received the second yearly report from the independent Domestic, Family and Sexual Violence Commission. The report noted that over the last 15 years there has been no shortage of royal commissions, inquiries, coronial inquests and reviews into the experiences of women and children facing violence. Those reports have come up with over a thousand recommendations—many repeated, many consistent, many overlapping.

We don't lack solutions for gender based violence. They're well established. What we lack is coordinated action led by the federal government to implement solutions that will save women's lives. The 2020 report, commissioned by the Commonwealth Institute of Family Studies, into the relationship between gambling and domestic violence against women found a clear correlation between gambling addiction and financial abuse as well as other harms. It shared stories of women who'd had to support the family alone while their partners gambled away his wages, women who'd had their bank accounts cleaned out and their mortgage payments taken by a partner to spend on gambling, women who'd lost their homes and their assets and been coerced or defrauded into taking on debt, and women who'd been assaulted by partners angry because of their losses. Amongst the study's seven headline recommendations is the suggestion that we should tighten regulation of the gambling industry to prevent gambling related harm, including a reduction in gambling advertising—a recommendation clearly stated but as yet unimplemented.

Another example, which will be familiar to MPs in this place, is the report produced by the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs into online gambling and those experiencing gambling harm. It's now 28 months since the You win some, you lose more report was released. It cited evidence from the Australian Gambling Research Centre that 69 per cent of Australians believe they see too many betting advertisements. The committee recommended banning online gambling advertising, in part due to the serious psychological, health, financial and relationship harm that is caused by gambling: another consistent finding, and another recommendation clearly stated but, as yet, unimplemented.

Last year, the Prime Minister described family violence as a national crisis. He commissioned an urgent review of preventative measures. That review recommended, amongst other things, government intervention in the industries from which family violence gets its foundations and its means of escalation—notably, gambling and alcohol. The review recommended restrictions leading to a total ban on gambling advertising—another recommendation without action.

Experts are imploring the government to develop a razor-sharp focus on coordinated, accountable delivery of longstanding recommendations to prevent family violence. All are wondering why a prime minister who called family violence a national crisis now seems more concerned about protecting the revenue of broadcasters and sporting codes than protecting women and children from abuse. We don't need more recommendations. Australian women and children need action.

One of the best places to start is by banning predatory gambling advertising. In the words of the late Peta Murphy:

We have a culture where sport and gambling are intrinsically linked. These behaviours are causing increasingly widespread and serious harm to individuals, families and communities.

Police are called to hundreds of thousands of domestic and family violence incidents a year in Australia—as many as one every two minutes, or two since I began this speech. If we banned gambling advertising this week, we could save dozens or even hundreds of Australian women from family violence this summer. It's time for the government to stop talking and to do what it knows it needs to do. It's time to ban gambling advertising.

The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.

This is a really important issue for Australia and a really important issue for regional Australia. I'm pleased to have the opportunity to focus on a number of priorities for my local electorate of Monash. Whether it's in the Latrobe Valley at Latrobe Regional Hospital, where I've previously served on the board—which does a great job under very stretched resources—or at South Gippsland Hospital in Foster or Leongatha, or at West Gippsland Hospital, which is absolutely bursting at the seams, our health services and facilities in the Monash electorate deserve far better. This flows through to the affordability and availability of GPs in our local area, many of whom do an incredible job. Many of those I speak to are exhausted. They take their duty of care to all of their patients, and to the broader community, very seriously. But we cannot ignore the fact that bulk-billing rates under this government are getting worse, not better.

On the West Gippsland Hospital—I want to make this point because it does address broader health concerns within the community, not just at a GP level but more broadly. I want to take the opportunity to address the shocking incident only a few days ago of a 91-year-old grandmother, Lois Casboult, a resident of Drouin in my electorate, who broke her pelvis and had a brain bleed. An ambulance was called. They are so stretched to capacity because of the Victorian Labor government's complete mismanagement of our health system that, instead of them taking her for a nine-minute drive to West Gippsland Hospital, her daughter had to come and pick her up and take her. That is the sort of thing we are seeing not just in my community but in regional communities Australia-wide, particularly in Victoria, where the Victorian Labor government has really done a lot to hurt health outcomes across our community.

We've had the Prime Minister write a letter to state premiers in the last week or so, effectively saying, 'Please stop spending money on public health', as if people can stop getting sick or avoid going to emergency. We have a GP shortfall. We have GPs trying their best under very, very hard circumstances to do all that they can. But the reality is, at a state and federal level, our health services are not keeping pace with demand. Patients, particularly in regional Australia, are not getting the care and attention they deserve.

Our healthcare workers—our doctors, our nurses—are absolutely magnificent people. I was at a citizenship ceremony at Baw Baw Shire only a few weeks ago, where 12 of our new citizens were doctors who work at the West Gippsland Hospital. They are part of the fabric of our community, but they are being sorely let down by this Labor government. When you raise affordability, when you raise availability, the Prime Minister's response is, 'All you need is your Medicare card, not your credit card', and that's just blatantly not true. I've got people coming up to me at listening posts and mobile offices saying that it's never been more expensive to see a doctor. For serious ailments they're waiting weeks to get in to see their GP, in many cases, and, of course, that is proliferating other comorbidities and other health ailments they have.

I passionately believe that your postcode shouldn't determine your potential. I passionately believe that regional Australians should not be treated like second-class citizens in accessing the health care that they deserve and that they need. This federal Labor government is sorely letting them down. The Prime Minister needs to do better on this. The health minister needs to do better on this.

I want to commend my state Liberal colleague Wayne Farnham, the member for Narracan, for standing up and doing everything he can to fight for a new West Gippsland hospital. I'll work with him and anyone else that wants to improve regional health outcomes.

I thank the member for Bowman for bringing this motion, as I always enjoy the opportunity to talk about health care and what our government is doing for this very important Australian institution called Medicare.

I've been working in health care now for half a century—in fact, over half a century. Health care is changing in Australia, as it has done over the many decades I've been working in the industry. It is changing. To deal with those changes we need proper policy, and policy takes time to develop. Health care is changing from transactional visits funded through Medicare to managing chronic illness. We know that many people in Australia suffer from chronic illness. Their needs take time to deal with, and many people now find it difficult to see a GP after many years of neglecting GP numbers and GP renumeration. This government is making the changes necessary to improve that.

I recently visited Wagga to open the new Wagga clinical school for the University of New South Wales. At this facility, medical students will be able to complete all of their training in Wagga, without having to go to the city. That's an initiative of the federal government. We'll train over a hundred local Wagga students to become doctors. They are therefore much more likely to stay in the local area, providing health care in Wagga and surrounds, than if they trained in the city.

We have similar institutions in Albury-Wodonga, on the North Coast, in Bathurst and in Orange, which are run by various universities, all funded by the federal government. We are about to announce an increased number of university placements for doctors to train in their local areas, which will make a huge difference around Australia. We still import around 40 per cent of our doctors into Australia from other countries. We need to train more of our own to stay in the areas where they train.

I firmly believe that people living in rural and regional areas deserve the same quality of health care that people living in our cities get, but that requires funding, and this government is determined to do that. The investment of $8.5 billion in delivering bulk-billing incentives will deliver more than 18 million GP bulk-billed visits every year nationwide. It is important to know that interactions in the health system run into the many tens of millions every year, so of course there's always going to be some problem if a tiny percentage aren't satisfied with their care. But, overall, this government is working hard to make sure Australians get the best in 21st-century healthcare, which they deserve. There are problems—of course there are. I'd be the first to admit that. There is the cost of specialist care. Access to specialists can be very difficult. There are now waits to see paediatricians, my own profession, in rural areas measured in years, not weeks or months, which means a lot of the effectiveness of that care is abrogated because of the long wait. We are working hard to change that.

We are looking at ways of getting more services to rural and regional areas. We're looking at getting more services to high-risk groups such as Indigenous populations, such as those with culturally and linguistically diverse populations, but it requires long-term thinking and long-term health planning, and that's what this government is doing through one of the best health ministers we've had in my time on this planet. Mark Butler is an excellent minister, and he is doing a remarkable job across a huge, broad portfolio.

Recently I visited the bulk-billing urgent care clinic at Campbelltown. I spoke with Dr Jovad Ahmed, a very experienced doctor who has worked there for a long period of time and worked in the area for a long time. For Dr Ahmed, our bulk-billing incentives have meant that he will be able to bulk-bill all his patients, they will be able to get GP care without long waiting times, and he will be able to ensure his patients can access the information, treatments and health care that they deserve and need to remain healthy.

I respect the member for Bowman for his political views, the opposite of mine, but I can assure him that GPs on the front line have welcomed our bulk-billing incentives. They will make a major difference to health care. They are part of the solution that this government is working hard on to make sure Australians continue to get the 21st-century care that they deserve. Medicare is a great institution. This side of politics has always supported it and will continue to do so.

I rise to support the member for Bowman's motion, which notes:

(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.

Department of Health, Disability and Ageing officials have admitted that out-of-pocket costs for patients are almost $50 on average, the highest on record, and will continue to go up. At the same time, GP bulk-billing rates in the Flynn electorate have fallen from 81.5 per cent under the coalition to 74.6 per cent under the Labor government. Local residents tell me it's harder and more expensive to see a doctor, which is feedback that is backed up by the government's own data. The Prime Minister keeps waving around his Medicare card in complete disregard for the struggles facing patients and family practices.

While out-of-pocket costs are a huge issue for Central Queensland and the Wide Bay regions, some regions in the Flynn electorate don't even have access to GPS or health professionals. One way that I believe this can be improved or addressed is by partnering with local universities such as Central Queensland University and James Cook University. It is fundamental that governments support training centres in rural and regional areas, as we all know that if more doctors and health professionals can train locally they are more likely to stay locally. An example of this is the Emerald Allied Health Facility, which was opened in August of this year. Delivered in partnership between James Cook University's Central Queensland Centre for Rural and Remote Health, Central Highlands Rural Health and the Australian government, the new facility will support both the community and the next generation of health professionals. I was proud to stand alongside the former regional health minister Dr David Gillespie and former member for Flynn Ken O'Dowd back in 2022 when this initiative was first announced under the coalition government. The new clinic and training centre will bring allied health services closer to home, reducing the need for families to travel long distances. It supports students and clinicians to train and practice rurally, creates opportunities for local carers in health and strengthens the workforce retention in the Central Highlands.

Another example of a model that clearly works is the Regional Medical Pathway. The pathway allows for up to 60 students per year to complete their entire medical studies in regional Queensland. It sees students complete a three-year Bachelor of Medical Science (Pathway to Medicine) course with CQUniversity before moving to UQ's four-year MD program, with both education programs delivered locally in Bundaberg or Rockhampton. As part of the partnership, the hospital and health services will provide students with internship opportunities and postgraduate training places within their regional footprints. The first intake of students entered the pathway in 2022, with aspiring doctors from across Australia relocating to Bundaberg and Rockhampton to commence CQUniversity's Bachelor of Medical Science (Pathway to Medicine) degree.

While issues regarding regional health are complex and won't be fixed overnight, it's important that this Labor government and the Prime Minister stop gaslighting Australians about bulk-billing and the availability of GPs. The simple fact is that almost every time an Australian goes to the doctor, the need for both their credit card and their Medicare card is evident. The coalition has launched a new website, www.howmuchdoyoupay.au, calling on Australians to share their real experience about the true cost of seeing a GP. We know it's never been harder or more expensive to see a doctor, and it's time the Labor government admitted this and do something to alleviate the chronic shortage of health professionals across Australia.

This motion is yet another example and attempt by those opposite to pretend that Medicare magically started declining the moment they left office, the moment Australians elected the Albanese Labor government to fix it. Australians deserve honesty. Bulk-billing is under pressure today because the coalition froze the Medicare rebate for six years and because the bulk-billing system was neglected for a decade by those opposite. Every GP in Bennelong knows it. Every patient who struggles to get an appointment knows it. Everyone who continues to pay a gap fee knows it.

What we on this side of the House won't do is let the opposite rewrite history to cover their own neglect. The biggest driver of rising GP costs wasn't the Albanese Labor government; it was the coalition locking Medicare rebate freezes for six straight years—zero indexation, zero increases, zero support for GPs. Australians, particularly those in Bennelong, aren't buying this weak attempt from the coalition to deflect from their responsibility, and neither is this parliament.

We were elected in 2022 and again in 2025 to strengthen Medicare. Medicare was created by Labor, protected by Labor and strengthen by Labor. We've invested $8½ billion to turn around the bulk-billing decline and expand universal access, that real, Australian value of affordable and accessible health care. We tripled the bulk-billing incentive in 2023, the largest investment in bulk-billing at the time, and it worked. There were 6½ extra bulk-billed visits across the country. Bulk-billing was up 3.2 percentage points nationally and 2½ per cent in New South Wales. That policy was directed at concession card holders and under-16s. On 1 November 2025, we extended that incentive to every Medicare card presentation at the GP. We've expanded incentives so that practices who exclusively bulk-bill get a bonus 12½ per cent payment when they do so. This rewards the clinics that are doing the right thing and makes it financially viable for the doctors to bulk-bill again. The accumulation of all these policies basically reverses the cuts to Medicare handed down by the Liberals and the former ministers for health, Dutton and Ley.

This policy is working. Already, 1,000 practices across the country have indicated they'll become 100 per cent bulk-billing clinics. This is on top of the 1,600 bulk-billing clinics that exist today. It's working. You reverse the trend by making bulk-billing pay doctors properly, not by freezing rebates for six years. A GP city practice that fully bulk-bills will now earn over $5,300 more than a mixed billing GP. In regional areas, the benefit is almost $24,000 more per year.

In Bennelong, we've seen this policy from 1 November deliver results. Before the reforms, less than 24 per cent of GP practices bulk-billed consistently. Now we've had four clinics shift from no bulk-billing or mixed bulk-billing to fully bulk-billed practices. This is just in one electorate. Eastwood Medical Centre, Kang Nam Surgery, Eastwood Specialist Centre and Myhealth Top Ryde have all moved from mixed or no bulk-billing to fully bulk-billed clinics. That means hundreds of families in Bennelong can now see their GP with just their Medicare card.

This builds on our network of urgent care clinics, which have bulk-billed since their inception. Well over 87 urgent care clinics have been delivered. They are not only providing fee-free care but also keeping people out of emergency departments. We expect more clinics across the country to make the very sound decision to bulk-bill all their patients. They know that when they do, they get to see more patients and deliver more care to the community. Compare our record of record investments in bulk-billing to the coalition's record of a six-year rebate freeze, zero indexation for GPS and zero structural reform. And they come into this place and they complain. Tell them they're dreaming.

Australians are being told that they've never had it better than they have under this government, but families know the truth every time they tap their card at the doctor's reception desk. Out-of-pocket GP costs are now pushing, on average, $50. That is a worrying statistic. That is a barrier to care. When the coalition left office, bulk-billing rates were nearly 90 per cent. Today, bulk-billing is collapsing in 32 electorates. The Prime Minister's famous promise, 'You'll only need your Medicare card, not your credit card,' is now nothing more than a punchline in doctors' waiting rooms. Throughout Australia, people are handing over their credit cards every time they visit a doctor, and many simply can't afford that anymore.

In my electorate of Dawson, what used to be a routine GP visit is now a financial decision. We have no fully bulk-billed GP clinics in Mackay, a city of around 130,000 people. None! The government says bulk-billing will reach nine out of 10 visits by 2030, but in Dawson this promise is a mile from reality. That is not strengthening Medicare; that is slow disintegration of it, and GP practices are sounding the alarm as loudly as their patients. They tell me the same story. They simply can't keep bulk-billing when costs just keep going up. To quote Family Health Care Mackay Rural View:

… the incentive does not cover the full cost of providing high-quality care. Therefore, our clinic will continue to charge an appropriate out-of-pocket fee for some consultations to ensure we can keep delivering high-quality care to our community.

Power bills have climbed. Commercial rent is climbing. Insurance costs are climbing. Everything is going up and the Medicare rebates aren't keeping up with 'Jimflation'. This is not economic management. This is a cost-of-living crisis delivered through the front door of every medical practice in regional Australia.

You cannot blame the doctors for walking away from bulk-billing when the numbers no longer stack up. Only 13 per cent of metropolitan GP clinics have signed up to Labor's bulk-billing program. If the program can't survive in Melbourne and Sydney, what hope do Mackay, Bowen and Burdekin have? Does this government really think 2030 is an acceptable target?

Tell that to the mother in Airlie Beach, ignoring the back pain that she can't afford to have checked because nappies and formula come first. And that $100 gap in up-front costs could mean the difference between early detection and ovarian cancer going unnoticed. Or tell that to the father in Home Hill, chalking up his chronic fatigue to overtime hours working to put food on the table for his family, unaware he could be weeks away from cardiac arrest. Tell that to the apprentice tradie in Paget, who cannot afford more than $100 to see a doctor. A simple blood test might have caught prostate cancer early, but by the time the symptoms are severe, it's diagnosed as stage 4. We know early detection saves lives. This government's failure to fix Medicare is not just short-sighted but also putting lives at risk. This is the reality for too many Australians today: a shrinking Medicare promise, regional communities forced to delay care, and families waiting until illness becomes an emergency. For some, that delay will result in death. That is the cost of this government's failure. The reality is that families are paying more, waiting longer and getting less.

Medicare is not strengthened by token slogans. It is strengthened by access, and there is no access when the GP workforce is shrinking, when clinics can't afford to bulk-bill and when families must budget for something that should be universal. This government needs to stop treating health care like a talking point and start treating it like the lifeline it is, especially for regional Australia. Right now, under Labor, a Medicare card is little more than a discount voucher.

by leave—I'm very happy to continue my remarks on this motion brought forward by the member for Bowman. Medicare is one of Australia's great success stories, and while we can throw numbers about, the simple thing is that facts don't care about your feelings. In Leichhardt there are 24 fully bulk-billed practices helping families and kids. Bulk-billing rates in Queensland alone have gone up by 3.4 per cent. That is up despite what those people opposite would have us believe. Facts and figures don't lie.

I'd like to talk about a little town not actually in my electorate. It's called Mission Beach and is about an hour and a half south in the electorate of Kennedy. But I'm sure the member for Kennedy won't mind—we have a passport-style arrangement going on there. Mission Beach is one of the most beautiful places in the country, outside of Leichhardt. It has palm-lined beaches, crystal-clear water and, in 2021, no GP clinic. When last I checked, in 2021, those opposite were in charge. One of the most beautiful places in the country could not hold a GP. That's incredible!

But I'm pleased to report that they now have one. The people of Mission Beach—an ageing and retiring population—now have access to a GP on a regular basis. That's because of the Anthony Albanese Labor government. That's because of Medicare. That's because of the investment that Labor always puts into people's health and people's wellbeing. It's who we are.

They talk about the credit card. They talk about the numbers. They talk about slogans. But $8.5 billion isn't a slogan; it's a commitment. It is the largest single investment in Medicare since its inception. It is something that we should be proud of as a nation. I have lived under the regime of the US medical system, knowing how much it can cost without that safety net. Now the safety net has grown.

One thing we can all agree on is that your postcode shouldn't matter in how you get healthcare. Your income shouldn't matter in how you get healthcare. I represent some of the most remote and disadvantaged places in the nation. Things like rheumatic heart disease, which is basically eliminated in the rest of the first world, runs riot through the cape. But, because Labor invests, we can give hope, we can give opportunity, and people know that when they show up to a doctor at one of the 24 bulk-billing clinics in Leichhardt, all that they need is their Medicare card. When we go to an urgent care clinic—as I had to do to get my daughter's X-rays—we know that all we need is a Medicare card.

When Minister Butler came we up, were talking to a woman who had been attacked by a dog. She'd only heard about the Medicare clinic a little bit. She rolled in and got stitched up. Her wounds were cleaned and she was home within 45 minutes—unheard of for that kind of treatment. If you go to any of the major hospitals, you can be in ED for hours and hours. But, with just her Medicare card and our investment in Medicare and the urgent care clinics, she got home, she was comfortable and she was relieved. She had no idea who Minister Butler was when she was relaying this story to him, but it was a nice thing to see how the investment works for people on a day-to-day basis. It is something I know this side is very proud of, something I know that we hang our hats on and something that I know makes a difference.

It might seem old-fashioned when we talk about our health system to talk about triage. But, at the end of the day, I think that lights are unfortunately flashing red on the dashboard—because every symptom that we look at indicates we've got a very sick patient on our hands indeed. In fact, rather than the strengthening Medicare policy doing what it says on the tin, I worry that in regional communities like mine it will actually undermine health outcomes entirely by pushing regional general practices closer to the brink than they already are today.

I think that we've got to get our regional health system off life support. Unfortunately, the only way we can do that is by recognising that the system doesn't do better with volume over value. The domino effect that we've seen with hospital blockage and GP overload is the first point of failure. The government's failure to recognise that core funding is now having a devastating domino effect across the health system is manifesting itself through record ambulance ramping and acute bed block in our public hospitals in Western Australia. This crisis means that patients with complex needs or those requiring just minor procedures as day patients can't get timely care in a hospital setting. It's reasonable to ask, 'Where do these patients go?' They present to the last accessible link in the chain in regional Australia—that is, of course, their local GP clinic. But our GPS are increasingly being asked to manage advanced care that far exceeds the scope of a standard consultation. This is where the funding model creates an impossible paradox for our doctors on the front line.

The average length of a GP consult might be around 19 minutes, but the economics of the bulk-billing incentivisation rather promotes the shortest possible transaction. So our GPS can't simply flex their patient throughput to absorb the hospital overflow that we're seeing. Complex cases that do require longer consultations—level C or D consultations of 40 minutes or more—are being diverted, yet the government's new bulk-billing incentives don't adequately fund this time that the doctor invests in the care relationship. Instead, they reward volume, frequency and shorter consults. I suspect that we'll see the consequences of this policy being quite severe.

For a regional practice in the south-west, like those in Bunbury and Busselton, if they dare to stick with a mixed-billing model to survive as businesses, the consequence is of course that they forfeit the significant bulk-billing practice incentive that requires 100 per cent of consults through the business by 100 per cent of doctors for 100 per cent of patients to be billed accordingly. Unfortunately, by being unable to access those incentives, they face the immediate erosion of their patient base, as the patients most sensitive to cost are being forced to migrate to fully bulk-billing clinics to stabilise the practice's patient loyalty and long-term viability. These are small businesses that we're talking about here, and the compounding risk of vertical integration in the health system and block funding is a critical concern because local clinics are raising with me the issue that conditional funding is structurally dangerous in our health system.

Centralised control occurs the moment the large private entities—we're seeing it through private health insurers or private equity groups—consolidate GP practices in Australia, which forces GPs to rely on a single conditional funding stream, whereas in fact we've seen significant benefits to the taxpayer through a health system that focuses on improved preventive health consultations, and they of course take time and cost money. That cost is an investment in better health outcomes in the longer term.

So we're undermining the quality of health care, and we're generating churn within GP practices, and I think that that is going to manifest over time. We're allowing isolated and frankly unsafe outcomes. We're implementing a flawed MyMedicare registration process that registers patients to a single doctor instead of a practice, creating endless administrative churn and placing yet further burdens on the small-business operators who are at the heart of regional medicine in communities like mine. At the end of the day, this leaves overheads rising and practices unsustainable, putting regional health at risk.

I want to be really clear on what the member for Forrest is arguing here—really clear on what the member for Forrest and members opposite, members of the Liberal Party and members of the National Party, are arguing for here. What they are arguing is that we should not fund GPs to have every patient that walks through their door be bulk-billed. The members opposite are arguing that, when people walk through a GP's front doors, they should not just need their Medicare card. The members opposite are arguing that, when people walk through those GP's front doors, they need to have a copayment. We don't have to imagine what the coalition's policy would be when it comes to health care. We don't need a crystal ball to find out what the coalition's policy would be when it comes to health care. We don't have to be Nostradamus, because not only do we know what they did when they were in government but we also know what their plans were to get into government when it comes to health care.

We know that those opposite wanted a copayment. They want people, when they walk through the doors to get health care in their local suburbs, to have to put down money, not just use that green card. We know that those opposite wanted and indeed cut billions of dollars from the healthcare budget. We know that they had the distinction of having the worst ranked health minister in over four decades, and we know that they extended a two-year Medicare freeze to six long years without an increase to Medicare.

It was only at the start of this month that I stood in this chamber and spoke about Medicare. I'd like to thank the member for Bowman for giving me another chance to speak about the Albanese Labor government's commitment to Medicare. I'm a little surprised, however, to be given this opportunity, because after all the coalition's record on Medicare is absolutely dismal, and it's indefensible. In fact when I talked about freezing funding to Medicare, it was the opposition leader who, when she was health minister, did not increase Medicare rebates by even one dollar.

The member for Bowman would have you believe that Medicare is being used as, in his words, 'a political football'. Well, I can assure you that the Albanese Labor government is not here to play games. Instead, we are a government that is utterly focused on easing cost-of-living pressures, and our initiatives to strengthen Medicare are doing just that. The headline news is that Labor is delivering the single largest investment in Medicare since it was created by a Labor government four decades ago. The coalition may think health care is political fodder, but we believe it is essential. We believe that a strong healthcare system is an absolute pillar and foundation of a strong society. That's why Labor built Medicare, and it is why Labor continues to fund and invest in Medicare to make it better, not just on one day but every single day.

The foundation of this investment is the $8.5 billion being directed to delivering an additional 18 million bulk-billed GP visits. The first of this month was a special date, because it was when Labor expanded bulk-billing incentives for all Australians. This built on the 2023 bulk-billing incentive that focused on children under 16 years of age and Commonwealth concession cardholders. We are already seeing the impacts of this. We're seeing them in our local communities, we're seeing them at our GPs and we're seeing them in our suburbs. And it's not only in Medicare bulk-billing GP practices. There's another type of place where all you need is your Medicare card, and that's your local urgent care clinic. We've got one in Oxley at the Canossa, we've got one at the bottom of the PA and there are 90 in operation across the country, with another 47 on the way.

This is not about politics; it's about health care. And it's about the importance of every Australian having access to it with just their Medicare card.

Debate adjourned.

I 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 as 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.

I am proud to move this motion today. It is a motion that recognises and makes clear that the persecution of the Hazara community in Afghanistan is not only deeply concerning; it is abhorrent. In the gallery today are 30 members of the Hazara community from across the country, brought together by the Hazara Legal Network. I thank the network for its tireless advocacy and thank each of you for being here in Canberra today.

Your community is made up of tradespeople, nurses, childcare workers, lawyers and doctors—people who contribute so much to our communities, including in my electorate of Corangamite and in the Deputy Prime Minister's neighbouring electorate of Corio in Victoria. I know that the Deputy Prime Minister has built a strong and enduring relationship with the Hazara community in Geelong. Both he and I have listened to your stories. We are here to support you. Since the Taliban seized control in 2021 it has been a challenge for the Hazara people. We have listened to your stories and we support you. Minorities in Afghanistan have faced targeted violence, particularly women. We know that no part of Afghan society has been immune from violence or persecution. Of course, this is particularly true for ethnic religious minorities, including the Hazara community.

Our government, the Albanese Labor government, will always stand up for women facing persecution and violence. Australia has consistently condemned the Taliban's treatment of minorities, particularly the Hazara community, and of women and girls, including at the Human Rights Council and the United Nations General Assembly. The resolution put at the United Nations called on Afghanistan to uphold human rights, adhere to international law and take decisive action against terrorism.

The Albanese Labor government is taking strong and coordinated action to hold the Taliban to account for its abuses of the human rights of Afghan people, especially the targeting of minority groups and the sustained and systematic exclusion of women from public life. We know—the Albanese Labor government knows—just how important it is for women to hold public office, to make decisions in government about the matters that affect them. This is not occurring in Afghanistan under the Taliban. It's part of the reason why Australia, alongside Canada, Germany and the Netherlands, is holding Afghanistan to account under international law for violations of the human rights of women and girls as enshrined in the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women.

To our Hazara communities and to those here today, my message is simple: your stories matter, your safety matters and you deserve to live in peace, dignity and opportunity. Despite the Taliban's attempts to interfere with humanitarian assistance, our UN partners continue to reach those in need, including Hazara communities. We're working closely with international partners to ensure our support remains principled, effective and grounded in human rights. The department is currently considering what more we can do to strengthen our response and demonstrate our commitment to the people in Afghanistan who face persecution and violence. I can share that public consultations have just concluded on a legislative framework that will allow us to impose targeted sanctions and travel bans in relation to those who are responsible for the oppression of minority groups, women and girls, and the people of Afghanistan.

In closing, this work is about standing up for basic human dignity; standing up for women, who deserve freedom of equality and who deserve to live a life without fear; and standing with the families in the gallery today. We will support you, we will continue to hold the Taliban to account and we will continue to stand up for those who face persecution wherever they are.

Is there a seconder for the motion?

I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.

I rise to support the motion moved by the member for Corangamite and I thank her for bringing it to the house. It is important that this parliament speaks with clarity and with conscience about what is happening in Afghanistan and about the prosecution faced by the Hazara people and other minorities under the Taliban. The reality is stark. Since the Taliban's takeover, Hazara communities have faced targeted attacks, discrimination and constant threats of violence. Women and girls have been removed from public life. Religious minorities have been pushed further into danger. No part of Afghan society has been free from the effects of repression. For many Australians, this is not a distant story. In a country as diverse as ours, people feel these events through their families, their friendships and their sense of identity. Multicultural organisations and community leaders I have met speak often about their worry for loved ones overseas and their desire to see Australia continue to stand firmly for human rights. This motion reflects these values and those expectations.

This motion also calls for the protection of all minorities as well as women and girls. That call is not symbolic. It aligns with Australia's longstanding commitment to international law and to the safeguarding of human rights. The Albanese Labor government has consistently condemned the Taliban's abuse at the United Nations Human Rights Council and at the General Assembly. Australia co-sponsored the UN resolution on the situation in Afghanistan, urging the protection of human rights, adherence to international law and decisive action against terrorism. Australia, together with Canada, Germany and the Netherlands, has also initiated proceedings under the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women to hold Afghanistan to account for the systematic discrimination against women and girls. This is a strong and principled step, and it is consistent with who we are as a country. Australia's support does not depend on the country or the context. It reflects a belief that human dignity must be defended wherever it is threatened.

Values matter, but so does action. Since 2021, Australia has provided more than $260 million in humanitarian assistance to Afghanistan, delivering food, shelter, health services and essential protection programs especially for women, children and minority groups. Following the devastating earthquakes in Afghanistan in August, the Albanese government committed an additional $1 million in urgent relief. Our assistance goes to the Afghan people, not to the Taliban regime. DFAT continues to monitor the situation closely, working with partners to ensure that our support remains principled, targeted and effective.

The final part of this motion recognises the contribution of Hazara Australians to our country. That acknowledgement is important. Hazara Australians enrich our culture and social life. They contribute to our workforce, our schools, our businesses and our communities. Their resilience and determination reflects something fundamental about the Australian story.

People given safety and opportunity build stronger communities for everyone. I see that in Melbourne every day. People who've come here seeking stability give back through hard work, community involvement and a commitment to build a better future. In Melbourne we see the strength of multicultural communities that care deeply about fairness, compassion and justice. These values are at the heart of this motion, and they are the values that guide my work as the member for Melbourne. I am proud to serve one of the most diverse electorates in the country, proud to stand up for dignity and equality, and proud to support motions like this that call on Australia to remain steadfast in defending human rights.

Acknowledging persecution is not enough, but it is necessary. Calling for protection is not enough, but it is right. Australia must continue to show leadership, uphold international law and stand with communities who face discrimination and violence. We do this because it is the fair thing to do, because it reflects the values of Australians and because every person deserves the chance to live with safety, dignity and hope. I commend this motion to the House.

I'm proud to stand up and support the spirit of this motion because, as with many motions that are before this Chamber, it's important to be able to say we were here and stood up for what was right. We have the Hazara community within Australia, new Australians who have contributed an enormous amount to our country and, more importantly, continue to contribute to the success of our nation. These people come to this nation—sometimes not intentionally but through humanitarian programs—make a home for themselves and then go on to become full participants in the Australian way of life. They bring their full selves—including their heritage, their recognition and their history—to enrich our nation, but that does not mean they leave behind the legacy of their homeland and the challenges of Afghanistan.

We should never forget the scale of the challenges that are left at home in Afghanistan. We all remember some of those graphic and moving images as the last American air force planes left the tarmacs of Afghanistan only a few years ago. People were desperate in their efforts to leave as the Taliban made their way into the nation's capital. As so often had been the case in the past as the Taliban advanced, people knew of the terrible human rights tragedies that could unfold as a consequence of attacks on minorities, women, homosexuals and other people who didn't fit in with the fanatical world view of the Taliban. The tragedies continue to be lived every day by so many people and include declining education standards, denial of access to education and basic health services, and reduced capacity to have a normal life or a career. This is a denial of people's basic sense of agency and purpose, and a denial of their capacity to be able to exercise their basic rights as human beings.

When it comes down to it, the Liberal ideal of human rights is anchored in the equal dignity and worth of all people. It's something we should never be afraid to stand up for, because sitting behind the equal dignity and worth of all people is the very basis on which people are treated equally as part of a free society. But the brutal reality, as we all know, is that that is not the lived condition of so many people currently in Afghanistan. It's a denial of not just their agency but their full contribution to the rest of their society, including their culture, which everybody is losing as a consequence. With that goes not only declining culture but also economic progress, and—we've seen this—it makes a society less able to adapt and respond to terrible conditions.

The previous speaker, the member for Melbourne, talked about the tragic realities of what happened with the earthquakes last August. When those terrible events occur, the full consequences of denied economic development come to the fore: countries aren't in a position where they are able to respond, to support their people or to provide the aid or relief that is so important in times of tragedy. Of course, we're very proud as a nation to be able to lend a hand in those difficult times, but we also want to be able to support countries to support themselves. It makes it very difficult when you have a government operating on a fanatical basis, putting their ideology ahead of their people, their human rights and their best interests.

There's a tragic reality sitting behind the lived condition of so many people in Afghanistan right now. That's why this motion is so important, as are many of the motions brought before this parliament. It's an opportunity for us to come together, to stand up and to speak up. What we should want for every person, no matter where they are born on this earth, is that they are treated with equal dignity and respect based simply on their rights as a human being.

For the Hazara who made it to Australia and who are caring for people and family members back in Afghanistan, we extend warmth to you and love to those who are not with you. More importantly, if you're in a position to assist or support them, we understand how important this issue is to you. As part of a country that does believe in the equal dignity and worth of all people, we understand how important it is for us to stand by you, to stand up for them, and to stand up for the type of country we want to be and for the type of world we want for everybody. The basic principles of human rights are about the lived-out Liberal vision that we want for all people. That's the basis on which we support this motion.

At the outset, I want to commend the fine words of the member for Corangamite in bringing this motion to the parliament. I've heard the member for Melbourne make several very personal contributions, and each time she speaks it's well worth listening to. Likewise, the member for Goldstein just now.

I want to acknowledge the member for Rankin's presence in the chamber. Normally the member for Rankin and I—as we are now—are on opposite sides. He probably generally disagrees with whatever I'm saying, but I'm sure he's going to agree with me tonight. I want to acknowledge that he's here as a local member, not as the Treasurer. He's here because he cares. He's here with his people, with people who have come to his electorate to seek a better life. So I say to him: thank you for being here for this important motion. And I thank each and every person here for coming here to the parliament tonight to listen to this motion.

Wagga Wagga, like many other communities in Australia, has a Hazara community. That is so important. The Hazara people have left their homeland, Afghanistan. They've faced ethnic and religious persecution for too many years, over many decades. I appreciate that many of their loved ones are still in the country of their birth, their homeland, and with their families as well, but they have been separated, and my heart goes out to them.

There are over 50,000 Hazara people in Australia, many of whom fled Afghanistan during the late 1990s and early 2000s. Australia lost 47 of our bravest and finest during their service in Afghanistan. It was a war that went on for way too long—from 2001 to 2021. It was the longest conflict that this country has been engaged in. I heard so often about the educational opportunities, the better life, that it opened up for women in Afghanistan—and you knew that that was a war worth fighting. Sadly, we see the Taliban back in charge. You sometimes wonder whether those outcomes, particularly for girls and women, are still there. But it did open up a pathway for them to study, to employment opportunities and to equality that was not there before.

I mentioned Wagga Wagga. Many of the Hazaras have gone to study at Charles Sturt University. Our local Hazara community strongly believes in the value of education. Hazara people are often targeted at schools in Afghanistan, preventing them from obtaining that education—particularly women, who don't get the same opportunities. This is so vital. Hazara women in Afghanistan are particularly at risk of violence and discrimination, as the Taliban have retained control of that country, and that is just so sad.

I mention—because all politics is local—Wagga mother Hakimeh Rahimi, who fled Afghanistan in 1995. Back when her story was published by the local newspaper in 2021, she'd been in Australia for eight years. She called Wagga Wagga home. She came to Wagga Wagga—which is a very giving, very multicultural place—because she saw hope and opportunity there that she could not see elsewhere. She was welcomed with open arms by the Multicultural Council of Wagga Wagga, by Belinda Crain, who runs that very august organisation, but also by the Wagga Wagga community as a whole—because we understand, we value, we acknowledge and we recognise you are peace-loving people like us. You want the best. You want the best for your families. You want the best for your education. You want the best for your future. They are all things that I know that we share in this room and in this parliament.

It doesn't matter from what side of politics you are; you are welcome in Australia. This is your home. It's as much your home as it is mine, and I was born here—way too many years ago! But to the many of you who have come to this nation to make it your home: thank you. Thank you for choosing our country. Please know that, if there are matters of importance, you have your local members, whether it's Jim or whether it's me—and I think I can use that term. Please avail yourselves of every opportunity that is available to you in Australia. I say again: I know you've been through a lot; thank you for choosing this country as your home. Thank you very much.

The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned, and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.

I 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 that 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.

Deputy Speaker Lawrence, before I begin, you might be wondering why I'm standing here today in what is probably the brightest and boldest suit parliament has ever seen. I want to assure you that I didn't lose a bet and I'm not on my way to a fancy dress party. I'm wearing this TradeMutt and TIACS suit because it's designed to do exactly what it's done all day. It makes people stop, it makes them look and, most importantly, it makes them talk. This suit is part of a movement called TIACS, which stands for This Is A Conversation Starter. Today I'm proud to wear it so we can start a very important conversation about men's mental health.

TIACS was created by two tradies, Dan and Ed, who are here today, who lost a mate to suicide. They wanted to make sure other men did not slip through the cracks, so they built something simple and practical. TIACS is a free mental health support service for tradies, truckies, miners, farmers, apprentices, hospo workers and, really, anybody doing it tough. They offer free counselling by phone and text from qualified mental health professionals. There are no waiting lists, no referrals, no costs and, most important of all, no judgement. A bloke can be in a ute, in the smoko shed or at home, and they can reach out straightaway. The number is printed on their gear, so help is right there in front of them, and many are using it—they really are. TIACS has had more than 50,000 conversations. That's 50,000 moments where somebody chose to talk instead of staying silent. This is what saving lives really looks like.

The motion we are debating today recognises that men's mental health is one of Australia's biggest health challenges. Every day we lose an average of seven men to suicide, and that's seven families that are shattered, seven communities that are carrying a loss that should have never happened. Too many men feel they have to tough things out and sort things out alone. As many as two in three avoid getting help because of old ideas about what strength looks like. We know where that leads. We see it in hospitals. We see it in relationships and in funerals that come far too soon.

I know what it feels like to hit rock bottom because I've been there myself. When I missed the 2000 Olympics and 2002 Commonwealth Games teams, it knocked me harder than I expected. I questioned my self-identity, my confidence and my future in the sport I loved. When I missed out on the 2024 Olympic Games in Paris, the struggles came back again. I was lucky enough to have people who pushed me and talked to me and talked me through and pulled me through those tough times. That's why services like TIACS are so important. They speak the language of everyday workers and make asking for help feel normal. TIACS proves that when support is simple and safe men will reach out, and TIACS proves that every single day of the week.

The Albanese Labor government is committed to improving men's health as well. We are investing $7.8 billion in mental health and suicide prevention from 2025 to 2026. We're expanding free support, strengthening digital care and making Medicare easier to access. We also have the National Men's Health Strategy guiding long-term action to help men live healthier lives and live longer. On top of that, we are delivering targeted programs like support for men's sheds and mental health programs in sporting clubs. We have also brought in the role that I'm in, the Special Envoy for Men's Health, and I couldn't be prouder about this government bringing something like that in.

But government cannot do this all alone. We need workplaces, clubs and communities looking out for each other. We need men to know that reaching out is strength. So today I want every Aussie bloke out there to hear this clearly. You do not need to wait. You do not need a referral. If you are struggling, please, please reach out. Call TIACS. Text TIACS. Talk to somebody who understands. And, if you notice a mate acting differently, check in on him. Ask him how he's going. You don't need to say anything fancy. Just be there. Have a conversation.

When men get help, families and communities get stronger. That's why I'm wearing this suit today—not to stand out, because I already do, but to really start a conversation. TIACS does that every day and saves lives because of it. I want to thank Ed, Dan and Jess from TradeMutt; Sue and the team at TIACS; and the tailors—Sam and the team at Urbbana. I commend this motion to the House.

Is there a seconder for the motion?

I second the motion, and I reserve my right to speak.

I rise to speak about men's mental health, the silent killer which too often sits behind a brave face. Three in four lives lost to suicide are men's. Suicide remains the leading cause of death for Australian men under the age of 44, and, among young Australians aged 15 to 24, one in three deaths is suicide. These are not statistics. They're sons, brothers, mates and fathers—lives that were cut far too short. These numbers are heartbreaking, and we truly are in a mental health epidemic. Data shows the proportion of deaths by suicide is edging down. However, reductions in suicide are too often replaced by increased substance abuse. If a man's pain only changes its mask from a rope to a bottle to a pill, we've shifted the ledger, not healed the person.

Important national frameworks were set in motion under the coalition: the National Men's Health Strategy and the National Mental Health and Suicide Prevention Plan. These frameworks are now moving through the system, but they require ongoing backing, proper resourcing and consistent review if they're to deliver what they were designed to achieve. We must also be honest about the intersection between the NDIS and mainstream mental health systems. Roughly one in 10 NDIS participants enter the scheme with the primary psychosocial disability supports that are essential for their stability. With that being said, I want to point out the importance of offering both support and a meaningful pathway to recovery for these participants.

Constituents in my community have told me about the NDIS's tendencies when it comes to participants transitioning to work. Participants who are recovering, able and longing to get into work and contribute are being shot down within the system. We know that work, routine and social connection are some of the best ways to support recovery and mental wellbeing. Yet participants in my community tell me they're being explicitly discouraged from re-entering the workforce. These are people in recovery who are ready to move forward. Yet NDIA planners are making them second guess their progress, reinforcing dependence instead of providing support.

As reforms continue, we must ensure Australians with complex needs do not lose access to essential supports. If the pathway to therapy becomes harder, or if services become less viable to deliver, the outcome will not be savings. It will be more people in crisis. This brings me to my point. At a time of record demand, we've seen the number of Medicare subsidised psychology sessions halved from 20 to 10, leaving a massive gap in support. That's why, while I welcome government members recognising the urgency of mental health, I must ask: what are we actually doing to meet the need? Awareness is important. Education is important, but recognition without reform is not enough. The solutions needed are practical, not radical. While it's vital that the government has the support systems in place for those who need it, a very large piece to this, particularly in men's mental health, is having the courage to speak up and recognise when to seek support.

As a community, we must support men where they already are—on work sites, in offices, football fields and surf clubs—so that the first conversation does not have to be in a waiting room. We must make early intervention real in schools, in TAFEs and in universities, ensuring there's no wrong door and no dead end. Mental health must always be a national priority, and the test of a commitment to this will not be through words spoken or through dollars invested. It's whether in a moment of crisis an Australian can get the meaningful and effective support that they need. Right now, unfortunately, far too many can't. I'd like to say to anyone who's listening to this speech or who's reading it: anyone who's asking for help is not weak; they are courageous. You're needed, you're loved and your life has immeasurable worth.

I rise this evening to support the motion by the member for Hunter. Men's mental health is an issue of national importance. It's one where we should all be working together to deliver better outcomes. We see it all around us, no matter where we are. Men show up at work and they support their families. They crack a joke, and they put a smile on faces. But when they turn away from the world, they struggle. All too often, they struggle alone day after day, year after year. The struggle becomes a fight—a fight against an enemy only they can see. It's in their own mind. Since we were boys, we've always been told to just 'man up', and that's what we do. But, sadly, it often can be too much to bear. Suicide remains the leading cause of death for Australian men between the ages of 18 and 44. As many as two in three men forgo mental health support, and around half believe avoiding a health check-up is normal.

These are national problems that we should talk about, and I'm proud that this government is supporting the mental health of Australians, no matter where they live. Our government, the Albanese Labor government, supports a range of mental health and suicide prevention services to support all Australians, with an estimated $7.8 billion in funding in 2025-26 across the Health, Disability and Ageing portfolio. Under the Strengthening Medicare program, $1.1 billion is being invested in mental health. We're expanding services, employing extra clinicians and reducing waiting times for young people seeking mental health care. These steps are consistent with what the National Men's Health Strategy 2020-2030 said. The government has recognised that there are five key priority issues: mental health and wellbeing; chronic conditions; sexual and reproductive health and conditions; injuries and risk-taking behaviour, which we've all done; and healthy ageing. With these issues front of mind, we are committed to the goal that every man and boy in Australia is supported to live a long, fulfilling and healthy life.

We must break the stigma that still sees men's support and men's mental health being shunned, and that's why we've got to continue to make this a top priority for our government. It's why our government is investing $11.3 million for Movember's Men in Mind training and GP campaign, $7.4 million for Movember's Ahead of the Game program, $3 million for the Healthy Male's Plus Paternal initiative, and $2 million for the Black Dog Institute to research men's mental health and suicide prevention at the Danny Frawley Centre for Health and Wellbeing. The funding will strengthen support networks. It expands professional training and bankrolls crucial research into future policy decisions.

We've got to single out the additional $8.3 million committed to Men's Shed to expand the health and mental health initiatives. As chair of the Parliamentary Friends of Men's Shed, I've seen the benefits of having a space for men to connect. Sheds give men the place to start having a healthy conversation and to do that with their peers. When a man feels healthier and more connected, this has a ripple effect throughout the rest of his life. When we help individuals, we help their partners, children, friends, family and all those who depend on them. Sheds also play a huge role in helping younger men feel comfortable about speaking up. When older men talk openly about their health or their own struggles, it destigmatises the conversation. Down the track, if a young man is struggling, he feels able to reach out. At the end of the day, sheds save lives. We must continue to work to break down the stigma that prevents men from seeking help. We must keep building a culture where speaking up is a sign of strength not one of weakness. We need to do better at this, and governments of all levels—state, federal and local—need to continue their support.

Our government is working tirelessly to support men's mental health. Every day that a genuine conversation happens, a man stops suffering in silence. These things happen on a daily basis, and we've seen the work that's been done by our Special Envoy for Men's Health, the member for Hunter—I'm glad he wore that suit because I reckon I'd look like the Partridge family bus if I'd put that on!

We see that work happening, but it also happens locally as with Jack Bamford, a local bloke from up in Kyneton. If you talk about rough lives, Jack's had two rolled into one. But rather than sit back and wallow, Jack started a men's mental health fishing day. It's a great thing to be involved in. We all just go fishing. You sit down, you relax, you can talk about it, and there's professional help and support there.

Suicide is a scourge. It's touched every one of us—I know that myself. But everything we can do to help to make lives better and to bring a better outcome is something that benefits our entire community. So speak up. Don't think it's a sign of weakness. Use your strength. Use your arm. Use your voice. We've all got two ears and a shoulder to lean on. Let's use them, because that's the way we get a better country for our future. So I commend this motion to the House.

There being no further speakers, the debate is adjourned, and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.

Federation Chamber adjourned at 19 : 28