I declare that, unless otherwise ordered, the Commonwealth Parole Board Bill 2025 and Commonwealth Parole Board (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2025 stand referred to the Federation Chamber for further consideration at the adjournment of the debate on the motion for the second reading of the Commonwealth Parole Board Bill 2025.

I rise to speak on the Commonwealth Parole Board Bill 2025 and the associated Commonwealth Parole Board (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2025. These bills go to the heart of one of our most serious responsibilities as legislators and that is protecting the Australian people. They ask a simple but profound question: who should have the authority and the accountability for deciding when convicted criminals are released back into the community? The Albanese government's answer is to hand that responsibility to an unelected board of so-called independent experts. Our answer on this side of the House is clear: those decisions must remain the responsibility of the Attorney-General, an elected minister who is directly accountable to the Australian people.

The coalition will oppose these bills because they weaken ministerial accountability, they increase risk to community safety and they create another costly and unnecessary bureaucracy. At present the Attorney-General is the decision-maker for parole in relation to federal offenders. That arrangement has served Australia well. It provides ministerial oversight, democratic accountability and clear responsibility for decisions that have life-and-death consequences for the Australian community. But now Labor wants to change that. This bill seeks to create a new statutory body, the Commonwealth Parole Board, which will take over those responsibilities from the Attorney-General. The government argues this change is necessary to depoliticise parole and to bring the Commonwealth into line with the states and territories, which already have their own independent parole boards.

Let's be clear about what this bill really does. It removes accountability from an elected minister who answers to the public and gives it to a group of appointed officials who answer to no-one. That is not independence; that is avoidance. The Commonwealth Parole Board Bill 2025 establishes an independent statutory authority called the Commonwealth Parole Board. The board will be made up of a chair, a deputy chair and at least three sessional members appointed by the Governor-General on the recommendation of the Attorney-General for terms of up to five years. Its stated purpose is to make independent, risk-informed decisions about the conditional release and management of federal offenders and other detainees. It will replace the Attorney-General as the primary decision-maker for parole. The bill gives the board the power to grant, refuse, amend or revoke parole orders, to interview offenders and victims and to obtain information from relevant agencies. It also allows the board to share information with law enforcement, national security agencies and other jurisdictions as required. The government claims this will bring transparency, consistency and expertise to parole decisions, but what it actually brings is confusion cost and a loss of ministerial control.

There's an associated bill in relation to the substantive bill. As I referred to earlier, it's called the Commonwealth Parole Board (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill. It makes consequential amendments to the Crimes Act 1914 to support the establishment and operation of the new board. It transfers existing powers and responsibilities from the Attorney-General and the Commonwealth Parole Office to the new body and sets out procedural changes for making, amending and rescinding parole orders. It also includes transitional provisions to manage the handover of existing cases.

While the coalition acknowledges the administrative intent of the companion bill, we cannot support the legislation that implements a deeply flawed model. The problem is not the mechanics of transition; it is the fundamental shift in accountability that the main bill represents. The coalition opposes the substantive bill because it removes accountability from the executive and weakens community confidence in the justice system. Under this legislation, if the parole board makes a catastrophic error, if a convicted terrorist, child sex offender or organised crime figure is released and reoffends, the Attorney-General will simply point to the board and say, 'It was their decision.' That, to the coalition, is unacceptable. Public safety is too important to be delegated away.

The coalition believes that with power must come responsibility, and with responsibility must come accountability. These bills fail that basic test. The government has included in this bill a statement that public safety will be the board's paramount consideration. But we've all seen how those words can be meaningless when bureaucracy replaces responsibility. We know from experience that parole boards get it wrong, and they get it wrong often. Every Australian jurisdiction has seen tragic cases where offenders released on parole have gone on to commit violent crimes. Each time, the public is left asking the same question: how could this happen? Under this bill, when that happens at the federal level, there will be no clear answer as to accountability. There will be no minister standing in this place to explain. There will be no transparency or accountability to the Australian people. It's just another arms-length body, another annual report, another government shifting the blame. That is not leadership.

The Attorney-General, as the first law officer of the Commonwealth, has a unique responsibility for safeguarding the rule of law and protecting the Australian public. I acknowledge my good friend the member for Berowra for his efforts when he held the portfolio before I did and for the outstanding job he did as well.

Thanks.

The decisions that the Attorney-General makes about parole are not administrative conveniences; they are moral and legal responsibilities that demand accountability. Ministerial accountability is not a political inconvenience; it is a cornerstone of our democracy. It is how the public knows that, when something goes wrong, there is someone in government who is responsible and there is someone in government who should be accountable. These bills sever that link. The bills transfer responsibility from a minister accountable to the parliament to a statutory authority accountable to no-one but itself. That undermines confidence in both the system and the democratic principle that those who wield power must also bear its consequences.

Federal offenders are not ordinary offenders; they include some of the most dangerous individuals in our country—terrorists, child sex offenders, people smugglers, cybercriminals, drug kingpins and foreign agents who seek to do us harm. These are offenders whose cases often involve classified intelligence, complex diplomatic implications and serious risks to national security. Such cases cannot and should not be determined by a board removed from the oversight of government. Only the Attorney-General, supported by the agencies of the Commonwealth, is equipped to consider all relevant factors, from intelligence assessments to foreign policy and even defence considerations. These bills strip all of that away. These bills hand that power to a board that, while it may be made up of experts, will never have the full picture, as the Commonwealth Attorney-General should.

These bills also impose a significant financial cost on taxpayers for no appreciable benefit. The establishment of the Commonwealth Parole Board will cost taxpayers $28.3 million over the forward estimates and $7.3 million per year ongoing. That is $28 million to remove responsibility from the Attorney-General and give it to a new bureaucracy. It is $28 million to do something that the government already does at no additional cost. This is bureaucracy for bureaucracy's sake. Australians are paying record prices for food, fuel and energy, yet this government finds millions of dollars to create new boards and commissions that do nothing to make Australians safer. It is more red tape, more layers and less accountability.

Another major concern is the proposed composition of the board. Clause 29(4)(b) of the bill requires that the board's membership must reflect 'as closely as possible the composition of the Australian community at large'. In other words, demographic representation is to be considered alongside qualifications and experience. I ask this question: why should that matter more than professional competence or law enforcement experience? This is not a focus group; it is a body that will make decisions affecting public safety. The coalition believes this provision should be removed. Appointments to the board must be based on merit, experience and integrity, not on identity politics.

The coalition has always stood up for victims of crime, and this bill fails them. Nowhere does the bill guarantee that victims or their families will be consulted before parole is granted. There is no mandatory requirement for victim input, no guarantee of notification and no explicit rights for victims to be heard. That is unacceptable. Victims and their families live with the consequences of these crimes long after the sentence is served. Their voices must be at the centre of the parole process, not sidelined by bureaucratic procedure. This bill pays lip service to victims, but it gives them no real power. The coalition will continue to fight for a system that puts victims first.

These bills are part of a familiar pattern. When faced with hard decisions, Labor's instinct is always the same—to outsource responsibility. Whether it's immigration, energy, infrastructure or law enforcement, Labor creates a board, a committee or an inquiry to avoid accountability. This is not good governance. It is buck-passing dressed up as reform. We saw it with the NZYQ cohort, where ministers claimed they could not act because the courts had ruled. We saw it with the NDIS, where bureaucratic reform replaced personal accountability. And now we see it here with the government creating a parole board so that when the next tragic failure occurs they can say, 'Well, it wasn't our decision.' Australians deserve better.

The coalition's position could not be clearer. We oppose the creation of a Commonwealth parole board, lock, stock and barrel, because it removes ministerial accountability and democratic oversight, it increases risk to community safety, it adds unnecessary cost and bureaucracy, it ignores victims of crime and it hands power to unelected appointees instead of elected officials. The issue of unnecessary cost is a factor that should weigh upon this place. It's a cost that is already being met by the Commonwealth because the decision is already made by the Attorney-General. The existing system works. It provides transparency, accountability and coordination across national security, immigration and foreign affairs. It ensures that, when life-changing decisions are made, they are made by someone who is answerable to the parliament and to the Australian people. That is how democracy works—or it's how it should work.

The Commonwealth Parole Board Bill 2025 and its consequential amendment bill are not about safety. This is not about transparency. It is about the Albanese government walking away from responsibility yet again. It removes accountability from the highest law officer in the land, spends millions of dollars on a new bureaucracy and puts community safety at risk. The coalition will not support it. We will always stand for a justice system that is strong, accountable and victim focused. The coalition believes in ministerial responsibility, not bureaucratic delegation. The coalition believes in leadership, not avoidance. Above all, we believe in keeping Australians safe. That is our duty in this place. That is why we oppose this bill. Only a coalition government will back our police, strengthen our laws and restore safety and security to the Australian community.

Debate adjourned.

I rise to speak on the Communications Legislation Amendment (Australian Content Requirement for Subscription Video On Demand (Streaming) Services) Bill 2025, a very important and long-overdue bill. I move the amendment circulated in my name:

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

"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House notes that:

the Coalition has been an unwavering supporter of the Australian screen industry for decades, and is responsible for:

establishing the producer offset, the location offset, and the digital and visual effect production offset, which have underpinned support for the sector for almost two decades;

introducing the location incentive, which attracted billions of dollars of investment into Australia in the film industry;

providing in excess of $100 million in financial supports to the Australian screen production industry throughout the COVID-19 pandemic; and

first proposing an Australian content guarantee for streamers in February 2022; and

after almost four years of inaction, the Government has asked that this bill be passed in just four sitting days, having taken the industry by surprise and despite significant concerns about potential unintended consequences".

Speaker, I want to start by directing my comments, through you, not just to those in the chamber, those in the gallery or those who are reading the Hansard for posterity but to the Australian screen industry—the producers, writers, actors, directors, camera men and women, sound engineers, postproduction specialists, set decorators, storyboard artists, costume designers, hairstylists, editors, musicians, animators, drivers, caterers, agents, publicists and everyone else who derives their living and their entertainment from the Australian screen industry. I want to say that we back you. The coalition supports you. We want your industry not just to survive but to thrive.

The coalition is the party of small business, and we know that hundreds upon hundreds of small businesses work in and around the screen industry here in Australia. We want the Australian people to hear and see Australian stories on Australian screens. This is the cultural argument. It's about forging a unique national identity. It's about pride in our country. The coalition is the party that has never taken a step back from the pride in our country and in our identity as Australians, whether that is the ancient and living Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander heritage, our British foundations and the institutions and structures that guarantee the freedom and equality we enjoy today or our multicultural character, a triumph that has brought to this land the gifts and culture of people from all around the globe. These are the three great strands of our history, these are the markers that make our place in the world unique and these are the stories that should be seen and heard by Australians. That means that we support the Australian screen industry. We back Australian content. We back the screen industry. We want the Australian screen production industry to be supported, and we don't accept that they should wear the financial hit that the government has built into the legislation if it is not rammed through in the next couple of days.

Support for the screen industry in this country is in the coalition's DNA. This is an area where we have an enviable track record going back more than 50 years. In the sixties and seventies, it was the coalition under John Gorton who established the Australian Film Development Corporation, and Gough Whitlam followed in the coalition's lead with the National Film and Television School. In the 1980s, it was the coalition under Malcolm Fraser who made a 150 per cent tax concession on the investment risk for Australian made film and television production. That incentive was whittled away under Hawke and Keating. In 2007, it was the coalition under John Howard that first introduced the Australian Screen Production Incentive. This was the birth of the producer offset, the location offset and the post, digital and visual effects production offset. When Peter Costello introduced that measure, he described its purpose as being to build stable and sustainable production companies aiming to increase private investor interest in the industry.

These three measures are the legacies of the Howard era, and, again, Labor has followed the coalition's lead. Indeed, in 2020, the Office of Impact Analysis estimated that, as at 30 June that year, the Australian Screen Production Incentive had produced $2.9 billion to support the Australian screen industry since its introduction. It's a coalition policy that has been the backbone and linchpin of government support to the screen industry over the last two decades. It was the coalition that provided critical support to the Australian screen industry throughout the difficulty years of the COVID pandemic, including more than $100 million through the modernising Australian screen content and the Temporary Interruption Fund measures. In 2018, it was the coalition that introduced the location incentive program with funding of $140 million, which was expanded by $400 million in 2020. Analysis in February 2022 by the Bureau of Communications, Arts and Regional Research made clear that that measure stood to generate more than $4.3 billion in production, with economic, employment and skills in the metropolitan and regional areas through to 2026-27.

In February 2020, it was the coalition that first proposed an Australian content guarantee, a vision of Paul Fletcher, who was then both the Minister for Communications and the Minister for the Arts, who consulted deeply with industry and designed the light-touch framework to ensure that five per cent of the revenue that streamers derived from the Australian market went into local investment. Paul Fletcher had done the work. He had done the heavy lifting in this policy space. He commissioned the ACMA and Screen Australia paper to develop options for supporting Australian stories on our screens. He distributed the policy papers on streaming services, reporting an investment obligation. He worked alongside industry to develop something effective and functional. Labor was left flatfooted, and, typically, Labor followed the coalition's lead. They followed us by promising an investment obligation in the lead up to the 2022 election. They backgrounded industry and media about the now minister's plans to introduce a 20 per cent investment obligation. But it was a rushed and unworkable response, and it wasn't ready to go.

These days, Minister Burke will say that he's been calling out this issue since he was last arts minister in 2013, but the fact of the matter is that he didn't do anything about it. There was no action in the 43rd Parliament. There was no action in 47th Parliament. Indeed, by May 2024, the Senate Standing Committee on Environment and Communications noted in an interim report on the national cultural policy that the government was still considering two different models and was progressing with different drafting. Embarrassingly for Minister Burke, a status update on the issue prepared by the Parliamentary Library records, for posterity, that around this time last year, on 5 November 2024, Minister Burke told the Labor caucus:

… that the interaction of any new local content rules with the US free trade deal was a stumbling block.

That is the ABC article dated 6 November 2024 entitled 'Federal government quietly shelves plans for local content requirements'.

Now, after almost four years of delay, we have this bill—a bill which is a weird combination of being long in the making and rushed in the delivery. It's worth saying a few things about it. What does this bill do? There are two main parts to it. The first is a reporting obligation on major streamers called 'major subscription video on-demand', or SVOD, services. The second is an investment obligation. I'll say that again—a reporting requirement and an investment obligation.

As we head into 2026, I invite you to cast your mind back to the policy papers released by Paul Fletcher almost four years ago and the commitment he made in the lead-up to the 2022 election which spoke about a reporting requirement and an investment obligation. That's a tick there for the coalition on the headline issues. Again, they're following the coalition's lead on the broad policy measures. There are some differences of approach, of course, and, with Labor, the devil is always in the detail. There are notification and reporting obligations, which differ depending on the size of the streamer in terms of its subscriber base, and there's a dual-track investment obligation. The default position in the bill is that streamers have an investment obligation that amounts to 10 per cent of the total program expenditure for Australia. There is an option to instead elect for an obligation amounting to 7.5 per cent of revenue derived by the service from Australia in the relevant year. This selection can be made once every three years in advance.

In terms of the scale of the difference, we understand that most streamers easily meet that requirement already and that what this bill does is put a floor under the level of investment and provide a steer for future players entering the market. There's a three-year acquittal process for each year's obligation, which the government says helps smooth some of the lumpiness inherent in screen production expenditure. Those are the headline features of the bill.

I want to turn to the process now. The way that this has finally come before parliament, with a level of urgency that's entirely within the government's power to control, means there are missed opportunities. My initial concern is that, after almost four years, the government is asking that this bill be passed in three sitting days. I'm doubly concerned that the bill has been drafted in such a way that the Australian screen industry stands to lose if the parliament takes the time to examine the bill. That's because the bill has been drafted so that, unless it is passed by the parliament in this calendar year, the investment obligation will not commence until July and those who support the investment obligation will be made to wait. The risk is that, if parliament doesn't pass the legislation now, the screen production industry stands to lose financially. That's something that we on this side of the House do not accept should be the case. There is no reason to draft the bill in that way. It's a matter that is entirely within control of Minister Burke, both as the responsible minister and as the Leader of the House. Minister Burke writes the sitting calendar for this chamber. He's the Leader of the House. He decides how many days we sit each year. He's the one who decides when the bill is slated for introduction, and, as the minister responsible, he's the one who decides when the investment obligation in this legislation would commence. In other words, the urgency in relation to this bill and the potential financial penalty to the screen industry have been created entirely by this government, and that is a matter of deep concern.

If the parliament decides to scrutinise this legislation to ensure it's fit for purpose, Minister Burke has a range of options to ensure that the screen industry is not disadvantaged. He could draft the bill to ensure the obligation commences on the day after royal assent. He can draft transition provisions so that, even if the bill is passed in the first sitting week of next year, the obligation is taken to commence on 1 January. He can even recall the parliament if he wants to, to allow time for a committee hearing. The point is that this is a problem that is entirely within the government's hands to fix. The reason for making these points is not just that the bill may have problems—which are within parliament's power to fix—but that there may also be missed opportunities in this bill to benefit the screen production industry in Australia.

We've been told by industry that the government is not prepared to consider amendments to this bill. That's a shame because it's clear that there are questions on all sides which warrant answers. The screen producers association, for instance, has made clear there are both positives and negatives to the bill. A number of streamers have proposed amendments to the scheme that they say would make the scheme more workable, with a view to ensuring there's a sustainable industry in Australia.

There are issues that the bill should include but doesn't, which should be ventilated through closer examination. One of those is the issue of a prominence framework for Australian content. In the old days of broadcast media, content requirements and prominence were two sides of the same coin. Prominence means Australian content actually being accessible to watchers—being easily found, being visible and discoverable—so that watchers can effortlessly choose Australian content if they want to. In the old days, this was built into the content requirement. Broadcasters were required to play a certain amount of local content in given timeslots. Anyone who tuned in at a timeslot would see a certain proportion of the Australian content presented to them. Prominence and local content were a package deal—you couldn't have one without the other. The subscription video-on-demand model breaks that link. Just because you commission an Australian show it doesn't mean it will be easily found.

In theory, it would be possible for a major streamer to fully acquit its investment obligation under this bill by commissioning a range of Australian content and hiding it in the back catalogue where it wouldn't be seen. Let me be clear, this is not what the streamer say they would do, and I do not say that they will do that. The commercial imperative is obviously otherwise. Overwhelmingly, the streamers that I have spoken to do the right thing. They say that if they are going to invest in Australia, they want to give it appropriate prominence so that it is seen as successful. They want the show to come up on the carousel when you log on to Netflix or Amazon Prime as a selection that you can easily choose from, and that's great. But no-one has a crystal ball. We don't know how the market will change in the coming years. There will be new players coming into the Australian market, and we don't know what their approach will be. We don't know what new pressures will influence the major streamers in the years to come, and we can't guarantee that the Australian content that will be commissioned when this bill finally passes will actually be easy to find by ordinary Australian families.

We know that the size of the Australian content catalogue is patchy. For some streamers in the Australian market, it is less than one per cent of their overall catalogue. So if you don't have much Australian content, why doesn't the bill deal with that? Why not have a mechanism to give the minister the power to deal with the prominence of Australian content on streaming services as a safeguard to future-proof this bill? Why not make this bill deal with more than just reporting an investment and do better as a cultural policy? After all, it's in the interests of all Australians to be able to easily find Australian stories, and it's in the Australian screen production industry that their stories are easily found.

That's why I am moving a amendment to the bill. It's a very simple amendment, modelled on the light touch but highly effective approach of Paul Fletcher, which is to allow the minister to set requirements for the prominence of Australian content on streaming services. It's not a formal obligation; it's a power to take action in the future. That's why I described it as future proofing a few moments ago. It puts the prominence and discoverability of Australian content front and centre. This is the natural partner of an investment obligation. Why not have a proper inquiry into that type of issue in the context of the bill?

I want to turn to other questions about this bill. As we said when the bill was first introduced, we back Australian content, but there are questions about how this measure will work. The first one is the question the minister reportedly described as a stumbling block in his own caucus room when he delayed the bill over a year ago. That question is: does this bill breach the Australia-US Free Trade Agreement? Chapters 10, 11 and 16 of the Australia-US Free Trade Agreement deal with electronic commerce, investment and cross-border trade and services. Under John Howard, the coalition had the foresight to include some reservations to those chapters. We included specific carve outs for audio-visual and broadcasting sectors. They are recorded in annexure 2 to the agreement. But the question is whether this bill fits within those carve outs and whether there are broader impacts on our relations with other countries. This is an issue which should be explored in an inquiry.

Another question is: is the content requirement appropriate? When this bill passes there will be three different standards for Australian content depending on whether you're a broadcaster, a subscription TV provider or a streamer. What does the introduction of this new third standard mean for the market? How will it affect competition between the players? What impacts does it have on investment in the market? What impacts will it have on pricing when it comes to commissioning new shows?

The third question is: does this bill make any difference at all? We're led to believe that most streamers already meet the investment thresholds in the legislation. Will this bill actually change the current state of play, or does it only place a floor under the current investment levels, as the government has said, and shape new players considering entering into the market?

A fourth question is: what are the unintended consequences? Do those unintended consequences adversely impact the Australian screen industry? Amongst the focus of the US-based streamers there is, of course, Stan, the only Australian owner streamer, which is an offshoot of Nine, a free-to-air broadcaster. Will this bill hobble Stan's ability to commission local Australian dramas and documentaries? Will it mean that an Australian company could be outbid by global streamers, forcing them to acquire low-quality content or pay inflated prices or both? Will the bill inadvertently put more local content behind pay walls? Will the bill damage local broadcasters, who have local drama and documentary quotas but provide that content for free, by driving up prices in the marketplace. Will this bill do harm to the services and platforms that are the backbone of local production? These are important questions, and important questions that should be ventilated in an inquiry.

Let me be clear about the coalition's position. Our position on this bill is simple: we support Australian content, we support the Australian screen industry, and we support Australian content being accessible, visible and easily found on Australian screens. In the ordinary course, this bill would be the subject of an inquiry. We don't accept that the industry should face a potential financial penalty if this parliament conducts such an inquiry. This is an issue within the government's power to correct, and we ask them to do so. I thank the House.

Is the amendment seconded?

I second the motion and reserve my right to speak later.

I rise as the first shadow minister for regional communications in Australia—yet another principled position the Nationals took to ensure that, in the 21st century, there is a continuous focus on regional connectivity. This bill mandates the production of Australian content, and nothing is more Australian than regional Australia. From The Flying Doctors, filmed in my electorate of Mallee at Minyip, to Mad Max, Crocodile Dundee and The Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert, the star of the show has been the people and the landscapes of regional Australia. As we see the capital cities grow at breakneck pace under Labor governments—federal and state—I come to this debate with an unashamed and strong emphasis on regional Australians. That is why—and I foreshadow—I will be moving an amendment to ensure transparency on how much of the Australian production proposed through this bill will actually occur in regional Australia.

Let's remember the regulatory space we have here. Our media regulations were made during the 20th century of television towers and antennas on roofs. Now, builders do not even put antennas on house builds. This is the 21st century, and regulation has not caught up to the reality where many Australians—if not the majority—are digesting the bulk of their news and entertainment over the internet through the NBN broadband internet, 5G, 4G or whatever else they use. Critically, regulation hasn't caught up to the fact that we have strictly regulated the Australian broadcasters while regulation does not effectively touch the international broadcasters such as those this bill seeks to regulate. Australia's media is not a free market. This is a failed market, and the Nationals know about interventions in market failure situations all too well, as we see the need for it time and time again in regional Australia.

Free-to-air television broadcasters face many barriers. There are laws and rules that apply to our commercial broadcasters that do not apply to offshore based, streaming, video-on-demand providers. SBODs, or streamers, are free to use the digital airwaves—so to speak—as they wish with no barriers. The bill is an opening step in changing that. How can we, Australian parliamentarians, in good conscience say to Australian broadcasters, 'We'll keep you under red tape but not apply the same or similar red tape to others who broadcast in Australia'? These international broadcasters are swallowing up advertising revenue that keeps Australian broadcasters on air. For example, international broadcasters can run gambling advertising that Australian broadcasters cannot, particularly at times of match play.

As I said earlier, we Nationals know all too well about market failure and the need for government to intervene, as we see it all too often in regional Australia. I publicly stated in August that we have a declining regional media and lack of journalists. I don't have one single television journalist based in Mallee—which, I might remind viewers, is Victoria's largest land electorate, a third the size of Victoria. We need to see ourselves on screen and in our news services, but in streaming services as well. Of course, the investment this bill refers to is not for news or sport but for Australian creative content, including documentaries and movies. Having said that, I give a shout-out to the WIN network who, as of Monday this week, resumed news bulletins in Sunraysia, my hometown of Mildura and in Griffith in the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area. It is wonderful to see ourselves on TV news again.

I spoke on WIN News across regional Australia last night, including—I am excited to say again—in Mildura, about streaming platforms, how they minimise their tax in Australia and how commercial broadcasters are not on a level playing field. I'll repeat what I said in August 2024 for the benefit of the House. I haven't had time to update the figures, but this is the tilted playing field we operate in—this blurred online media market space. Apple, who have streaming platform Apple TV, who earned $9.3 billion on Australian shores in the most recent reporting year I have to hand, paid just $137.3 million in tax, which was only 1.5 per cent of their Australian revenues. In 2018, Netflix reportedly had an effective tax rate of 0.05 per cent in Australia, despite $1 billion in revenue, and paid just $342,000 in tax. That figure rose to $868,000 in 2022 but is still far short of its revenue and impact on Australian society.

Netflix's tax avoidance smarts aren't limited to Australia. In the USA, during the life of the Trump administration, Netflix paid US$81 million in corporate tax, despite earning $10.5 billion over that period. We've seen the news in the last 24 hours of US officials warning the Commonwealth we could be hit with more tariffs if we keep pushing on the media bargaining incentive—what was the media bargaining code under the coalition government—on the social media bans for under 16s, on this initiative to require Australian content and on more. As elected representatives of Australians as the Australian parliament, it is now our sovereign right and duty to act in the national interest.

Let me tell you a few Australian stories streaming platforms might want to look into to fill their Australian content quotas. Regions are out of sight, out of mind for the Albanese Labor government. The radical pursuit of net zero at all costs railroading regional communities—Victorian Labor government said, without offshore wind, 70 per cent of Victorian farmland would be needed. Can you imagine the documentary—the headline? It would play potentially all over the world—railroading of farmers without social licence.

On Monday 24 November, the Victorian government issued a draft renewable energy zone order for five onshore renewable energy zones, including several in my electorate. What we know is that, under Victorian Labor, the word 'draft' actually means 'final'. Even though there is apparently a consultation until February, we know that, in Victoria, it means nothing. VicGrid attempted, earlier this month, to access properties at Greens Creek and Bunguluke, in my electorate, using powers the Victorian Labor government energy minister Lily D'Ambrosio gave them. Farmers are starting harvest very shortly. They don't have time to be protesting, but they are because this means so much to them—farmers like Rod Reading and Greg Bladwin, who spoke with Wimmera Mallee News earlier this week about how they face compulsory access from VicGrid in the near future.

This is about Australian stories, and all of Australia needs to hear Australian stories—whether it's documentaries, whether it's creative films—and streaming platforms need to invest in Australian stories. That is what this bill is about, and I will be moving amendments to ensure this happens.

The question before the House is that the second reading amendment moved by the honourable member for Berowra be agreed to.

by leave—I move amendments (1) and (3) to (5), as circulated in my name, together:

(1) Schedule 1, item 3, page 7 (line 18), after "nil expenditure", insert "but does not include any amount which may be subsequently recouped via the refund of part or all of a tax rebate on the program through any producer offset scheme".

(2) Schedule 1, item 3, page 23 (after line 34), after subsection 121FZN(2), insert:

(2A) However, the service's total program expenditure for Australia for the relevant year does not include expenditure incurred by the provider or providers of the service in the relevant year in commissioning an Australian screen business to produce an eligible Australian program unless, under the relevant agreement with the Australian screen business, the ancillary or secondary rights are all times retained under the ownership and control of the Australian screen business and the primary licensing rights revert to the Australian screen business after a period of 3 years, or 5 years if the program has been commissioned for a subsequent season.

(3) Schedule 1, item 3, page 24 (line 32), after "report", insert "disaggregated by subgenre".

(4) Schedule 1, item 3, page 25 (after line 3), after subsection 121FZO(1), insert:

(1A) The report must include the following information about each subgenre included in the report:

(a) the number of commissioned titles;

(b) the total production expenditure incurred in Australia;

(c) the number of hours of content produced;

(d) whether the content qualifies as "Australian content" under the National Classification Code or ACMA guidelines;

(e) the release dates and platform availability within Australia.

(1B) For the purposes of this section, each of the following is an example of a subgenre:

(a) scripted drama;

(b) documentary;

(c) children's programming;

(d) comedy;

(e) animation;

(f) reality and factual entertainment.

(5) Schedule 1, item 3, page 25 (after line 7), at the end of section 121FZO, add:

(3) As soon as practicable after receiving a report under subsection (1), the ACMA must:

(a) publish a copy of the report on its website; and

(b) give a copy of report to the Minister.

(4) The Minister must cause a copy of the report to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the Minister receives the report.

As I outlined in my speech on the second reading of this bill, the Communications Legislation Amendment (Australian Content Requirement for Subscription Video On Demand (Streaming) Services) Bill 2025, screen content quotas for subscription video-on-demand services are long overdue. They're essential to ensuring Australians stories continue to be told. However, this bill does not go far enough to support and sustain the screen industry.

For this reason, I am moving some amendments which seek to address the loopholes that I identified earlier. These amendments are practical, targeted and designed to uphold integrity in the system. First, I will talk about the producer offset amendment. Producer offsets are government funded tax offsets covering 30 per cent of production costs. Although intended to support production companies and independent producers, a growing trend, particularly with streamers like Netflix, is for the streaming services to cashflow productions on the condition that the offset is later handed back to them. Under the current bill, the value of this offset can be counted as part of qualifying expenditure that streaming services must spend on Australian content. This means taxpayer money intended for the independent sector is treated as though it is the streamer's own investment even when the streamer is not actually contributing to these funds.

My amendment would exclude the value of the producer offset from qualifying Australian expenditure until streaming services genuinely spend more of their own money on Australian productions, particularly in cases where they currently can recoup part of the production costs through the offset, and avoid unnecessary complexity as offset arrangements are made at the contract stage and obligations are acquitted over a three-year period. This is a simple measure to ensure public money is not counted twice and that the purpose of the producer offset is preserved.

I think this is important. The producer offset is a piece of tax legislation I fought for very strongly, but I recognise that these offsets are expensive for the Australian taxpayer. This is money that the Australian taxpayer puts in. I think it really goes contrary to the intention of this bill, which is to get overseas platforms to invest in Australian content, to allow them to include taxpayer money in their Australian investment because it is demonstrably clear that Australian taxpayer money is not overseas money from these platforms in terms of investment in Australian content. So I do think this is an area where there is an issue. I appreciate there are other issues in terms of consistence with previous legislation for free-to-air and other platforms, but my understanding is that the producer offsets are not a factor in content in other parts of the system. So this is why that is not a particularly big issue and is one where I think there is a strong argument.

The second argument I would like to make is about mandating subgenre reporting to track investment in children's and documentary content. We know that key sectors, particularly children's programming and documentaries, are under significant pressure. Although these genres are eligible Australian programs, the bill does not require the streaming services to allocate any minimum level of investment across these content types. This bill already requires reporting to ACMA on business operations, including subscriber numbers and revenue. So my amendment would simply require streaming services to provide detailed information for each subgenre, the number of commissioned titles, total production expenditure, hours produced and stats on platform availability and provide ACMA and the parliament with transparent, accurate data to assess whether the investment is genuinely flowing into these vulnerable genres at the time of the statutory review. This report will be published online, provided to the minister and tabled in parliament. This amendment doesn't impose subgenre quotas, but it would ensure that the parliament has the evidence it needs to determine whether further action is warranted.

These amendments, I think, are well targeted. I previously also had an amendment in relation to the terms of trade—particularly protecting IP. I have withdrawn that at this stage on the basis that there is some concern that it could have unintended consequences on the writers' royalties. So I think further consideration of that amendment will need to be made to make sure that it doesn't interfere with writers' rights. But the principle of the amendment I had previously circulated but am not moving right now is that the terms of trade and intellectual property of our shows is actually really important. It is one of the most important ongoing streams of revenue for independent producers. It is the independent producers that all of these content quotas are intended to protect.

To summarise, these amendments are targeted, reasonable and designed to strengthen the effectiveness and fairness of the bill. They uphold the intent of the legislation while protecting taxpayers, supporting independent producers and ensuring the parliament can make informed decisions about the future of Australian content.

I will start with the concept that is relevant to all the amendments, so will speak generally. People will be aware of the extent of the legal work and the challenges of making sure we keep this piece of legislation within trade law. Some of the pushback and back-and-forth has found its way into the media but members of the House would certainly be aware of that. For that reason and because of the level of legal work that has gone into the legislation, the government will not have an appetite to accept amendments, as a general rule, as we work our way through this. That said, I will still speak to give a position on the individual amendments as they are moved.

First of all, I respect the engagement that the member for Wentworth has had with the screen industry. She has a large number of people engaged in the screen industry in her electorate of Wentworth. She has publicly raised and asked about this issue in parliament and privately has sought regular briefings from me through her entire time here, wanting to make sure that not only did we get to an obligation for the streaming services but that it was as unambiguous as possible.

The effect of the first amendment would effectively take us from an obligation of 10 per cent to 13 or 14 per cent. That is the impact it would have. There are particular reasons under trade law as to why we are introducing legislation at the 10 per cent figure, so we would not be able to support an amendment that departed from that. In the comments of the member for Wentworth, there was a reference to how the producer offset was to be calculated against other obligations. Many of the free-to-air obligations, for example, relate to time not expenditure; therefore, it is irrelevant to those. The only expenditure obligation in the same way would be the NETI obligation that applies to Foxtel. In that situation there is not a discount in the form that this amendment would seek, so keeping it as is would be consistent with how the only other expenditure based obligation we have operates.

In earlier consultation I had been seeking sub quotas. We have pulled right back from sub quotas, based on the legal position we have been working ourselves through in trade law. I would not want there to be a reporting obligation that in any way confused that should we end up in a situation where this is challenged, so the government will not be in a position to support any of the amendments.

Thank you very much to the minister for your engagement on these amendments and also throughout the time on this very important legislation, which I would like to see passed here today, as much as anyone in this House—today or in the next couple of days. I take your point that you will not support the producer offset but I do think there is a case to be made here, that currently this is not being applied consistently. There are some companies who say they want the producer offset and there are some streamers who are not asking for the producer offset. If you addressed this now you would actually fix this going forward rather than have a situation where, I expect, over time, more of those companies will accept a producer offset. I do not think it is consistently used by all streamers or expected by all streamers; therefore, it wouldn't be part of their calculations at the current stage. That is why I think this is the right moment to deal with the producer offsets. I still make the case, very strongly, that Australian taxpayers don't expect our taxpayer money to be used to support content quotas for overseas filmmakers.

The actual percentage that the government has put into this legislation is significantly lower than a country like France. Again, the industry was seeking a much higher level but, by leaving it in, it reduces that further and that is the fundamental concern of the industry. You are right: it is about the NETI, not the free-to-air, so I apologise—my mistake. In relation to that NETI point, the point is the producer offset is not used under the NETI scheme. My understanding is that it has never been applied and there is no part of the NETI scheme where someone has used the producer offset as part of those calculations. It feels like we're, in this case, bringing something that is irrelevant in another scheme into this scheme and making it extremely relevant, and, unfortunately, weakening the strength of this piece of legislation. That's the argument. I appreciate all the constraints you have in terms of dealing with this piece of legislation, but I think these are going to be issues that will be significant factors for the screen industry. If there is any way to deal with the NETI scheme to make it consistent with this, that is where the government should be going.

Question negatived.

I move the amendment as circulated in my name:

(1) Schedule 1, item 3, page 4 (after line 27), after section 121FT, insert:

121FTA Object of Part

An object of this Part is to ensure that subscription video on demand services contribute to the development, production and dissemination of Australian stories, by making balanced genre investments across culturally significant genres, including drama, children's programming, documentary, arts programming and educational content.

This bill ensures that streaming services contribute fairly to the Australian screen sector, supporting our stories and our creative workforce. I start by thanking the minister and the government for their engagement and for acting on this longstanding commitment to protect the screen industry. I appreciate the government's engagement on the bill and willingness to discuss concerns that have been raised by local constituents, members of the industries and members of the screen industry as well as streamers. I've met with a number of streamers; I have Stan located in my electorate, and I have met with a number of others.

We know the sector requires investments across culturally significant types, including drama, children, documentary, arts or education content. These different types of content help to define Australia's identity. They tell our stories, reflect our lived experience and create shared cultural touchstones. We know drama gives us stories that last, whether that's Mystery Road, The Newsreader, Total Control, Love My Way or Black Snow. These are shows that Australians gather around and remember for decades to come.

Despite quotas being placed for commercial broadcasters, investment in drama, documentary and children's content has been falling significantly. Children make up almost 20 per cent of the population. They require specific content that reflects their world, one that is age-appropriate, educational and distinctly Australian. It's critical for their early education and social development and for building a sense of belonging. Yet the children's sector has been amongst the hardest hit by declining investment.

The amendment I've circulated seeks to amend the objects to make very clear the intent, which I understand has been indicated by the government, that the investment and this requirement on streamers be across all types of content, from drama to documentary to children's content. It amends the objects clause with a new part 8C of the bill, to clarify the intention of the bill to ensure that streaming services contribute to the development, production and dissemination of Australian stories by making balanced genre investments across all types mandated in the bill, including drama, children's programming, documentary, arts programming and educational content.

This amendment would embed the bill's purpose explicitly into the legislation and would ensure that ACMA's oversight and compliance align with the overall intention of the bill. This is significant, given the broad discretion in the bill for ACMA to make the rules. ACMA's oversight needs to align with parliament's clear expectation that investment be balanced across all culturally significant genres and that Australian stories remain central to our screen environment.

The bill is an important step to guaranteeing Australian stories and voices on our screens. It recognises that investment in a broad range of culturally significant areas is important for the strength of our national identity. However, we need to safeguard that intent. The framework must be implemented with clarity, accountability and ambition. We can't afford to get this wrong. I've heard from the minister that there will be a review period and that, in four years time, we will assess whether spending has been balanced across all types of content. But, when the screen industry employs over 60,000 Australians, drives a huge amount around creative export and shapes how we Australians see ourselves in our place and in the world—at a time when investment is so critical in these areas and has been falling so dramatically—this amendment just seeks to make sure that it is clear around the intention that the investment should be across all types of content.

We know the stories matter. They deserve to be told, to be seen and to be supported by a system that values their contribution to our economy, our identity and our shared future. And, whilst I know that speeches can be meaningful and explanatory memoranda are meaningful in assisting ACMA in assessing—especially in four years time, when the review occurs—I think it is very important to give a very clear direction to streamers as to the objects and the intention of the government in this legislation: wanting there to be investment across all sectors. We can't just assume it will be done. By making it explicit in the objects, we make clear the expectation of investment across all areas. I had wanted to move amendments around specific subquotas, but I understand the legal difficulties around that—but that is why I submit that this objects amendment is the best way forward.

In a similar way to what I said earlier, I want to acknowledge the member for Warringah for an engagement that has been going on for some years now on this particular issue. It's important for the commitment that's been shown on this issue to be acknowledged.

As I said earlier, we're not in a position to be amending the bill at all. But, if I can refer specifically to the issue of the objects proposal—you could take it either way in terms of what's being said, so I think it's important that I clarify. In terms of the different subgenres, I do want to see—across the full suite of streaming businesses that are out there—and make sure that we end up getting the sort of diversity that's just been spoken about and that's reflected in the amendment. I don't, however, believe that it's essential for each individual streaming business to be providing that full range. There will be some streamers, for example, that decide that providing a serious level of children's content is important to them and go down that path. There will be others who go down a specific path, in seeking an audience, that is deliberately aimed at not having children among their audience.

I wouldn't want us to be in a situation or a conversation about objects and what we're to trying to achieve here that left any ambiguity in terms of the government's position on that, which is that, no matter who it is sitting on the lounge, we want Australian content in the different varieties that have been referred to be available to them. But I certainly wouldn't want there to be an impression that the government was seeking to have a situation where every single streaming service had to provide the full range. I think different levels of specialty is a reasonable business model for them. But part of what the government is wanting to achieve here is that the full range of Australian content that people love is guaranteed to be available on streaming services—in the same way that, historically, you could get it on free-to-air, on the public broadcasters and on cable television.

I thank the minister for that clarification, but it does raise a pretty concerning red flag. It does mean that sectors like documentaries or children's content could fall off the map completely over the next four years for the government's having failed to ensure that there is streaming investment in those sectors. What could very well result from this is a complete loss of those Australian stories from our screens because of decisions by international streaming companies to only focus on dramas. Then what will have happened is that we will have in fact failed to protect, through this legislation, and to save Australian stories across the full gamut of what is required to support stories. The storytelling is so important, but there's also the cultural identity and why it is so essential that we continue seeing Australian content. There is the importance of preserving the jobs and the industry in this sector, and there is also making sure that that diversity of content is made. So what assurance, then, can the government give that those in sectors such as children's programming and documentaries will not completely disappear over the next four years while we wait for the review period?

Just very quickly—and I won't respond further—the situation we're in right now is that there is no guarantee of anything. That's the situation we're in right now. The purpose of the legislation is to start to get some guarantees on the expenditure on Australian content.

Question negatived.

I move the amendment as circulated in my name:

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

"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House notes that:

(1) the Coalition has been an unwavering supporter of the Australian screen industry for decades, and is responsible for:

(a) establishing the producer offset, the location offset, the digital and visual effect production offset—which have underpinned support for the sector for almost two decades;

(b) introducing the location incentive, which attracted billions of dollars of investment into Australia in the film industry;

(c) providing in excess of $100 million in financial supports to the Australian screen production industry throughout the Covid pandemic; and

(d) first proposing an Australian content guarantee for streamers in February 2022; and

(2) after almost four years of inaction, the Government has asked that this Bill be passed in just four sitting days, having taken the industry by surprise and despite significant concerns about potential unintended consequences".

This amendment relates to prominence, with 'prominence' meaning that Australian content is actually accessible to those who wish to watch it. It means it's easily found, visible and discoverable so that viewers can effortlessly choose Australian content if they want to. I've spoken to people in the sector and I know that this is a real issue for them.

In the old days, prominence was built into the content requirement. Prominence and local content were a package deal. You couldn't have one without the other. The subscription video-on-demand model breaks that link. Just because you commission an Australian show doesn't mean it will be easily found. No-one wants that outcome. Streamers don't want that outcome. Streamers say they don't do this; the commercial imperative is otherwise. Overwhelmingly, the streamers I've spoken to say that they do the right thing. They say that, if they're going to invest in a show, they want to give it the appropriate prominence so that it's seen and successful. They want a show that will come up on the carousel when you log on to Netflix or Amazon Prime as a selection that you can easily choose, and that's great. As I said earlier, no-one has a crystal ball. We don't know how the market will change in coming years. We don't know what the market impacts of this bill, the Communications Legislation Amendment (Australian Content Requirement for Subscription Video on Demand (Streaming) Services) Bill 2025, will be. We don't know how the market will change. We don't know what new players in the market will do with their catalogues. We can't guarantee that the Australian content that will be commissioned when this bill passes will actually be easy to find for ordinary Australian families.

That's why I'm moving this amendment today. This is about futureproofing the bill. It's a simple, light-touch regulatory model. It simply gives the minister a power—a power which frankly I hope the minister never needs to use. But the mechanism is straightforward. The amendment says:

The Minister may, by legislative instrument, prescribe requirements relating to the prominence and accessibility of eligible Australian content on major SVOD services if the Minister is satisfied, on reasonable grounds, that it is appropriate to make the instrument to ensure eligible Australian content is readily accessible to Australian users.

If you listen carefully, you'll hear the safeguard's built into that mechanism. It has a clear purpose. It requires reasonable grounds. It includes an obligation to consult with the major streamers who'll be subject to the requirement. It says that the instrument will be disallowable. That means parliament has oversight.

The amendment says that the instrument is time-bound. It can only last three years. But there's a clear power to amend or remake it. There's a requirement to comply, which is enforceable by civil penalty provisions, along the same lines as the civil penalty provisions that apply to prominence for television. There is also a requirement to review the prominence framework. I say to the minister: pass this amendment. Pass this amendment and vote for the prominence of Australian content. Don't vote against prominence for Australian content. Why not have a mechanism to give the minister the ability to deal with the prominence of Australian content on streaming services as a safeguard to futureproof this bill? Why not make this bill deal with more than just reporting an investment and do better as a cultural policy? After all, it's in the interests of all Australians that they can easily find Australian stories. It's in the interests of the Australian screen production industry that their stories are easily found.

The ramifications of this type of measure are far-reaching. They affect the screen production industry, which we support. We want Australian content to be prominent and discoverable in an on-demand world. But there will be other industries in the cultural sector that will also take note. It's in their interests too. So, again, I say to the minister: don't vote against the prominence of Australian content. This is a simple measure, with the wellbeing of the Australian screen industry at its heart. It's not a restrictive legislative formal obligation. It's a flexible, light-touch approach that leaves the platforms with the flexibility to determine the best way to give prominence to our stories, with a safeguard if necessary. The prominence and discoverability of Australian content should be front and centre together in this discussion. They are natural partners. I commend the amendment to the House.

I thank the shadow minister for both his contribution earlier and his contribution just now with respect to the amendment he's moved.

When we started the consultation, prominence was one of the issues we put on the table to work through. The pushback from those who didn't want it was some of the strongest pushback we had, on the basis that there was an argument that we were seeking to interfere with their IP. Also, the trade complications on dealing with this were viewed as being pretty serious. But, secondly, an argument put by the streamers—which was not unreasonable—was that if they've spent a whole lot of money on a production then they are going to want to make sure eyes are on it.

The government, having considered those arguments, took the view that the most important thing was to make sure the investment in the content took place, because the business demands would cause these streamers to want to make sure that what they had invested in was being viewed. As I said, the issues about prominence are around the value of the regulation versus the outcome when weighed against some of the pushback and trade issues we're dealing with. On balance, we made a decision that we were better off securing a guarantee of the investment than going down this additional path. But I completely respect the reasons the amendment is being moved.

The question before the House is that the amendment moved by the member for Berowra be agreed to.

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

I highlight an urgent situation for the Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme to address concerning specialist disability accommodation potentially ceasing to exist by 31 December, leaving vulnerable Australians homeless. Noreen is a constituent in my electorate of Mallee and is in her mid-80s. Noreen's son lives in a specialist disability accommodation service within my electorate. Noreen's son faces eviction from his specialist accommodation from 1 January due to the Commonwealth squabbling with the Victorian government, whose transitional funding ends this year for those like Noreen's son, who will soon rely exclusively on the NDIS for funding for their home—funding that doesn't go far enough for specialist homes. This feels like the government's aged-care bungling all over again. The Age reported in early September:

Thousands of Victorians with profound disabilities face the prospect of eviction from their group homes and the loss of carers they have relied on for years due to a funding stand-off between private providers, the state and the federal government.

Where is the minister responsible for this failed handover of accommodation and arrangements? This needs urgent attention.

This week I had the privilege of attending Carers Australia's young carers Australia barbecue right here in Parliament House, where I met the wonderful Taya and her mum, Kathryn, from Burnie in the electorate that I represent. Taya is an extraordinary 15-year-old and a proud young carer. She cares for her younger brother Kye, who has level 3 autism, is nonverbal and lives with a global development delay. When Kye was first diagnosed, Taya knew nothing about autism or the challenges ahead, but she embraced her role with courage and resilience. Her caring responsibilities are significant. She manages toileting, nightly medication, getting both herself and Kye ready for school, ensuring someone is home to meet his bus and providing constant supervision. These are just some of the daily tasks that make life more complex for her family.

While many of her peers may not fully understand the demands of her role, Taya continues to show incredible strength. Despite these responsibilities, she's still a teenager with really big dreams. She plays club football, performs in musicals, takes on leadership roles in school, works part time and maintains a social life. She speaks honestly about carer burn out and the struggle to balance her own needs with Kye's and reminds us that caring takes a village. She's grateful for the support around her. Her story is a powerful reminder of the resilience of our young carers, and my hat goes off to her.

Last week, I stood in a field of sugarcane and saw a man pouring his heart and sweat into the land. Despite doing everything right, cane farmer Peter Doyle is shackled by soaring electricity bills that punish hard work and ambition. He has invested heavily in solar and he chases every tariff and every saving available, yet his power bills keep rising. This is why Australians deserve a cheaper, better and fairer energy system. Imagine every farmer across Australia in the same position. Producers should be focused on feeding the nation and instead are being forced to manage their energy use like another full-time job. Families feel the pain at the checkout because, when a farmer's costs increase, the whole country pays for it. When electricity is unaffordable, everything is unaffordable. Peter should be concentrating on producing the best possible crop, but instead he navigates wind, tariffs and irrigation schedules just to avoid being punished for turning on the pump. That is not fair, and it is not sustainable.

Behind Labor's flawed energy policies are thousands of farmers like Peter doing everything right and still falling behind. We owe them an energy system that sparks opportunity, not one that leaves them powerless. The coalition has a cheaper, better and fairer energy policy, and I say bring it on for Australia's sake—the sooner the better.

I rise today to speak about something that beats at the heart of our creative nation: our live music venues. These spaces are more than bricks and mortar; they are community hubs, incubators of talent and the first stages where artists find their sound and find their audience. Without venues, there is no live music industry. Without live music, we lose part of who we are as Australians. That's why the Albanese government has stepped up with Revive Live—targeted, practical, real-world support that keeps doors open, staff employed and stages lit. It recognises that, when venues thrive, artists thrive, and, when artists thrive, communities flourish.

I'm proud to say that in my community this support is already making an impact. Bodriggy Brewpub, Inflation, Lulie Tavern, the iconic Punters Club, the Evelyn Hotel, the historic Grace Darling Hotel and the ever-energetic Yah Yah's are all benefiting from Revive Live funding. These venues aren't just places to go on Friday nights; they take risks on emerging artists, nurture local talent and give us the soundtrack to our lives. Revive Live ensures these venues can continue. It keeps the pipeline of Australian music strong, from the first gig in the back room to the biggest festival stages in the country. So let's celebrate our venues and keep Australian music live.

My New Year's resolutions for 2026 are to get outside and do more Mount Coot-tha bushwalks; fight to make big corporations and billionaires actually pay real tax; eat more of those delicious danishes from Riser bakery, in Toowong; do everything I can to make housing affordable by scrapping tax breaks for property investors and building housing people can actually afford; swim in Enoggera Reservoir at least once a month; hold Labor and the Liberal-National coalition to account for scapegoating migrants for the cost-of-living crisis instead of focusing on the billionaires and the big corporations that are actually responsible; spend more time with my grandkids at Lone Pine Koala Sanctuary, in Fig Tree Pocket; say no to new coal and gas developments that will devastate our planet, serving coal and gas corporations with massive profits while they pay next to no tax; catch more movies at independent theatres like Eldorado in Indooroopilly; and call out Labor and the Liberal-National coalition for serving big corporate interests over those of everyday Australians.

Good things are possible. We can have housing that's affordable, more quality time to spend with our kids and grandkids, and beautiful nature that's preserved for future generations, but that's only possible if we have a government that actually stands up for everyday Australians instead of big corporations and its billionaire mates.

As Black Friday approaches, Australians are preparing to shop for bargains. Yet, for too many Amazon workers, the real cost of these deals comes in the form of exhaustion, job insecurity and enforced silence. Globally, Amazon has built an empire on convenience, too often sacrificing fairness along the way. Their record speaks for itself. From refusing to engage in good-faith bargaining at its Staten Island warehouse to shutting down all seven of its Quebec warehouses the moment workers wanted union recognition, time and time again Amazon's conduct reveals a consistent and deliberate disregard for workers' rights.

Here in Australia, the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees' Association and the Transport Workers' Union have been at the forefront of the Make Amazon Pay campaign. Together they organised nationwide rallies that united hundreds of workers and supporters demanding fair pay, safer working conditions and respect for workers' rights.

Yet, while exploiting workers, Amazon also exploits our taxation system. Despite earning over $3 billion in Australia last financial year, they paid less than one per cent in tax. No corporation should be able to silence workers or shrink their contributions to society. It's time we stood together and made Amazon pay.

The 16 days of activism on domestic and family violence is a timely reminder that gender equality is still unfinished work. Progress is possible only because we stand on the shoulders of the women who paved the way.

Earlier this month my team and I had the pleasure of celebrating one of those very remarkable women, Sara Dowse, an extraordinary volunteer who turned 87. Sara is a prolific author, feminist and visual artist. Her novel West Block was one of the first works of fiction set in Canberra, and her book Sapphires won the 1995 ACT book of the year. But it was her career in public service that was truly ground breaking. In 1972, under the new Whitlam government, she was seconded to the office of then Minister for Labour, Clyde Cameron, where she championed equal pay, child care and part-time employment.

Following this, Sara became the inaugural head of the first women's unit in the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, a role which earned her the nickname Supergirl from the media. Under her leadership, the unit evolved into what we now know as the Office for Women. She then served under Prime Ministers Whitlam and Fraser, and she later shaped the ALP's women's policy for the 1983 federal election and led platforms such as expanded legal aid, family court jurisdiction and the ratification of the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women.

Today, Sara has a formidable part to play in the ever-growing story of Warringah. Her's is a prolific story with passion, and I thank her for her incredible passion.

Only weeks ago and with almost no notice, community health provider cohealth announced it would close its general practice services, including in Kensington in my community. This decision came with no consultation, with little transparency and with little regard for the impact on patients, staff and the broader community. From that moment, my office, alongside residents, acted quickly and with purpose. My simple focus was unwavering: standing up for the Kensington community and ensuring no-one was left without the health care that they depend on.

When cohealth first announced the closures, residents were understandably shocked and distressed. This is a service the community helped build. It is a service they are fiercely protective of, and they made it clear that they would fight for it. I brought their concern straight here to Canberra and I made it clear that our community deserved better than a shutdown, and we won. This didn't happen by accident. It happened because the community refused to be silent. Residents organised, healthcare workers and unions stood up, and together we were a voice that could not be ignored by cohealth.

As a result of that advocacy, the Albanese Labor government has stepped in with funding to keep the GP services operating until next year. We've also secured an independent review—something that I pushed for from day one—to deliver transparency, accountability and, importantly, the long-term delivery of GP services for this area. The work is not done, but I'll keep standing up with locals, holding cohealth to account and pushing to secure sustainable primary health care in Kensington.

Don't let the image of a crushed Coles banana crossing the finishing line put you off, Deputy Speaker Claydon. Saturday week ago, the Sandringham Little Athletics club hosted its first-ever community cup during the Coles community round. The highlight was the 400-metre team relay face-off between team Coles, City of Bayside, Grill'd burgers Hampton, Community Bank Sandringham, Hello Bello Pizza in Black Rock—which makes the fourth-best pizza in the world—team Brad Rowswell MP, team Tim Wilson MP and a team of Sandy little aths athletes.

'How did we go?' the House may ask. It's best not to imagine the Chariots of Fire music as I crossed the finish line, crushed banana in hand. The Bananas in Pyjamas theme music might be a little bit more appropriate, with running gait instead. Of course, humility is something that's always required in these situations—something the state member for Sandringham lacked by crowing about his medal-free performance in the Victorian parliament recently.

But this was about Sandy little aths and the community, so I give a big shout-out of thanks to Nick Milat, the head of community engagement at Sandy little aths; Jacqui Cooper, who acted as emcee; President Ben Albrecht; the Sandy little aths committee; and everyone who made this incredible event possible. It was such a wonderful day. The sun was shining. There were smiles everywhere. There was excellent music from the DJ. But, more than anything, it brought the Sandy little aths community together to have a wonderful celebration.

I want Australians to know about a Darwin local, Michael Torres, who was honoured at the national counsellors conference in Adelaide, where he received not one but two national awards. Michael was named Indigenous counsellor of the year and Counsellor of the Year 2025 by the Australian Counselling Association, which represents more than 20,000 practitioners across the country. Michael has worked in counselling and healing spaces for over two decades, including at the Darwin Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Women's Shelter and through his work with the Indigenous Men's Healing Shed. His work focuses on trauma informed care, cultural sensitivity and mental health advocacy for Indigenous men and First Nations people in general.

Michael's story shows the power of community based healing and the importance of culturally grounded services that reflect and respect the people that we serve. Michael shows us that true excellence in counselling lies in lived in experience, deep care and long-term commitment to others. I congratulate Michael for this well deserved national recognition and thank him for his lasting contribution to the health and wellbeing of our entire community.

And, obviously, after Tropical Cyclone Fina over the weekend and the last couple of days, I give a big shout-out to everyone there helping others through difficult times.

Last week I had the opportunity to visit Move For Mums with the Leader of the Opposition, Sussan Ley. Move For Mums is a pre- and postnatal exercise class in Montrose that supports local women far beyond the workout. The founder, Rachael, is a MumSafe accredited Safe Return to Exercise trainer who helps mums build functional strength, confidence and connection as they navigate every stage of motherhood. As Rachael said, the reality is that mothers are the 'gatekeepers of family health'. When mums are strong, the family is strong, the community is strong and the nation is strong. It is so important we invest in preventative health and adequate health care for Australian women to ensure they are supported at all stages of life, throughout pregnancy and afterwards.

Around one in three women experience pelvic floor dysfunction, which can lead to further health issues for many women. Rachael believes these issues can be better addressed through (1) pelvic health physio appointments for pregnant and postpartum women; (2) Safe Return to Exercise guidance, to be given at the six-week-checkup mark; and (3) reduced barriers for mums to access specialised postnatal fitness programs through subsidies or vouchers. I will continue to advocate for and work with Rachael to support local mums and families to ensure Australian families enjoy the highest quality of life.

():  From 25 November to 10 December, we mark the 16 Days of Activism against Gender-Based Violence, a global campaign calling for an end to violence against women and girls. Recently, I had the privilege of meeting with Kae and Lindy from the Flinders club of Zonta International in Adelaide, an organisation doing remarkable work to empower women and girls in our community. Zonta stands for women's rights and advocates for equality, education and an end to child marriage and gender based violence. In Adelaide, Zonta's efforts range from advocacy to practical support such as contributing handmade breast pads for inclusion in packs given to new mothers leaving hospital who would otherwise be leaving with nothing. These small acts of care make a big difference.

This year I proudly wear the orange ribbon, alongside many of my parliamentary colleagues, as a visible symbol of solidarity and commitment to ending gender based violence. I am proud to serve in a government that is committed to ending violence against women and children—a government that has invested more than $4 billion towards this goal. Violence against women is preventable. It requires awareness, action and accountability. Let's use these 16 days, and every day, to work towards a future where women and girls live free from violence.

When it comes to storms in the electorate of La Trobe, especially the Dandenong Ranges, we get big storms. Back in 2021, areas in the Dandenong Ranges, including La Trobe—such as Cockatoo, Gembrook and Emerald—lost power for many days. Everyone in the hills, if not right around Australia, relies on the Bureau of Meteorology's website to make sure they get up-to-date information when storms are coming. Recently, when I went on the website, like so many Australians, it was actually very hard to follow. I landed on a map of Australia rather than locally, and, when I looked at when the storm was coming, in actual fact, it had been changed from a bad storm of red to a different colour of blue.

Then we found out that the bureau had actually upgraded their website with the full go-ahead of the Albanese government. It was supposed to be $4.1 million. When it comes to anyone building a website, $4 million is a lot of money. Yet, remarkably, under the Labor government, it blew out to $96 million. How can a website cost $96 million? It is an absolute disgrace, and the website didn't even work the way we expected it to. It was absolutely hopeless.

Shame on the Labor government for wasting $96 million of taxpayers' money on a website that doesn't even work.

Black Friday is only a few days away. It has become cemented as one of the premier shopping days of the year, with customers tracking down deals before the Christmas season. But, with so many Australians turning to online retailers to find deals, there is a dark side to this shopping spree.

Amazon, one of the most significant online retailers, will rake in profits from Black Friday and is not a company that embraces Australian values. The best way to describe Amazon's conduct and attitude is maximum control paired with minimum transparency. Amazon has consistently demonstrated itself to be anti-union and anti-accountability. Their corporate conduct centres on robust efforts to silence their workforce and not allow anything to get in the way of their high-volume business model. From New York to right here in Australia, Amazon refuses to bargain or acknowledge concerns. They've shut entire facilities to stop legitimate union activities. They deploy an array of intrusive and dehumanising surveillance systems that monitor every second of employee activity and stamp out any efforts to organise. This is not good enough. This Black Friday it's time to make Amazon pay.

Electricity prices are going up, and, when they go up, two things happen. The first thing is you'll pay more for your product because the manufacturing cost, the cost of doing business, has gone up 40 per cent from when this government first came into power. When electricity prices go up 40 per cent, business has got two choices: absorb the cost or pass it on. If it's getting passed on, you in the gallery will pay more for your product. The other thing that happens when electricity prices go up is that our debt gets bigger. We're screaming towards a trillion dollars worth of debt and we're pushing that debt onto the next generation of Australians, who are going to have to pay it.

In my electorate, the largest contributor to GDP is agriculture. For packing sheds that pack and value-add to the likes of corn, onions, cauliflower, cabbages, broccolini and various other vegetables, when their energy costs increase 40 per cent, they've two choices. They can put it onto their cost of the product, which has got an inflationary effect for you, or they can go broke. There are more businesses going broke today under this government than there has been. When my growers and irrigators water their crop, they're water intensive. Their costs go up 40 per cent. They're not going to be here under this government.

Every day we delay reforming Australia's environmental laws is another day where nature loses ground. We need urgent action now, and our reforms would deliver it. If passed by the Senate, the reforms will enshrine national environmental standards, better protect threatened species and deliver an independent national EPA with real powers. These reforms will modernise an approval system that is too slow and too confusing, holding up renewable energy, housing and critical minerals projects our country urgently needs. These reforms build on our achievements to protect 95 million hectares of bush and ocean, to drive investment in renewable energy and to work towards ambitious emissions reduction targets.

After years of debate, now is the moment for this parliament to choose progress over politics. It's worth remembering that our communities sent us here to act, to do better for our environment, to do better for business. I urge all members across the chamber to work with the government in good faith. Every day without these laws is another day of environmental decline and another day Australians wait for homes, clean energy and the regional jobs that these reforms will unlock. We can fix our broken laws, we can protect nature and we can build the future at the same time, but only if we pass these reforms now.

The coalition has engaged in good faith with the government to secure environmental law reform—reform that will deliver for the environment and for jobs, industry and investment—in our great nation because Australians deserve environmental laws that are productive, practical and durable. But the legislation in its current form, despite the lofty rhetoric of those opposite, falls well short of delivering the certainty, the balance and the productivity that our nation needs. The coalition have engaged constructively throughout this process and we have put forward a list of seven substantive concerns to the government, which Labor has failed to address in their amendments. They have failed to deal with the core concerns raised by industry and housing stakeholders. The coalition has been clear, the housing sector has been clear and the Senate inquiry has been clear that no-one is asking for lower standards. It is clarity, efficiency and regulatory settings that allow them to build, innovate and grow. We all share the goal of protecting Australia's environment.

Environmental protection and national productivity are not mutually exclusive. We cannot risk sending investment offshore, slowing productivity and putting thousands of jobs at risks. If the government continues with its antijobs, antiproductivity and anti-investment pathway then we cannot support the legislation. Australia needs good environment laws, not political shortcuts disguised as reform. We remain ready to work constructively to deliver a better pathway forward for our environment and for our economy. (Time expired)

() (): Today is the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women. Today also marks the beginning of 16 days of activism against gender based violence. In 90 seconds, here are 16 things Labor has delivered to keep women and children safe: (1) invested more than any Australian government ever, more than $4 billion, including for front-line services; (2) made the living against violence payment permanent—$5,000 to help women leave abusive relationships; (3) invested $1.2 billion for emergency and transitional housing; (4) legislated 10 days of paid domestic and family violence leave; (5) invested $3.9 billion in the new national access to justice partnership, including an extra $800 million for family violence and legal services; (6) introduced legislation to make sure that our social security system cannot be weaponised by perpetrators of abuse; (7) reformed the family law system; (8) worked with states and territories to improve criminal justice responses to sexual violence; (9) invested $1 million to update the national framework for action to prevent alcohol-related family violence; (10) taken action to deal with high-risk perpetrators, investing over $82 billion; (11) invested $81 million for services like child-specific counselling; (12) launched an inquiry into domestic, family and sexual related suicide; (13) legislated the higher national education code to prevent and respond to gender based violence; (14) implemented all the recommendations of the Respect@Work report; (15) legislated a positive duty for employers; (16) made it illegal to— (Time expired)

Regional Australia is being hung out to dry once again by a Labor government that listens to green activists before it listens to the people who grow the nation's food. For more than three years, Labor has brushed aside the voices of communities who rely on the Murray-Darling Basin for their livelihood. In its latest 130-gigalitre buyback aimed squarely at the southern basin and directly at towns across my electorate of Farrer, it is not a policy for the environment; it is a political deal dressed up as reform. Places like Deniliquin, Barham, Wakool, Finley, Berrigan, Jerilderi, Tocumwal and Mulwala will carry the cost. These towns rely on irrigation for jobs, small business activity and the confidence that holds our local economies together. When Labor removes hundreds of billions of litres from irrigation, it is not just water that disappears; it is harvests that never occur, investment that dries up and families who are forced to leave. It is the quiet erosion of a very fabric of regional life.

Labor claims that the environment demands this. In truth, it is the Greens who demand this and it is Labor who caves. That is not stewardship; it is vandalism. Instead of backing success, Labor cancels dams, walks away from water infrastructure and reaches for buybacks as its first and only tool. I will always stand for smarter water policy that delivers real environmental outcomes while keeping regional communities strong. Labor is no friend of the bush.

Australians expect parliament to focus on outcomes, not theatrics. The Albanese Labor government has approached its work in that spirit—steady, practical and aimed at improving people's daily lives. The government has legislated tax reductions for every taxpayer. Bulk-billing has been strengthened through the largest increase to Medicare incentives in decades. Childcare costs have been reduced for over a million families to help parents stay in work. Fee-free TAFE has supported hundreds of thousands of Australians to train in critical industries, including construction, manufacturing and care. The National Reconstruction Fund is beginning the long-term task of rebuilding sovereign capability. National energy infrastructure has been modernised through Rewiring the Nation so the grid is fit for the coming decades. Aged-care standards have been lifted by ensuring nurses are onsite and improving nutritional and clinical care. PBS reforms have reduced the cost of many common medicines. And the housing agenda, through the Housing Australia Future Fund, has begun expanding the supply of social and affordable houses.

None of this is transformational overnight, nor is it claimed to be. It is careful, incremental work that good government undertakes. It reflects a belief that policy should be evidence based, fiscally responsible and aimed at long-term benefit. It demonstrates that parliament functions best when it focuses on solutions rather than conflict. Australians deserve that approach, and this government intends to continue it.

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

I declare that the resumption of debate on the Prime Minister's motion of condolence in connection with the death of the Hon. Graham Frederick Richardson is referred to the Federation Chamber.

I welcome the member for Holt back to parliament after the birth of Ilia. Baby Ilia made an appearance here with Cassandra. On behalf of all in the parliament, I'm sure it's a better thing that we now have young mums and reflect the greater diversity of the Australian public. Both Cassandra and young Ilia are very welcome back here in the parliament, and congratulations.

My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. Firstly, welcome back to Australia! The coalition thanks the full-time president of COP31 negotiations for taking the time today to make himself available and accountable to the Australian parliament in his capacity as part-time energy minister. How many—

The opposition leader will pause. The Leader of the House, on a point of order.

The standing orders are clear on references to members. Page 514 of the House of Representatives Practice makes it clear, and the reference that was just given is not referring to someone by their title and is out of order.

On the point of order, the leader did refer to the minister by his correct title, and she is allowed to describe the minister in any way she likes. It was part of his title, and, indeed, he is the president as well. The president of COP is correct. You made him the president of COP. I mean—

Thank you, Manager, for your assistance. I thank the Leader of the House. We're just going to deal with this. People need to be called by their correct titles. To assist the House to move forward, if the Leader of the Opposition could move to her question, and we don't have the commentary when we're asking questions, that would help everyone. In particular, address everyone by their correct titles. We don't need any other descriptors. Otherwise, we're going to get into dangerous territory. So let's just get on with the question and move forward. Let that be a lesson to everyone. We are just going to ask questions of the minister without descriptors. The leader can continue with her question.

My question—

Just ask the question. We don't need the early part.

The Prime Minister is interrupting. My question in continuation is: how many—

Order! If the Prime Minister can cease interjecting and the member for Hume. We haven't got through the first question, and I'm keen to hear the question, as I'm sure the minister is. Let's just get to the question.

My question in continuation is: how many days of parliament will the part-time minister miss in 2026, and what will be the cost to Australian taxpayers of the minister's full-time presidential duties?

I appreciate very much the question from the Leader of the Opposition. When you are a patriotic party of government, you celebrate national successes whether you are in opposition or in government. That's the approach the Labor Party in opposition took when John Howard chaired APEC with our support. It's the approach the Labor Party took when Tony Abbott chaired the G20 with our support. It's the approach the Labor Party took to support the appointment of Mathias Cormann as secretary-general of the OECD. I'm even old enough to remember the Labor Party in government supporting the appointment of Malcolm Fraser as Secretary-General of the Commonwealth. I'm even old enough to remember that!

If you are serious party of government, you want your country to do well whether you are in opposition or in government. I'm pleased that this government's achievements have been recognised with the appointment of COP negotiations president. I am pleased about that. It tells you a lot about the modern Liberal Party. In a domestic debate they say, 'Well, look, we shouldn't take any action on climate change because we're just one per cent of emissions.' When you say that maybe Australia could play an international role and help the rest of the world to decarbonise, that's a terrible thing too. We couldn't possibly have that!

This is a testament to Australia. It's a testament to my team. I thank the assistant minister, the member for Fremantle, who represented Australia at the first week of COP very well. I thank my special envoy, Kate Thwaites, the member for Jagajaga, who represented me at the G20. They will both continue to represent me at other international meetings as well.

Honourable members interjecting—

The Leader of the Opposition has a point of order. Can I ask everyone to assist the House? I will have to action if this kind of behaviour—

Honourable members interjecting—

I don't know what's so funny. If this behaviour continues, I want to be crystal clear to everyone, I'll have to take action. It's not sustainable for this kind of—

Opposition members interjecting—

If you'd stop interjecting I can give the call to your leader.

Opposition members interjecting—

You're not being rude to me. The Leader of the Opposition is entitled to raise a point of order, but I would like her to do it respectfully and for everyone to listen to her point of order.

My point of order is on relevance. I appreciate the minister's description of his various globetrotting duties, but the question was tight: how many days of parliament will the minister—the part-time minister—miss next year, and what will be the cost to Australian taxpayers of his full-time presidential duties?

The member for Hume is really pushing the limits today. I'm trying to be reasonable with everyone, but you're making it exceptionally hard with your behaviour. I ask the minister to continue and to be directly relevant to his question.

The Leader of the Opposition asked me about ministerial travel and pretty clearly criticised me going to Brazil last week and travelling back yesterday. Apparently, international trips aren't appropriate! This is a recent development, because on 11 July 2021 the minister for the environment announced that she would be travelling overseas as part of the Morrison government's campaign to stand up for Australia's interest and support the Great Barrier Reef communities and tourism operators ahead of the UNESCO World Heritage Committee meeting. The press release said, 'Minister Ley will visit a number of countries.' The press release does not tell us how many countries she visited; we had to read the Australian two weeks later to find out 'Australia's minister for the environment, Sussan Ley, travelled to more than a dozen countries in recent weeks to secure support'. That's what you call a copout.

Honourable members interjecting—

Order! When the House comes to order—members on my right. The Minister for Social Services is getting close to leaving the chamber. The Manager of Opposition Business, we're just trying to—

Well, don't be provoked. Sit in silence, and everyone will be a lot stronger for it. When the House comes to order we will hear from the honourable member for Solomon.

My question is to the Minister for Emergency Management. What is our Albanese Labor government doing to support our Northern Territory communities following the impacts of Tropical Cyclone Fina, and how is the government helping to prepare the rest of the nation for similar events during this upcoming high-risk weather season?

I thank the member from Solomon for the work he has put into preparing his community against Tropical Cyclone Fina. Communities in the Northern Territory are well-placed for Tropical Cyclone Fina, which tracked through the Van Diemen Gulf and past Darwin and the Tiwi Islands over the weekend as a category 3 system. I recognise the member for Solomon, the member for Lingiari and the Minister for Indigenous Australians in the other place for their work in providing timely updates and support for their communities. I also acknowledge the hard work of the Northern Territory government, the Bureau of Meteorology, the Australian Defence Forces and our embedded officials from the National Emergency Management Agency who worked so well together to keep local community safe.

I was able to visit the Northern Territory yesterday. I joined the chief minister to announce that the Albanese and Finocchiaro governments have activated our disaster recovery funding arrangements in several local government areas. This will ensure immediate relief is provided to individuals and families who have been displaced during the event. It will also support temporary repairs to public infrastructure and long-term reconstruction of damaged roads, bridges and public infrastructure. While I was in Darwin, I had the opportunity to visit the emergency control centre to personally thank those who worked so hard during the event to prepare local communities. Emergency service workers and power and water teams have done an outstanding job and continue to do so as recovery is underway.

I also joined the member for Lingiari, the Minister for Indigenous Australians and the chief minister to assess the damage in Wurrumiyanga in the Tiwi Islands. This was one of the areas hardest hit, with downed trees and power lines, as a result of the cyclone. The community there was in good spirits, and it was good to hear from them first and about their experience. The Albanese government, the NT government, local councils and the community will continue to work together as we enter the recovery phase. We're keeping a close watch on Tropical Cyclone Fina, which has been downgraded to a category 1 as it passes across the Kimberley.

I'm proud to be part of a government that is improving how we prepare for each high-risk weather season. We take our responsibilities seriously. Our preparedness activities include how we collaborate with state and territory governments to deliver, most importantly, our $1 billion Disaster Ready Fund to look at how we reduce disaster risk in communities. So far more than $600 million has been committed to 446 projects, with round 3 announced just last week. Round 3 runs a range of projects from cyclone shelters on Palm Island to an emergency coordination facility in Alice Springs. We're investing in our national aerial firefighting fleet's multihazard capability, and we're continuing to expand the national emergency stockpile to ensure specialist equipment can be rapidly deployed, just like it was to the NT during Tropical Cyclone Fina. Building national preparedness in the face of increasing disasters and responding to events like Tropical Cyclone Fina is a priority of this Labor government and will continue to be.

I'm pleased to inform the House that joining us today on the floor of the parliament is the Hon. Bronwyn Bishop, AO, the 29th Speaker of the House of Representatives. A very warm welcome to you, Mrs Bishop.

Honourable members: Hear, hear!

My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. The Lowy Institute reports that, as president of COP, Alok Sharma visited more than 50 countries. Media reports that he travelled 200,000 miles, which is the equivalent of eight trips around the Earth. As president of COP31 negotiations, how many countries will the minister be required to visit, how many miles will he need to travel, and how much taxpayer money will be spent in finding the full-time presidential duties of the part-time minister?

Honourable members interjecting—

Order! I'm just going to remind members that I'm not happy with descriptors of any sort moving forward—equally so to apply to anyone on this side of the chamber as well. I'm not happy with that descriptor. I just want to make sure that—and it will go both ways if anyone is described in another way. Just stick to the name of the title. I will refer members to page 514 of practice if anyone needs clarification.

I thank the honourable gentleman for his question. Firstly I must correct the misperception that both the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow minister are perpetuating in their questions. The role of COP president is not a full-time position. It is quite common for the role of president of the COP—and I'll be the president of the negotiations—

Opposition members interjecting—

Well, they're different jobs—to be held by a cabinet minister concurrent with their duties. Last year's COP president was Mukhtar Babayev, who was the minister for the environment of Azerbaijan. The president of the COP I went to was Minister Shoukry, who continued in his role in the Egyptian cabinet while being president of the COP. To suggest that this is a full-time job somehow is a complete and utter invention. It's a fantasy. You can say it as many times as you like; it doesn't make it true.

The Leader of the Opposition was asked this morning by Kieran Gilbert, 'Isn't it good that Australians have a seat at the table and can chair some of the important international talks?' and the Leader of the Opposition replied: 'No, it's not Kieran. No, it's not.' But Kieran Gilbert—it's not the first time he's interviewed a member of the coalition frontbench about COP, because he and interviewed the gentleman who asked me the question in 2021. On that occasion, the now shadow minister said:

As a previous diplomat who went to a COP in Buenos Aires, I can tell you Australia plays a leading role in seeking agreement and getting all countries to play their part in reducing emissions, and we'll continue to play that role.

So I have no problems whatsoever engaging with my fellow minister when he was defending COP. My predecessor as minister for energy also attended COP. The member for Hume gave a speech. Was the speech in Canberra or Sydney or Goulburn? No. It was in London. He said: 'Importantly we recognise that we cannot achieve all this alone and that international collaboration—

Order! The member for Cooper is warned. When the House comes to order, I will hear from the member for Wannon. He is entitled to raise a point of order.

Speaker, it goes to relevance. We don't need a history lesson. What we want to know is how much the taxpayer is going to pay for this president and part-time minister travelling the world.

Member for Wannon, I was explicit on not using descriptors, and you agreed with me when I said that. So you will leave the chamber under 94(a). I don't know how much clearer I can be. Don't do something that is not within standing orders. I referred to Practice so everyone would know. I'm not sure why you are surprised. Use correct titles for everyone—no descriptors, no deviations. The minister was asked a specific question about details. He is not able to refer to the opposition for the remainder of his answer because he wasn't asked about the opposition. So I am going to ask him to be directly relevant to the question he was asked.

The member for Wannon then left the chamber.

The fact is that every trip I take will be in the national interest, representing our country, something I am proud to do and something this government is proud of with its foreign affairs reset under this Prime Minister and the foreign minister which has replaced the mess we inherited. It is unimaginable that those opposite would have been elected to such a position because you actually have to believe in climate change to be president of the climate change negotiation. (Time expired)

My question is to the Minister for Social Services. How is the Albanese Labor government helping to tackle gender based violence?

I want to thank the member for Boothby for her question. She will be leading a very important inquiry with her social policy and legal affairs committee shortly into the intersection between family, domestic and sexual violence and suicide. I thank her and the committee for that work. Today is the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women, and I want to start by acknowledging every victim-survivor, every frontline worker who has assisted them and, most sadly, those who we have lost in recent years and decades.

Today, the Albanese Labor government announced a 40 per cent funding boost for 1800RESPECT. This is a really important investment in a service that began under a former Labor government, during the Gillard years, with 11,000 calls in one year. Last financial year, this service had 342,000 contacts. That is a 3000 per cent increase on the first year that we established 1800RESPECT, 15 years ago. This government, the Albanese government, has invested more than any previous government in addressing family, domestic and sexual violence, including through measures like making the leaving violence payment permanent, introducing legislation to make sure our social security system isn't weaponised against survivors of family and domestic violence and funding programs that intervene earlier with men, adolescent boys and children and particularly those men who want to change their behaviour. We have invested $1.2 billion in emergency and transitional housing to help make it safe for women and children fleeing violence.

We've invested a record $3.9 billion in legal services, including $800 million extra for family violence legal services. We've legislated 10 days paid domestic violence leave and we've made it illegal to sack someone because they're a victim of family or domestic violence. We've reformed the family law system to make the family law system safer, simpler and more accessible for victims of family and domestic violence. And, very importantly, we're working with the states and territories to improve responses to victims of sexual violence. It's one of the areas of crime that continues to rise in a completely unacceptable way. Of course, these investments are beginning to make a difference. We have to acknowledge success when we see it. But do we think we've done enough? Not ever. Not while there is one victim of family, domestic or sexual violence will this government rest. We'll continue to work, and I know those opposite share our belief that every single one of us has a responsibility to act.

on indulgence—I associate the coalition with the remarks of the Minister for Social Services. The coalition appreciates the ongoing funding into 1800RESPECT, which is the first point of contact for anyone who feels unsafe, and thanks the House for their engagement, with so many members talking about this issue from a personal perspective. Yesterday, I spoke on this and read out the names of 74 women who've lost their lives since this time last year. And I made the point then that, if 74 women had lost their lives in a single event, the whole country would pause and say, 'What on earth is going on?' We need to pause every single time this happens, because every single one of those lives is precious. The children are precious and the memories are precious, and we must keep fighting.

For the benefit of members: this evening, Parliament House will be illuminated in orange to mark the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women and the commencement of the global 16 Days of Activism Against Gender Based Violence campaign. I invite all members to join me, the President and members of parliament at 8 pm on the forecourt.

My question is to the Prime Minister. I've recently had conversations with a significant number of government backbenchers who want a gambling advertising ban, which is unanimously endorsed in the cross-party Murphy report. So, as I asked in my personal appeal to you a fortnight ago, will you allow government members a free vote on this issue so they can exercise their own judgement, represent their communities and finally end this impasse?

I thank the member for Clark for his question and for his genuine engagement on this issue. Our Labor caucus makes decisions, which is why we have done more than any government since Federation to tackle problem gambling. We'll continue to work as a caucus and as a government on this issue.

My question is to the Minister for Education. What is the Albanese Labor government doing to help Australians with a student debt and to make our education system better and fairer? What has been the response?

I thank my great friend the member for Leichhardt for his question. I'm really glad that he asked me this question, because I'm about 20 per cent shorter than he is and in a couple of days student debt will be 20 per cent smaller as well. I'm five-foot-nine; he's six-foot-11. The Liberal Party are at sixes and sevens. The kids in the gallery know what I'm talking about! And, in a couple of days time, $16 billion of student debt is going to come off the shoulders of millions of young Australians. In just two days time, 1½ million Australians will have their student debt cut by 20 per cent. And next week, another 1½ million Australians will have their debt cut by 20 per cent as well. It's the biggest cut to student debt in Australian history. We promised it and we're delivering it. But it's not the only thing that we're delivering.

This year, we signed agreements with every state and territory to fix the funding of our public schools, which is something that no Australian government has ever done before, and it is not a blank cheque. It's tied to reform—the sort of reform that we know works. The reading wars are over. We know what works to teach children to read. We also know that waiting until a child is eight is too late to make sure we know whether they can read, write or count. That's why early intervention is important. That's why we're rolling out phonics checks and numeracy checks in year 1—to identify children who are falling behind—as well as more small-group tutoring, to provide support for children to catch up.

Next year, something else will happen. Next year, we'll start the work of reforming the national curriculum, starting with the first three years of maths to make sure we get the basics right: addition, subtraction, multiplication and something the Liberal Party can help us out with—division.

Next year, something else as well—education ministers have agreed to a reform that was talked about for a long time but never happened, and that's bringing together the bodies that are responsible for national testing, the national curriculum and national standards, as well as national research, under one roof to create an Australian teaching and learning commission. That's what delivery looks like, and that is what division looks like—no joy, just division. The Australian people know it, and they also know this—we're cutting student debt by 20 per cent.

I am pleased to inform the House that, present in the gallery toady, are Ms Jodie Hanns, the member for Collie-Preston in the Parliament of Western Australia, and also a delegation of women leaders from the Australian Greek community. Accompanied by the delegation is His Excellency Stavros Venizelos, the Ambassador of Greece to Australia. Welcome to you all.

Honourable members: Hear, hear!

My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. Taipan Hydraulic Hose Systems is a proud family business in my electorate of Longman which has been in business for over 30 years. The power bill that owner Allan paid this month surged by 47½ per cent compared to what he paid for the same period in November 2022. When will power prices come down?

I thank the honourable member for his question. It's a very important one on a real issue—energy prices in this country—which is why I and this government have focused like a laser on energy prices and will continue to. It's why we've delivered three rounds of energy bill relief—opposed by those opposite. It's why we're continuing to help Australian households and businesses reduce their bills—in many instances, for nothing—with our cheaper home batteries policy. I'm pleased—it's been a while—to inform the House that 136,999 Australian households and small businesses have installed a cheaper home battery with 2.9 gigawatt hours worth of storage. All this is practical action to help reduce bills.

The good news is what reduces bills and improves reliability and reduces emissions are all the same thing—that's more renewables backed by gas and storage. That's why we are—

Opposition members interjecting—

I'm happy to have a debate about energy prices. I welcome it because this side of the House has a plan to help energy prices. Those opposite announced a plan during the break to push prices up, because we know that abandoning the zero will push prices up. That's what the Treasury tells us. That's what the International Energy Agency tells us. That's what every expert tells us. Those opposite want to sweat the coal assets for longer. They are the most unreliable part of our energy system and the most expensive, so bring on a debate about energy prices.

How's that going, Chris?

The 136,000 batteries—that's how it is going! They're going great, and they will continue to go strongly, because Australian households and Australian businesses know that what's good for your pocket is good for the planet. It's true of households. It's true of businesses. It's true of countries. It's true of the planet, and that's the approach of this government. The Leader of the Opposition denies it. She denies that renewable energy is the cheapest form of energy. They can deny it; we'll continue to implement it, and we very much welcome this debate.

I think we know what's happening soon. The Leader of the Nationals has had a really good go, and he's agreeing with me now, so that also is consenting that he will now remain silent for the remainder of question time.

Honourable members interjecting—

He can give it a go and see how he goes.

My question is for the Treasurer. How is the Albanese Labor government helping to ease pressure on Australians and modernise our economy? How does it compare to other approaches?

The member for Griffith is an outstanding advocate for those wonderful suburbs to the south of Brisbane, delivering every single day since she was elected for the people who sent her here. This government is all about delivery: delivering help with the cost of living in the most responsible way that we can; delivering two more tax cuts—three in total; delivering cheaper medicines and more bulk-billing; delivering student debt relief from this week; delivering smaller deposits and building more homes; delivering a 12 per cent super guarantee and boosting the low-income offset; delivering more paid parental leave and paying super on paid parental leave; delivering fee-free TAFE; and delivering cheaper home batteries and help with electricity bills. At the same time, we delivered two surpluses in our first year and a much smaller deficit in our third year in office.

It is a fact—from their own documents, which they released at election time this year—that, if those opposite had won the election, there would be less help for people doing it tough. There would be not tax cuts, there would be bigger deficits and there would be more debt. That's why nobody takes them seriously on the economy.

Even with all of the progress that Australians have made together on our economy in recent years—whether it's halving inflation, creating 1.2 million jobs, getting wages moving again or seeing interest rates cut three times this year already—we do know, we do acknowledge, we do understand that many Australians are still under pressure, and we will get a sense of that in tomorrow's inflation numbers. Economists expect that the unwinding of some state energy rebates will push the headline number up a bit tomorrow, and that's why they have encouraged us to focus largely on the underlying number. But, whatever those numbers tell us tomorrow, inflation will be much lower under us than it was under those opposite when they left office—when they were throwing more and more fuel on the fire when inflation was absolutely skyrocketing on their watch.

It's bad enough that they left us with a trillion dollars in debt, skyrocketing inflation and falling real wages. It's bad enough that they opposed cost-of-living help and voted against tax cuts for the working people of this country. Now, they want to push power prices up, not down. They want to smash investor confidence and weaken our economy with a position on net zero which is all about their internal politics and not about the national economic interest. What has become abundantly clear, as we finish the year, is that the opposition finishes the year focused just on themselves, recklessly divisive and hopelessly divided. The government finishes the year united, focused on the cost of living and working very hard to deliver every day for the people who sent us here.

My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. BokaBites is a fish-and-chip shop in my electorate of Fisher. Since June this year, BokaBites has seen its power bills surge by 23 per cent. The owner, Bec, has told me it's simply 'untenable' to run a business under these conditions. Minister, when will power prices come down?

Again, I thank the honourable member for his question. Power prices are a very important issue and a real issue of substance, and that's why I and this government have been focused on them—and we'll continue to be every day. That's why we'll continue with modernising our energy system and dealing with 10 years of denial and neglect.

We saw four gigawatts of dispatchable power leave the grid and one gigawatt come on. That's a three-gigawatt gap, and that supply gap has led to increased prices. When you have more supply leave than what comes on, that actually puts upward pressure on prices. We have seen five gigawatts of solar, wind, gas and batteries come on in the last year, which is a record since the national energy market was created. That is because of our policies to encourage more energy, especially more renewable energy, backed by gas peaking and backed by storage.

What I would say to that small business and the many other fine small businesses around Australia is that we know there is so much more to do—

Order! The member for Fadden is now warned.

and we will keep going with what needs to be done. We won't stop the drive to the most affordable, the cheapest, the most reliable and the lowest emissions form of energy. We know that there are different ways. We know that household power bills could rise by $449 a year if we had greater reliance on gas and coal and if renewables were built more slowly, as the Clean Energy Council has pointed out. We know, as the Treasury has said:

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

The Grattan Institute's energy director, Tony Wood, has said:

There's very little that I can see in what the Liberal Party announced today which would actually bring down power prices.

We know that because their plan is cobbled together to save the leadership of the Leader of the Opposition in a vain attempt—it's not about Australian businesses; it's all about Liberal Party internal politics. We all remain focused on small businesses, medium-sized businesses and households, and giving them access to cheaper, more reliable, lower emissions energy.

My question is to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. How is the Albanese Labor government delivering a better deal for gig workers, and how does this compare to other approaches?

I'd like to thank the member for Richmond for her question. She is a champion for working people, and part of this government that is delivering for Australians.

The Albanese Labor government is delivering a better deal for gig workers by introducing reforms to ensure minimum standards for workers engaged on digital platforms while preserving the flexibility they want. For too long these workers fell through the cracks of our workplace relations system, with many relying on tips to survive. Our Labor government does not believe that this is the Australian way, which is why we introduced important changes to protect these workers. Today we are seeing these reforms in action.

Our laws have brought together the Transport Workers' Union, Uber and DoorDash to the table to reach a groundbreaking agreement which will now be passed by the Fair Work Commission after consideration. If approved by the Fair Work Commission, this agreement, delivered by our reforms, will mean that, for the first time, platform food delivery drivers will have a minimum floor that protects their pay and represents life-changing increases to their income. Workers will also benefit from better conditions and have stronger rights to representation, dispute resolution and protection if injuries or accidents occur. The companies will also benefit from a stable workforce and a level playing field on pay and conditions. This is what cooperative and productive workplace relations looks like.

This morning I met with Nabin, a delivery driver here in Canberra, who told me that, if approved, this agreement means that, when you're ordering food, the driver who brings food to your door will be getting paid decently—getting paid what he or she deserves.

I'm asked if there are any alternative approaches. The alternative approach was that of the coalition. While they were in government, they ignored the calls from these essential workers for a better, fairer industry. Of course, when they had the chance to support our important protections, the Liberal and National Party voted against them, arguing that a lack of minimum standards was a good model and working well. The question for the Leader of the Opposition is whether rolling back these important protections for some of our lowest paid workers is still part of their agenda to save her leadership. We know that just a few weeks back, when asked about rolling back Labor's important workplace reforms, her answer was, 'We'll look at it all.' Well, our government is looking after workers while they remain divided. (Time expired)

My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. Manufacturer SMW Group in my electorate of Capricornia has seen its power bills skyrocket by 70 per cent in just four years. As a result, the owner has told me he has held off hiring over 100 new staff. Minister, when will the power prices come down?

I thank the honourable member for her question and, again, it is a very fair question on behalf of an Australian business. Australian businesses deserve a government focused on reducing energy costs and on modernising the energy grid. That is exactly what we have been doing and that is exactly what those opposite failed to do, with 22 failed energy policies over 10 years. Even the Leader of the Opposition just a few minutes ago denied that renewables are the cheapest form of energy. They just don't get it. I suspect the Leader of the Opposition really does know it but has to appease the climate-denying far right of her party for her hold on her job. We know from a report out today from IEA, which says renewables are the lowest-cost technology for new-build electricity generation. Renewables are now the most cost-competitive option globally for new electricity generation, with costs about 40 to 50 per cent lower than the nearest fossil fuel option.

We have the Leader of the Opposition dropping net zero, proposing maybe new coal, not new coal—we are not sure; the Liberal Party's party room couldn't even work it out. We know that it was not in their press release. It was in their glossy document that they would support new coal-fired power. After the Collinsville debacle, where they announced a new coal-fired power station in north Queensland which was never built, that is an understandable reticence by those opposite. We, on the other hand, have a clear plan to help Australian businesses and Australian families with lower energy prices. We have seen energy prices fall by a third in wholesale terms in the last quarter. We think that is a good thing; they think that is a bad thing.

My question is to the Minister for Housing, Homelessness and Cities. How is the Albanese Labor government delivering more homes for more Australians, and are there any risks to the government's work?

I want to thank the member for Maribyrnong for her question. She is one of our gun housing advocates and her advocacy is really paying off. Our government is building a whopping 929 homes in her electorate alone. I've talked to the parliament before about the fact that those opposite built 373 homes across the country in their nine years in office. We are building 2½ times that in her electorate alone and we're just getting started. We have a housing crisis affecting our country that has been a generation in the making and the answer is that we have to build, build, build. That is exactly what our government is doing through the Housing Australia Future Fund.

Across our agenda, we have 5,000 social and affordable homes around the country complete. We have 25,000 homes that are in construction or planning. And I was really proud to announce on Sunday that the next round of the Housing Australia Future Fund will fund another 21,000 social and affordable homes. We are a government that delivers for Australians, and we do what we said we would do. We committed to Australians that we would build 55,000 social and affordable homes over five years and the announcement on the weekend clears the pathway for doing that.

I was incredibly lucky on a day last week to visit the member for Maribyrnong's electorate where we met some of the new Housing Australia Future Fund tenants that have moved into her community. This is without question the best part of my job as the minister for housing for Australia. I met Tianjin and Christine and one-month-old baby Jacob, who recently moved into a new home in the member's electorate. This beautiful young family had been living in a share house with eight families in one home. They had been on the social housing waiting list for seven years and they had a one-month-old baby.

Speaker, I can tell you that, having seen their pride and their happiness and the relief that they felt in being able to provide stable housing for their tiny little baby, I challenge any person here to meet that family and tell me that the Housing Australia Future Fund is not one of the most important things that our government is doing right now to build Australia's future. That one home has changed the life of an entire Australian family, and we're doing it 55,000 times around the country.

The member for Durack will cease interjecting.

I'm asked about risks, and I think they're making it clear, aren't they, by the yapping that's going on opposite me that they don't believe in any of the important things that our government is doing about housing. They built 373 homes in almost a decade and they openly say that they don't want the Commonwealth building homes for Australians. We take a different view. We're backing in key workers, we're backing in Australian families and we're fighting for young people to get the housing opportunities that they deserve in our great country.

I'm advised that Hon. Sam O'Connor, the Queensland Minister for Housing and Public Works and the Minister for Youth is in the gallery as the guest of the member for McPherson.

Honourable members: Hear, hear!

My question is for the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. The safeguard mechanism, the government's primary lever for achieving greenhouse gas emission reductions, is set to be reviewed in 2026-2027. In August this year, the Productivity Commission recommended reducing the threshold for facilities covered by the mechanism to those omitting 25,000 tonnes of pollution a year, down from the current 100,000 tonnes. When will the government start the review of the safeguard mechanism, and will it accept the Productivity Commission's recommendation to lower the safeguard mechanism pollution threshold?

I thank the honourable member for her question and her interest. I will say with the greatest of respect and seriously that the honourable member answered the question in the question in many respects, because it was indicated in the explanatory memorandum to the rule which accompanied the safeguard legislation that we would review the safeguard legislation in 2026-2027. We are not yet there, so that review will begin next year.

I am pleased with the way in which the safeguard mechanism reforms are working thus far. The first year of data shows a reduction in on-site emissions from the covered facilities equivalent to one-third of Australia's domestic aviation. That is no small thing. That's a good reduction in emissions from the covered facilities. It shows the policy working well.

The Leader of the Opposition is interjecting. She might like to back up that claim with any particular facts rather than just—

An opposition member interjecting

Any facts? No. It's a good policy. We will review it very meaningful.

The honourable member correctly refers to Productivity Commission advice, but that was a report to government, not of government. It will be considered, along with a whole range of other submissions no doubt, when we begin that review next year. The honourable member will be very welcome, in all seriousness, to put in a submission to that review. We will take it and all other submissions very seriously.

My question is to the Minister for Skills and Training. How is the Albanese Labor government supporting TAFE students across Australia with the cost of living as they train for the jobs that we need?

I thank my friend the member for Hasluck for her question. It was fantastic to be with her in her electorate last week to open the brand-new clean energy training facilities at Midland TAFE, something she fought for and won. It was also great to hear from local students about how much they value the opportunities that free TAFE is providing them.

The Albanese government has put TAFE back at the heart of skills and training because it belongs there and always should've belonged there. We're backing in the hard work of TAFE students like those that the member for Hasluck and I met last week, and their amazing teachers too, by updating TAFE facilities through our government's TAFE Technology Fund, which includes $3.24 million for Midland. Great Western Australian students like Timothy, Brock and Kudakwashe are benefiting from our investment.

It's not only facilities that we're rolling out for TAFE students that the member may be interested in hearing about. Our government is also rolling out cost-of-living relief to ensure that Australians can get the skills they want for the jobs that we need. Australian apprentices and VET students are among those around the country hearing from the ATO about the Albanese government's 20 per cent cut to student debt that's being applied to their accounts right now. That's thousands of dollars that many of these students are saving on student debt. This is a pretty special bit of news to those of us on this side of the House and those millions of Australians anyway, news that we're proud to deliver because we know it makes a big difference in the lives of Australians.

But, of course, that's not all. Free TAFE is reaching new heights. There are now more than 725,000 free TAFE enrolments—725,000—and more than 210,000 course completions. The Minister for Housing will be pleased to know that construction courses are now the third most popular type of free TAFE courses, with more than 59,000 enrolments, people going on to build the houses Australians need, including CIT students the Prime Minister and I met with today—Yao, Ruby and Josh. It's people like them, together with more nurses to care for Australians and more early childhood educators, too. This is why our government made free TAFE permanent.

But the Leader of the Opposition and members opposite don't like free TAFE. We know the Leader of the Opposition and her coalition will talk it down at every opportunity, ignoring the stories—

Opposition members interjecting—

Order! The minister will pause. Order! Members on my left, I want to hear from the Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order.

It's on relevance. The member for Hasluck asked one of the tightest questions I might have seen in my time here, very tightly framed and directly to the government's achievements. I'd ask the minister to answer the question, not refer to the opposition.

I agree with the manager. He wasn't asked anything about the opposition. So return back to the question and refrain from the comments you were making.

I've been talking about the 725,000 enrolments in free TAFE and 210,000 course completions. These are thousands of Australians who, if it wasn't for free TAFE, wouldn't have been able to take up their opportunities. While the Liberals are concerned with distraction and division, we are getting on with the job and delivering for Australians, rebuilding TAFE—debt relief and free TAFE.

My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. Peter Doyle, a canefarmer in Dawson, fears he will lose money by harvesting his crop because his average power costs have doubled. Despite installing solar, Peter is still going backwards. Minister, when will the power prices come down?

I thank the honourable member for his question. Again, unlike the first few questions, these are questions that are based on serious matters that are worthy of debate in this House. There is a real debate about the various approaches, alternative approaches, to energy prices in this country. This government's approach to help Australian households with things like the Cheaper Home Batteries Program and with the solar sharer policy for three hours of free power in the middle of the day, which we introduced and they opposed, has been very broadly welcomed by Australian energy consumers, who know that renewable energy is the cheapest form of energy. We want to see more Australians benefit from it and to continue with the task of rolling out more renewable energy in this country.

The member for Lindsay is now warned.

I'm pleased that September was the first month in Australian history that we got more electricity from renewable energy than from coal and October was the first month in Australian history when renewable energy supplied 50 per cent in our main energy grid. This is progress. It takes time to build up. It's taken time to build to 50 per cent and it will take time to build to 80 too, but we'll keep going.

Opposition members interjecting—

Order! I was listening to the minister, and he was answering the question about the timeframe. The member for Dawson can't simply get up and say 'relevance', because he was being directly relevant. If you listened carefully, he was answering about the timeframe. So what's your point of order?

It is on relevance.

Government members interjecting—

No, I'm listening to exactly what you said, sir, but I want to know when—Peter wants to know when it will come down. He's doing it tough, sir.

Resume your seat. Member for Dawson, we've been dealing with this for a little while now. The minister is talking about the timeframe—and he did give an exact sentence to the question you were asking about it taking time. I know you want an exact date, but you know that, under the standing orders, I can't deliver that.

Opposition members interjecting—

Order! I'm just going to make sure that the minister is being directly relevant. No more points of order for the rest of the week if you don't like the answer, okay? The minister will be directly relevant to the question he was asked.

I do think it's relevant to point out that policies like ours have seen wholesale prices come down 30 per cent in the last quarter.

Opposition members interjecting—

It's a fact. We know there's more work to do to make sure this flows through to retail consumers, and we'll see in the next default market offer, which will be out in March next year. We won't be hiding it, whatever it says. It'll be released, just like the last three have. That hasn't always been the case, but while I'm the minister they'll be released on time and transparently for Australians to see. That's why we've reformed the default market offer to give Australian consumers a better deal, including through Solar Sharer and for the 136,999 households who have now installed a cheaper home battery. These are all practical policies that we'll continue to deliver.

My question is to the Minister for Health and Ageing. How is the Albanese Labor government strengthening Medicare and making it easier for Western Australians to access urgent care when they need it? How does providing more urgent care clinics help strengthen Medicare after a decade of cuts and neglect?

Only 10 nurses have ever served in this parliament, and three of them are in the chamber right now, including the terrific member for Bullwinkel. As a government committed to strengthening Medicare, we on this side are so lucky to have nurses, doctors, psychologists and a pharmacist all helping us to guide that important agenda.

Last week the member for Bullwinkel and I visited the Mount Helena medical practice, one of the GP clinics in her electorate that have already registered to become Medicare bulk-billing practices, bulk-billing all of their patients all of the time. Shortly we'll announce the location of the Mundaring urgent care clinic that the member for Bullwinkel promised at the last election. That's one of 47 clinics that we'll announce over the coming couple of weeks and will open over the coming couple of months, and it will take the network to 137 urgent care clinics. They're all open seven days a week, with extended hours, and, importantly, they're fully bulk-billing, so all you need to take along is your Medicare card. Once the network is fully up and running, it will see two million patients every single year, most of whom would otherwise have had to go to their local emergency department.

It's not just Bullwinkel that's benefiting from our strengthening Medicare agenda. That plan is working right across the great state of Western Australia. Take a seat like Forrest, for example. Already, 10 GP clinics in the electorate of Forrest have signed up as Medicare bulk-billing practices, bulk-billing all of their patients all of the time. Already the Bunbury urgent care clinic has seen more than 35,000 people, fully bulk-billed, taking pressure off the busy emergency department at the Bunbury hospital. Indeed, the Bunbury urgent care clinic has been so successful that at the last election we committed additional funds to help it boost staffing at busy times of the day. We also promised a Medicare mental health centre for Bunbury, and we'll deliver on that too.

I don't recall the opposition supporting either of those commitments, but we know that our strengthening Medicare agenda is working for the people of Forrest, which is why we were all so delighted to be in the electorate of Forrest last week. We were delighted to be in Bunbury, and we noticed the member for Forrest's van following us around, keen to hear the story of us strengthening Medicare for the people of Western Australia. The Prime Minister didn't just go to Bunbury. He went to Busselton as well and met with the Busselton Chamber of Commerce and Industry, and I can assure the member for Forrest that there will be many, many more visits back to the electorate of Forrest because we've got a great story to tell!

My question is to the Prime Minister. Australians are asking why the government has failed to respond to the Murphy review's unanimous recommendation to ban gambling ads. No-one in this chamber is seeking to ban gambling, despite what you've said, and when asked about reform you list actions that were announced before the Murphy review. Many members of your own party support an ad ban. Why won't you allow a free vote on a ban on ads for online gambling?

I thank the member for her question to me as Prime Minister, but I'm also the Leader of the Australian Labor Party. We are a political party, not a bunch of individuals. We make decisions in our caucus that make a difference, and, when we make decisions in our caucus, that results in action. Those opposite—

Opposition members interjecting—

Order! The Prime Minister will pause. The member for Cowper yelling like that is highly disorderly. The member for Curtin was heard in silence. I'm going to ask everyone to take the temperature down. I can't hear a word that's being said. The Prime Minister deserves the respect of being heard in silence—as the questioner was, who will want her answer.

People have a choice about what political path they will take and how they will participate in politics. People can participate as Independents and wait for decisions to be made by government, and then decide whether they'll support them, oppose them or try to amend them. I respect that, and I respect the member for Curtin and the way she takes policy development seriously in this chamber. She has put forward a range of amendments to government legislation that have been supported by the government in the last term and this term, and I encourage her to continue to do so. We treat every member of parliament with respect. That hasn't always been the case for governments, but we do that.

We have introduced more legislation to tackle problem gambling than any government since Federation. One of the things that we continue to do is work with organisations, including media organisations, including sporting organisations, on ways in which we can move forward to further tackle the problem gambling issue. We will have further measures, but we won't do it by pretending that we can just wave a wand and fix things immediately with one piece of legislation. We'll continue to do it piece by piece to make a difference, and that's precisely what we are doing.

My question is to the Prime Minister. How is the Albanese Labor government delivering on its commitments to improve the lives of Australians?

I thank the member for Petrie for her question. Today at Parliament House I hosted, with the Deputy Prime Minister, a fantastic group of Australians. There are times in this job where you are lifted up by hearing the stories of Australians and the difference that government decisions can make to their lives, to the way they deal with day-to-day issues. Each one of the people we met today is benefiting from our government's delivery.

We met Bec and Anthony, who both work at the Woollies in Dickson; they are now earning hundreds of dollars a week extra because of their penalty rates, which are now legislated and protected. We met Ruby and Yao, both studying construction and using free TAFE to get the skills they need for a job for themselves but also to enable them to build homes for Australians and to engage in that sector. We met Kieran, who is studying law at Canberra uni. He is saving around $9,400 with the 20 per cent cut in his student debt. We met Emily, who is undertaking paid prac for an eight-week nursing placement. I reckon most Australians would know we need more people to do nursing. I think they would also be surprised to think that people like Emily, before this change, would have had to have lost income in order to do a paid prac placement that is a compulsory part of becoming a nurse.

We met Jess. Jess is saving $700 a year on her endo treatment; that is making an enormous difference to her. We met Juliana and Drishti—they are childcare workers. They have a 15 per cent wage increase as a direct result of this government's policy. They spoke about the retention level staying there in childcare just as aged-care workers are retaining workforce there. We met Anne, a teacher whose school in South Australia is on track to receive full and fair funding under our government—something we didn't promise prior to our election but we delivered on in our first term, finally delivering those agreements for the teachers, nurses, students, workers and people who want stronger Medicare. This is delivery in action—

The member for Fadden will leave the chamber under 94a. If you are continually interjecting when you're on a warning, no matter how long it takes, you will be removed.

The member for Fadden then left the chamber.

It is delivery in action making a positive difference to peoples lives, which is probably why it provokes interjections from those opposite who don't want people to be lifted up, only themselves. I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.

The member for Goldstein has indicated that he is seeking the call on a personal explanation. Do you claim to have been misrepresented?

I do.

You may proceed.

Yesterday in question time when the Minister for Education pronounced Goldstein correctly, he misrepresented a speech in the Federation Chamber claiming quotes attributed to myself were in relation to the government's student HECS debt deferral scheme. As the Hansard from the Federation Chamber will show, what I described as 'one of the most despicable things that I have seen a Labor government seek to do' was celebrating their record as HECS firefighters when they were inflation arsonists.

The member for Goldstein has a second misrepresentation. Do you claim to have been misrepresented?

I do.

You may proceed.

For the second time yesterday in question time the Minister for Social Services selectively misrepresented 12-year-old quotes attributed to myself, claiming they were about Labor's Paid Parental Leave Scheme. In fact, they were about the Liberal Party's proposed paid parental leave scheme at the time—a scheme that the Minister for Social Services herself opposed. To evidence this, on the panel of Q&A at the time, the then Labor minister Bill Shorten interrupted me, expecting I was criticising his policy, before correcting himself as he realised I was criticising Liberal policy, and said, 'Sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt you, keep going.' To evidence my claim, I seek leave to table a copy of the transcript highlighting the minister's misrepresentation.

Leave is not granted, but he can keep talking himself for as long as he wants.

Leave not granted.

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

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

The failure of the Government and its Minister to deliver affordable energy for Australian households and businesses.

I call upon those honourable members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.

More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

Even allowing for jetlag, the Minister for Climate Change and Energy has had a shocker. I have just given him the very generous mention of being the minister, because we all know he is actually the part-time minister. He has made his own quotes about his new role—his full-time presidential role. Do you know what he said, this part-time minister? He said, 'I have all the power.' We look forward to the part-time minister losing it. If only that power were directed at the things that Australians are counting on this part-time minister for.

Australians deserve affordable and responsible energy—affordable energy; responsible emissions reduction—and we know that it is possible to have both. But we also know that under this government and under this part-time minister prices are going up, reliability is going down, and emissions are flatlining.

Order! In question time, the Speaker ruled out the use of that descriptor, so I ask you to refrain from that.

Honourable members interjecting—

If any of you were taking any notice just a moment ago, the MPI title was also changed as a result of that ruling. I'm asking you to abide by the Speaker's efforts. You have plenty to say, I'm sure, otherwise.

On a point of order to your ruling, the Speaker's ruling was in relation to the rules for questions. It was not a ruling in the general parliament from the Speaker about the use of the terms 'part-time' and 'full-time'. You are able to use those terms in relation to a minister. That was the ruling that he made in relation to question time.

I disagree. The Speaker dealt with the descriptor during question time. He then adjusted the matter that is currently before the House for the discussion so that it is in order.

Your ruling makes it impossible for us to accept the ruling. If you are suggesting that we are—

An honourable member interjecting—

I'm allowed to make a point of order, thank you. Your team voted you out of the chair, mate. You're not welcome.

Order!

Well, I'm just responding.

Manager of Opposition Business, I'm happy to listen to you. But I need a little bit of order around—

Over there.

Honourable members interjecting—

I can address this quickly. If you are ruling that the terms 'part-time' and 'full-time' are unparliamentary or offensive or are language outside of the standing orders, we will take that very seriously in terms of the operation of this parliament. And there are mechanisms available to us. It isn't going to work for that to be a general ruling about the language in this parliament. It is okay to make a case that someone is part-time, full-time or anything else. It's been made many times before in practice, and it's okay. In question time, there are different rules and standing orders that apply. That is a different—

I'm going to give the minister the call on a point of order.

I have two points. Firstly—

Order! Withdraw that, please.

I withdraw.

Thank you. Minister.

I have two points. Firstly, in relation to respect for the chair, you've made a clear ruling. All members should respect your ruling and not defy it. Secondly, as I interpreted your ruling, it wasn't about general comments. It was about how honourable members are referred to. They should be referred to only by their title, which is not a revelation, and your ruling is entirely in keeping with precedent.

It is indeed a matter about how you refer to members in the chamber. So, if you wish to challenge that standing order, by all means go for it. But it is very clear in the standing orders how you address people in the House. I wouldn't let somebody do it to you in return.

I'm sorry, Deputy Speaker, but we do not agree that the terms 'part-time' and 'full-time' are unparliamentary in relation to the operation of a member of the executive. I asked you to clarify that that's your ruling. If that is your ruling, then we will take action.

It is my ruling that you do not refer to members with those descriptors in front. There is a correct title to use, and I would ask the same of government members in referring to you. I would never refer to the Leader of the Opposition as anything other than Leader of the Opposition.

The Leader of the Opposition and other members in general debate are referring to part-time in the nature of the minister's role, and that is perfectly acceptable language and is a perfectly acceptable argument to make. It is not a reference to their title. 'Full-time' and 'part-time' are references to their capacity and their work. It isn't—

I'm not intending to keep repeating this, but the way that the descriptor is recorded is a direct reference to the minister. It's taking his correct title and using your own version of it. I have reinforced what the Speaker said during question time and the amendment that was made to the topic of the MPI. I don't think it's opaque. It is quite clear that the references you made to members in the House—use their right title. The Speaker has said this creep is not acceptable, and I agree.

I move:

That the Deputy Speaker's ruling be dissented from.

I rise to defend the chair, and I rise to defend you and your ruling, Madam Deputy Speaker Claydon. I rise to defend, Madam Deputy Speaker, your right to make rulings.

I need to check that the motion for dissent has been seconded. Who has seconded it? We need to follow the procedure correctly, and then we can deal with it.

The minister doesn't know what he's talking about.

No-one's got the call. You do not have the call, Manager of Opposition Business. You're moving a dissent. We need to follow the procedure, which means you need to have it in writing with a seconder. Have you got that? I haven't seen it.

Are you asking me? I have moved the motion. I have submitted the motion. It has a mover and a seconder.

Thank you. Now the debate can take place.

We are in the incredible situation today where the minister at the table is defending his new role as president of COP31 and saying our attempt to say to the Australian people that he will be part time as he will be busy overseas, serving interests there rather than working on the power prices of Australians and Australian businesses, is unparliamentary. It is outrageous that, in this parliament, you can't make the case that members or ministers are not full time in the interests of the Australian people. Why not? Why can't that argument be made to the Australian parliament?

Let me remind the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, who should remember this, that the Prime Minister who sat in this chamber and said that his ministers would be part time was his predecessor Paul Keating. He made that case. It was a serious topic of debate in this House—part-time and full-time ministers. There would be a rotation where ministers only turned up on the days that Prime Minister Keating said they would turn up. It was such a disgrace that Prime Minister Keating had to back down and, under pressure from the opposition, return ministers to being present every single question time.

Let's look at the record of the member for McMahon, the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. He missed one day of scrutiny from the opposition or the people of Australia in this parliament because of his new role. So we have the perfect right to mount a case to Australians—the perfect right in debate, in general debate, to use the term 'part time'. It's perfectly okay. It is not unprofessional. It is not unparliamentary. It has real meaning because he is part time. He wasn't here to face the questions of the opposition or the Australian people. The minister was in the job overseas that we have been complaining about, not focused on Australians' energy prices.

In question time today, we heard from so many people here in opposition about what they're hearing from their electorates, such as business owners whose power bills are up 70 per cent—if you're listening at the moment, Minister. We've heard from individuals whose power bills have gone up substantially since this government got elected. And, yes, we have made the case that the minister's new role will mean that he is not fully occupied with fixing a 70 per cent increase in the power bills of certain businesses. We are making the case that part time is absolutely legitimate in this case—that he won't be fully engaged in the interests of Australians whose power bills are going through the roof. In fact, it's not only fair debate; it's an essential provision of democracy that we be allowed to say: 'This minister wasn't present to answer questions. This minister wasn't available on a parliamentary sitting day—when we had these questions on Monday.' We had them today. We were not sure if he would be back here today, but he slipped back into the country. The president returned! We asked him questions. If we are to make the case that his full-time role at COP31—and it is a full-time role, let's be honest. It's a role that will require money from Australian taxpayers to fund the staff that he will need. It will require bureaucrats to give him advice. It has real public and finance issues, and it's for the minister to defend his position, not the Speaker. It's for the minister to defend his position, not the Deputy Speaker. It's for the minister to say, 'My role is full time; my role is part time. Here's why. When I'm missing from parliament, it's okay.'

Prime Minister Paul Keating made the case that his ministers didn't need to be here every single day in question time. That's the case he made, and it went very badly in front of the Australian people. Paul Keating stood here and said that it's okay to roster on a minister and roster them off. Now we have Prime Minister Albanese telling us that it's okay for Minister Bowen to not be here because he is the    President of Negotiations in COP. Minister, we say that it's not okay. We say it's okay to mount a case part time or full time. We say that it's okay to use the language 'part-time' or 'full-time'. There is a slippery slope that we are on, and I know that the Leader of the House knows this. If we start banning 'part-time' and 'full-time' from our lexicon, we will be banning a lot of words. There will be a slippery slope of speakers from this day until every day of this parliament banning a new term and banning a new procedure for debate.

Every instinct of parliamentary democracy since Athens says you can use language in debate. Free speech says it. We know where free speech doesn't occur, don't we? The Prime said it today. 'We've got one view,' said the Prime Minister. Of course, you've got one view. There's no point looking at me and laughing or pointing and carrying on. You're not allowed to have a view. None of you on the backbench is allowed to have a view; we know that. Free speech requires language. Language is important. 'Part-time' is not offensive. It isn't unparliamentary. We're not making the reference in reference to his title. The opposition is making—

Order! I need to bring you back to your dissent from my ruling about holding the Speaker's ruling. So just come back to that, and I will ask all members opposite also to just calm this down a little bit while we discuss sensibly this ruling.

We know this is a government with a 50 per cent majority. We understand that. That does not give them the right to be a dictatorship. That does not give them the right to trample on parliamentary democracy. It does not give this arrogant minister the right to say that, if we criticise him for being a part-time minister when he has been absent from this parliament, that he will be defended from the Speaker's chair—yes, I'm speaking to the dissent—because that should not be the case. The executive has enough protections. The minister has enough in place to protect his honour—the president's honour. The Speaker is not required to defend the minister's part-time or full-time nature. He should do it himself. So should members of the government. That's fair debate. It's fair debate in this place to use the term 'part-time'. It's fair to use 'full-time'. It's fair to say that a minister is part time or full time, and I think that will stand.

There can be no argument that you can make that says 'part-time' or 'full-time' is unparliamentary. There can be no argument that says this is an abuse of the standing orders. I regret that this has happened. I regret that we are here, but if we are here, we will not shirk from the debate every single day that, if you have a full-time role overseas serving other interests, you will not be in the service of Australians and their power bills. Households and businesses are struggling and require a minister who is full time. I think that if fair-minded members of this parliament, wherever they sit, were allowed to have a view, they would say, 'Maybe this shouldn't have happened.'

The rules for questions are not the rules for debate. The separation in the standing orders is very clear. Rules for questions do not include the standing orders that cover the general provisions for debate. It is an attempt by the Albanese Labor government to cover up the fact that they have a part-time minister. It is nothing else but that.

A government member: You are reflecting on him again!

No; I am reflecting on the government. We do disagree with the Deputy Speaker. We do disagree with this ruling. We accepted the Speaker's ruling in relation to question time, but we will not accept a ruling that says it is unfair for a part-time member of the executive who turns up only when they get back from an overseas trip and who might be away 10 or 20 days next year—we don't know—from the parliamentary schedule. We want you to be here to face these questions. It's fair to say you're working part time if you're not here to answer questions, and it should be fair, in reasonable debate in this place, to be allowed to say that a member like the COP President of Negotiations is absent from question time when he should be here.

I second the motion. If the Leader of the Opposition uses a descriptor about a minister being part time, there is no reason why that would be unparliamentary or out of order. It was not a title bestowed upon the minister by the Leader of the Opposition; it was a descriptor. It begs the question of what else we should use in its place. Should he be the 'intermittent' minister—when the wind isn't blowing and the sun isn't shining, the minister isn't working? Is that how we should describe this minister? Maybe the 'irregular' minister—one who relies only on batteries? The battery only works for two hours, and then there's nothing.

The dispatchable minister!

Is he the 'dispatchable' minister? I think not. But I can tell you what I cannot call him. He is not the 'base-load' minister. He's not the minister that's on 24 hours a day. He's not the minister that's providing affordable energy to the Australian people. He's not those things.

I would have absolutely no concern if our side of this House were brought to order for actually calling him 'competent' or saying that he was doing Australia a favour in his role. But he is not. He is occasional, he is irregular, he is intermittent and he is incompetent, and this side of the House should have every right to speak freely not on the part of the coalition but on the part of the Australian people—on the part of the senior citizens who will go to Christmas without knowing if they can feed themselves or heat their house. That's on whose behalf we speak. We speak on behalf of the small businesses who are closing their doors because this government cannot manage the electricity grid and because this minister is intermittent. That is the problem. Yet we are told that we are not allowed in this House to call him a 'part-time' minister.

What I think is revealing here is—do you know who jumped to his feet? Guess who jumped to his feet to complain? The intermittent one himself! 'Oh, dear! They called me something,' he said. It's not very presidential, is it? It's not very presidential of him. He's very proud of his role. He's already spoken publicly—he's spoken from the dispatch box—about how important he is and how much power he has. He doesn't deliver any power, but he's spoken about how much power he has. Now he's excited because it's about him. I don't know how many times we have had MPIs in this chamber while he's been the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, but he's never turned up—not once! He's as reliable as his energy system is! But, then, there's a new topic, the topic is him, and here he is! We now know how to get him. He's not part time when it's about him, is he?

Member for Fairfax, you're actually debating why you're dissenting from my upholding of the Speaker's ruling.

All of these are reasons why we should be able to describe this minister as working only part time.

I don't know what's worse here. Is it the fact that he only works part time? It could be worse. Can you imagine how bad it would be if he were full time? Maybe we've got this wrong after all. God help us—can you imagine if he actually tried harder with the Australian energy system? Oh deary! God knows we wouldn't have any electricity at all. We'd all become candlestick makers.

I second this motion because this chamber deserves not just freedom of speech but the freedom to speak the truth, and the truth is this minister is part time and incompetent.

I give the call to the Leader of the Opposition—the Leader of the House.

I knew they were looking to change. I didn't know it went that far.

Honourable members interjecting—

A little bit of order please. I'm stating the question, which is that my ruling to uphold the Speaker's ruling is now being dissented from.

The government certainly will be voting to uphold your ruling. I say to the opposition, in this entire tactic, just two words: own goal. There are times in opposition when you move a motion of dissent, but start with this principle: at any point in time, it is always in the interests of the opposition for things that can be said to be as restricted as possible. There would be times when the term, if it was an electricity bill or something and Bronwyn Bishop was in the chair—she was in the chamber today. We'd always argue, 'You need to be more restricted.' That's always in the interest of the opposition. This is the first time I can imagine an opposition wanting to open the net wider, particularly on how members are addressed. But then, to have a ruling that was fine by them when it was given by the Speaker, but, on today of all days, the moment the same ruling is made by the Deputy Speaker, they have a problem with it—but then it goes one step further. This, certainly—I've had more time that I wanted in opposition. There was always this rule: that the thing that you don't do is grandstand and prevent your leader from giving a speech on the MPI.

Effectively, you've got the time that government business doesn't take up—that we reserve for the MPI—and everyone there knows the consequences of what happens when there's a dissent motion moved instead. Effectively, we've had the shadow Treasurer and the Manager of Opposition Business decide that the speeches they just gave were more important than what their leader had prepared and had submitted to the Speaker and the speech that their leader had started to give. This is the consequence of what they have done. To have a situation where the shadow Treasurer and the Manager of Opposition Business decide, a few minutes into the speech of the Leader of the Opposition, 'enough of that' and that they want to be the ones in the sun and that they'll be the ones getting the attention and they'll be the ones because their rhetoric is more important than what had been prepared by the Leader of the Opposition is—I want to say it's a bad tactic, but I don't know how you can even describe it as a tactic, because to use those roles to prevent your leader from giving a speech in the MPI that's been prepared in that way is extraordinary.

Member for Wannon, is this a point of order?

Can you direct the member back to the actual motion.

Sit down.

They had moments when they tried to be relevant to the dissent. One of their arguments was to say that they were okay with it during question time, but they weren't going to allow it in places other than question time. I'd simply say refer to the standing orders. When a ruling is made on the principle of what you are allowed to say in a question, then, yeah, there are different rules on what happens during question time and what happens outside. When a ruling is given about what you're allowed to say in an answer, there are different standing orders for what happens during question time and what happens outside. When a ruling is given about addressing members by their title, the standing orders don't distinguish. It's exactly the same.

I'm trying to work out what the difference is for those opposite between the exact same ruling being given by the Speaker and it being given shortly after by the deputy speaker. I am trying to work out why they might respond differently to an identical ruling, because, when the ruling was made during question time, they all accepted it. When the ruling was made during question time and someone had to leave question time as a result of that ruling, there was no dissent there. But there was dissent moved when the deputy speaker was in the chair. There was dissent moved when it would prevent the Leader of the Opposition from completing the MPI.

In terms of own goals, this one is breathtaking. Maybe, tomorrow, the tactics committee will allow the Leader of the Opposition to put in the same MPI again—the first few minutes—and we'll hear what it is. But to have a situation where, in a whole lot of what they had said in terms of the Minister for Climate Change and Energy—they were saying, 'He doesn't take MPIs.' He's here. He's been sitting here. You've got a day when it's meant to be the most elevated moment—an opposition can decide when they put their leader forward for the MPI. At that exact moment, you've got the relevant cabinet minister at the table ready to debate. Then you get two others who say, 'Oh, no!' They want to have their 'look at me' moment, and it's going to be about them instead, because they want to make an argument, which was already disproved during question time, about the fact that the previous presidents in charge of negotiations have also been cabinet ministers in their own governments.

The whole narrative doesn't make sense on a policy level. It doesn't make sense on a procedural level. It doesn't make sense in parliamentary tactics. Maybe it makes sense in internal tactics. Maybe this is a moment of mild instability within the opposition. Maybe we're seeing a situation where, for some reason, there are some of those opposite who aren't that keen on the Leader of the Opposition being able to be given the moment that was given with the MPI. At any rate, the consequences that will occur now are consequences that everybody knew of when they started this. The rest of the speech from the Leader of the Opposition we will have to wait another day for because we all had to listen to the dulcet tones and the extraordinary, soaring rhetoric of the Manager of Opposition Business and the shadow Treasurer.

I say to those opposite: this motion was not our idea. Having a half-hour interruption in the middle of the speech of the Leader of the Opposition is something you might think would be a government tactic, but this one is entirely their own. They can explain afterwards to their colleagues. They can explain afterwards to the Leader of the Opposition why this ridiculous stunt that makes no sense in procedure on an argument that makes no sense in policy was more important than the speech that the Leader of the Opposition was due to give.

The question is that the ruling be dissented from.

I move:

That the business of the day be called on.

The question is that the business of the day be called on.

by leave—I move opposition amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 2 together:

(1) Schedule 1, item 3, page 25 (after line 3), after subsection 121FZO(1), insert:

(1A) To the extent that the report relates to the service's total program expenditure for Australia for the year of the report, the report must provide information about where that expenditure was incurred by reference to the following:

(a) major cities of Australia;

(b) inner regional Australia;

(c) outer regional Australia;

(d) remote Australia;

(e) very remote Australia.

(2) Schedule 1, item 3, page 25 (after line 7), after section 121FZO, insert:

121FZOA Publication of annual report

(1) As soon as practicable after receiving a report under subsection 121FZO(1), the ACMA must give a copy of the report to the Minister.

(2) The Minister must cause a copy of the report to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the Minister receives the report, upon which time it must be published on the ACMA website.

This parliament is being asked to set the rules for a new era in Australian storytelling. For the first time, global streaming giants will have obligations to invest meaningfully in Australian content. This is welcome. But unless this parliament insists on proper transparency, we will never know whether those investments are genuinely supporting the breadth of Australia—not just the big cities, not just the same postcodes but all Australians wherever they live.

My amendments are simple, practical and vital—transparency on where money is actually spent. My first amendment inserts subsection 121FZO(1)(1A). It requires streaming services, when they report their annual Australian program expenditure, to tell us where in Australia that money was spent—not vaguely, not selectively, but clearly and consistently—across the ABS remoteness categories, firstly major cities and then inner regional, outer regional, remote and very remote Australia. This matters. Right now, we have no line of sight into whether Netflix, Stan, Disney +, Amazon and others are genuinely investing across the nation. We do not know whether regional creators, actors, crews and production companies, from Mildura to Mount Isa, from Shepparton to Alice Springs, are being given the opportunity to be part of this industry. Without transparency, there is no accountability. Regional Australians contribute to our culture, our creativity and our economy. They deserve to see themselves represented not just on-screen but in the opportunities created behind the camera. This amendment ensures that, when platforms spend their Australian content dollars, we will finally know whether regional Australians are included.

My second amendment creates section 121FZOA, which requires ACMA to publish each annual expenditure report and requires the minister to table those reports in both houses of parliament within 15 sitting days. Sunlight is a powerful disinfectant. If streaming platforms are meeting their obligations, good—let the country see it. If they are not, then parliament, industry and the public should know. Transparency should not be optional. It should not be hidden behind bureaucracy. When companies operate in Australia, earn revenue in Australia and benefit from Australian audiences, they should be accountable to all Australians. And I emphasise that this is not red tape. This is not imposing any new financial burden on platforms. They already track expenditure. My amendment simply requires them to share where it is spent and requires the regulator and the minister to ensure those reports see the light of day.

Australian content is more than entertainment; it is how we see ourselves, how our children understand their place in the world and how we preserve our unique culture in the face of overwhelming global media dominance. But, if Australian content is to be truly national, genuinely reflective of who we are, then regional and remote Australians must not be left behind. Creativity does not stop at the edge of a capital city. We have world-class talent right across this country. We have breathtaking landscapes, vibrant communities and compelling stories that deserve a platform. Transparency ensures that that opportunity is spread, not concentrated.

These are commonsense amendments. They strengthen accountability, ensure transparency, empower regional Australians and improve this bill without adding unnecessary burden on industry. I commend the amendments to the House and urge the members to support clear, open reporting so that all Australians, from the cities to the bush, benefit from the streaming and screen industries of the future—and I certainly hope that the Leader of the House supports these amendments.

I thank the member for Mallee. This gives me the opportunity to acknowledge the member for Mallee as one of a number of members from her party who have a long-term investment and interest—an investment in the political sense, not the monetary sense—in making sure that Australian content is well supported on our screens. I do acknowledge that.

As I said right at the start before we started the amendments, the bill that's before the House has gone through a lot of work to make sure that we are fully meeting our trade obligations and the government is not in position to be supporting various amendments. I do note the spirit of what the member for Mallee has moved. It does make a massive difference to communities when they see their stories on-screen. Only very recently, I was on the West Coast of Tasmania. The impact that the Bay of Fires series has had there is phenomenal. There are some series where you get a tiny bit that's done on location and then the rest of it is done with green screens in major cities. The programs that do really invest in different communities around the country are appreciated, and it matters. That said, it doesn't change the legal situation the government is in with respect to trade laws, so, while I'm very respectful of the reasons that this is being put forward, the government is not in a position to support the amendments.

The question is the amendments moved by the honourable member for Mallee be agreed to.

by leave—I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

I rise to speak on the Customs Tariff Amendment (Draught Beer) Bill 2025 and the associated bill. From the outset, I make it clear that the beer relief offered by these bills is a bit of a 'Furphy', but it is very important; I'll come back to that shortly. I love a beer, like many Australians. Indeed, I co-chair the Parliamentary Friends of Brewing group with my good friend the member for Cunningham. We co-hosted a Parliamentary Friends of Brewing event this week. But beer isn't all about consumption; beer is good for the economy.

The Australian brewing industry spends around $500 million on domestically sourced agricultural ingredients such as barley and hops. A lot of that barley is grown in my electorate of Nicholls. Some of the hops is grown in Tasmania, and a lot of it's grown in the electorate of Indi, around the Mansfield area. Agriculture is at the heart of the beer supply chain, and around five per cent of all beer is made in Australia for local consumption with wholly Australian beer supply chains.

We did a brewers tour of Nicholls, and I was honoured to have people—among them the member for Casey, the member for Monash and some Victorian parliamentarians—come and visit a barley grower in a place called Dookie, the Shepparton Brewery and, very importantly, J Furphy & Sons, which makes the tanks that a lot of beer is brewed in around Australia. J Furphy & Sons has been manufacturing in Australia since 1864 and is one of Australia's oldest continuously operating family businesses. Furphy water carts are world famous, and the tank ends are highly collectible. Consistently embossed on the tank ends is a little poem:

Good, better, best.

Never let it rest.

Till your good is better

and your better best.

In many ways that reflects the endeavour and entrepreneurial spirit that took root across the region as one of the world's greatest irrigation schemes breathed new life into the Goulburn and Murray valleys.

The Furphy water cart also gave rise to the term 'furphy', which is slang for an erroneous or improbable story that is claimed to be factual. I've heard a few furphies in here very recently! The story goes that, during World War I, soldiers would gather around the Furphy water cart, and it was a place where rumours and tall stories abounded. Then Furphy became a beer, not just any beer but one of Australia's top-selling beers. Little Creatures Brewing built their breweries in Fremantle and Geelong and used stainless steel tanks and fermenters supplied by Furphy Engineering, in Shepparton. When they completed the Geelong brewery, they were keen to make a beer with a local connection to Victoria and approached the Furphy family about adding a new beer to their repertoire—a Furphy refreshing ale. J Furphy & Sons continues to make specialist equipment for the brewing industry, and those vessels will house ingredients grown by farmers in the same district and finish up as a refreshing Furphy ale.

Why is this excise freeze a little bit of a furphy? Well, the government's two-year freeze on draught beer excise indexation sounds great, but there's not a huge amount to celebrate. It will provide modest relief to venues, saving about 18c per keg, or less than 1c per pint, even over two years. The sentiment of this is right, and the coalition supports the freeze to beer excise indexation. We will not stand in the way of a cut to the beer tax, but it is very light relief and it's temporary. Even if a drinker consumed the average of 78 litres a year and it was all draught beer, that would be an annual saving of $3.08. I'm not recommending that people consume 78 litres of beer, although I think some people around this place have attempted it! Something is better than nothing, but, if Labor were serious about alcohol excise reform, they'd have Treasury conduct a comprehensive review of the alcohol excise system.

Beer might be treading water, but we are drowning in increased costs. This measure will pause indexation of the beer excise for two years, but it does nothing about inflation in the cost of everything. Just recently, inflation smashed through the RBA's target band, and that means more expensive mortgages and more expensive groceries. The freeze also only applies to on-premises draught beer, not to bottled beer, packaged drinks or wine. If Labor were serious about the issue, it would be looking at every part of the excise system. A pint that's 1c cheaper is not cost-of-living relief. Households need genuine action on the cost of living. Government spending is running at more than four times the rate of the economy and is at its highest level, outside of recession, in nearly 40 years. This reckless spending is keeping inflation higher for longer, and Australian businesses and households are paying for it.

As we debated during question time, the costs of energy for Australian households and Australian businesses—including brewers and the farmers who need to get the agricultural products such as the hops and the barley to actually make the beer—are going through the roof. Despite significant efforts during question time to ask the minister responsible when prices will come down and what the government's plan is to bring prices down, we couldn't get a straight answer.

This minister has made a big deal of his presidency of COP negotiations, and he's made a big deal of going to Brazil and making agreements that are not necessarily in Australia's best interest when it comes to our fossil fuel exports. But we on this side are very concerned about this minister's focus on bringing the price of energy down for people in industry. Those people include not only the people who make the beer—the brewers across Australia—and the people who grow produce that goes into that beer but also the people who operate the hospitality businesses.

The shadow Attorney-General gave the example of a fish and chip shop in his electorate. I don't know whether they sell beer with their fish and chips, but I do recommend a Furphy Crisp lager to go along with a battered piece of whiting and some chips. He told that story, and the quote that stuck with me when he asked his question was that these increases in energy costs are making this business untenable.

Now, when small-business people who take risk put their personal savings on the line, they don't get paid wages from the government. They have to pay themselves a wage through their toil and their hard work. They have to jump through a lot of red tape to set up a business, and that's getting worse. Small businesses are telling me that the red tape, the bureaucracy and everything you have to do to set up and operate a small business are getting worse and worse. I'll give you the example of a fish and chip shop. They say to me: 'I buy some fillets of fish and some chipped potatoes for X and I want to sell them as a lovely cooked product for Y. But in between X and Y, there is an amount of government bureaucracy, whether it be local, state or federal, that wants to take a cut. When you combine that with the increasing energy cost and it is getting impossible to run a small business.'

More should be done for Australia's hospitality and alcohol industries. This measure is worth just $90 million over the forward estimates. That's a minuscule amount compared to the $8 billion collected annually from alcohol taxes. These businesses have gone through COVID, record high inflation and endless cost-of-living pressures, and we need to do more to support the ongoing viability and growth of our local industries and Australian jobs.

Now, pubs and clubs aren't just places to have a drink and socialise; they are places where great Aussie music is played and created. As a musician, I know pubs and clubs are culturally important places. They foster new and emerging artists, and I've had some great moments at the Aussie hotel—even during my first campaign—playing with the legendary Mick Harrington, who appeared on The Voice. We played some great songs, including Oasis's 'Don't Look Back In Anger'. That might've been picked up by the ABC in relation to national leadership debates, but I won't go there. More recently I had the honour of playing 'Never Tear Us Apart' with my Liberal colleague at the Parliamentary Friends of Brewing.

And she goes pretty well!

She's a wonderful saxophone player, and our coalition will not be torn apart, Member for Wannon.

We need to raise more than just a glass to the brewers. The Australian beer industry generates $16 billion a year for Australia's economy and supports nearly 176,000 jobs. Of those jobs, 126,300 are in hospitality. This bill is important, and we support it, because beer is a good part of Australia's culture. When Mick Dundee was in a bar in New York, an American came up and said, 'Hey, what's going down?' His reply was: 'Oh, yeah, mate. I'm just blowing the froth off a couple.' There are people blowing the froth off a couple all around Australia and, as much as that's a fun thing to do, it generates economic activity for a lot of people and for a lot of industries. But I think we can do more to help industry generally. For the farming industries that supply to the brewing industry, the people who are supplying infrastructure such as Furphy tanks to the industry and the people who are out there marketing and selling the beer, we can do more to help them. We should do that by reviewing how we tax alcohol in general, whether it's fair and whether there are unintended consequences, and what we can do to stimulate Australia's art scene, and get back to more socialisation—from before the pandemic, back in the old days—stimulate the industry and particularly stimulate the hospitality industry, because those jobs, those people and those businesses are hugely important to Australia's economy and culture.

I rise today to speak in support of the Excise Tariff Amendment (Draught Beer) Bill 2025 and the associated bill—a practical, targeted and responsible measure from the Albanese Labor government, one that backs our pubs, clubs, brewers and hospitality workers right across Australia, including in the electorate of Braddon in regional Tasmania, where I come from. From 1 August 2025 the government will pause indexation on draught beer excise and excise equivalent customs duties for two years. This is a sensible decision that supports small businesses, protects jobs and helps keep the price of a pint stable for everyday Australians.

In towns across the electorate of Braddon, the local pub is more than a business; it's where people gather for sport, celebrations and support in their tough times. It's where locals find work, where small brewers find customers and where regional economies find strength. These venues are the heart of our communities and they deserve our support.

This excise applies to containers between eight and 48 litres, those commonly used in pubs and clubs and larger containers used in hospitality venues. It's tightly targeted. It doesn't apply to bottled or canned beer, spirits or other excisable beverages. That's deliberate. This is about supporting our hospitality operators, not the retailers.

Around 10,000 venues will benefit from this measure, and about 75 per cent of those are small family-run businesses. These are the venues that sponsor the local footy team, host charity raffles and employ young people starting out in the workforce, many of them university students. It also supports our brewers, especially small and independent producers, who rely on keg sales to stay afloat.

(Quorum formed)

Take Communion Brewing in Burnie, in the electorate of Braddon, for example. This family-friendly brewpub is the heart of the CBD. It brews all its beer onsite, with names inspired by local heritage, like the Paper Maker, a nod to Burnie's industrial past. Communion is more than a brewery; it's a community hub, a local employer and a proud contributor to the region's cultural and economic life.

Island State Brewing in Devonport is another fantastic example. Known for its bold, locally crafted beers and its commitment to quality, Island State Brewing supplies venues right across the north-west coast and beyond. It's a growing business that supports local jobs, partners with regional suppliers and brings people together through great Tasmanian beer.

And, of course, we have the renowned and famous James Boag Brewery in Launceston, an iconic institution in Tasmania's cultural and economic landscape. Situated on the banks of the North Esk River, the James Boag Brewery has been a cornerstone of the region since its establishment in 1881. For over 140 years, the brewery has produced beer that embodies the purity and the character of Tasmania, utilising pristine local water, regionally sourced ingredients and a time honoured brewing tradition passed down through generations. Beyond its contribution to Tasmania's brewing heritage, Boag's plays a significant role in the local economy and the local community. It supports employment, it drives tourism and it contributes to regional events. Its presence in Launceston is a source of pride for many residents.

I hosted a 'beers and banter' event at the Beach Hotel in Burnie not that long ago alongside local publican Ben to mark the Albanese Labor government's announcement of a pause in the indexation of draught beer excise. During the event, I spoke with local posties and other community members enjoying their well-earned Friday evening knock-off drinks. The response was overwhelmingly positive. They welcomed the decision as a practical and meaningful measure. They were excited that the price of a pint will remain stable.

This pause in indexation ensures that the price of a pint remains stable. Allowing workers to continue enjoying a social moment at the end of the week without added financial pressure, it also provides tangible benefits to brewers such as Communion, Island State and Boag's brewery, as well as publicans like Ben. By helping them manage costs, plan production and invest in their communities, this policy supports both local industry and the social fabric of all of our towns. Approximately 160,000 Australian workers work in the hospitality and brewing sectors. These are real jobs, they're local jobs, and they rely on venues staying open and profitable. This excise pause will help stabilise the tax component of a pint for two years, reducing pressure on venues to pass rising costs on to customers. For small publicans and family run clubs, this decision offers certainty. It helps them to plan ahead, retain staff and also reinvest in their businesses, which is really important for the future. It's a lifeline during a time of economic pressure.

Across Braddon, the pub is the heart of the community. Keeping those doors open actually matters. This measure reinforces the government's commitment to regional Australia, it helps protect tourism and local hospitality jobs, and it supports Australian brewers, particularly small and independent producers who supply draught beer to local venues. Many of these brewers rely heavily on keg sales to maintain cash flow and jobs.

The benefits of this policy reach beyond pubs and brewers. They flow to farmers, transport operators, equipment suppliers and the thousands of small businesses linked to the hospitality supply chain. This is a cost-of-living measure that also strengthens small-business resilience. It's a clear example of responsible government action, designed to make a difference without driving inflation or compromising fiscal discipline.

The Albanese Labor government has listened to industry feedback from brewers, from publicans and from the small-business groups, who have consistently called for relief from automatic excise increases during a period of high inflation. We've heard them and we've acted on that. Our approach is pragmatic and balanced. It provides targeted support where it's most needed while ensuring excise arrangements return to normal after the pause. It forms part of a broader package of small-business supports that includes extended instant asset write-offs, support for digital transformation and lower energy costs for small operators.

This policy reflects Labor's belief that responsible government can ease pressure on families and businesses while maintaining the economic discipline required to keep the budget sustainable. It's a demonstration of Labor's partnership with the hospitality, tourism and manufacturing sector industries that drive local jobs and form the backbone of many regional economies. The pause ensures that small brewers and publicans can continue competing fairly against large multinational producers, protecting diversity and competition in Australia's beer and hospitality industries.

The government remains committed to evidence based health policy and responsible consumption. The pause does not change the overall structure of alcohol taxation or weaken public health objectives. This measure is time limited, fiscally responsible and carefully calibrated to help small businesses through a challenging period. It is another example of Labor governing with balance and purpose, backing small business, protecting workers and ensuring that Australians can continue to enjoy affordable, responsible hospitality at their local pub or club.

This decision also shows that the Albanese government is in touch with community life. We understand the pressures small businesses face and we act decisively to support them. This is about keeping our local venues open, keeping people in work and keeping communities connected—values that sit at the heart of the Labor tradition. It is good, steady, responsible government in action, targeted relief, real results and a fair go for Australian workers and small-business owners alike.

The coalition supports the freeze to beer excise indexation. We support welcome relief for our pubs, clubs and, indeed, all hardworking Australian beer drinkers. We recognise the immense struggle of the hospitality sector and we will not stand between it and a cut to the beer tax in this parliament.

However, we must be upfront about what this legislation achieves and what it leaves completely undone. While we welcome this temporary measure, we must call it out for what it is. It's little more than a political stunt. This minor targeted fix utterly fails to address the deep, systemic and widespread cost-of-living crisis that the Albanese Labor government has created and continues to fuel.

The urgency of providing any measure of relief to the hospitality sector cannot be overstated. The industry that supports local manufacturing, creates jobs, supports hospitality workers and boosts tourism is absolutely essential to communities like mine. In the Yarra Valley and the Dandenong Ranges, we have many local brewers and distillers but also small business owners who run pubs, yet the hospitality sector is being destroyed by the current economic environment.

The figures detailing the devastation wrought by Labor's failures are staggering and heartbreaking. On Labor's watch, 4,000 hospitality businesses have gone out of business nationally. The situation is so desperate that the collapse represents the loss of over 4,000 places of employment for local workers and Australians in the hospitality sector. Statewide in my home state of Victoria alone, we lost 969 businesses in the accommodation and food industry. Even in community of Casey, in the 2024-25 financial year, 17 companies in the accommodation and food industry entered insolvency or administration. We must do more to support this industry to get back on its feet after a few difficult years under the Albanese Labor government.

The fundamental reason these businesses are being crushed is simple—Labor let inflation rage out of control. While Labor allows inflation to get out of control, the twice yearly indexation causes the excise bill for these hospitality venues and brewers and distillers to soar. Increases in excise are not just another tax hike; they constitute a significant burden on distillers and hospitality venues and a cost that simply cannot be absorbed. Every time brewers and distillers are hit with an increased excise bill, they have no choice but to pass this cost on, which hits hospitality venues and local pubs. These local venues, which cannot absorb the cost, then pass it on to consumers. The price of alcoholic beverages has already increased by over 11 per cent since Labor came to office.

The coalition recognises this severe struggle. We had already given this issue serious consideration and took a policy to the election to freeze indexation on the draught beer excise for two years, specifically to support our hospitality sector, which has been hammered by this Labor government. We are supporting the bill now because we recognise the urgent need to pause the increases in the excise. This pause applies specifically to on-premise draught beer, meaning beer served on tap. The intention is to provide businesses that have gone through COVID, record high inflation and the endless cost-of-living pressures with some stability. However, we must be honest about the limitations of this legislation. This is merely a patchwork fix in the face of Labor's systemic economic mismanagement and high inflation.

Firstly, the scope of the measure is far too limited. The freeze applies only to on-premise draught beer. It does absolutely nothing for bottled beer, packaged drinks, wine or spirits. If the government were serious about cost-of-living relief or supporting the entire manufacturing and hospitality supply chain, it would be looking at every part of the excise system. Secondly, the relief delivered to the consumer is negligible. This freeze delivers less than 1c of relief per pint. That's enough to give Labor the headline of the cut to the beer tax, like so many of their policies, but it is just a headline. Households need genuine action on the cost of living, not 1c off beer. The policy will be wholly ineffective in helping everyday Australians.

The alcohol industry directly supports around 176,000 full-time-equivalent jobs. Alcohol related jobs in the hospitality sector alone account for a whopping 126,300 of those positions. These businesses deserve real structural support, not a symbolic one-off, 1c gesture. If Labor were serious about the deeper issues of the alcohol excise system, they would have advocated for a comprehensive review of the alcohol excise system. They have shown no plans to fix the $600 million illicit alcohol tax gap identified by the ATO. Instead, we receive piecemeal freezes. The true obstacle facing the Australian economy and our local small businesses is the government's failure to control its own spending, which has directly resulted in the inflation crisis we are living through today.

Just last week, inflation smashed through the RBA's target band. This proved that Labor's cost-of-living crisis is far from over. The RBA is now in an impossible position, with both inflation and unemployment running higher than forecast. The governor is forced to slam on the brakes while the Treasurer has his foot firmly on the accelerator. The cause of this sustained high inflation is Labor's addiction to reckless government spending. Government spending is running at more than four times the rate of the economy. In fact, it is at the highest level outside of a recession in nearly 40 years. The Treasurer, by his own admission, is forecasting a decade of deficits and a decade of spending more money, driving up debt, resulting in higher inflation and fewer services for the Australian people.

The former head of the RBA, Philip Lowe, has already made clear that inflation has lasted longer in Australia because of Labor's spending addiction. Under Labor, government spending has blown out from 24 to 27 per cent of GDP. The Treasurer threw out the coalition's fiscal rules and gave himself a credit card with no limit, and Australians will be the ones left to foot the bill. His current fiscal strategy doesn't even contain a single number, and the Treasurer is clearly violating whatever can be construed as rules.

This economic vandalism has direct and terrifying consequences for Australia's national finances. In the last three years, this government, under this Prime Minister and Treasurer, has added $100 billion to the national debt. Despite the spin of this Treasurer—which is all this Treasurer is good at—under Labor's watch the national debt will reach $1 trillion this year and $1.2 trillion by the next election. Their reckless spending is keeping inflation higher for longer.

Australians are paying $50,000 every minute in interest on Labor's trillion dollars of debt. Over the last three years, Labor has racked up debt the equivalent of nearly $4,000 for every man, woman and child in this country. Think for a moment about what that $50,000 being racked up every minute in interest could be used for. This could be spent on roads, schools and hospitals, on things that are desperately needed in our country—and economic reform, including reform of the excise system. But, no, that money is going to debt because of this Treasurer and this government.

Labor's spending spree has raised the cost of everything. Those costs are never coming down, and that is why Labor are now looking to hike taxes to pay for their spending spree. It's the ultimate buy-now, pay-later scheme, but with a repayment plan dumped on every Australian household.

Mortgage holders are bearing the brunt of this failure. Since Labor came to power we have seen 12 rate rises and only three cuts. This is forcing mortgage holders to pay $1,800 more a month. Unfortunately, we know it's going to get worse tomorrow, because we saw the Treasurer sheepishly stand up in question time and start to make excuses for the economic numbers we are going to see tomorrow. He knows it's only going to get harder and harder for the Australian people because of his failures.

Every Australian is footing the bill for Labor's spending spree in their tax returns, electricity bills, mortgage statements and growing difficulties in finding a job. Because of Labor's economic vandalism, households are paying 15 per cent more for food; 15 per cent more for health—despite the spin of this government; 19 per cent more for housing—again, despite the spin of the Minister for Housing; 37 per cent more for insurance; and nearly 40 per cent more for electricity. As the member for Wannon knows, that's only going to go up for the Australian people under this minister.

The government's two strategies—debt and taxes—are not a plan for prosperity. The only way to fix the damage caused by Labor's failed economic management is through a comprehensive change in approach. The coalition's priority is clear: we must stop the spending spree and start growing the economic pie. This government never talks about growing the economic pie; instead, it is focused entirely on how to cut it up. Under this government, the pie is growing smaller and smaller. This approach leads to higher taxes and economic stagnation. We must move beyond band-aid solutions like the 1c cheaper pint and adopt strategies that generate real sustainable relief.

Genuine economic leadership requires us to remember that a rising tide lifts all boats. Boosting supply is the closest thing we have to a silver bullet. Growing our economy is a means to an end. Without it, we simply cannot afford the better services that we all want, the services that we need, the services that we deserve. If we want to raise living standards, we can start by clearing away bad policy that is shrinking the pie and replace it with good policy that grows the pie. If we want to do that over and over again across the whole of government over time, Australians will become richer, not poorer. Our economy will grow stronger, not weaker. However, that is hard work. It is determined work, it takes time, it takes turning up every day in a full-time capacity, but we know this government do not like to turn up and do the hard work. They like the headlines and the spin. If Labor were serious about cost of living, they would stop the spending spree and start growing the economic pie, and they would immediately re-introduce quantifiable budget rules to stop this reckless spending.

The coalition will support these bills because we will always support relief for local businesses in my community and across Australia. This measure offers a moderate, targeted respite for two years. It will provide stability by freezing the CPI indexation on draft beer, but we will not allow this minor concession to overshadow the cost-of-living and 'cost of doing business' crisis that the Albanese Labor government created and continues to fuel. We must do more to support this industry to get back on its feet after a few difficult years under this Labor government. Unfortunately, the Australian people and the businesses of Casey know it will get harder and harder because they have a prime minister, a Treasurer and an energy minister focused on their own ambitions, not the ambitions and needs of the Australian people. (Time expired)

The member for Casey reminds me more of a baker than a brewer, but thank you for that contribution. I wish to speak in the House today on a matter that cuts to the core of Australian identity, not just in culture or economy but in how we relate to one each other. In Australia, when you say, 'Let's have a beer,' what you are really saying is, 'Let's spend time together.' You are saying, 'Let's take a break, let's reconnect, let's share a moment,' with no expectations, no pressure. That sentiment is worth protecting. Across the country from city laneways to outback roadhouses, sports clubs and RSLs, the act of sharing a pint, schooner, pot or middy has remained a deeply Australian gesture. It is a fixture of everyday life, woven into everything from weekend routines, once-in-a-lifetime milestones or even just the fact it is 5pm and you are leaving work. Engagements, wakes, promotions, demotions, cricket wins and footy losses, they all seem to land us at the local with a pint in hand. And the pub itself, that humble institution, is more than just a venue; it is our unofficial community hall, a place where birthdays are celebrated, meat raffles are drawn and people come together not because they must but because they want to. I have been to countless venues across the north from the Gawler Exchange to the Angle Vale Tavern and no matter the size, postcode or whoever is pouring the beers, that sense of belonging is always the same. It is not about the status, income or background. In the pub, you can be a sparky, a student, a senior citizen or a small-business owner, and everyone's just there to unwind and be part of something familiar. That's the magic of the pub—equality over the bar. The price of a pint doesn't vary depending on your politics. It doesn't matter where you went to school or where you're from, and that shared experience, that conversation over a cold one, is part of how we strengthen the social fabric in this country. In fact, when I speak to local veterans at the Salisbury RSL or when I drop by the Playford Bowling Club, I always see the unwritten rule: it's not the beer that matters; it's the mateship. As trivial as that might sound to some, it's in these spaces that you'll find connection, belonging and even mental health support happening informally but powerfully.

Let's not forget, it's also a proud part of our national pastimes. When watching the cricket—our national sport—at any level, it's always a scorching-hot day, but you have a draught beer in hand. There is a long list of things that can be considered Australian, but it's definitely up there. Even our prime ministers have known that feeling—mingling in the stands, sleeves rolled up, beer in hand, watching the game not as a politician but as an Aussie.

These moments matter. They help define who we are. That's why government should never treat communal spaces such as the pub as an afterthought. They're more than bricks and mortar; they're the cornerstone of community. But we must also speak to the economic reality that underpins them. Hospitality is a huge employer in Australia, one of the most diverse and most community-facing sectors in our economy. It includes bar staff, cooks, cleaners, brewery techs, grain producers, logistics teams, refrigeration mechanics and young people on their first job. These are working Australians who often work the late nights on weekends or public holidays to keep the good times rolling for anyone who wants a cold one with their mates.

In South Australia beer production is part of our industrial story. Coopers Brewery is an iconic institution. You would be hard-pressed not to find a Coopers logo on any street in Adelaide. They even sponsor Adelaide United's soccer stadium. West End, too, is another iconic brewery that has woven itself into what it means to be South Australian—and who doesn't love a good red tin? And we're now seeing the rise of dozens of independent brewers who are crafting unique beer while providing local jobs, supporting agriculture and drawing tourists. These are enterprises built from the ground up by risktakers and innovators who are backing locals, and they're all relying on a thriving venue economy, because it's the kegs flowing through pubs and clubs that generate cash flow, enable hiring and keep the lights on.

So, when rising costs—from insurance hikes and energy prices to automatic tax increases—threaten these venues, we must act, and that's exactly what the Albanese Labor government is doing. As of 1 August 2025, we have paused the indexation of draught beer excise and excise-equivalent customs duties for two years. That's a real, meaningful change designed to help local venues remain viable and competitive. This measure is targeted. It applies only to draught beer poured from eight- to 48-litre containers—your typical keg sizes—and to larger containers used in high-volume hospitality settings. It does not apply to packaged beer, spirits or wine. This isn't about retailers or bottle shops. This is for pubs, clubs and hospitality venues.

Recently I had the opportunity to speak with Damian McGee, who runs the Exchange Hotel in Gawler. He told me that he was fully supportive of this bill. It means that patrons get a fair go when they're at the pub and are not hit by an unfair price hike. It also means that business gets retained—a benefit for everyone involved in running a business.

This bill, and the benefits it draws, is a decision grounded in fairness and pragmatism, because small-business owners can't plan properly if they're blindsided by tax rises every six months and patrons shouldn't be priced out of their local by the incremental hikes that compound year after year. There are around 10,000 hospitality venues around the country that will benefit directly from this measure. Roughly 75 per cent of those are small, independent businesses, many of them family run and many employing locals. Altogether, the brewing and hospitality sector supports over 160,000 jobs tied to draught beer. From brewers to truckies, this measure reaches them all and ensures they have certainty. It helps them hold their margins and it gives them the confidence to keep investing in staff, venues and innovation.

Let me be clear, this is also about regional resilience. In the north and in towns right across Australia the pub is often the last true gathering space. When the banks are closed, the post office is gone and the sporting clubs struggle, it's the pub that remains. Lose that and you don't just lose a business; you lose a community anchor. This policy protects that anchor and keeps it firmly grounded. It supports independent brewers and microbrewers, those who don't have the marketing might of multinationals but who live and work in the same towns as the people they serve. For them, keg sales are often the difference between breaking even and shutting the doors. For the wider supply chain—the real grain growers, the forklift drivers, the fitters and turners—this pause keeps production moving. One shift cut at a brewery could mean fewer deliveries, slower distribution or deferred upgrades. It's all connected, and we're acting to protect those connections.

We know the industry has done it tough: COVID lockdowns, staff shortages, delivery delays, rent increases—all of it compounding year after year. This isn't just a tax measure; it's a lifeline. It's a signal that the government understands and is willing to act. That's what good government looks like: listening, not lecturing; partnering, not posturing; delivering relief where it's needed most.

This measure forms part of a broader suite of cost-of-living support delivered by our government. We've raised the minimum wage and award wages by 3½ per cent. We've lifted superannuation contributions to 12 per cent, helping you feel more comfortable in retirement. We're increasing paid parental leave to 24 weeks, ensuring you can spend more time with your family and still feel supported. We've cut 20 per cent from student loan debts for more than three million Australians. We've cut tax for every taxpayer and have legislated more cuts to come. For students in critical sectors like teaching, nursing and social work, we've rolled out Commonwealth practical placement payments, recognising their contribution and easing placement costs. We've delivered long-overdue pay rises for aged-care workers, and we've rolled out relief on emergency bills, health care and essential services, all while keeping inflation heading in the right direction.

Although I could go on about the positive changes this Labor government has ushered in already, it is worth noting it is not all just smart policy. It is steady leadership, all with the plan to try to make life for the average Aussie battler better. We know that inflationary pressures continue to affect families here at home, and we're not immune to global cost increases, but we are responding with discipline, care and action. That's the mark of responsible government—staying focused when the economic pressures are high and delivering relief with actions like this bill.

The draft beer excise pause is part of that same philosophy. We understand the importance of a beer off the tap with your mates, and we want to protect that. This is temporary, targeted and tightly scoped. It doesn't undermine our health commitments, it doesn't rewrite the alcohol tax system, but it does offer relief when it counts and where it counts. Fairness is not just a value; it's what defines the classic pub test. It's fairness for a mum-and-dad operator running the local tavern who are trying to keep staff on, stay competitive and avoid raising prices on their regulars. It's fairness for a casual worker clocking off a late shift who depends on those weekend hours behind the bar or in the kitchen to help pay rent or cover textbooks. It's fairness for a pensioner visiting their favourite club for a midweek meal, relying on those outings not just for sustenance but for social connection and companionship. It's fairness for the brewer in a regional town who is not just making beer but employing locals, sourcing local supplies and maybe even sponsoring the local sports club. This pause in excise helps level the playing field for them too against bigger competitors and unpredictable costs. It means they can plan production runs, stabilise overheads and focus on growth, not just survival.

This measure also supports the hidden workforce, the people you don't always see in the front bar: the truck driver delivering kegs at dawn, the cleaner ensuring the club is spotless before the doors open, the refrigeration technician who fixes the cool room so the beer stays cold even in the middle of the searing South Australian summer. These are not just lines on a budget passed through parliament; they are our neighbours, our family members and our constituents.

This decision aligns with our broader commitment to back in small businesses, not just with words but with tangible support—from digital transformation grants that help venues modernise booking systems and manage inventory to energy efficiency incentives that allow clubs and hostels to cut power bills by upgrading refrigeration or installing solar, from extended instant asset write-offs that allow investment in kitchen upgrades or new tap systems to training support that ensures young workers in the north can develop hospitality skills and advance their careers locally. This is a government that sees value in small business, not only as an engine of the economy but as a cornerstone of national life. When small businesses succeed, communities stay strong. When the local pub thrives, the town thrives. When workers feel supported, everyone benefits.

I'm proud that we're not only listening to brewers, publicans and industry groups but also co-designing solutions with them: practical, responsible and targeted measures that reflect what the industry has asked for and what the moment demands. This is a government acting with care, clarity and confidence in the role that small business plays in shaping the Australia we all share. The support for this measure—from the Brewers Association and the Australian Hotels Association to independent brewers across South Australia—shows we've listened. Every time we support a pub, we support jobs. Every time we ease pressure on a local venue, we make connection more accessible. Every time we stand up for small business, we stand up for our values. This pause on draught beer excise isn't just economic; it's social. It's cultural, it's Australian and it's smart, responsible and timely. That's why I proudly commend this bill to the House.

I rise in solidarity with my hardworking, dedicated and community minded pubs and brewers to speak on this legislation—legislation which does the absolute bare minimum to aid them and their industry and does absolutely nothing to address the significant issues that exist within the alcohol excise system. The Excise Tariff Amendment (Draught Beer) Bill could have been a lot more than what it is. This bill could have gone a whole lot further than just implementing an election promise to temporarily halt the twice-yearly increase in excise of draught beer at pubs and clubs. That is all that it does. By 'temporarily' I mean that this measure will pause indexation of the beer excise for just two years—but that's enough to give the Albanese government it's 'cheaper beer' headline.

Should the beer drinkers of Australia rejoice? Well, the actual monetary significance of the measure amounts to just two-fifths of not much. The excise pause will deliver less than 1c per pint of amber fluid. It will not have any meaningful impact on the cost and/or price of draught beer, and it's only on draught beer at the tap. It doesn't apply to microbrewers or retailed packaged beer. The reality is that this bill fails to address the Albanese Labor government's cost-of-living crisis and ignores the deeper issues with the alcohol excise system. What they haven't said is that this hidden tax has gone up every six months for the last 35 years—something like 85 times—and they are not going to look into this whole alcohol excise issue.

Another point is that this intention was announced during the election and was meant to be applied in time for the excise increase on 1 August, but we're only getting to the bill now. Why the hold-up, and why just a pause on tap draught beer? Why not packaged beer, tap spirits and the like? And why not pause the excise on wine or cider or any other alcohol products? Let me tell you why. This measure is worth just $90 million over the forward estimates, which is completely minuscule compared to the $8 billion collected annually from all alcohol taxes. The measure accounts for less than two per cent of the total annual alcohol tax receipts, so they'll just keep on slugging people who like a glass of wine or something stiffer and keep that revenue rolling in. The excise is a lazy hidden tax, and Australians continue to pay the third-highest excise levels in the world, according to the Australian Hotels Association. Clubs and pubs have no control and can only pass the tax on to ordinary Australians. Many of the publicans and staff that I have spoke to in pubs and clubs across my electorate have had no choice but to absorb recent increases in excise or lose punters at the bar. If this government were serious about alcohol tax reform, they would have Treasury conducting a comprehensive review of the system.

The coalition acknowledges that there will be a little relief for pubs, clubs and beer drinkers, and we are certainly not going to stand between a cut to the beer tax and the government. But this could have been much more. It has 'missed opportunity' written all over it, and it's not an inflation buster. Inflation has smashed through the RBA's target band. That means more expensive mortgages and groceries. The cause of high inflation is reckless government spending, which is running at more than four times the rate of the economy. Recent inflation data has highlighted just how ineffective this policy will be at helping everyday Australians. Households need genuine action on the cost of living, not one cent off a schooner. Government spending is running at more than four times the rate of the economy, and it is at its highest level outside of a recession in nearly 40 years. This government's unfettered spending is keeping inflation higher for longer while Australians pay $50,000 every minute in interest on Labor's trillion dollar debt. Because of Labor's economic vandalism, households are paying 15 per cent more for food, 15 per cent more for health, 19 per cent more for housing, 37 per cent more for insurance and nearly 40 per cent more for electricity.

The RBA is now in an impossible position, with both inflation and unemployment running higher than forecast. The Treasurer has his foot on the accelerator and an eye out for the headlines while the RBA governor, Michele Bullock, is looking for the handbrake. Mortgage holders are paying $1,800 more a month since the Albanese government came to power, with 12 rate rises and only three cuts. But wait; don't despair—beer will be a tiny bit cheaper! Everyday Australians are footing the bill for this government's spending spree in their tax returns, electricity bills and mortgage statements and in their growing difficulty in finding a job. Government spending has blown out from 24 per cent to 27 per cent of GDP under this government.

A number of inquiries have recommended a review of the beer and alcohol market for anticompetitive practices and the alcohol tax regime over the years, and yet nothing has eventuated. According to the Independent Brewers Association, the representative body for more than 600 microbrewers and their supply chain partners across Australia, beer is becoming unaffordable—$8 for a schooner is a good get these days. Despite the fact that the microbrewery industry experienced extraordinary growth in the decade leading up to 2021—it grew to almost eight per cent of the total Australian beer market in 2021—the sector needs more attention than this government is willing to give it. The RBA says 48 per cent of independent brewing businesses are struggling to maintain profitability, while the foreign owned multinational companies enjoy significant profit margins. While the excise tax on beer has increased every six months, the tax on wine has not. Since February 2020, excise tax on beer has increased by 20 per cent. The tax on the average glass of wine is now eight times cheaper than the tax on an average beer. The RBA also says that two big foreign owned breweries have an 83 per cent share of the Australian beer market. If you add that to the five per cent market share the major retailers have with their home brand beer, the more than 600 Australian owned small businesses are forced to compete for seven per cent of market share.

You'd think that that would be of interest to this government and the Treasury. I know it's of interest to the owners of the Coastal Brewing Company in Foster in the Lyne electorate, David and Helen Black, who just recently won the Champion Lager and Champion Pale Ale at the Sydney Royal Beer and Cider Show along, with two gold medals, five silver medals and a bronze medal. The Coastal Brewing Company focuses on producing high-quality small-batch beers, with distribution largely focused on New South Wales between Canberra and the Queensland border. So does the Tinshed Brewery in Dungog, offering, like the Coastal Brewing Company in Foster, a range of beers from the well known to the eclectic. They're good businesses and good business for our community, as are all of our pubs and clubs, providing social venues and active, generous support and sponsorship for sporting clubs and community groups. They create and provide employment. Many are at the heart of their communities.

The alcohol industry directly supports the employment of around 176,000 full-time equivalent jobs. The alcohol manufacturing industry employs people in around 2,500 jobs. Alcohol related jobs in the retail sector number a further 21,000 jobs. Alcohol related jobs in the hospitality sector number a whopping 126,300.

Again, the coalition acknowledges that there will be a small amount of relief for pubs, clubs and beer drinkers, and we will not stand between a cut to the beer tax and the government. But this could have been much more. It certainly is, as I've said previously, a missed opportunity.

This bill is only a minor fix in the face of high inflation and cost-of-living pressures. There's no sign of a broader excise reform conversation. All we get is just a two-year pause on tap beer indexation. There's no acknowledgement of, nor strategy to address, the alcohol market share, equity and profitability questions. Likewise, there's nothing to address the government's spending spree, which is fuelling inflation and cost-of-living pressures—as is its rush to renewables, which will cost Australian taxpayers $9 trillion, putting Medicare and the NDIS at risk.

What should really be front of mind for the Albanese government is measures that genuinely address cost-of-living pressures, not policies that are putting further pressure on the cost of living. Australia needs genuine economic leadership. We need policies that focus on raising the living standards of Australians. Sadly, we won't get that with this government. We will need the strong economic management of a coalition government for that, something many, many of my constituents are very impatient for.

I rise today in support of the Excise Tariff Amendment (Draught Beer) Bill 2025, which goes right to the centre of communities, jobs, small businesses and Australian social life. This bill reinforces the Albanese Labor government's decision to pause indexation on draught beer excise and excise equivalent customs duties for two years, beginning 1 August 2025.

It is a policy underpinned by fairness, community values and economic responsibility. It is a policy that recognises and supports Australian pubs, clubs, brewers, hospitality workers and the millions of Australians who rely on these venues for work, connection and community life. It is a policy that speaks directly to the people and businesses in my electorate of Barton, from Hurstville to Wolli Creek, Beverly Hills to Clemton Park and Rockdale to Earlwood.

This measure does one simple, clear thing. It pauses automatic inflation-linked increases to draught beer excise for two years. It applies specifically to containers of eight to 48 litres designed for gas or pump systems—our standard kegs in pubs and clubs—and containers over 48 litres, used by larger hospitality venues. This pause does not apply to bottled beer, canned beer, spirits or retail alcohol. This is targeted, disciplined policy designed to support hospitality venues and the sector, not supermarkets, not bottling multinationals, not liquor companies but the pubs, clubs and taverns and small brewers who serve our communities directly from a tap. (Quorum formed)

This policy supports 10,000 hospitality venues across Australia, and about 75 per cent of them are small, family-run businesses. This policy will be supporting approximately 160,000 workers in hospitality and brewing. Further, this will support thousands more in supply chains, like farmers, those in logistics, tradies, cleaners, entertainers and local suppliers. These are the venues that sponsor the local footy club, host family dinners, employ young people, train chefs, host charity events and offer a safe and social space for neighbours to connect.

For two years, this means the tax on a pint stays steady, family-run pubs get certainty, small brewers have breathing room, young workers keep their shifts and venues avoid passing cost increases on to locals. This pause means that, when a family in Barton heads out for a Friday night meal, when a group of mates meets after work in Banksia or Beverly Hills to watch the UFC or when seniors meet for raffles in Hurstville or Earlwood, the cost of connection doesn't climb. This is a cost-of-living measure that also strengthens small-business resilience, regional tourism, jobs and apprenticeships, local manufacturing and community connection. It is cost-of-living relief, economic support and community support rolled into one smart, responsible policy.

In Australia, pubs and licensed venues are not just businesses; they are community institutions. In many places they are the heart of the suburb or the heart of the town. They are where we gather to watch the footy, celebrate a birthday, share a meal, attend a fundraiser or simply sit among neighbours and feel part of something bigger than ourselves.

In Barton we see this every day. We see this at Beverly Hills Hotel, where local families gather after weekend sport. We see it at the Rocksia and at Earlwood-Bardwell Park RSL, where locals build friendships over generations. We see this at the Ritz in Hurstville, buzzing with life, especially on trivia nights; at the Forest Inn in Bexley, with its proud community ties and killer pizzas; and in clubs like St George Leagues Club, Arncliffe Scots Club and Club Central Hurstville, which support sport and charity. Just outside the border but beloved by Barton locals is the local brewery the Social Brewers, a great brewery tucked in the member for Banks's electorate. Thousands of Barton residents work in hospitality as bar staff, cooks, cleaners, security officers, musicians, waitstaff, bottle shop attendants, managers and apprentices. When we keep these venues strong, we keep the community strong, we keep young people employed, we keep families connected and we keep traditions alive.

I want to share why this is important to me. Before entering parliament, I worked supporting the hospitality sector. This included working with the Australian Hotels Association. I stood shoulder to shoulder with venue operators, from suburban pubs to regional institutions, and saw their strong commitment to creating safe and welcoming spaces. I saw the pressure they felt in balancing rising costs with fair pricing for their customers. I saw their pride in employing and training local workers and their generosity in supporting teams, charities and community groups. I've supported business owners who stayed awake at night worrying whether they could afford to keep staff on. I've seen young people transform their lives through their first hospitality jobs, and I want to acknowledge the great work of the mighty United Workers Union in the sector, supporting workers in collaboration with these employers. Hospitality isn't just an industry; it absolutely is a pathway, a community hub and a cultural institution. So, when I say this policy matters, it's not flippant. This is from lived experience supporting the sector.

We've listened, we've consulted, we've acted. This is responsible government. That is the Albanese Labor government. Rather than responding with mantras, we've responded with solutions. We target support where it delivers the most benefit. This industry endured months of pandemic shutdowns, supply chain disruptions, staffing challenges and years of inflation pressures under the opposition, yet these Australians kept going. They adapted and they innovated. They did takeaway and they did home deliveries. They kept food in fridges, beers in kegs and, where they could, they kept staff on the books. They held communities together in some of the hardest times we've known. They deserve support, and we are giving it.

I must also add that this great policy works hand in hand with the New South Wales Minns Labor government and Minister John Graham, who's working hard to boost the New South Wales economy and revive our night-time economy after a decade of lockouts and then lockdowns by the former Liberal state government. This is what a Labor government does; it supports the economy, and it supports small businesses.

This measure also supports independent brewers who rely heavily on draught sales. It helps them manage production, maintain cash flow, retain staff, invest in quality and keep supplying local venues. Local taps in Barton serve beer from passionate independent producers—Sydney brewers who stand for the craft. We are making sure they can keep doing that. By supporting draught production, we protect diversity and fairness in our beer and hospitality markets, not just for the biggest players.

I want to be very clear that this policy is temporary. It is fiscally responsible and it does not change Australia's alcohol taxation system. It does not undermine public health objectives. It ensures that the excise returns to normal after two years. The opposition had an opportunity to listen to some of the speeches, and they sound like they are distorting this, because I recall this also being an election commitment from those across the chamber. It's still on the Liberal Party's website to this day, six months after the election. But the fact remains that this is targeted relief. It does not fuel inflation, it protects jobs and communities, and it maintains our public health settings. This is steady, disciplined economic management—low risk, high benefit and temporary.

This is one part of a very comprehensive cost-of-living agenda. I listened to some of those across the chamber and observed their line of questioning at question time—no rhyme and no thought. They say the government is spending too much, and then they have the hide to say we're not doing enough for the cost of living. Then we hear today, 'It's not enough, but it does a little bit for small businesses.' Choose your side. Let me remind the opposition of what the Albanese Labor government has already delivered: wage rises of a minimum of 3.5 per cent and an award increase; super at 12 per cent; an increase in paid parental leave to 24 weeks with super; 150 bucks more energy relief this year; apprentice payments of $10,000; cheaper home batteries; a 20 per cent cut in student HECS-HELP debt for three million Aussies; Commonwealth prac payments for nursing, teaching, midwifery and social work students; pay rises for aged-care workers; cheaper medicines; and expanded bulk-billing. This is real relief, delivered responsibly. While many major economies are facing recessions and job losses, Australia has strong employment and stable growth, and we are navigating global challenges with competence, steadiness and fairness.

This two-year excise pause is fair, targeted, responsible and deeply needed. It recognises the role hospitality plays in the lives of Australians in our suburbs, in our cities, in our regions and in electorates like mine, the seat of Barton. It supports the places where we gather to celebrate, mourn, reconnect, unwind and belong. It backs the workers pulling pints, washing glasses, scrubbing kitchens, running events, serving meals and keeping our venues safe and welcoming. It helps small businesses breathe, plan, invest and continue supporting our community. It protects local jobs, it lowers cost-of-living pressure, it strengthens local economies, it reflects both economic discipline and social understanding and, most importantly, it reflects the core promise of this Albanese Labor government to look after working Australians, to support small business and to govern responsibly and fairly for every community.

I rise to speak on the Excise Tariff Amendment (Draught Beer) Bill 2025. I have to wonder whether government MPs have genuinely read this legislation when they start talking about how this is going to help small businesses. To be very clear, this Excise Tariff Amendment (Draught Beer) Bill is only going to apply to tap beer. So all those small businesses with bottles will not get the benefit of this. So maybe pause and reflect as to why it is that the government is picking and choosing within the same industry. Only the big hotels and associations, like RSLs, and all those that have beer on tap will get a freeze in the excise. Small breweries that bottle will not get this. I am not sure that they are aware of the distinction that is happening.

Right now across Australia, and sharply felt in Warringah, our independent brewing and distilling industry is in the grip of what many describe as a recession. This industry is integral to our small-business ecosystem and yet, like many small businesses, it is being squeezed from every direction—pandemic-era debt, inflation, rising input costs and an increasingly burdensome excise tax. Last September, together with follow crossbench MPs, I wrote to the Treasurer calling for urgent relief for distilleries and breweries, proposing to reduce the impact of the alcohol excise on distilleries. This bill takes a small step in the right direction. It's a welcome pause in draught beer excise indexation, but what about everyone else in this industry? Why is it that only the big players that have access to the tap contracts within the hotels and RSLs are having access to this freeze on excise indexation? It leaves behind distillers and barely touches the structural issues facing small brewers, and the government has not given any explanation as to why. There should be no arbitrary policy divide between breweries and distilleries. They're all small manufacturers. They both employ locally, they both enrich our communities and they all deserve a fair go. The government has decided to pick and choose winners rather than extending this support to the whole industry. I have to ask: why is it that the government is only choosing, essentially, to assist an industry that has lobbying power and access to the doors of ministers?

From my point of view, I care about small business and I care about making reform and making these kinds of support measures fair to ensure all small businesses have access to them. Warringah is home to an incredibly vibrant brewing and distilling community—from Freshwater Brewing, Dad and Dave's, 7th Day Brewery and Broken Bay Brewing to the iconic Manly Spirits and all the creative makers throughout Brookvale's independent precinct. Our independent brewers and distillers bring together the Warringah community. It's because of them that we have community events such as BrookieFest, an annual precinct-wide street party. They employ locals—young people getting their first job, skilled brewers, hospitality workers and delivery drivers. They support local artists, food suppliers and tourism. When one of these businesses closes, the loss ripples far wider than just the venue. And yet those local brewers and distilleries in Warringah have expressed to me that, while they recognise the positive intent of this legislation, it's practical impact on small independent breweries is likely to be minimal to zero unless they change their operations, because it will only apply to tap draught beer. This is because tap access in pubs and clubs is locked up by long-term contracts with multinational brewers.

A 2017 ACCC report confirmed that a significant portion of taps in venues—including many of the venues that I have heard listed by previous speakers, particularly government backbenchers—are tied up by multinational brewers in long-term contracts. The ACCC report confirmed that a significant proportion of taps in venues are tied to exclusive or near-exclusive supply deals. Therefore, many small breweries are unable to benefit from draught-specific-excise relief regardless of this bill's pause on indexation.

Another challenge left completely unaddressed is the competitive barrier affecting growing brewers as they exceed the excise remission cap. Brewing and distillery businesses in Warringah have voiced their frustration at the sharp increase in payable excise as they grow beyond the cap, which erodes profitability. Additionally, the indexation freeze does not extend to bottled or canned alcohol. So, again, we're talking about picking and choosing. One Warringah brewer has already ceased packaged wholesale production because the indexation freeze only applies to draught beer, not cans or bottles. Others tell me they're approaching the excise cap, and they worry about the steep cliff once they pass it.

So how did we get here with such a complex system? Excise on beer and spirits is indexed to the CPI twice a year. Since 2020, excise has risen nearly 20 per cent during the same period. So, thinking about 2020, in five years it's nearly been a 20 per cent increase already. At the same time, for these small businesses, energy prices have surged; hops has increased by more than 50 per cent; malt has risen by nearly 20 per cent in a single year; utility costs have almost doubled; and refrigeration, transport, storage and finance costs have all ballooned. In just two years to April 2025, 51 independent breweries have closed or entered voluntary administration. They are the small businesses you all talk about.

This is a sector worth nearly $2 billion annually to the economy, and, with the right policy settings, distillers could become a $1 billion export industry by 2035. We cannot let short-term piecemeal measures undermine what should be a thriving Australian manufacturing success story. We need a comprehensive strategy. Yes, a pause on draught beer excise indexation is welcome. But it doesn't fix the problem for small business and small breweries. If you really want to give small businesses a fair go, anticompetitive practices in tap contracts need to be looked at, as well as the steep excise cliff once producers exceed the remission cap and the exclusion of distillers.

Again, we have thriving boutique gin distilleries in many areas around the country, yet they don't get any of the assistance that the Hotel Association seems to be able to get for tap beer. We have to look at how we're going to help everyone within this sector—including, in relation to the exclusion of distillers, the rising input costs that continue to outpace revenue. I've already pushed for broader and fairer reforms, including through my letter to the Treasurer, through amendments and through consultation with Warringah's brewing and distilling community. They are pleading for the government to make this fair reform, not just piecemeal and picking at favourites. A thriving brewing and distilling sector should be ambitious, innovative, sustainable and supported by a government that is willing to create conditions for small manufacturers to grow.

The temporary pause in beer excise indexation is a reprieve for some breweries, but it isn't the long-term solution that alcohol producers of all kinds have been calling for since the pandemic. Broader measures should be taken to address the anticompetitive nature of the beer industry and ensure that the long-term sustainability of the brewing and distilling industries is safeguarded. To ensure that these issues are brought to the fore, I move second reading amendments (1) and (2) as circulated in my name:

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

"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House:

(1) notes that:

(a) our local independent breweries and spirit distilleries are in crisis;

(b) brewers and distilleries carry a huge financial burden, from growing inflationary pressure to the price of energy, and issues around staffing and the rising cost of alcohol excise taxation;

(c) excise on beer and spirits has increased by more than 17 per cent since 2020, adding significant strain on our brewers and the spirits industry;

(d) according to the Independent Brewers Association, at least 51 independent brewing businesses entered voluntary administration or closed in the two years to April 2025, as mounting costs and rising excise made it harder to stay viable;

(e) Australia's spirits tax remains indexed to CPI twice a year and is one of the highest spirits taxes in the world; and

(f) while this Bill provides relief in taxation for draught beer it does not extend this assistance to these other producers; and

(2) calls on the government to:

(a) freeze indexation of all alcohol excise taxes until at least 1 August 2027;

(b) index the excise remission cap annually in line with inflation; and

(c) extend the deadlines for payback of excise debt to the ATO".

I urge government members to have an internal discussion about why you are only picking certain areas of beer to protect or to assist with this excise freeze. The amendments that I propose recognise that the struggling brewing and distilling industries need assistance. They acknowledge the ongoing financial strain. This bill ignores so many distillers entirely.

These amendments call on the government to freeze indexation for all alcohol excise until 1 August 2027, not just those that have the passes to come into parliament to advocate on behalf of their industry. They call to 'index the excise remission cap annually in line with inflation' and 'extend the deadlines for payback of excise debt to the ATO'. We need to be assisting these small businesses rather than taking a stick to them and creating an even more anticompetitive environment by assisting the big players that have access to the on-tap contracts. While I welcome that some measure has been introduced, please do the job properly, make it fair and consistent, create a competitive field for all businesses and, genuinely, put good legislation through this place.

Is the amendment seconded?

I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.

It gives me great pleasure to speak on the Excise Tariff Amendment (Draught Beer) Bill 2025 and the associated bill. These bills will help pubs, clubs and breweries across our country, across our electorates and across our states, and will deliver a simple, long-overdue measure—that is, pausing the indexation on draught beer excise and excise equivalent customs duty rates for two years. This will be a real relief. This will be a real-money-in-people's-pockets policy. I'm very pleased to be speaking on these bills and supporting them. With bills like these, we are supporting the great pubs, clubs, sporting clubs et cetera of our nation.

Think of your iconic pub. There is nothing more Australiana than a local pub, than being in the front bar with people and talking to them. I've campaigned in plenty of pubs over the years, believe me. I've been a frequent customer in many of them in my electorate because I enjoy them. I feel like it is part of our culture. I enjoy the conversations and I enjoy meeting people. For members of parliament, it is the best place to hear what people have got to say and what the realities of this world are.

When you think of pubs, you also think of the hard work that goes into running a pub. You look at publicans, and a lot of pubs are still run by families, especially in my electorate. I give a shout-out to some of those pubs, and to the Franzon family at the Hilton hotel—and I'm not talking about the Conrad Hiltons and the five-star Hiltons; I'm talking about the workers of the Hilton in the suburb of Hilton in my electorate, run by James Franzon. It was run by his father, Bob Franzon, for many years. Bob was affectionately known as 'Bob the Hat' because he always wore a hat. He passed away a number of years ago but his son James has taken over the business. We talk regularly, when I'm down there with James, about the industry and how hard it is, and the long hours they put into running a successful pub.

The Hilton hotel today has changed completely from the Hilton of many years ago. In fact, it was my first encounter with a pub. As a young schoolboy, I used to sell newspapers outside ETSA, the Electricity Trust of South Australia, which was right opposite the Hilton hotel. The workers would finish at 4 pm and come out. I would sell the papers, and then, with whatever was left, I'd walk into the Hilton hotel, into the front bar and the saloon, and get rid of the rest of the papers. That was my first interaction—and occasionally I'd get a nice tip from someone who'd perhaps had a beer too many!

There is Peter Hurley, of the Hotel Royal and the Arkaba Hotel. They are great businesses that, through hard work, have become successful businesses and community pubs. In my own neighbourhood is the Arab Steed, which I still frequent occasionally on Saturdays; I have a bit of a flutter if I've got nothing to do on a Saturday afternoon, which is very rare. I see the hard work that Shayne White and Jill White put into running the Arab Steed. They've been long-term owners of that pub. It feels like a real family when you walk into that front bar. There are the regulars, the publicans and people that know each other and are friendly.

We have many, many pubs in my electorate—I could name thousands of them—but one that stands out is the Wheatsheaf Hotel in Thebarton, which is run by Jade Flavell. It's known for its significant role in developing the Wheatsheaf's reputation as one of the premier craft beer venues in South Australia. They run a great show down there, with live bands. There are no pokies; they made a decision not to have pokies. This pub was run by the Brown family—Bob Brown and his wife—for many, many years. I used to go to school with Wayne Brown, their son, and many were the days where, when we were kids, we'd be running up and down the stairs of the Wheatsheaf Hotel.

These are real, iconic institutions in the electorate of Adelaide. These are pubs that have been run by families for years and years. This bill, therefore, is a great bill that will relieve some of that pressure. This will help the workers that work in pubs, whether they're in kitchens as a kitchenhand, cook or chef, are the cleaners of pubs or are bar staff. This will help all people connected to bars and pubs around the nation.

As I said, this automatic, twice-yearly increase to duty rates on draught beer every February and August has been a cause of frustration for many years for publicans in hospitality venues and patrons alike, because the end result is the patron pays more. It's something the AHA has been advancing for many years. This has compounded cost for venues and added stress. Industry stakeholders like some of the ones I mentioned earlier have all spoken to me about the excise tax, but they've previously made calls for support and focused on changes to alcohol excise and taxation arrangements.

The AHA of South Australia—David Basheer is the president and also the owner of the Strathmore Hotel and other hotels in my electorate—has said:

This freeze is a win for socialising, your local and most importantly jobs, at a time when cost-of-living is impacting everyone.

That was the AHA of South Australia. The national CEO said:

This is a win for the millions of men and women who like to go down to their local and have a beer. It's a win for common-sense in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis—every little bit makes a difference.

I agree with David Basheer and others who have been calling for this—the other publicans and hotel owners in the industry. We must do all that we can. Rising excise rates through biannual indexation, business costs and cost-of-living impacts have been reported by industry and the media as putting pressure on the survival of businesses in the alcohol industry.

This measure supports around 10,000 hospitality venues across Australia—pubs, bars, taverns and clubs—about 75 per cent of which are small businesses. This freeze will provide crucial breathing space for small hospitality businesses. Not only does this support the venues; it protects the thousands of those hardworking Australians that the pubs employ. Across South Australia alone—in my state—about 60,000 people are employed in accommodation and food services, as bar staff and in hospitality. In my electorate of Adelaide alone, the sector employs 4,461 males and 4,250 females.

The hospitality industry has a large proportion of young workers—especially representing a seat with the CBD in the middle of it. Many of them are uni students and part-time workers, with 2,593 workers between the ages of 25 and 34 years old. Many of these workers are employed part time or gaining experience, often without—

( Q uorum formed) I will kick off where I left off—praising the wonderful workers, the employees, who are dedicated, who are pouring beers, cooking meals and serving guests.

This bill, as I said, acts as a buffer against financial pressure, helping businesses to stay open and keeping young workers employed. I already gave the numbers in my electorate. Around Australia, there are thousands and thousands of young students employed in the pub industry, working part-time, helping to support their studies. This will be a help to them. They will also get their student debt cut this week as well, so it will be a double help for lots of uni students.

The hospitality sector in Adelaide is more than an industry; it is a key connection to our identity. I mentioned some of those iconic pubs in my electorate. The Hilton Hotel that I used to visit quite regularly was a pub where the local Lions Club would meet, the local football club would meet and even our branch of the Labor Party would meet in there on a regular basis. Over many elections, we had election night events in the Hilton Hotel. For those of you hearing 'Hilton Hotel', it is not the Conrad Hilton; this is a Hilton Hotel, named after the suburb called Hilton in a very working-class area of Adelaide.

These pubs are community pubs. Up the road, the Royal Hotel, which was run by Peter Hurley, again, is a great community pub that supports soccer clubs, football clubs, the local dart club and a whole range of other groups that meet there—from Lions Clubs to different community groups. They play an important role, they are a community centre and people gravitate to them. If you are on your own, for example, it is a great place to go and talk to people. They not only provide a wonderful service but, more importantly, they employ so many thousands of people. Therefore, this bill is very important in supporting the pubs and hospitality industry.

The draft beer excise freeze may seem modest but it helps where it matters most—that is, small and local businesses. As I said, I regularly meet with local traders. Many publicans I speak to tell me that the cost-of-living crisis is hurting their business. This freeze will help to alleviate input costs, giving them better stability and certainty, not only helping them keep the doors open but also helping them plan ahead.

The hospitality sector is not just for employment; it represents something bigger. Many of us in our speeches here have tried to explain that bars, pubs and other venues are the heart of local communities. I am sure every member of parliament here speaks to people in pubs. They are the best place to actually gauge what the views are of the public out there. They are places to catch up with your friends, mates, to have a beer, to go to weekly trivia nights, and to celebrate local sporting teams after a game. They bring people together. They connect Australians.

In Adelaide, we're spoiled for choice with such amazing venues. I've mentioned some of them. There are others: Exeter Hotel, the British Hotel, the Strathmore, Cumberland Arms Hotel—great pubs. Currently, I frequent the Arab Steed in my neighbourhood occasionally, as I said, on a Saturday afternoon if I don't have anything on, which is very rare. We may go there with my wife and have lunch and a bit of a flutter on the TAB. It's an outing, it's a great opportunity to talk to people and to meet people, and I see firsthand the hard work of those publicans, who play an important role in our economy, in employing people and in just having a community—like a community centre—there for everyone. At the same time, we want them to flourish and we want their businesses to flourish.

I rise to speak briefly on the Excise Tariff Amendment (Draught Beer) Bill 2025. While I support the bill in its efforts to provide some temporary relief to parts of Australia's hospitality sector, who are really struggling—namely, pubs and clubs—I want to echo many of the concerns expressed by some of my crossbench colleagues, speak briefly on another area of our excise regime and comment on a proposed ATO determination currently under consideration.

My electorate of Wentworth is home to some amazing local institutions, from the Bondi Bowlo and the Diggers to the Paddington RSL. These are just some of the community operated bars, clubs and restaurants that give so much to the culture, atmosphere and events of the eastern suburbs. But these establishments and the rest in the eastern suburbs have navigated a challenging business environment over the past few years. COVID hit these sorts of organisations really hard, and the long tail of the cost-of-living crisis has dried up consumer demand in what should have been their recovery phase and has made it harder to keep their doors open.

Across Australia, hospitality venues are falling at a faster rate than almost any other sector in the economy, beaten only by construction. In 2023-24, we lost 1,667 such businesses across Australia. This bill offers some welcome reprieve. This bill amends the Excise Tariff Act and the Customs Tariff Act to pause indexation of the excise and customs duty rates on draught beer—beer poured from taps—for two years.

Wentworth also hosts some amazing craft breweries, including Bondi Brewing and Curly Lewis, as well as Australia's leading independent Seltzer company, FELLR. These independent brewers also add so much to my local community, creating new venues and products and the taste of the eastern suburbs, consumed all over Australia. These institutions face considerable challenges of their own. Not only is indexation pushing up the price of their products twice a year; they face an incredibly concentrated market dominated by two large multinational companies. The Independent Brewers Association reports that, after you take out foreign owned businesses and home-brand products, some 670-odd independent brewers are left to compete for around seven per cent of the remaining market share.

Last year, as part of the Standing Committee on Economics, I investigated the beer market as part of the Bettercompetition, better prices report. We heard that the beer market has become pay to play, where the large companies can undercut local competitors through promotional marketing, discounts and even tap contracts that mean independents might either have no taps in a pub or a club or jostle amongst each other for a single tap. This makes it hard for independent brewers to get their brands out into public consumption outside of their own premises. They often rely on the sale of bottled or canned beer, sold in traditional liquor stores or at their own storefronts. For brewers with this business model, this excise will provide very limited relief.

While I acknowledge the announcement by the government to lift the remission cap from $350,000 to $400,000 from 1 July next year, I will also be supporting the member for Bradfield's amendment to increase the scope of the excise to include local, independent craft beer sold in bottles and cans.

Local independent brewers face another potential challenge in the coming months because of a recently announced draft guidance known as ED 2024/D2. Based on the draft determination, the ATO appears to be moving away from an objective determination of what constitutes beer to favour a more subjective one. Instead of determining beer based on its fermentation process, the ATO, it appears, will look at the final product to see if it fits within a conventional understanding of beer. This has potentially significant consequences for beverage producers whose product is no longer considered to fit within the conventional understanding of beer now or in the future. These products would be subject to a new excise rate of $105.98 per litre of alcohol compared to beer, which attracts an excise rate of $62.56, putting them at a significant cost disadvantage compared to beer.

With the nature of beer evolving per different preferences and tastes to include a broader palette including sour beer and even seltzers, I ask the questions: Is it really the role of the ATO to determine what is and isn't a beer now based on how beer is conventionally understood? Aren't other people concerned about this in this chamber? I make light of it, but I'm sincere. I do wonder if this is the role of the ATO, to determine what is a beer and what isn't a beer. It does seem to be some sort of overreach of the Taxation Office.

While I have been reassured and received assurances that this will not be targeting craft brewers exploring different types of sour beers, for example, I'm concerned about the ambiguity of the determination in a market that is reliant on innovation to challenge the status quo. As I've already mentioned, Australia's beer market is already dominated by an offshore duopoly that holds more than 80 per cent of the Australian beer market. I'm concerned that imposing further restrictive definitions on beer based on convention serves to protect existing products and will limit the ability for new local brewers to compete with established brands on the basis of the innovation in the product market, which they have done to date. I understand that draft determination ED 2024/D2 is due to be finalised by the end of 2025—but no longer consulting with stakeholders. I urge the Assistant Treasurer to consider advising the ATO to revise ED 2024/D2 in favour of rules that are clear, well designed and easy to follow. This is important for business to continue to innovate and invest, confident that they know how their product will ultimately be classified.

Finally, returning to the issue of excise, I'd like to use this opportunity to draw the parliament's attention to another issue we have in Australia's excise regime: illegal tobacco. This is a social problem that is hiding in plain sight. After successfully slashing the proportion of Australians smoking daily from 25 per cent in 1991 to eight per cent in 2023, we are seeing tobacconists now popping up like mushrooms across our community, selling illegal tobacco and vapes and capitalising on cheap illegal tobacco. There are now around 20,000 tobacconists in Australia—about 60 tobacconists for every McDonald's. The term, 'Do you have the cheap ones?' is becoming a thinly veiled codename for illicit cigarettes costing about one-third of the price of legal cigarettes.

There is a perfectly sound reason for having a tobacco excise tax, as my economics 101 lecturer would tell me. We want price externalities and to discourage harmful behaviours. For the most part, our tobacco policy has served public health and public finance well. But we've hit an inflection point. The growing disparity between the prices of legal and illegal cigarettes has created a lucrative and largely unenforced black market, which is proving counterproductive to both health and the budget, not to mention the impact it is having on driving organised crime.

The consumption of legal tobacco apparently fell by 22 per cent last year. That is frankly unbelievable and is in contradiction to wastewater testing. What that shows is that the consumption of legal tobacco fell 22 per cent, with wastewater indicating that this is just moving straight out of the legal tobacco and into illegal tobacco, which means that we are now missing around potentially up to one-fifth of our tobacco excise and we are fuelling, through this change, organised crime that is facilitating this trade in illegal tobacco. Consequently cigarette excise is in freefall, with economist Chris Richardson estimating that untaxed illegal cigarettes are costing the budget around $10 billion. Organised crime has grabbed the opportunity presented by illegal tobacco leading to a surge in arson attacks and violence for the control of a growing and highly lucrative market. Across Australia we've had more than 200 attacks since 2023, but the police tell me that they are simply not resourced to deal with this growing threat.

I acknowledge that the government has already made some contributions to the issue, including contributions both this year and last year to step up funding for the Federal Police and the Australian Border Force. But the government is losing the war on this, and much more needs to be done. At the very minimum, I think the government needs to have an urgent parliamentary inquiry into what is needed to actually solve this issue. We should think about having three priorities for excise policy—public health and collecting revenue but also minimising criminal activity associated. At this stage, the current tobacco excise is failing at least two of these measures. It needs to be reviewed, and the question of how we manage what has now turned into an enormous problem which is going to be extremely difficult and complicated to reverse—this is where this growth in excise has left us. I draw the government's attention to this in particular. They should be taking urgent action on this issue. Frankly, they have not done anywhere near enough.

Beer is something I'm excited to talk about. I rise today to speak on the Excise Tariff Amendment (Draught Beer) Bill 2025 and the Customs Tariff Amendment (Draught Beer) Bill 2025. Beer has a rich history dating back to Mesopotamia and Ancient Egypt some 5,000 years BC, where it was actually safer to drink beer than water and it was even used as a form of currency. My own father experimented with brewing and tried to make a Cherry Ripe based beer, which was not flash. You should leave that to the professionals. And, as of now, we are making it easier for the professionals.

Having a beer after a week at work is an Australian tradition—heading to the local with your mates, having a chat, unwinding for the week and, particularly in Far North Queensland, bringing your own stubby holder because the schooner is going to get warm before you finish it. As I travel up and down the cape through my immense electorate, I run community offices during the day, but I know that I'm going to get most of the engagement that night at the local pub, pulling beers and chatting to the road crews, the public servants who are done for the day and the FIFO workers. Everybody congregates at the local, be it the Bamaga Tavern on the very edge of the northern Australian tip, the Wongai pub on Horn Island, the Grand on Thursday Island or the Exchange Hotel in Coen. All of them are the heart of Australia. All of them are places where Australians gather to tell stories, have a great time and, yes, have an ice-cold beer. Knowing that beer is frozen and that it is cheaper brings more people to those environments. It helps our social cohesion and keeps that great Australian tradition of the Friday afternoon beer or the Thursday afternoon beer continuing.

I am very much looking forward to getting home at the end of this week and going to my local, the Trinity Beach pub, looking out over palm lined beaches to the Coral Sea. It's beautiful. My mates are going to gather around, and we are going to have a few beers to celebrate Christmas, to celebrate being together and to celebrate mateship. We've known each other forever. That has been the common denominator: we meet for beers at the pub. It has become a quintessential part of the Australian identity.

But it is about more than supporting the Australian identity and more than a cost-of-living process; it is bringing support to small businesses. We know that it was hard during COVID. Cairns is a service-industry city. You remove the service industry and it makes things very difficult. We need to bring people back into our clubs and pubs, particularly those supporting independent brewers like Copperlode brewery, up my way, who have honoured the member for Kennedy with the Patriot pale ale. I am waiting for mine, but I'm told I have to have been 50 years in the House—at which point I will be 96 or dead! It's testament to what a cold beer means that we have someone like the member for Kennedy held up, placed on a beer and celebrated not just in his community but right across the country. It is a truly special thing. People went to that pub for that beer, supporting that local business. Macalister Brewing, a little bit further north, looks out over the canefields of the western arterial. It has a fantastic array of beer. People go there for the experience—the taps, the kegs and the whole thing. It is part of a North Queensland afternoon. We have so many great breweries and so many great little country pubs dotting the area. We are bringing people back to them.

This is how a lot of people get their first start while at university—getting their RSA, pulling beers and making a dollar. It's their first bit of real responsibility in the workplace. It's how I hope my children will work their way through university, the same way my sister did. It says something about the Australian identity, and I couldn't be prouder to get behind it.

Now I will get to the nitty-gritty of the whole thing. This is a 2025-26 budget measure to pause the automatic CPI increase which used to be every six months. So every six months there would be an increase, two per year et cetera—in February and August. That's a day not necessarily circled in anyone's calendar but a day that rolled around nonetheless. Without these excise increases occurring it will provide the stability that business needs for forward planning and for consumers. Stability is the No. 1 goal that you need to provide for any kind of economic development. People need to know what is coming and how to react accordingly. This freeze gives pub owners and club owners throughout Australia that surety. Be they small businesses, larger pubs or the little country town ones, they'll know what is coming next.

This is obviously a targeted measure. It is specifically for tap beer, for draught beer. That is because that is where our people are. It is holistic approach to cost of living and to encouraging small businesses. It is to get people into the pubs again, to chat again, to make sure that we have that social cohesion, to relearn what it's like to be with each other. The kids that are coming of age now, 17 and 18 years old—like my own daughter, who is 17—will start hitting the pubs in a couple of months. She went through COVID. She missed a large part of her development socially. My youngest daughter missed more. My nephews missed more again. They will rediscover humanity in the pub with a nice cold beer. I am very, very excited for them to do so—responsibly, of course.

This is a cost-of-living measure. It is supporting a lot of people at a lot of places. I know that pubs and brewers in my electorate are welcoming this with open arms. Tap beer, draught beer, is the best beer. It tastes the freshest. It gives you the most bubbles, the best head. I'm sure the consumers will love being able to go down without an excise going up.

This supports jobs. It is the jobs that I want to talk about now. Because of the Albanese Labor government, people in the pubs and clubs pulling beers are now going to have more work because we're bringing more people into the pubs. Their penalty rates are now enshrined. So when they work on Saturday nights and Sundays, when the rest of us are taking our time with our family and friends, they know that they are going to get paid accordingly. They are going to get paid for the time that they are putting in and the time that they are giving up.

As I said earlier, a lot of people use the pubs and clubs as a stepping stone to somewhere else. Fee-free TAFE is available. One of the local guys at the place where I drink wants to be a chippie. He's going to go to fee-free TAFE. He's pulling beers in the meantime to save up for a car. Once he's saved up for a car, you know what he can get? He can get a house. There are five per cent deposits now. We have given an actual pathway. This whole thing is a holistic approach to everything we are doing. It's targeted, but it's so much bigger than that. It's giving people hope for the future. It's giving people industry. It's giving small business surety. It's giving families a place to be. It's giving friends a chance to get together and enjoy themselves. It's something so simple and so well supported that it's still on the Liberal Party's website! That's fantastic. It is great to get bipartisan support on something as important as family and friends getting together.

There are approximately 160,000 workers employed in the hospitality sector—a large chunk of them in the Far North—and I'm proud that we've got behind them. I'm proud of the small brewers that are putting beers on the table every day and of the people that run the clubs and the pubs, particularly those small country pubs that make such a difference in community, and what they mean and what they stand for. I'm super proud to be able to support them. I just say to all of the brewers out there: do not ever put Cherry Ripe into a beer. I commend these bills to the House.

I certainly will not be having a Cherry Ripe beer in the near future, that's for sure.

(Quorum formed)

I rise to speak on the Excise Tariff Amendment (Draught Beer) Bill 2025 and the Customs Tariff Amendment (Draught Beer) Bill 2025. I'll start by saying that the coalition supports these bills, but we do want to make a few points. We support the freeze to the beer excise indexation, and we will not stand between a cut to the beer tax and the government, but we must be upfront and honest with Australians—this freeze delivers less than 1c of relief per pint.

I'll come back to the merits of the bill and where we're at as a country, but I will say that, in my electorate of McPherson, we have some incredible breweries and some incredible venues that serve beer. I'm very fortunate in my electorate to have Black Hops Brewing in Burleigh as well as the Burleigh Brewing Company, which is very well known. I've had the opportunity to take the Leader of the Opposition to visit Peta and the team at the Burleigh Brewing Company in the past. We also have the very well-known Balter Brewing Company in Currumbin.

Absolutely, member for Grey. We also have Currumbin Valley Brewing. We have some incredible surf lifesaving clubs, bowls clubs, golf clubs and other clubs that serve beer.

I will say that what we're seeing from the government is only a patchwork fix in the face of high inflation. It is being sold as a government measure designed to ease the cost of living. We're not seeing the bold structural reform that is needed, we are not seeing the changes that are needed and that so many Australians are crying out for. While this will provide that less than 1c of relief per pint, in the context of this government, I'm sure we will take anything we can get right now. There is a long way further that we need to go.

Recent inflation data has highlighted just how ineffective this policy will actually be in helping everyday Australians. Those of us who are out in our communities speaking to members of our community, to small businesses and to families hear every day the real effects of this cost-of-living crisis, with the government's reckless spending keeping inflation higher for longer. We have seen Australian taxpayers paying $50,000 every single minute just on the interest on Labor's trillion-dollar debt. Because of this economic vandalism, we are seeing households paying more: 15 per cent more for food, 15 per cent more for health, 19 per cent more for housing, 37 per cent more for insurance and, of course, nearly 40 per cent more for electricity.

There is nothing in this bill that resembles anything such as a strategy to address the government's spending spree, which is fuelling inflation. There is no plan to fix the $600 million illicit alcohol tax which has been previously identified by the Australian tax office. There is no sign of a broader excise reform conversation. These are just piecemeal freezes. It is great to give the government their headline that we are 'axing a beer tax' but it is not even that. The measure is worth just $90 million over the forward estimates. That is tiny—very, very small—compared to the $8 billion that is collected annually from alcohol taxes.

More should be done for Australia's hospitality and alcohol industries. These are businesses who have gone through COVID, have gone through record high inflation and incredible cost-of-living pressures. As governments and as members of parliament, we must do our part. If Labor is serious about cost of living, it must stop the spending spree and it must start growing the economic pie. This is something that I have spoken about on numerous occasions in this place. We are seeing a crisis of short-term governance. We need to think long-term. One of the things we need to think about long-term in this place is intergenerational debt, to which Labor has added $100 billion just in the last three years.

Australia's alcohol taxes raise about $8 million per year and, as I said, the freeze will cost $90 million a year, which is only two per cent of the annual alcohol tax receipts, with excise on alcohol indexed to CPI twice a year. This freeze also only applies to draught beer served on tap. As I said, it amounts to a cent per pint, so most people watching this will not actually notice much of a price difference.

The alcohol industry is an industry which supports so many people across my community on the southern Gold Coast. It directly supports the employment of 176,000 full-time equivalent jobs. The alcohol manufacturing industry employs around 22,500 people, the alcohol-related retail sector employs a further 21,000 and the hospitality sector employs a whopping 126,300 people. In my electorate of MacPherson on the Gold Coast, we have an incredible, vibrant entertainment culture. We are one of the centre points of tourism, not only in Queensland but across the nation. This bill should go even further for the people in my electorate—the small business owners, the individuals and the people visiting—to actually see the benefit.

As I said when I started this speech, as a coalition, we do support this bill. However, it doesn't go far enough and it doesn't do anything to address the structural problems that we are seeing in Australia in relation to our government expenditure and to ease cost of living. We must act now and we must act effectively because small government announcements here and there are not going to work. The time is now to address overdue reforms and overdue tax reforms. On the coalition side, we're more than happy to be constructive and to work with the government. But let's be realistic about the results and let's be realistic about the effect that tokenistic measures could have. We support this bill, but we look forward to seeing a lot more addressed that is currently overdue.

I'm pleased to speak on this legislation today, which amends the Excise Tariff Act and the Customs Tariff Act to support a pause on indexation of the excise of duty rates and customs duties on draught beer for two years. The amendments to the Excise Tariff Amendment (Draught Beer) Bill 2025 will take pressure off business when it comes to the price of beer poured in pubs, clubs and other venues and will support small businesses and regional tourism across the country. This is a measured, temporary pause that will help keep operating costs stable for small venues while maintaining the integrity of the broader alcohol excise framework.

The measure applies to containers between eight and 48 litres, which are commonly used in pubs and clubs, and containers over 48 litres used in larger hospitality venues. It doesn't apply to bottled or canned beer, spirits or other excisable beverages, which ensures that the policy remains tightly targeted to hospitality operators rather than retailers. Around 75 per cent of those venues are small, family-run businesses that employ local people and support community events, sporting clubs and local charities. This is a cost-of-living measure that will help take pressure off at a really critical time. Cost-of-living pressures have affected pubs, clubs and other licensed venues as they have for the rest of us. These amendments will reduce the pressure for businesses on the price of beer at pubs, clubs and other licensed venues. The venues, in turn, will support other businesses and regional tourism across the country.

This is a practical, targeted and responsible measure that supports small business. It helps to protect jobs and it keeps the price of a pint stable for everyday Australians. This decision recognises that local pubs, clubs and breweries are not just businesses but community institutions that bring people together. They provide employment and help regional communities remain strong. I visited a number of pubs and clubs around Eden-Monaro, and it is true of my community like it is true for many of the other speakers that have spoken on this debate that pubs, clubs and breweries are the lifeblood of small towns. Everyone can come together at the local pub or hotel and support the community that supports them right back.

I recently dropped into the Delegate Hotel to check out their fantastic renovations. The hotel is under new management and is looking fresh and welcoming, which is perfect for locals and visitors. I was also recently at the Bemboka Hotel, which had only just reopened in the small town of Bemboka—which is great news for that local community. Karen and Rowan at the Bemboka Hotel have done a magnificent job at bringing it back to life, and it now includes a cafe too. It's the people in regional towns like Delegate and Bemboka who will benefit from this pause in indexation. Our government is focused on what they can do to keep local venues open, to keep people in work and to keep communities connected.

Importantly, this measure provides breathing space to a sector that has faced successive economic challenges, including pandemic lockdowns, supply chain disruptions and rising input costs. COVID was tough for a lot of towns, but across Eden-Monaro our regional communities had already suffered through the Black Summer bushfires and floods before COVID hit us. These clubs and pubs were more than just places where people gathered. They became evacuation centres. They were evacuation centres that kept people and animals safe as a bushfire raged around them for more than six weeks. It's been a long road to recovery in Eden-Monaro, but this small measure makes sure that community clubs and pubs in our small communities stay open, stay active and stay there for community connection.

As I said, these clubs became evacuation centres, so I do want to give a shout-out to Club Narooma, Club Sapphire, the Bermagui Country Club, the Eden Fishermen's Club, Tathra Beach Country Club, Tura Beach Country Club and the many, many more up and down the east coast who acted as evacuation centres. Earlier this year, when I was in the Mid North Coast, following their dramatic floods, clubs were again opening their doors to be evacuation centres in our local communities.

Recovery, we know, is a long road, but the best thing we can do for people, particularly in regional Australia, is to make sure that tourism remains at the top of these communities and a way for people come together. Every summer in Eden-Monaro, we welcome many holidaymakers, particularly to our coastal towns. All across the Eden-Monaro, it's great to have more people coming into towns to stay in our pubs, to stay in our hotels and motels and our caravan parks, to eat in our restaurants, our cafes and our pubs, and, of course, this is great for local business. This measure reinforces the government's commitment to regional Australia, helping to protect tourism and local hospitality jobs.

While I'm at it, I want to mention how fantastic it is that we've now got a buyer for our regional airline Rex. Regional towns rely on strong regional airlines and aviation, and our government has been strident in our support for the regional aviation sector, because we know how important it is right across the country. Ensuring that there is access to our regions via air is vital to keeping our local economies going. This bill also supports Australian brewers, particularly small and independent producers who supply draught beer to local venues. Many of these brewers rely heavily on keg sales to maintain cash flow and jobs, and we've got some great local breweries in Eden-Monaro. There's Dalgety Brewing Co. and Jindabyne Brewing in the Snowy Mountains, Breakwall Brewing in Narooma, Longstocking Brewery in Pambula and the list goes on and on.

Pausing indexation will help local brewers manage costs too. It will help them plan production and continue investing in local communities and regional economies. But the benefits of this policy reach far beyond pubs and brewers. They flow through to farmers, transport operators, equipment suppliers and the thousands of small businesses linked to the hospitality supply chain. Businesses, particularly small businesses, really are the backbone of regional communities. It's a cost-of-living measure that also strengthens small-business resilience. When you're running a small business, every little bit helps, and this legislation is part of the government's targeted cost-of-living relief.

The Albanese government has listened to industry feedback from brewers, from publicans and from small-business groups, who have consistently called for relief from automatic excise increases during a period of high inflation, and this is a clear example of a responsible government acting, designed to make a difference without driving inflation or compromising fiscal discipline.

Alongside this measure, the Albanese government is delivering real, practical and ongoing help with the cost of living for Australians. We are delivering what we said we would at the election, including new measures that started on 1 July, including the national minimum wage and award wage increase by 3.5 per cent; the superannuation guarantee increase to 12 per cent; paid parental leave increase to 24 per cent; super now being paid on all government paid parental leave; another $150 in energy bill relief before the end of the year; $10,000 incentive payments for new housing apprentices; cheaper home batteries; cutting 20 per cent of student loan debts for three million Australians; and Commonwealth prac payments for nursing, midwifery, teaching and social work students. And hardworking aged-care nurses will receive the next instalment of their pay rise in October, following the first instalment in March this year. More meaningful, responsible cost-of-living relief will continue rolling out throughout the remainder of 2025. Tax cuts for every taxpayer kicked in last year, with two more tax cuts to come—next year and the year after. Another 50 Medicare urgent care clinics will open throughout the rest of the year, and, of course, we are now seeing bulk-billing expanding at GP clinics across the country.

This excise pause is an example of good, steady, responsible government in action. There will be targeted relief, real results and a fair go for Australian workers and small business owners alike. I'm proud to be part of a government that is delivering real cost-of-living relief to Australians, including those in my electorate, and I want to thank all those hospitality workers, small-business owners, pubs and clubs, and boards of directors who have spoken with me about what a difference this pause in excise will make for their businesses over the next two years.

Member for Eden-Monaro, you had five minutes to go. You could've gone over the highlights and the best-ofs in that wonderful 10-minute contribution.

And talked about beer!

I wanted to give you more of a chance.

Well, I enjoyed what I heard of your contribution, particularly as you put it in the context of the government's cost-of-living measures, of which this is one—not perhaps the major one, not the only one, but certainly one. But I find it telling, having sat through a few of the speeches from our colleagues opposite, that every time you talk about a cost-of-living measure they arc up.

But we may have found a unicorn in this bill. We may actually have found a cost-of-living measure that the opposition will support.

Just.

Just. Exactly! Just—I'll take the interjection. It's a cost-of-living measure that the opposition might just support, because, having listened over the last few days of the last sitting week to a whole bunch of those speeches—we'll call them speeches—about this bill to freeze the excise on draught beer and excise-equivalent customs duties, you wouldn't actually be clear whether they're going to vote for the bill, because the speeches are couched in negativity and division. There's no joy; it's all division.

Anyway, my deeply considered and thoroughly original speech will start with a quote. I want to quote the member for Paterson:

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.

Whatever you call it—and it does vary—it was one of those things that, when I first started travelling interstate as a young adult, was deeply confusing. When I'd go to the pub in New South Wales, I'd order one thing and get another. Then I'd go back to my home state of Victoria and order the same thing I'd learned about and I'd get a different thing. But wherever you are in Australia and whatever you call it, this bill is good news for beer drinkers, and it's good news for the hospitality venues, the brewers and the hundreds of thousands of Australians who work in the industries—be they supply chains, farming, agriculture, transport industries and so on—that support these venues.

There will be a two-year pause on the indexation of draught beer excise and excise-equivalent customs duties. The government is standing up for pubs, clubs, brewers and hospitality workers through pausing this beer excise. It's a practical, targeted and responsible cost-of-living measure. It supports small businesses. It protects jobs. It keeps the price of a pint stable for everyday Australians, and that's important. We inherited record inflation. Inflation has more than halved since its peak when we came to government, but this is one of a whole series of measures that the government has been taking to take the pressure off everyday Australians whilst inflation comes down.

There are still a lot of people doing it tough, but we have made significant progress. This decision recognises that local pubs, clubs and breweries are not just businesses. As we heard from the former speaker, it's critically important that the pub, as the centre of community life, often, in regional areas and small towns, is able to survive and thrive, even for those who don't necessarily drink alcohol. And those who don't drink beer can have a zero beer—they're everywhere now. So often it's the local hospitality venues and the pubs where the community gathers. They might have their meetings there. I know a lot of our ALP branches meet in the rooms out the back of the pub, after gathering for a meal beforehand. It's really important that these community institutions and commercial hospitality venues—they have both personalities—are able to survive and thrive.

The measure applies to containers between eight and 48 litres, commonly used in these pubs and clubs, and also containers over 48 litres. That sounds like a lot of beer, and it is a lot of beer, but, in the large hospitality venues, that's the size of the beer. That's right.

The policy remains tightly targeted to hospitality operators rather than retailers, so it doesn't apply to off-the-shelf purchases in bottle shops and so on, because it is both a cost-of-living measure and a measure to support small business and to support those hospitality venues. It's a measured, temporary pause that will help keep operating costs stable.

If you're a small-business person and you're looking at your balance sheet and your cost inputs, any opportunity and any line that you can see where you can budget with certainty and go, 'Well, that one's not going to go up for the next few years. I can plan with certainty and give myself a little bit of breathing space and take a little bit of pressure off,' is a good thing. It keeps operating costs stable for small venues whilst still maintaining the integrity of the broader alcohol excise framework.

The Assistant Treasurer, in his second reading speech in introducing this bill, wins the award for best dad joke—or worst dad joke, depending on your perspective so far—where he said he sees it as 'a key part of his role to support liquid markets'. Well, here we are. He's one of the cleverest people in this parliament. He's got a PhD in economics, and that's probably very, very funny, in the economic world, indeed.

There are around 10,000 hospitality venues across Australia which will directly benefit, including pubs, bars, taverns and clubs. I recall fondly my visit to Newcastle where you and I sat on a little stage out the back of a lovely pub in your beautiful electorate and ran a trivia night. I think people bought us beers in jugs, which we drank moderately and sensibly, of course.

Around 75 per cent of those venues are small, family run businesses employing local people and supporting community events, sporting clubs and local charities. As I said, they're not just employers in their own right, not just hubs of community life and not just small businesses making a profit and a livelihood for those who run them; but also, so often, it's that venue that sponsors the local footy team and that will help out in times of need and support the broader community.

This is an anti-inflationary measure, and, Deputy Speaker Freelander, you would have had this in your own community. As we helped Australians through the cost-of-living pressures and the global inflationary crisis over the last few years and worked to get inflation down whilst actually helping people through it, there was a recurrent theme—whatever measure the government put in place was simultaneously opposed by those opposite but not enough. They did this whatever it was, whether it was the cheaper medicines policy or the power bill rebates, which they consistently voted against but also said were not enough The cheaper medicines policy—I think the maximum cost of a PBS script will soon fall to $25. The last time that the cost of a PBS script was $25 was back in 2004. If we hadn't have acted, the cost of a PBS script today would be over $50 for an average family. The energy rebates; the cheaper medicines policy; free TAFE; extending the GP bulk-billing incentive to all Australians, which kicked in on 1 November; as well as the tax cuts—it all adds up.

Those opposite have criticised those policies for never being enough and for not going far enough, yet they went to the last election—this is pretty astounding, actually, for the party that claims to be the party of lower taxes—promising to raise taxes. They opposed Labor's tax cuts. I am pleased—as I said earlier, I think they're going to support this bill, so we have found a cost-of-living measure which the opposition are going to support. But it does give breathing space to a hospitality sector that faced successive economic challenges.

In my home state of Victoria, pandemic lockdowns as well as the supply chain disruptions coming out of the pandemic as borders reopened, a global phenomenon; rising input costs; and so on—as I said, even for non-beer-drinkers, this is good; it helps the community and businesses that sponsor footy and so on. It also supports Australian brewers, particularly those small and independent producers who supply the draught beer to the local venues. Many of these brewers rely heavily on their keg sales to maintain cash flow and jobs, so pausing indexation will be of great benefit to help to those brewers plan their production and manage their costs—the same logic as I referred to before in relation to a hospitality venue. If you can see that one of your cost line items is not going to go up, you can plan and operate with certainty. Pensioners and those with chronic health conditions can also plan ahead; they can get 60-day scripts and know that the maximum cost of a PBS script for a pensioner in this country—because of the Labor government's budget—is now frozen until 2029 at $7.70. It's the same logic. People can plan around those medicine costs not going up. Brewers can plan around the excise charges on draught beer not going up.

The benefits of this policy, as I touched on earlier, reach well beyond pubs, hospitality venues and brewers. They flow on to the transport operators, equipment suppliers, farmers and thousands of small businesses linked to the hospitality supply chain. The bill also forms part of the government's broader package of small-business support, which included—they're all sitting down, so I'm going to say it—extended instant asset write-offs. These ones are well trained! In question time, or when there are a few more of them, if you say 'instant asset write-off', they kind of lose their minds. They say, 'That was us!' They forget the history of the instant asset write-off. It was the Gillard government that introduced it, and then the Abbott government got elected and wiped it out. Then, under pressure, out of embarrassment and shame, they brought it back. Now we've extended it as a Labor government. It was a Labor initiative originally, and they don't like to be reminded of that.

The pause ensures that small brewers and publicans can continue competing fairly against large multinational producers, which is important to protect diversity and competition in Australia's beer and hospitality industries. This measure is fiscally responsible. It is a pause. It's not some fundamental undoing or undermining of the alcohol excise regime. It's carefully calibrated to be time-limited to help small businesses through this particularly challenging period. The decision shows, as we've heard from many government speakers, that the government is listening and in touch with community life. It understands and appreciates the pressures that small businesses face, and it acts. It doesn't just talk about it; it actually acts to support them. It will help keep local venues open, keep people in work and keep communities connected. Those are values that sit at the heart of the Labor tradition.

I'll finish where I started: around the cost of living. This is, some would say, a modest measure. It's an important measure for the reasons we've outlined in speeches today. It sits alongside practical and ongoing help that the government is continuing to deliver on the cost of living. When you go doorknocking, the cost of living is still the number-one issue. Even though inflation has more than halved, even though we've had three interest rate cuts already this year, even though real wages are growing—we had that data confirmed last week: two years of real wages growth. It's such a contrast with the previous government, where suppressing wages—wages going backwards—was, to quote the former finance minister, a deliberate design feature of their economic management. They actually changed the law before the 2022 to election to cover up the power price rises that were coming down the pipe from the former energy minister, Angus Taylor.

But there's more to be done. I am proud that the national minimum wage and award wages have increased by 3½ per cent. The cost-of-living equation, of course, has two sides: it's money into your bank and money out. Real wages growing, which is a deliberate design feature of our economic management, is helping Australians. Increasing the super guarantee to 12 per cent and increasing the paid parental leave scheme to 24 weeks is making it fairer for families, including fathers. Another $150 in energy bill relief before the end of the year, $10,000 in incentive payments for housing apprentices, and cheaper home batteries are measures that those opposite oppose. I think we heard today that we're up to 136,000 cheaper home batteries, as Australians continue to be world leaders in the uptake of rooftop solar at home and battery storage.

I had the Prime Minister down to my electorate a few weeks ago, in Narre Warren, and we visited a wonderful young family with two cute kids and a dog. They had just installed—a few months ago, in the first possible week, actually—one of the Cheaper Home Batteries. They showed us their electricity bills. They'd basically paid nothing except the supply cost towards electricity, saving hundreds of dollars. They also had a fully electric vehicle sitting alongside a hybrid vehicle. They hadn't even had to put petrol in the hybrid vehicle for three months and they had managed to run both cars off the solar with the cheaper home battery, so Australians are getting cost savings from that program.

I commend the bill to the House. I thank the Assistant Treasurer for introducing it and I thank all of the speakers. I do hope, as I said, despite all of the noise and division and negativity, that we have found a cost-of-living measure that the opposition will bring themselves to support.

The member for Bruce is right; this bill is all about cost of living. It doesn't matter whether we're talking about medicines, it doesn't matter whether we're talking about child care, it doesn't matter whether we are talking about student debt, it doesn't matter whether we are talking about medical bills, and it doesn't matter whether we're talking about beer. This is an Albanese Labor government with its eye fixed, with its clear focus, on making sure that cost of living is the thing we address every day, not through talk but through delivery of key initiatives that make life cheaper and easier for everyday Australians.

In recent years, my community, like many others around the country, has benefited from independent breweries setting up shop. In Moreton, the names Ballistic, Hiker, Slipstream, Helios and Blind Boy are synonymous with quality, synonymous with unique flavours, synonymous with craftsmanship. In fact, I have had that great pleasure of visiting Slipstream on a number of occasions recently, first with the member for Fremantle and second with Senator Farrell to enjoy a good brew in a Queensland beer, sometimes on a hot summer day. It doesn't really matter what the season is; it is always good. I want to take the opportunity to congratulate Slipstream, who were awarded the best beer in Queensland right there on Brisbane's southside.

These breweries are also absolutely loved for being relaxed, casual and enjoyable venues for all the family. They are social hubs and they host a variety of community events. They are so much more, too. Independent breweries are an important part of the local economy. They source ingredients and services from local suppliers and engage food trucks for family nights. They employ local people and they offer pathways to good jobs. In fact, the Independent Brewers Association states that independent breweries employ 51 per cent of all people directly working in Australia's brewery industry despite holding less than eight per cent of market share. 'We contribute 40,400 jobs and total wages of $1.88 billion each year,' is what they have said.

Independent breweries and the industry at large have been doing it tough. The average price for a 425 millilitre glass of beer at a venue has increased by 6.2 per cent in the 12 months to February 2025. Since the start of 2022, beer prices have increased by 10.5 per cent. We know that it is not just these breweries that are doing it tough; Australians are doing it tough, too. Now is the time that we need to do something about that.

The Customs Tariff Amendment (Draught Beer) Bill, which accompanies the Excise Tariff Amendment (Draught Beer) Bill 2025 is good news for our independent breweries and it is good news for Australia's pubs, clubs and hospitality workers as well. Labor's 2025-26 budget included a measure to press pause on the automatic CPI indexation of excise and customs duty on draught beer for two years. Beginning on 1 August this year, these duty rates currently increment based on inflation two times a year—in February and in August. As I said, the Labor government understand that these times are tough and, from the very start, this is a government that has talked about being focused on delivery, and we have seen it. We have seen it with 20 per cent off student debt, and many Australians are about to receive a text message to confirm that that has been done. We've seen it with free TAFE being introduced to make sure that everyone has the opportunity to upskill in a TAFE setting with absolutely no money to pay, and we know that that's already happening. We've seen it with cheaper medicines, and on 1 January people will never have to pay more than $25 for a PBS medicine. We know that is happening.

This is another notch in the belt of making sure that life can be a bit cheaper for every Australian. This freeze on indexation applies to beer in kegs, specifically to those individual containers of between eight and 48 litres that hook up to gas or pump systems like the ones used in pubs and in clubs. It also applies to larger containers of over 48 litres that are used in commercial hospitality. The freeze does not apply to bottled beer, spirits or other excisable drinks, ensuring that the benefit flows to hospitality operators as opposed to retailers.

What I'm incredibly pleased about with this bill is its recognition of the importance of our local pubs and clubs in the Australian way of life. Like so many things we've talked about today, these are part of who we are. They're part of our culture. They're part of what makes us us. As mentioned, these places are more than just venues; they are part of the social fabric of towns and suburbs. We gather at them for birthday parties, to have fierce trivia contests, to mark the passing of a family member or to simply spend time with our mates. In short, pubs and clubs are places of community connection and places of belonging.

I always appreciate the very warm welcome I'm given at the Salisbury Community Sports Club; at WestsideHQ in Corinda, just down the road from my home; at the Sunnybank Community & Sports Club; and at so many more across Brisbane's south side. These are not just clubs; as I said, these are places and venues that host things so important to our community. They commemorate Anzac Day, when people come to play a bit of two-up. Recently, at Sunnybank Community & Sports Club, I went to a rugby match celebrating the Pasifika community. They host events with many different multicultural community groups across the breadth and depth of my electorate.

These places also contribute to our economy. They drive local economic growth. They employ approximately 160,000 people across the country. That's 160,000 workers who rely on these venues to stay open and sustainable every day so that they can afford their mortgage, their rent and their groceries. That's why the Albanese Labor government is taking real action to support these community institutions. At its core, this bill is designed to support small businesses. Small businesses are, in so many ways, the beating heart of our economy. They employ so many Australians. They are in every nook and cranny of our community. They protect jobs. It also works to ease the cost-of-living pressures without compromising public health goals or the integrity of our alcohol taxation system.

Around 10,000 venues across this country will benefit directly from this decision from this bill. That includes pubs, bars, taverns and clubs, many of which are small, family-run businesses. In fact, about 75 per cent of these venues are operated by local families who employ local people, sponsor local community events supporting local sporting clubs and contribute to local charity. These are local hubs. These are businesses that have faced wave after wave of economic pressure, from lockdowns during COVID-19 to supply chain challenges, rising import costs and inflation. This measure gives them some breathing space. It's breathing space that they really need, and it reduces the pressure on venue managers and owners to pass on rising costs to customers. It helps them to plan ahead. It helps them to retain staff. It helps them to reinvest in their businesses, because, much like a household and much like any business, planning is what allows local business owners to keep their businesses sustainable for our community. In short, it's a lifeline for small publicans and club managers who have been doing it tough. It means more affordable nights out for families, friends and communities.

Returning to our brewers, and particularly small and independent producers who supply draught beer to local venues, many of them depend on keg sales as a vital source of income. It helps them maintain steady cashflow and keep their teams employed. By pausing indexation, the government is giving these producers the time they need to control expenses, to plan their brewing schedules with confidence and to continue contributing to the economic and social strength of the local communities. And the benefits don't stop there. Farmers, transport operators, equipment suppliers and thousands of small businesses linked to the hospitality supply chain will also feel the positive impact. The aftermarket in this space is absolutely enormous.

This is a cost-of-living measure, and it strengthens small business resilience and supports regional tourism as well. Labor has listened to industry voices. We've listened to brewers, we've listened to publicans, we've listened to small business groups, and we've listened to the public. They've consistently called for relief from automatic excise increases during this period of inflation. The government has responded with a balanced time limited policy that delivers real results without driving up inflation or compromising fiscal discipline. It's about doing this responsibly but also giving people the relief to their hip pocket that they need right here and right now. It's also part of the wider package of support for small business, including extended instant-asset write-offs, help with digital transformation and lower energy costs for small operators.

It's a big package.

The member for Bruce is right that it is a big package, and we like a big package. Because, when it comes to a big package, cost of living is where it's at. Cost of living is something that we're focused on every day. The package is big because it includes so many different things. We've talked about health, we've talked about medicines, we've talked about student debt, we've talked about free TAFE, and we're talking about beer. All of these things will give people the relief that they need. Importantly, the pause that we're talking about in this bill today ensures that small brewers and publicans can continue competing fairly against large multinational producers. It protects diversity in the market and competition in Australia's beer and hospitality industries, and it offers that direct cost-of-living support that we keep talking about. In the six months since the election, Labor has delivered on a host of its campaign commitments, with a range of new measures which kicked in on 1 July.

So let's talk about this big package of cost-of-living measures that Labor is putting in place. Workers are seeing real benefits, including a 3.5 per cent increase to the national minimum wage and award wages, and the increase of the superannuation guarantee has now risen to 12 per cent. Families are also gaining more support, with paid parental leave extended to 24 weeks and superannuation now included in all government funded parental leave payments. Australians will receive an additional $150 in energy bill relief before the end of the year, and we are making home energy more affordable through cheaper battery options. They are battery options that we know Australians are taking up over and over again. We are up to over 130,000 batteries from the 30 per cent off battery package.

That's a big number.

It is a big number. Recently the Minister for Climate Change and Energy announced a new regulated energy retail offer, the Solar Sharer Offer. This will give households in New South Wales, South-East Queensland—my neck of the woods—and South Australia access to free electricity during the middle of the day. It's all about maximising the use of Australia's abundant and cheap solar power, and it will assist with lower costs for customers by lowering peak prices. Students with student debts will have seen real change too, with the 20 per cent reduction we have also talked about.

Looking ahead, more targeted and responsible cost-of-living support will continue. And the tax cuts that kicked in last year are already benefiting every single taxpayer in this nation. This bill implements more responsible and more targeted reforms which back small businesses, which protect workers and which ensure that Australians can continue to enjoy affordable, responsible hospitality at their local pub or club. It shows that the Albanese Labor government is in touch with and values community life. While each of our communities in this place might be different, we all share a few things: we enjoy being with family, we enjoy coming together and most of us enjoy a cold brew.

They say there's nothing better than a cold beer on a hot summer's day in Queensland. But I think there is; it's a cold beer on a hot summer's day in Queensland with a freeze on the beer tax that you have to pay, so that every single person can have their XXXX—because I'm a Queenslander!

I rise in strong support of these bills, the Excise Tariff Amendment (Draught Beer) Bill 2025 and the associated bill. For so many Australians, including my community of Bennelong, the local pub or club isn't just a business; it's a place where people gather after work, it's where communities come together, it's where members of parliament like myself hold our events, it's where families meet, it's where sporting teams celebrate or commiserate and it's where local musicians get their start. In many suburban pockets across the country and in regional towns as well, the pub is the social anchor for communities right across Australia. It keeps people connected, it provides jobs for local hospo workers, it supports local charities and it sponsors local sporting clubs. And when local venues are under pressure, as they have been for a while now, the community feels it. That's why this legislation matters. It's not just economic policy; it's community policy.

Our hospitality sector has been riding wave after wave of pressure and a pandemic that hit venues harder than almost any other industry. They had supply chain shocks. They had rising input costs, from energy to transport to ingredients to labour, during the pandemic. Today, an automatic excise indexation that exists in high-inflation years hits small businesses right in the margins. For a small pub or club, another automatic jump in the excise can mean the difference between that little bit of extra margin in hiring another worker or cutting back their hours, and between keeping the price of a pint stable and having to raise prices again on customers who are already feeling it. These aren't abstract pressures; these are day-to-day realities for thousands of family owned venues across the country. We heard this, we listened and we acted, because publicans, brewers and small businesses that operate at these venues asked for relief—and this is precisely what these bills deliver.

The bills will pause the automatic increase in excise on draught beer for two years, starting 1 August 2025. It will apply to kegs and containers used in pubs and clubs that are between eight and 48 litres. This is targeted and is designed to support venues where people go out and recreate, venues that support draught beer, helping to manage their costs and facilitate jobs in our local communities, all while keeping prices steady. It's a practical step to help local venues stay successful and be the place, and continue to be the place, where communities come together. There are around 10,000 hospitality venues that stand to benefit from this two-year pause.

About 75 per cent of those hotels and clubs are small family-run businesses. As someone who comes from a small-business background—not in the pub or club sector—I'm proud that this government is making this part of our policy offering to them. It is support for small businesses right across the country. Small businesses employ local people. They support local footy clubs, they host charity days and they give young people their first job. In total, 160,000 Australians work in hospo and brewing sectors—and that is all connected to beer. This measure gives those small venues a bit of breathing space to stabilise, to plan, to reinvest and to keep their staff on.

In Bennelong, where many hospitality businesses operate on tight margins, certainty matters. It matters to the workers behind the bar, to the chefs in the kitchen and to the restaurants that are also businesses within businesses that operate out of these clubs. The more people who come to these pubs and clubs the better it is for them. Just to show how connected to our community these pubs and clubs are, I'd like to give a shout-out to some of the amazing venues in Bennelong: the Eastwood Hotel, who have recently signed up to sponsor the Eastwood Rugby Club down the road; the Bizzo, which hosts the Eastwood Chamber of Commerce; and Moko Eastwood, which runs a great trivia night.

And an election party!

And, yes, I have had an election party there, too! I'll take that interjection. We've got Ryedales Tavern in West Ryde, right opposite the station, where I know people drop in to have a beer after work and meet with their mates. We've got West Ryde Hotel. It used to be called Mary's. They do a great job. They've got a great venue out the back that community groups can hire for free at their local pub. We've got the Royal Hotel in Ryde, right in the centre near the bus stop. I know that a lot of tradies go there after work to catch up with their mates and have a cold beer. We've got the Ubar at the university. I'm way too old to go to the Ubar now. That's one that I absolutely avoid, but I'm sure they do a great business.

We've got the people at the Ranch, who do a great job supporting local sporting clubs. They've hosted a function or two of mine, bringing our community together. They do a fantastic job. The Governor recently hosted a great forum for Labor for Housing actually as well as one of the candidate forms run by the local business chamber. They provide a community service as well. North Ryde RSL do great things. They host sporting clubs up there—a lot of sporting clubs are run under the North Ryde RSL banner. You've got the Sawdust Hotel in Gladesville. The Hunters Hill Hotel is a real meeting point for the local community, and it was only a few days ago that the local community from Hunters Hill and nearby St Joseph's College met there after a really tragic event. They went to the Hunters Hill Hotel to celebrate the life of a young man who lost his life too soon. They were able to gather there and commemorate together. There is the Bayview in Gladesville. I was there the other week playing trivia and came third. It's a great local venue to connect with local communities. We've got the Woolwich Pier Hotel—a great place to have a lunch and meet with mates.

I'm going to go through each one here, so I have a few minutes left. I'm going to go through each one, and I have a few more minutes to go before the member for Hunter. We've got the Longueville Hotel, a really great establishment in the middle of Lane Cove. The Diddy hosts great trivia as well—a shout-out to Thomas Shanahan who used to run the trivia up there—and you can get a good meal. I know a lot of locals from Longueville who go up there and have a great time. Gladesville RSL have just done a big renovation and support the local gymnastics club over there. We've got the Alcott and the Deckhouse down on Woolwich Pier.

These are businesses connected to our community, and this bill is about supporting them. It is helping our local pubs and clubs—

Under standing order 66A, I was wondering if I could make a brief intervention and ask the member for Bennelong to repeat the list of local venues, so we've got them clearly fixed in our head.

I am happy to. We've got the Eastwood Hotel, the Bizzo, Moko, Ryedales Tavern, West Ryde Hotel and the Royal Hotel in Ryde. We've got Club Ryde, the Ubar, the Ranch, the Governor, North Ryde RSL, the Sawdust Hotel, Hunters Hill Hotel, Bayview Gladesville, the Woolwich Pier Hotel, the Longueville Hotel, the Diddy, Gladesville RSL, the Lane Cove Bowling and Recreational Club—I missed that one, but it's just in the list there for you, Assistant Minister—the Alcott and the Deckhouse.

This is good policy for good local businesses. I'd encourage all in this House to support this bill. Then, once that excise freeze comes through, from 1 August 2025, go and celebrate with your community down at your local pub and club.

There's one thing you learn quickly as the member for Hunter: it's that a good conversation usually starts over a beer. Not in the office, not in a formal meeting—you're standing at the bar of one of our fantastic pubs and clubs right here in the Hunter. Whether it's the Bellbird Hotel, the Aussie in Cessnock, the Horse and Jockey in Singo, the Morisset Hotel down in Lake Mac, the Kurri Kurri Bowling Club or the Western Workers—that's where you hear what people are really thinking.

I've had hundreds of chats in those places, with publicans, bar staff, brewers and locals just trying to relax after a good long week at work. One thing that comes up time and time again is that the cost of everything just keeps going up. That includes the cost of pulling a beautiful beer. When I talk to the publicans and club managers, they tell me the same thing: the twice-yearly indexation on beer excise is killing them. Every February and every August, prices go up and they have to make a call. Either they absorb it and cop the hit, or they pass it on and risk losing the punters. That's why the Excise Tariff Amendment (Draught Beer) Bill 2025 matters. It's not about fancy economics or Canberra jargon. It's about keeping the doors open in pubs, keeping people in jobs and giving locals a fair go.

When you live in the Hunter, you know how important the local pub is. It's more than just a place to go grab a cold one. It's where fundraisers are held, where footy teams celebrate, where mates catch up after a shift and where communities come together. In Branxton I've been to raffles that have raised thousands and thousands of dollars for local kids. In Kurri I've seen the pubs chip in to sporting clubs when the season's gone a fraction over budget. In Toronto I've met the bar staff who know every customer by name and know who's doing it tough. But running a pub or club isn't easy.

Costs are going up everywhere: power, wages, insurance, supply. Every six months the tax on beer quietly ticks up again because of automatic indexation. I don't know too many small-business owners who can plan properly when government keeps moving the goalposts twice a year. It's very hard to plan around. That's why I lobbied the Treasurer hard to take a good look at this. I said, 'Mate, it's time to give our pubs, clubs, breweries and other locals a bit of certainty.'

Having a beer in the Hunter is something most of us enjoy responsibly. This twice-yearly automatic tax hike just isn't working. It's time we find a better way of doing things. The Customs Tariff Amendment (Draught Beer) Bill 2025 and the Excise Tariff Amendment (Draught Beer) Bill 2025 do something simple but really, really important. They pause the automatic CPI indexation of excise and excise-equivalent customs duty rates on draught beer for two years, straight away, from 1 August 2025. It's already happened. We've already been seeing this in the Hunter. The punters have been enjoying it and saving a little bit on their beer as well.

Here's what that means in plain English for people all around the country. Right now, beer tax automatically goes up twice a year, in February and August, in line with inflation. That's what's called indexation. When inflation goes up, so does the tax. Under this bill, we hit pause on that process for two whole years, so the scheduled increases in August 2025, February 2026, August 2026 and February 2027 will not happen. The rates stay the same through the whole period. When indexation resumes in August 2027, it doesn't jump to where it would have been if those hikes had continued. It starts from the frozen rate that we're on right now. That means a permanent reduction in the tax path—a long-term benefit, not just a short-term fix.

This measure is targeted and sensible. It applies to beer being poured from kegs, the eight-litre to 48-litre containers connected to taps in pubs, clubs and bars. It also applies to the big-boy kegs: the 50-litre kegs rolled into hotels and hospitality venues every single day of the week. It doesn't apply to bottled or canned beer. This is all about draught beer that's served over the counter in your local. That's the beer that supports around 10,000 hospitality venues across this beautiful country of ours. About three-quarters of them are small businesses—family run and community backed—and roughly 160,000 workers depend on those venues, from bar staff and cleaners to suppliers and delivery drivers. These are real people and real jobs in every community across the country. By freezing indexation, we're keeping the tax component of a pint, a schooie and, if you're in Victoria, a pot or maybe a little seven—you get them in Victoria as well—stable for two years.

I'll just grab a couple of other pages here. We've got a bit more time going on here.

You going alright?

We're going good. We're going very well.

Go over some of those excellent points you made.

I've got a few more to run in for the member for Bruce.

This bill gives pubs breathing room, it helps them manage costs and it makes it less likely that price rises get passed on to customers. That's good for small business, good for workers and good for anyone who enjoys an affordable drink at their local.

This is what good government looks like: listening, understanding and acting. When I first raised this issue with the Treasurer, I told him what I was hearing on the ground from everyday Aussies around the Hunter and around the pubs in Cessnock, Singleton and Greta. I said: 'Mate, when I walk into one of those pubs in Cessnock, Toronto, Morisset, Greta, Lake Macquarie or Weston—there are so many to choose from because we do have a few pubs—I see the same thing. Small-business owners are doing everything they can to keep the prices fair, to keep locals coming through the doors and to keep staff in work. But, every time that indexation clock ticks over, they're the ones paying the price.' I said: 'Let's take a bit of pressure off. Let's show some common sense.' And he listened, which is good.

Earlier this year, the Assistant Treasurer moved a motion in this House to freeze beer tax. I do like a nice, ice-cold beer, but I can tell you that the one I had in August when this freeze came in was one of the coldest beers I've had, cause I knew—do you know what it was? It was a Stone & Wood and it was delicious. I really enjoyed it. I followed it up with a Carlton Draught and had a good, enjoyable time with a few of my mates knowing that that price was not going to go up with indexation for two years.

Motions like that are great for signalling intent, but, to make it law, you need legislation. That's why we're here today—to make sure we're getting this legislation right. And that's why we're talking about this. This is a government putting action behind the chat and behind the talk. Some people might ask, 'Why not just cut the beer tax permanently?' I definitely get where they're coming from, but there has to be a balance, and that's why we've designed these measures very carefully. They're targeted at draught beer because we know pubs and clubs are at the heart of our local communities, and that's why we're supporting them so much in this space. This bill gives our pubs, our clubs and our breweries two years of stability to make sure that they are looked after. It supports regional economies, strengthens tourism and recognises the cultural and social importance of a beer at a local pub. It's good for business, it's good for jobs and, I can tell you, it's bloody good for communities as well. Sorry, Deputy Speaker Claydon—it's very good for communities as well.

Having a beer in the Hunter or anywhere else in Australia shouldn't be something that we can't enjoy without worrying about the taxman taking a bigger sip every six months. We get to keep that sip for ourselves now. This bill shows that we're listening, it shows that we understand the pressures on small businesses and it shows that government can act with common sense and compassion along the way.

I'd like to go through a few more of the fantastic venues in the Hunter where I really enjoy having a beer: the Aussie in Cessnock, the Hotel Cessnock, Harrigan's, Peden's, the Valley Brewhouse, Wollombi Tavern—Dr Jurd's Jungle Juice at Wollombi Tavern is famous, Deputy Speaker Claydon, and I'm sure you've heard of it as well. It is a great place to go. There's also the Horse & Jockey in Singleton, the Singleton Diggers, Club Singleton—it's a good place to be—the Lake Macquarie Hotel. There are so many great pubs all around the fantastic Hunter. The Toronto Hotel has one of the best views that you'll see. It looks over beautiful Lake Macquarie, the largest saltwater lake in the Southern Hemisphere. It is an absolute pleasure to have a beer there with a view like that. I have many more pubs to go through. But, honestly, this is great for the community, great for the Hunter and great for Australia. So I proudly support this bill. I know the people of the Hunter will raise a glass to this. I look forward to raising a glass with you all in the near future. Cheers!

It's almost a year that Brisbane residents have had to wait for the government response to the Senate inquiry into flight noise that the Greens secured back in 2024. Almost a year we've waited for the government response, and there's not much to show for it. Only four of 21 recommendations were supported, with no meaningful action for residents actually affected by flight noise. And, to add insult to injury, the response is dated April 2025, suggesting that it has been sitting on the minister's desk for six months. It's incredibly disrespectful to a community that was holding out hope for actual change from these recommendations.

The recommendations most directly affecting Brisbane residents were 4, 5 and 6, so I want to break down what those would have meant for noise reduction. Recommendation 4 was to prioritise SODPROPS usage, which is a mode where all flights land and depart over water to minimise noise. The government did actually support this one because, theoretically, they had already implemented it via a 2024 ministerial direction secured thanks to Greens pressure. However, that direction has failed to get even close to meeting the Airservices target of 5.3 per cent. It's barely half that.

Recommendation 5 was around continuous-climb-and-descent operations. This means steady climbs and descents without levelling off at a particular altitude which creates more noise. This one really should be a no-brainer. It also saves fuel and, therefore, emissions. But the government won't commit to doing it, referring only to their predictive sequencing trials, which are at high altitude, not at the lower altitudes where noise reduction is most needed.

Recommendation 6 would have meant restricting night operations to only aircraft that meet the chapter 14 ICAO standards—so newer aircraft that are actually quieter. This could have presented perhaps the most significant change for Brisbane residents because, according to the final inquiry report, it would mean moving the notoriously loud and disruptive 2 am Emirates flight, operated on the massive A380 aircraft, out of night operations. But, just like with the other recommendations, the government can't bring itself to do anything meaningful that would negatively impact the profits of the aviation industry.

We know from Senate estimates that the minister regularly meets with Qantas, Virgin, the airports and lobby groups but in over three years has not made any time to actually meet with Brisbane residents affected by their operations. So it's no wonder that this response is so profoundly disappointing and, frankly, insulting. But let's not lose heart. I won't stop fighting for real action, and I know Brisbane residents won't either.

Here's a general economic rule. If the government doesn't invest in public research for the public good, you get an economy skewed towards the most base, extractive and profit-seeking sectors. Labor and the coalition, instead of using the wealth generated from our resources to diversify our economy to make Australia more self-reliant and more sovereign, have actually doubled down on our dependence on primary industries, finance and our relationship with the US.

As a case in point, Labor has overseen 800 job cuts at the CSIRO in the past 18 months. Now there are another 350 jobs on the chopping block. There are only around 6,000 workers at CSIRO. We are talking nearly one in five jobs lost. These job losses are worse than under the former coalition government. This government claims it can't properly fund the CSIRO, but it can fund $15 billion in fossil fuel subsidies each year. It can fund $375 billion for nuclear submarines that we probably won't even receive. It can fund $15 billion for property investor tax breaks each year. Science and research may not have the cashed-up lobby groups of these industries, but we desperately need them. Australia's already lagging way behind the rest of the OECD on R&D spending, and we are ranked very low globally for economic complexity. We're heading further and further down the path of a distorted, dependent economy.

The Treasurer said productivity would be the focus of this government. Well, the underfunding of the CSIRO gives the lie to that. CSIRO has brought us fast wi-fi, the Hendra vaccine and insect repellent, among many other great things. CSIRO needs investment to deliver the innovation we need for a resilient and prosperous future for Australia.

This parliamentary term, I've taken on the role of government co-chair of the Australian Parliamentary Friends of Population and Development, a responsibility I've embraced with pride and purpose. For me, this is more than a friendship group; it's a platform for parliamentarians to come together across party lines and tackle issues that impact people's lives in Australia and across our region.

What some members might not know is that parliamentary groups on population and development exist in many countries worldwide. The United Nations Population Fund has estimated that almost 100 countries have, at some point, had a national group or committee dedicated to population related issues, underscoring the global importance of this work. These groups play a vital role in advancing sexual and reproductive health and rights, gender equality, and sustainable development. Their origins trace back to the landmark International Conference on Population and Development in Cairo in 1994, which was a turning point that shifted global development from demographic targets to a people centred approach, putting women's health, rights and equality at the heart of progress.

In a world where these rights are increasingly under pressure, our work matters more than ever—what a year to take on this role. This year, we celebrated our 30th anniversary, a milestone that reminds us how far we've come and how much more there is to do. We've been very busy. We held our first meeting in July, where we heard from Dr Lucas de Toca, former ambassador for global health. He spoke about the progress that has been made and highlighted the challenges we still face. We heard how Australia's development approach is grounded in four key priorities: First Nations partnerships, gender equality, disability inclusion and climate action. These aren't add-ons; they are embedded in every investment we make.

The Pacific faces some tough sexual and reproductive health rights challenges, shaped by both traditional health burdens and conservative social norms, yet the region continues to innovate, such as adapting comprehensive sexuality education into culturally grounded family life education. We heard that Fiji's HIV epidemic has surged with over 1,600 cases last year alone. Australia is working very closely with the Fijian government and the broader Pacific to develop tailored responsive interventions that can help prevent wider regional spread. We've heard there's real progress. In South-East Asia, skilled birth attendance is up, contraceptive use has more than doubled since 2010 and maternal mortality has dropped. Australia is sharing its expertise—like our world first cervical cancer elimination program, an invention of the Speaker's home state of Queensland—to help others replicate success.

We've also been encouraged in the group to engage more deeply with parliamentarian champions and women MPs in the Pacific and South-East Asian region. Their leadership and regional insight are essential to advancing the cause of sexual and reproductive health rights. Strengthening these connections through dialogue, collaboration and shared advocacy will help to build resilient, inclusive systems that reflect the needs and values of local communities. This will require coordinated whole-of-society action.

There have been many different events that we have held so far this year. We've heard from people speaking about their experiences as PALM workers and the challenges that they faced in accessing health care in Australia. We've also heard about solutions to address these challenges, like the Health in My Language program, which delivers in-language education to migrant and refugee women. The work that we've been doing is a reminder that, when we invest in culturally safe services, we empower people to make an informed choice and live with dignity.

We've had many briefings with experts. I also had the great honour of addressing the 30th anniversary event with former leaders like Margaret Reynolds, Claire Moore and Sharman Stone, who spoke with warmth about the group's rich history.

There is so much more work to do, but I'm really confident that we can work across different party lines across the parliament, across this place and the other place, to ensure that we're making a real difference to the lives of many people in our country and, indeed, in our region.

In October this year I stood at this dispatch box and gave a speech in regard to the state of the roads in the Shire of East Pilbara. What I said back in October is as follows:

In February, Cyclone Zelia devastated road networks in the Shire of East Pilbara. For eight months, the shire has worked incredibly hard and negotiated in good faith to secure funding, with $26 million required to rebuild 10 damaged roads, including vital access routes to the Western Desert communities—

including the community of Punmu—

The response from the state and federal governments has been, frankly, insulting, with the current proposal totalling just $12 million. Instead of funding a like-for-like rebuild, they are prescribing a deliberate downgrade of roads that will fail once again when the next cyclone inevitably hits.

Since I spoke those words, nothing much has been resolved to overcome the issue of how we're going to finance the repair of the roads in the Shire of East Pilbara. I call on the Minister for Emergency Management to work harder to solve this issue for the people who call the Shire of East Pilbara home. The reality is that the emergency relief system that requires councils to fix roads impacted by natural disasters and then seek reimbursement is no longer sustainable. As we head into cyclone and bushfire season, it is high time that we had a total rethink and did a total redesign of how we deal with damage caused to key infrastructure by natural disasters.

I don't want you to take my word for it, Mr Speaker, because I have got some wonderful correspondence from a lady called Edith Costello. She is the CEO of Punmu Aboriginal Corporation, and she has recently addressed a letter to the Prime Minister, dated 22 November 2025. If it hasn't arrived yet at the Prime Minister's office today, it will get there shortly, maybe tomorrow or the day after. I want to make the point that the Prime Minister may not have seen this letter yet, but I have assured Edith that, when his office receives the letter, they will take its contents seriously and they will take serious action. This is her letter to our prime minister:

Prime Minister,

I write with respect on behalf of the Martu People of the Punmu Community in Western Australia.

I have voted Labor my entire life, and my family has supported your party for generations. This letter is written in good faith and with respect—but also with urgency.

We are not asking for special treatment. We are asking to be heard.

I understand that the full reality of life in very remote communities may not always reach out, and I write so that you can hear it directly.

Punmu is a remote aboriginal community carrying heavy responsibility with limited resources. We manage essential services, safety, housing, health and governance under conditions that most Australians will never experience. We are doing everything we can, but we cannot do this alone.

Punmu is a strong, self-reliant community. We operate three successful, community-owned and community-run businesses. We have a zero crime rate not because of neglect, but because of strength, leadership and self discipline. Our children attend and are supported by our local community school.

At the same time, many families are living in extremely difficult conditions. Most homes are no longer safe to live in and have been deemed irrepareable, yet up to fifteen people are living in these houses.

Martu families rarely complain. However, I have had mothers come to me in tears asking for tents so their children can sleep safely instead of enduring insect infestation while they sleep.

Our access road is in VERY poor condition, damaging vehicles and limiting access to essential services.

Federal support to assist the Shire of East Pilbara to rebuild and maintain this road would make an enormous difference to the safety and wellbeing of our people.

My family and I have supported your party our entire lives. This letter is written with loyalty, urgency and honesty and with belief in a government that is accessible and understands its people.

I do not seek publicity. I desperately need practical support and a direct line of communication.

I write in good faith and with respect, asking only to be heard.

I would be grateful for the opportunity to speak with you personally or communicate directly via email.

Kind regards

Edith Costello

CEO Punmu Aboriginal Corporation

I am very fond of rockstars like Bob Dylan and The Band, Jimmy Barnes and Cold Chisel, Midnight Oil and Peter Garrett, the Church et cetera. But there was another rockstar in the building today. Today I went to release of Omico's impact scorecard. Omico is a publicly funded organisation, a not-for-profit organisation, whose founder, Professor David Thomas, is a rockstar in the medical world. It is a great time to be part of health care in this country. There are some amazing advances happening with genetically targeted treatments for conditions that were previously fatal in the paediatric world that have turned the world upside down for many of those patients with conditions like cystic fibrosis, spinal muscular atrophy and others.

In a world of cancer medicine, David Thomas is a rockstar. He works at the University of New South Wales. He is the inaugural director of the Centre for Molecular Oncology—Omico. He has provided some amazing new treatments funded through the federal government, our government, and other partners that are changing the lives of many people with terminal and rare cancers. These treatments use biomarkers that are discovered using genetic and biochemical tests to assess the receptors on the cancer genes in cancer cells that make them grow out of control. We can use targeted treatments to improve outcomes, reduce cancer growth and, in some cases, get rid of the cancer altogether in previously fatal cancers.

Omico works across many different spaces. In fact, they are conducting 118 clinical trials. They work in 80 cancer centres around the country, from the Peter MacCallum Institute in Victoria to the Queensland Institute of Medical Research. Around the country, they are doing a lot of amazing work with people who previously had incurable cancers. After their almost 10 years of existence, we heard some life stories today at their launch and it is a real credit to Professor David Thomas. We have cutting-edge genomic technologies that are turning into tangible therapeutic advancements for Australians with challenging cancers, improving outcomes across the board. We are seeing tremendous strides in the development and understanding of cancer care.

Through the work of people like Professor David Thomas, Jane Tiller and the team, Omico is really changing lives of many people. There is Professor David Thomas, who is the founder and chief scientific officer. Paul Jeans was the chair who will be handing over to Richard Vines. They are really doing amazing work. It started in 2016 and is giving mainstream access for free to some of these amazing new technologies and, really, the future looks very good for many of these people.

Ian Black, the CEO, says, 'The science is proven, the infrastructure is built and the partnerships are in place for national leadership and dramatic changes in cancer treatment. The PrOSPeCT program is giving people access across the country to these treatments, and Omico will be central to the development of even better treatments in the future.' Almost 30,000 people have had their cancer genomics tested and have been enrolled in the Omico program. It is giving equitable access; people do not pay for these tests and treatments. There are many lives that have been extended and many families who have prospered because of survival times for their loved ones with cancer.

There are many lives that have been extended and many families who have prospered because of survival times for their loved ones with cancer. It is really a remarkable, remarkable time to be involved in medicine in Australia. Omico, led by Professor David Thomas, is leading us into a really bright future in medicine in Australia and I congratulate him and his team for the wonderful advances that really are opening a new world for cancer treatment in Australia.

I'm very proud to have had some involvement in this program since its inception. I congratulate all the Omico team. I look forward to working with them in the future, and I look forward to our government continuing to help fund their remarkable treatments and the remarkable way they are changing lives.

The Australian government must acknowledge the important role that Professional Bull Riders Australia plays in the sporting, cultural and economic landscape. Professional Bull Riders Australia has demonstrated substantial growth and impact as the peak organisation for professional bull riding in Australia. Their events attract significant audiences, both live and broadcast, and showcase Australian skills on a national and international stage.

The expansion of Professional Bull Riders Australia events across regional and metropolitan areas delivers meaningful benefits through tourism, local economic activity and increased visibility for our nation's sporting and cultural profile. In addition to its competition framework, Professional Bull Riders Australia has made a strong commitment to youth engagement through its junior academy program, which provides structured pathways for young athletes, skill development and progression to elite competition. This program has already opened new opportunities for young Queenslanders to participate in a unique, demanding sport that promotes resilience, discipline and community connection.

The Australian government must recognise that Professional Bull Riders Australia operates within a structured and professional sporting framework. The organisational aligns with the characteristics of a recognised sport, being a competitive, skill based human activity requiring physical exertion and discipline; organised nationally and internationally, with established athlete pathways; and governed by a professional body with strong oversight and integrity measures and development programs.

On this basis, the Australian government must support the Professional Bull Riders Australia efforts to progress recognition at the national level, including its ambition to be formally listed on the Australian Sports Directory administrated by the Australian Sports Commission. Such recognition would reflect professional bull riding in Australian and strengthen its ability to deliver athlete development, youth engagement, community outreach and international sporting exchange. I am pleased to acknowledge Professional Bull Riders Australia as a significant sporting association delivering substantial benefits to Queensland, Australia. I look forward to seeing the continued growth of Professional Bull Riders Australia and its contribution to sporting, economic and cultural life.

One of the key issues that we have seen of the last few days is the government's new and not-so-well-thought-out environmental bill. Sawmills throughout this country that have been the backbone of employment and have really built this nation now face job losses and uncertainty, all because of a minister who refuses to engage with them.

There is another option. There is another way where the sawmilling industry won't have to lay off thousands of people throughout Queensland and the nation—that is to look at the Queensland government's Future Timber Plan 2050. It has environmental leadership, as Queensland's approach sets a benchmark for balancing timber production with environmental protection. It looks at a sustainable harvesting model. Unlike other states that rely on clear-felling, Queensland uses a selective harvesting model, removing roughly one in 100 trees, which maintains forest health and biodiversity. It looks at industry and environment. It's a win-win.

We also see a long-term vision from the Queensland LNP when it comes to sawmilling. The Future Timber Plan 2050 provides certainty for industry investment and planning. It has real economic sustainability, it is a clear differentiation from other states and it has industry engagement. Industry engagement is key. As the minister wants to do deals with the Greens and doesn't want to sit at the table with the coalition, we are going to see an industry that has built this nation, that has employed thousands of people—

Maybe not in the member for Bruce's electorate, but in regional Australia. The people that do it tough already don't need another handbrake placed on their lives coming into Christmas. Thousands of jobs are on the line. I urge Minister Watt to sit at the table with the sawmillers.

Labor created Medicare, and now this once-in-a-generation change to bulk-billing will mean that more Territorians can see a doctor for free with no out-of-pocket expenses. That's right; bulk-billing is back, baby!

I visited the Top End Medical Centre in Casuarina, and they confirmed that Territorians are appreciating the assistance with the cost of living through access to a GP for free in their clinics. Dr Marilou Capati, from Top End Medical Centre—which has four clinics across Darwin and Palmerston, in my electorate—said:

We are proud to return to full bulk-billing, giving our patients in Casuarina and across Darwin access to essential healthcare without worrying about out-of-pocket costs.

Our team is committed to providing high-quality care to our community, and these reforms will help clinics like ours remain sustainable while meeting growing demand.

More people in Darwin and Palmerston can now see a GP with no out-of-pocket costs. More than 20 GP practices in Darwin and Palmerston, in my electorate, have registered to become fully bulk-billing clinics from 1 November as part of the Albanese Labor government's historic $8.5 billion investment in Medicare.

Our Medicare investment represents the largest single boost to Medicare in more than 40 years. We are delivering on the promise of more bulk-billing and more doctors. We are also investing in hundreds of nursing scholarships and thousands more doctors in the largest GP training program in Australia's history—including in my electorate, with positions at the new CDU medical school. Since we tripled the investment in bulk-billing we have seen a turnaround in bulk-billing rates in the Northern Territory, with a 10 per cent increase from 71.5 per cent to 78.6 per cent—or around 89,000 additional visits. That's a big deal. Our investment in bulk-billing for all Australians is part of our commitment to strengthen Medicare. Labor created Medicare and the Albanese government will always strengthen Medicare.

Our government is also delivering on its commitment for the Darwin Medicare urgent care clinics. The tender process to identify a provider to operate the new Darwin urgent care clinic closed in October. This clinic will be open over extended hours, seven days a week, with no appointment needed, and all patients will be fully bulk-billed. The clinic will service Darwin and will help take pressure off the Royal Darwin Hospital, filling an important gap in services across extended hours and over the weekend. This follows on from the massive success of the Palmerston Medicare Urgent Care Clinic, which has already had around 30,000 presentations. The government's expression of interest opened at the beginning of the month to identify a provider for a new 120-bed residential-care home in greater Darwin. More accommodation support for senior Territorians and getting our elders out of hospital has been a major priority for me. It is providing dignity and is another way we are going to free up hospital beds at Royal Darwin Hospital and Palmerston Regional Hospital.

And there's more. Darwin's headspace centre upgraded to a headspace Plus and to a youth specialist care centre in Darwin for young people with very complex needs—psychotic disorders, complex eating disorders, personality disorders and so forth. This is on top of the 30 per cent increase in health funding for Territory hospitals in this financial year. We're going into a period of negotiations for that agreement but we won't be going backwards.

I was proud to deliver a number of commitments for Darwin and Palmerston at the election. Some of these commitments included the Zuccoli Community Hub, in Palmerston, and the early childhood education and care centre in Karama, to name a few. There's heaps happening in my electorate of Solomon, and it's all for the best for the duty of care we have to people living in the capital of the north.

House adjourned at 20:00

I rise in this grievance debate to speak in relation to a number of issues. My home on the Gold Coast is defined by its natural beauty, its unmatched coastal lifestyle and its incredible sense of community. It's no wonder our region is one of the fastest growing regions in Australia. But with that growth come some very real challenges—challenges that cannot be ignored, delayed or dismissed. Our infrastructure, our housing supply and essential services must keep pace with the people who call the southern Gold Coast home.

During my very first day in this parliament I sat down with the Leader of the Opposition and the CEO of Experience Gold Coast, Mr John Warn, to ensure that our city is front and centre of the national conversation. I'm pleased to say that the Liberal leader was receptive, engaged and committed to working with us on practical solutions for our city's future. It's important that our city has a long-term vision, a plan that manages population growth and tourism by planning smarter and investing strategically. And, as we look to the future of public transport in our city, interconnectivity is key. The southern Gold Coast cannot be an afterthought in the government's infrastructure map. We must be better connected to the rest of South-East Queensland.

I've spoken many times before about the extension of the heavy rail from Varsity Lakes all the way to Coolangatta, with stops at Burleigh Heads and Elanora and going down towards the airport. That's a commonsense project that would absolutely transform our region. I think about the many southern Gold Coast locals who commute on a daily basis up to Brisbane. At the moment they have to get in their cars, drive to either Varsity Lakes Station or Robina Station, park their cars and then get on the heavy rail to Brisbane. This project would remove that congestion on our roads, in particular on the M1. It would not only support those Brisbane commuters but also provide direct access to the Gold Coast Airport, which is one of the nation's fastest growing gateways. That means we would finally have a situation where people can land on the Gold Coast and be able to commute directly to Brisbane.

This extension would take cars off the road, it would connect people to jobs and tourism, and it would make the southern Gold Coast a stronger, more liveable community. Daily congestion continues to choke our roads and frustrate many residents. It affects tradies heading to worksites, parents on school runs and visitors travelling to our beaches and local businesses. I really want to see upgrades that ease that congestion, that improve safety and that support our growing community.

In a similar vein, another priority of mine is to see a solution to Exit 82 on the M1, the notorious double roundabouts in front of the Robina Town Centre. It's an absolute traffic bottleneck and a single choke point that wastes thousands of hours in lost productivity each and every year. It creates gridlock every day that affects local residents and businesses alike. The people of the southern Gold Coast deserve infrastructure investment and infrastructure that is based on need, not postcode politics.

Another issue I would like to touch on in this grievance debate is in relation to Medicare. Locals are currently telling me that access to a doctor, affordable medical care and the strain on our health system are top-level issues that face them and their families. Over the past year, bulk-billing rates in my seat of McPherson on the southern Gold Coast have fallen by 12 per cent, making it harder for many people to see a GP without facing significant out-of-pocket costs. This decline is placing real pressure on households—particularly on older Australians, young families and those managing chronic health conditions. It's disappointing to have a situation where we have people who've worked very hard and contributed to our economy and to our country, and they're now in a situation where they're having to choose between meals and medical care. That's not the Australian way.

Local GPs are telling me that the current funding arrangements are not keeping up with the rising costs of providing quality health care. As a result, we're seeing more doctors being forced to stop bulk-billing or limit the number of patients that they can see without fees. I recall a time where the Prime Minister said that all you need to be able to see a doctor is your Medicare card. That's not the experience that we are seeing on the southern Gold Coast. Locals need their credit card. What this means is that we are seeing longer wait times, higher fees and more people putting off getting important medical treatment. Affordable and accessible health care has always been a fundamental part of the Australian way of life. Every individual deserves proper health care, and no-one should have to choose between paying household bills and getting the help they need.

In the time I have left, I'd like to touch on another issue that is not only important to people in my electorate of McPherson but something that I get correspondence on and have interactions with members of the broader Australian community in relation to. This is the concept of government expenditure—even, dare I say it, government waste.

We are experiencing a significant cost-of-living crisis in Australia. When I am out in my community—and I have had the opportunity to continue doing a number of listening posts at shopping centres, at the Burleigh Heads markets and at the beaches—people come up to me and speak about the issues that matter to them. There is no doubt that individuals and businesses are struggling at the moment, whether it's with the increased costs of housing, the increased costs of renting a shopfront or the increases to prices at grocery stores. People are struggling, and cost of living remains their No. 1 concern.

Now, at a time when we in parliament and the government, I guess, are trying to manage this, we are seeing government expenditure blow out of proportion. There are a number of different instances that we have seen which form a broader pattern of government waste. This week, it's quite timely for me to speak about this. We've seen the revelation of what's been happening with the BOM website, with over $96 million for a website that we have received terrible user feedback on. That's one example of something that the government has done which is wasting the hard-earned taxpayer dime. Everyday Australians, including those in my electorate, are, frankly, sick and tired of this kind of government waste. They work absolutely bloody hard, and the last thing they need is for the government or bureaucrats in Canberra to be wasting their money.

One of the biggest frustration points for people in my community is in relation to the energy costs that they're experiencing at the moment. We've had a conversation through my office and I've had the opportunity to go and meet with a number of small businesses. There's one in particular, in my electorate, where they've seen electricity prices go as high as $7,000 a month. Now, that is something that is absolutely unconscionable, and I don't know how long businesses can deal with that. While that is happening, Chris Bowen's climate change and energy department has spent $350,000 of taxpayer money on diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives in the last three years alone, including $61,000 on an inclusion strategy and action plan. That's telling about Chris Bowen's priorities, at a time when energy costs—

I remind the member to use the minister's correct title, please.

That is telling of the Minister for Climate Change and Energy's priorities at a time when energy costs have risen by almost 40 per cent. There are a number of issues I wanted to touch on today, but this is a grievance debate, and we do have significant concerns in our community. As an opposition, we're always prepared to work constructively, but it's disappointing to see the direction that this government is taking us in, and my community is bearing the brunt of it.

I begin not with grievance but with inspiration, because today I had the pleasure of meeting Jamison Dustin, a bright year 12 student from the Chifley electorate, and his mum, Cheryl. Both of them sit behind me, but Cheryl in particular is rightly proud of her boy. Jamison was the award recipient of My First Speech with the Speaker. I want to read his speech into the chamber and basically seize every credit for all of his hard work in doing so. It showcases thoughtful young leaders we have in Western Sydney and the issues that they want to bring to light.

This is the speech that he has submitted to the Speaker: 'Mr Speaker, Australia's education system is failing its students, and the problem stretches beyond exams. When I say 'education', I'm not just referring to textbooks, curriculums and syllabi. Rather, I define education as the holistic development of individuals, something that I believe is often overlooked within Australian schools in exchange for a focus on academic achievement. And, whilst countries like Sweden integrate life readiness skills with strong academic standards, Australian NAPLAN results indicate that 33 per cent of students are not even meeting the baseline expectations in numeracy and literacy.

Whilst I acknowledge the importance of academics as a year 12 student, I'm currently surrounded by peers who are constantly stressed about the HSC, stressed about what ATAR they'll receive and stressed about failing to meet expectations. Mr Speaker, I believe that a student is more than their marks. This chamber cannot ignore the evident effects of failing to address educational development beyond teaching students maths and Shakespeare.

One such avenue for a better system is the implementation of a financial literacy program. Research from the University of Newcastle has found that "greater financial literacy leads to better life satisfaction". Moreover, ASIC reports that people experiencing financial challenges are twice as likely to be experiencing mental health challenges. However, despite calls from ASIC and other institutions, a financial literacy program is yet to be implemented across Aussie schools, meaning that the over 330,000 young Australians facing financial insecurity each year are exposed to the triple edged sword of an outdated, underperforming education system, a widespread cost-of-living crisis and growing rates of mental health issues. There are endless opportunities to better Australia's approach to holistic education; financial literacy programs are just the start. So, Mr Speaker, when will it be enough? Our system needs change, because today isn't good enough but together tomorrow's could be.' Well said, and I want to commend Jamison on that terrific speech.

Deputy Speaker Lawrence, I happened to receive a little book—treatise, no doubt—called Aiming Higher: Universities and Australia's Future written by George Williams, who occupies the role of vice-chancellor of my old uni, Western Sydney University. It's quite a read. In particular, what leapt out to me is:

Today, universities find themselves in the distressing position where their very social licence is in question.

It's a concerning quote at that.

Mr Williams has done a bit of a speaking tour. Once he's completed that, I wouldn't mind if he did a speaking tour of the Blacktown local government area, where he could explain to the folks of our region why he is closing the only campus in the Blacktown local government area. The University of Western Sydney was started under a former federal Labor government as a result of reforms by the Hawke Labor government, driven principally by the notion that, if you see it, you'll be it. We wanted to encourage more Western Sydney kids to be able to go to university.

A division having been called in the House of Representatives—

Sitting suspended from 12:44 to 12:56

In establishing those universities, particularly one in Western Sydney, it was important to send the signal that we wanted people to progress in terms of their obtainment of education skill. I'm proud to say I went to that university. It did open up an opportunity for me as the first in my family to go. In the mid-1990s, a person that I'm proud to call a friend and who was the member for Chifley before me, Roger Price, had championed the concept that, on soon to be vacated Royal Australia Navy land of HMAS Nirimba, we use the opportunity not to sell that land off but to put on one site public and private high schools, TAFE and a university so that we would then boost educational opportunity in that area.

The Western Sydney University now is looking to shut that campus down which is an absolute tragedy. It will mean it will take out, from one of the largest council areas in Western Sydney, the only university campus. What is extraordinary about that is that the university and vice-chancellor said to me the reason they are shutting it down is because it is a poor student experience. You would think that a university would devote itself to improving the university experience by investing in that area. Instead, to deal with the poor university and student experience, the university is removing its presence.

The Western Sydney University—I've watched this, and many others have noticed it—are centralising most of their facilities in what I and many others would describe as the eastern suburbs of Western Sydney, like Parramatta. They're not doing it to increase the number of Western Sydney students going to that university. They're doing it to try and get students from the east of the city, betraying the very reason the university was set up in the first place. It's unacceptable.

In the process of shutting that campus, they're also shutting the Western Sydney University childcare centre at the Nirimba campus, which is leaving many parents distressed. It's abhorrent conduct, quite frankly, from them. Over the decades that early learning centre became more than just a childcare facility; it became the cornerstone of early learning in the Blacktown local government area. It's a licensed 50-day long-care service. It's not just the closure of the building. It upends the lives of many families in my part of the region who are not only losing a major university presence but a vital childcare service as well. The university's response has been disappointing. They're taking the step because, 'not economically viable.' But don't worry, they'll prioritise transfers for affected families to other early learning campuses. This means that if you're living as a family in the Blacktown area the closest one is now 25 minutes away, and that's if you get in. Otherwise, you're driving 40 minutes to Campbelltown. It's just not on. It's just wrong.

We have the biggest local government area in Western Sydney. We will now not have a significant university presence in there. Again, if Mr Williams wants to wonder why people are questioning the social licence of universities, he can just look straight at his own lap and at the decision that he's made to shut down that campus. It's unacceptable.

The other thing quite distinct from that is we have an urgent need for improved public transport in north-west Sydney. One of the things I've been championing is the extension of the north-west metro rail line from where it stops at Tallawong to St Marys. This will be huge for residents in booming residential estates, but also for existing estates. For whatever reason, the New South Wales Liberal government decided they would stop the rail line at Tallawong and have a huge gap between there and St Marys. It makes absolutely no sense.

In its 2023-24 budget, the New South Wales Minns government committed $40 million to develop the business case to expand it, and I commend them for doing this business case. I believe, as the Prime Minister rightly noted earlier this year in giving a speech to Western Sydney residents, the missing link of the metro is Tallawong to St Marys. He's absolutely right in making that observation, and I believe that a cooperative, collaborative approach by both levels of government will be transformative for our part of Western Sydney.

I've had thousands of residents back a petition calling for the extension of the metro. Building and extending that metro line will then open up the opportunity to develop the next big, central business district in the Blacktown local government area of Marsden Park. We will be able to build a functional, properly working, attractive central business district that will obviously be the biggest central business district in our part of Western Sydney and, importantly, it will create jobs right where people live.

Having the metro connect up with the upgrade that has already been announced and is about to commence on Richmond Road means we'll get public transport, road networks and a focus on a satellite city in Marsden Park. We need to do that by federal and state governments working together. We need to build the extension to the metro from Tallawong right now.

Thank you, and thank you also to your wonderful constituents for their contribution.

We are living in dangerous times. Our most senior Defence leaders, intelligence agencies and strategic experts have been clear: Australia is facing the most dangerous strategic environment since the Second World War. Conflict breaking out in our region is no longer a remote possibility. The Defence secretary and the deputy secretary have respectively warned that the risk of an incident has heightened over recent years and that the trajectory is becoming more risky, not less risky.

The director-general of our domestic intelligence agency, ASIO, recently warned that China is conducting multiple attempts to scan and penetrate critical infrastructure in Australia and other Five Eyes countries. According to Mr Burgess, they are targeting water, transport, telecommunications and energy networks—pre-positioning for a potential sabotage of critical infrastructure. These grey-zone activities appear to be increasing at the same time as the Chinese Communist Party undergoes the largest military build up of any nation since the Second World War, without providing any strategic assurances.

These are, by and large, agreed facts within Australian politics. Where we disagree with those opposite is how we should respond. Alarmingly, the Albanese Labor government seems content to respond to the increasing challenges of today on yesterday's budget. Earlier this month, it was reported in the Australian that the ADF's three service chiefs have told Defence Strategic Review lead, Sir Angus Houston, that they are being forced to slash their sustainment budgets. One example is the revelation that, under Labor, dozens of workers maintaining and upgrading the F-35 fighter jets have been redeployed to comply with budget requirements. Such decisions leave critical platforms and the nation exposed at a time when we can no longer rely on an extended warning time. So it begs the question: what is the purpose of having multimillion dollar equipment if it is not properly maintained and ready for use at a moment's notice? Honestly, if conflict were to break out, I don't expect the enemy to sit around and wait for Australia to catch up.

Now, while sustainment appears to be on the chopping block, we are also not investing in new capabilities, and this is where Australian defence industry is suffering. Obtaining nuclear-powered submarines through the AUKUS partnership is a generational opportunity for our security and for Australian industry, and it must be realised, but delivering AUKUS should not come at the expense of other capability requirements. As the Leader of the Opposition called for in an address on national security last week, we need to meet this moment with seriousness, urgency and action. That begins with increasing defence spending to at least three per cent of GDP. This should include investing in mass missile production and the development of an integrated air and missile defence system, allowing us to detect and destroy missiles fired at the Australian mainland. We need a greater ability to rapidly build, deploy and resupply unmanned and autonomous weapon systems. We should be learning the lessons from Ukraine in rapid drone development and continue work on undersea weapons systems.

Critically, we also need to develop a greater sovereign capability for satellite connectivity. Whether it's missile defence, drones, strike power or intelligence, communication is key, and, without our own satellites, we are left exposed and dependent on others. Unfortunately, last year, the Albanese government cancelled our largest Defence space project, JP 9102, which would have provided locally controlled and operated geostationary communication satellites and ground stations. Now, even the projects Labor say that they are committed to are not moving at speed. You need only to look at the Henderson shipyard in my home state of Western Australia. The latest warning on progress at Henderson came last week from Austal CEO Paddy Gregg, who has raised the prospect of Western Australia losing out on multibillion dollar shipbuilding contracts. He has called for less talking and more doing from the government and has said, 'We haven't seen a whole lot of action, and we don't have long to wait.' This stands in stark contrast to the claim of the Minister for Defence that work at Henderson is happening at a pace. Well, I think we all know it's more like at a snail's pace!

Labor was elected in 2022 and stalled decisions on the Henderson redevelopment. They still don't expect planning to be completed even by 2027. The coalition fully supports the vision for Henderson as a defence precinct that will deliver continuous shipbuilding, starting with Army's Landing Craft Heavy and then the domestic build element of the Mogami program. It will also be the site to support the sustainment of Australia's surface combat vessels and will play an important role in delivering the AUKUS agreement as a contingency docking area for our future nuclear-powered submarine fleet and the site of depot level maintenance, including graving docks. It is essential we get this right.

Labor's failures on defence extend well beyond preparedness. Unfortunately, there are too many incidents of this government treating our defence personnel and veterans in a disgraceful manner, and I don't need to look too far to see this problem with an ongoing issue surrounding the closure of the Flying Start childcare centre at RAAF Base Pearce in the southern part of my electorate. Defence family stations in Bullsbrook were recently given just three months notice that Flying Start would be closed and that they would need to find alternative arrangements. With such short notice and proximate centres being near capacity, defence families face substantially higher out-of-pocket costs and longer commute times. I was contacted by one defence family who noted that the reasoning for the closure—apparent increased aircraft noise—just didn't add up.

Seven weeks ago, I wrote to the Minister for Defence and Minister for Defence Personnel, asking for clarity. Sadly, some seven weeks have gone by and, despite multiple follow-ups with the ministers' offices, I am yet to receive a response. Worse yet, the defence families who have reached out directly to multiple WA Labor MPs have also been ignored. I mean, come on—this is no way to treat our Defence families. To make real and substantial gains in recruitment and retention, we need to make Defence an attractive proposition for families.

Labor's approach to making decisions without input from personnel or veterans was also evident through their shameful proposed changes to the Defence honours and awards system. The Defence Amendment (Defence Honours and Awards Appeal Tribunal) Bill 2025 was introduced in the House in August without any consultation with the coalition or key stakeholders in the ex-service community. When it made its way to the relevant Senate committee, there was 74 of 75 public submissions that outlined strong opposition to the bill—that's 74 out of 75. The only submission that supported the bill was from the Department of Defence who just happened to be the author of the bill. This bill would have stripped away appeal rights of the ADF personnel and veterans and placed a 20-year time limit on the actions of our service men and women. This effectively put a use-by date on, 'We will remember them'—absolutely disgusting! Thankfully, the coalition was able to secure the support of the Senate crossbench to force the Albanese government to withdraw this legislation.

Those opposite will try and say that we're just picking fights and that Labor really is in the corner of our veterans—well, the actions don't show that. We didn't hear one word of condemnation from those opposite when former prime minister Keating launched his disgusting slur on the former national RSL president and retired major general Greg Melick. Let me let me just remind you what the former prime minister said. He had a crack at Major General Melick, who'd used his Remembrance Day address to warn that we need to lift defence spending to deter growing regional threats. For the crime, Mr Keating branded him 'another RSL dope'. He accused him of wanting to 'drag us into a military exchange with the Chinese' who, according to Mr Keating, have never held an intention to attack Australia.

In times like this we should be listening to people like Major General Melick, who has served our nation in uniform for 50 years. That service should be met with respect, not insults. Unfortunately, the minister for Veteran's Affairs–the same minister who won't get back to me on the Flying Start centre and who introduced the honours and awards recognition legislation—chose to rebuke Major General Malik, not Mr Keating. Not good enough.

I rise today to speak about the way that my electorate of Menzies was, for far too long, neglected as a safe Liberal seat since it was created in 1984. Sadly, being a safe Liberal seat meant that the people of Menzies were taken for granted. I have seen first hand, growing up in Doncaster and raising a family in Donvale, how much our area has been left behind and ignored by successive Liberal governments.

Ultimately, this is one of the things that drove me to put up my hand. I knew our area deserved better and I remain honoured and humbled that the people of Menzies supported me to represent the area that I grew up in and that I love. I say to the people of Menzies: I will never take your vote for granted. I will never stop listening to you. I will never stop advocating for you and I will do everything I can to deliver for you.

That is why, as often as I am able, when I am in Menzies I attend community groups, schools, sporting clubs and citizenship ceremonies. That is why I knock on people's doors, call them on the phone and stand around on the street at places like Blackburn Market and Macedon Plaza. That is why, whenever I'm here, I take the opportunity to meet with ministers and other members of our caucus to raise the issues that my community raises with me and advocate for better services.

For too long, successive Liberal governments treated the families of Doncaster, Doncaster East, Bulleen, and Templestowe, Warrandyte and other areas in my electorate as if they were safe political assets—an electorate to be banked, not to be invested in. When an electorate is viewed this way, neglect is inevitable. It creates a culture of arrogance—a belief that the community is not worth engaging with, listening to or advocating for. Consider, for example, our local infrastructure. Anyone who spends time on Ringwood-Warrandyte Road near the Warrandyte Five Ways intersection, or on the crowded corridors heading towards the Eastern Freeway, understands what long-term neglect looks like.

For decades, locals have raised concerns about the Warrandyte five-way intersection. Over 8,000 cars go through there every day, but there are blind corners and near misses all the time. They raise concerns about safety and school drop-off congestion. They complained about more time spent in traffic than at home with family. Local Liberal MPs heard these concerns, acknowledged them and then did nothing. That is why this Labor government, with my advocacy, has committed $25 million for upgrading the five-way intersection at Warrandyte for planning and early works and committed $5 billion for the North East Link project. This will ensure that local trucks are taken off roads, and the widening of the freeway will make sure that local families can get home quicker and safer, and spend less time in traffic. That is what actual investment is and actual action looks like. That is what delivering for Menzies is all about.

Congestion punishes parents on the school run. It drains productivity, and it costs tradies time and income. There has been a lack of investment in public transport as well, which forces people into cars even when they would rather use alternatives. Manningham in the northern part of my electorate is the only electorate in metropolitan Melbourne that doesn't have a train station. That is why we are investing $2.2 billion in the Suburban Rail Loop East and why in recent weeks when the Prime Minister visited Melbourne he pledged further support for the Suburban Rail Loop, to be detailed in the upcoming budget.

Consider as well our local sporting infrastructure. It has been a privilege to get to know our local sporting clubs better—to meet their volunteer committees and see how much their members, young and old, get out and participate in sport. Yes, there are health benefits, but more important are the benefits of being part of a community united around a shared love of footy, soccer, cricket, basketball or netball. Speaking with these clubs, I heard time and time again how the growth in these sports meant that clubs were straining against the constraints of ageing infrastructure. There was increased interest from women and girls in participating in sports but no change rooms to accommodate them. Netball and soccer are absolutely booming in Melbourne's east, but the pitches couldn't meet the demand for training sessions and for matches, so people have had to travel far away in order to play a game.

That is why I'm so proud to have been able to secure meaningful investment in our local clubs, including $3.5 million for key facility upgrades for the Bulleen Templestowe Basketball Club, which will mean that they can have female-friendly change rooms and upgrade their facilities to meet regulations—go Boomers! We also committed $3.9 million at the election for upgrades to RHL Sparks Reserve for their Box Hill United Football Club, which will mean that they can upgrade one of their pitches to a synthetic pitch, play and train more of the year, and have to play fewer games away. Planning is already underway with our great local councils on delivery of these commitments.

Consider as well our arts community. We have a fantastic local arts community. Recently I've been able to attend the Box Hill artist association's exhibition, Box Hill South Neighbourhood House art show and the Box Hill Rotary art show. But again our arts infrastructure has been neglected, and there was no better example of this than the Warrandyte arts' old firehouse. It was literally eaten by termites and falling apart so that, if you were walking around, you'd worry that your foot would fall through the floor. I'm proud to have been able to deliver $187,500 to repair this iconic local building and make sure that the pottery group can continue to use this space to grow their group and all the benefits that come from artistic expression as well as the community that it brings.

Take as well our local health providers. Under the coalition government, Medicare rebates failed to keep pace with the cost of care, and bulk-billing declined. When I'm knocking on doors, local families, retirees and young people complain to me that they found themselves paying more out of pocket to see a doctor. We know that primary health care is not a luxury. It is a foundation of a healthy society, yet those opposite froze the Medicare rebate for almost the entire time that they were in government last time—first under the previous opposition leader and then for six years under the current opposition leader. People across Menzies watched as public health funding was cut nationwide while they waited longer for GP appointments and sat on waiting lists for specialist services.

Our government is turning things around. On 1 November our tripling of the Medicare bulk-billing incentive kicked in. We know that 17 GPs across Menzies have expressed interest in becoming fully bulk-billed, and that means that local families will be able to get the health care that they need when they need it, without out-of-pocket costs.

What about education? In Menzies we pride ourselves on the schools across our suburbs. They are full of dedicated teachers and students who want to excel, and families move into the electorate for high-quality education. We have some of the top-performing public schools, in terms of VCE results, in the entire state. But this kind of excellence doesn't come without the necessary investments. For more than a decade, schools across Australia, including those in Menzies, were left underfunded. Liberal governments treated public education as an afterthought. We have delivered increased funding for every single public school in Menzies, closing the gap and increasing the proportion of federal funding to 25 per cent. With full and fair funding for every single school in Menzies on an as-needs basis, we're finally delivering on the promise of the Gonski model.

Neglect also extended to our local jobs and economic growth. The eastern suburbs should be a powerhouse of innovation and enterprise, yet little was done to cultivate new industries, to support our local retail and hospitality sectors or to attract high-value research and technology. Many small business owners—

A division having been called in the House of Representatives—

Sitting suspended from 13:21 to 16:06

Australia's one of the most successful multicultural nations, and Wentworth reflects this richness in every one of our schools. Our students come from more than 100 cultural and linguist backgrounds, with the largest Jewish community in the country alongside a large LGBTQIA+ community and various multicultural and multifaith communities. But diversity alone does not guarantee belonging. In recent years, school leaders and students have raised concerns with me around exclusion, prejudice and rising antisemitism in particular against the Jewish community, as well as broader social pressures that our young people face. These concerns lead to ongoing discussions with principals throughout 2024 and 2025 which made clear that the next step had to be student led.

That is what brought us to Wentworth's first student led social cohesion roundtable, hosted by Rose Bay Secondary College last week. School leaders emphasised that meaningful change must come from the ground up. As principal Cathy Archer said, 'We can talk a lot as school leaders, but if we want something meaningful to come out of this, we need to lead with the students.' The roundtable brought together 37 students and school leaders from nine public, private, independent, faith based and non-faith schools, supported by facilitators from Together for Humanity and the New South Wales Jewish Board of Deputies. Both organisations helped create a space where students felt safe to speak openly, disagree respectfully and explore how trust can even be built when views differ. Students told us that learning how to disagree well is a skill they urgently need.

One group from a faith based school described how eye-opening it was to learn about diversity within neighbouring schools, including active LGBTQIA+ groups and cultural clubs that helped students feel welcome. They reflected on how microaggressions affect not just the Jewish community but also Islamic students and people of different races and cultures and on how seeing other models of inclusions 'opened my eyes to how many different ways of belonging can be supported.' Another group said it was so rare to have the chance for deeper conversations with peers from different schools and social backgrounds. One student said to the roundtable that 'it got me thinking about how we can solve these problems in our school and in our community.' Another said that the most powerful lesson was learning to step outside your own bubble and approach others with empathy.

Rabbi Zalman Kastel, founder of Together for Humanity, noted the burden placed on young people who face racist jokes and reminded us that while they show great resilience they should not have to carry this responsibility alone. By the end of the session, the optimism in the room was clear. Students began imagining practical ways to build bridges, strengthen belonging and support young peers. Early next year, we'll bring them back together for a co-design for a shared initiative in 2026. Young people show that when they're trusted and heard, they can lead with courage, clarity and compassion, and that gives me great hope.

A division having been called in the House of Representatives—

Sitting suspended from 16:09 to 16:20

We live in an era where information flows faster than ever before. Protecting what little privacy we have left is so important. Every day we're asked to share more and more of our personal details, which often go far beyond what's necessary. Every year, Australians do the right thing. They fill out and return their tax forms, abiding by the law and contributing to the system that supports our nation. As a government, we have a responsibility to do the right thing by them, to respect their privacy and to protect their personal information.

Recently, a constituent of mine contacted me to discuss something that caught his attention: on page eight of the tax return for individuals in 2025, there is a question asking applicants to specify their spouse's gender. The options are male, female or intermediate. He started to wonder why this question is asked when, both earlier and later in the form, it asks for your spouse's date of birth, first name and surname—therefore having all the details.

One has to ask: Why? Why is this question in there? Why does the ATO need to know the gender of your spouse? What purpose does this serve? Does it affect the amount of tax you pay? Does one receive a benefit for being in a heterosexual relationship? Does one receive a benefit for being in a same-sex relationship? Or is there a penalty for being in either one of those relationships? Of course not—so why is this question there?

Why is this question there? That's what this constituent is asking. This issue, as I said, was raised by a constituent in Adelaide, who wrote to me with genuine concern, and I couldn't agree more with their questions. We're told to accept people for who they are, to respect diversity and individuality, yet here we are asking Australians to disclose personal details that have absolutely no relevance to their tax obligations.

This is not a census. This is a tax return. It's not the census that we do every few years, where we want to know lots of details. It is a tax return form. Its purpose is to calculate income and ensure compliance with tax law, not to collect unnecessary demographic data. So I ask again: what does the gender of a spouse have to do with claiming one's taxed income?

As I said, we live in a society overflowing with information. Every click, every form and every interaction leaves a digital footprint. With that comes a responsibility—a responsibility to ask only what is necessary and nothing more. If we do not need to know, then we should not ask. The gender of your spouse does not matter in the context of a tax return, so why should it be included in the 2026 tax return form? It shouldn't.

I've written to the Assistant Treasurer to ask these questions and to ask why this is in there, and hopefully I'll have an answer soon. We must protect what little privacy remains, because once it's gone we will never get it back.

The CSIRO is our country's national science agency. For more than a hundred years, its goal has been to improve the lives of people everywhere through science. Its scientists and researchers are looking at the big issues, like climate change and AI. They're behind amazing innovations, and many of which have become part of our everyday lives. The CSIRO invented fast wi-fi, plastic banknotes, long-wearing contact lenses, low-gluten barley, Aerogard—which is incredibly important this summer—the Hendra virus vaccine, the popular Total Wellbeing Diet and so much more. But now this important organisation is facing job cuts—350 scientists and researchers are about to lose their jobs. More than 800 support staff have already gone in this past year. The jewel in our science crown is being forced to make tough decisions because the federal government funding has not kept up with the reality of rising costs.

Where will these cuts come from? All across the country, in areas such as mineral resources, agriculture and food, health and biosecurity, and the environment. This is not a time to skimp on science. We need scientists, we need research and we need them here in Australia. It's so important that we have sovereign capabilities. If we lose those incredibly skilled people overseas, we won't get them back. Not only will we lose their experience but their breakthroughs as well.

While this funding shortage for research and development is at a critical juncture, our young people are still being encouraged to go into STEM degrees. What's the future for them? Why would they go into science, if there are no opportunities? Where will Australia find its future science leaders, its future researchers? And what will happen to the potential life-changing discoveries and breakthroughs?

These CSIRO cuts are the tip of the iceberg. Australia's investment in research and development has been steadily declining for the last 15 years. It's now just 1.68 per cent of GDP. That's well below the OECD average and well below what we need for our country's future. So what can we do? Well, for a start, we need to put on hold the predicted 350 cut of scientists and researchers. That will require a $75 million investment by government. In the longer term, we need to make research and development a priority by boosting our investment to around three per cent of GDP. That investment needs to be long-term and sustainable. If we don't invest in research and development, we don't innovate. We'll lose our best people, we'll lose our brightest minds, and our best ideas will all go overseas. And where would that leave us as a nation? I implore the government to look at this issue carefully. It's just a nonsensical, short-sighted decision.

The Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church is one of the oldest Christian traditions in the world. It traces its origins to the travels of St Thomas in the first century. I'm very honoured that my electorate of Hughes contains the St Thomas cathedral of the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church and it was my honour this week to welcome to Sydney His Holiness Moran Mar Baselios Marthoma Mathews II on behalf of the Australian government. His Holiness is the Catholicos of the Indian Orthodox Church throughout the world and the spiritual leader of Malankara Orthodox Syrian Christians. His visit was a moment of great significance for the Indian orthodox community in Australia and in Hughes. It offered an opportunity for families, young people and elders to come together in celebration of their heritage and their faith.

This sense of unity and pride was on display at the dinner held in honour of His Holiness at St Thomas Indian Orthodox Cathedral in Wattle Grove in my electorate of Hughes. The warmth and generosity on display from the congregation was outstanding and reflected the strong community spirit that defines so many of our local cultural and religious groups. It was amazing to see so many people from different orthodox and non-orthodox traditions of Christianity come together in a spirit of ecumenism, recognise the significance of the moment of His Holiness's visit and acknowledge the deep spiritual connection that his presence provided.

Hughes is home to a thriving and growing Indian community, and events like this highlight the value of multiculturalism and the way people from diverse backgrounds strengthen our nation. We were deeply honoured by the presence of His Holiness and grateful for the time he spent encouraging and uplifting those he met. I also want to pay tribute to him for his longstanding efforts to promote peace, mutual understanding and the importance of living with purpose and service to others. It was also great to meet with His Holiness again during his visit this week in Canberra, and I want to thank him for his commitment to Indian orthodox communities in Australia.

It was also a great privilege to attend the opening of Sylvanvale's new head office in Sutherland. Sylvanvale has been a significant part of the community in the Sutherland Shire for decades, but this milestone represents a continued commitment to support people with disability and strengthen services across the Sutherland Shire. It has operated for over 60 years and has built a reputation for delivering support that's practical, respectful and centred on the individual.

The new Sutherland head office brings staff and services together in a modern space designed for collaboration and better outcomes. It creates a strong base for the organisation's future and reinforces Sylvanvale's longstanding connection to the Sutherland Shire. I congratulate Sylvanvale on this significant step and thank them for the contribution they continue to make to our community.

Last week, the Gladstone community was taken by complete surprise by Rio Tinto's decision to cut production at the Yarwun Alumina Refinery at Gladstone, impacting some 180 jobs. The site currently employs around 725 people and produces about three million tonnes of alumina per year. The decision comes just months after Rio's announcement of the potential closure of the Gladstone power station come 2029 and also the flagged closure of the Tomago Aluminium smelter near Newcastle. I would like to put it on the record that my thoughts are with the impacted workers first and foremost. They've got mouths to feed and rent to pay, and they're just trying to make ends meet. While I acknowledge Rio Tinto have stated that they will make every effort to find opportunities for these impacted workers, the level of uncertainty for these workers, their families and the alumina industry in general—especially this close to Christmas—is very concerning.

How many industries and how many jobs need to be lost until this Labor government wake up and understand that their reckless energy policy is destroying our manufacturing capability in Australia? In the past five years Australia has lost over 7,000 direct jobs in heavy industry, with a further 73,000 relying on taxpayer support to survive. Last month it was announced that up to a thousand jobs are in immediate jeopardy at the Tomago Aluminium smelter due to soaring energy prices. In that same month, the federal and Queensland governments announced a rescue package of $600 million over three years for Glencore's Mount Isa copper smelter and the Townsville refinery. Without government handouts, more than 600 direct jobs and a further 500 jobs at the nearby Phosphate Hill facility would have been lost. This is another example of the governments having to subsidise heavy industry due to high energy prices—the same high energy prices that are a result of Labor's reckless renewable energy policy.

I've got many questions for the Minister for Climate Change and Energy and this government that I want answered. For the hardworking men and women in the heavy industry, mining and resource sectors, what does their future look like? Honestly! Why do they have to give up their jobs to appease the government's targets? That is what is happening. While the Labor government is committed to shutting down industries that power and build this nation to reach international emissions targets, I am committed to fighting for every single worker in Central Queensland, and I will continue to fight to protect their jobs.

The Albanese government is delivering better access to affordable healthcare services across Melbourne's northern suburbs. On 1 November, our government rolled out the single largest investment in Medicare's history—an expansion of the bulk-billing incentive to all Australians so that more people, including people across all of the suburbs that I represent, can see a GP for free. This is an investment that will deliver an additional 18 million bulk-billed visits each year nationwide.

I visited the Epping Plaza Medical and Dental Centre, one of six clinics in my electorate that returned to full bulk-billing on 1 November, bringing the total number of fully bulk-billing clinics in the Scullin electorate to 13. I'm pleased to say the response right across my community has been incredibly positive, because people remember the threat of the GP tax. People remember the impact of the Medicare freezes, but, thanks to Labor's changes, all that people need in the Scullin electorate or right around Australia to access high-quality GP services is their Medicare card. The work that we've done to back in GP services complements the existing and fully bulk-billed Epping Medicare urgent care clinic, which saw over 14,000 presentations in its first year of operation, making a huge difference.

I also want to recognise the Endometriosis and Pelvic Pain Clinic, which has been providing women right across Melbourne's northern suburbs access to a service that provides specialised care in a community that for too long was denied access to this kind of service. So I'm very grateful to my friend the Assistant Minister for Health and Aged Care and Assistant Minister for Women, Rebecca White, who was at the Epping Endometriosis and Pelvic Pain Clinic, where she announced an additional 11 endo and pelvic pain clinics to be rolled out across Australia, making a huge difference in those communities—the same difference, the same impact that I have seen in the northern suburbs. Australians in the northern suburbs of Melbourne and right around the country understand that Labor is the party of Medicare and only an Albanese Labor government can be trusted to strengthen it and the social compact that depends on access to healthcare.

I also want to recognise and thank women from right across the Scullin electorate for the really incredible response to the pink ribbon morning tea that my office and I hosted a couple of weeks ago, focused, as many others around the country are, on raising money for and also, critically, raising awareness about breast cancer. This is an incredibly important cause, one that probably touches everyone in this building and everyone across the communities that we represent. Breast cancer, of course, carries a lifetime diagnosis. The risk is one in seven for women and one in 612 for men. It's a cause that I'm proud to support. We were so fortunate to have Nicole and Gracie from BreastScreen Victoria attend to share expert advice on what to look for, how to minimise risks and even to book on-the-spot breast screen appointments, something that was really welcomed by community members. They reminded us that early detection is the most effective way to prevent serious illness or death, making the Commonwealth funded BreastScreen Australia a crucial piece of our national fight against breast cancer. So I want to thank my electorate office team for organising this event and, in particular, for bringing together some diverse community leaders who can be trusted sources of advice to women who might otherwise not have been persuaded to take this vital step for themselves, for their families and for our community.

I rise today to draw the attention of colleagues to a matter of urgent concern. It's the escalating coastal erosion at Southend, in my electorate, and the recent failure of the application by the director of engineering services at the Wattle Range Council for federal support under the Disaster Ready Fund. Southend, a small coastal town, is experiencing terrifying coastal erosion. Strong waves and wind from the Southern Ocean have stripped away metres of sand from the beachfront. In some areas, up to three metres of sand has been lost in just one season alone, exposing steep drop-offs, threatening the local caravan park and forcing the closure of the main beach due to safety concerns. This is not only a blow to local residents but a real threat to the town's future as a tourism destination.

Wattle Range Council rightfully sought $1.8 million from the federal government through the Disaster Ready Fund to implement key erosion mitigation works. Their vision included not just short-term sand replenishment but durable infrastructure to secure the beach, defend assets and preserve the natural beauty that underpins the region's identity and economy. Yet their application was rejected. That decision requires scrutiny because responsible early investment now will prevent far greater loss in the years ahead.

This not an isolated incident. A number of regional communities across my electorate face similar pressures. Flinders University research warns that the data is still limited, but what they measure already shows a worrying trend of repeated storm events preventing natural recovery and leaving dunes permanently eroded. Furthermore, South Australia's Department for Environment and Water has recognised the urgency through the Coast Protection Board's grant program. Wattle Range Council applied for funds to address erosion, flooding, sand drift and other coastal risks. They received $32,000 from the state government for detailed design work at Southend, but this is only a small fraction of what is required to actually undertake the works. It's vital we invest more federally in this region. Failing to act now will result in greater damage to public infrastructure, community assets and local businesses. I call on the relevant minister to urgently review the circumstances surrounding this unsuccessful application and work directly with the Wattle Range Council and the Southend community to identify an immediate pathway.

Southend's coastline is one of the Limestone Coast's great natural assets, and with timely assistance we can ensure it remains intact for generations to come. This is not just a local issue; it's a clear opportunity for the federal government to support a community taking responsible, forward-looking steps to protect itself. I urge my colleagues across the aisle to stand with their fellow Australians at Southend and provide the support they deserve and, in fact, need.

It's been a massive few weeks in the Perth electorate. I want to share with members a few things that have been happening and that make me particularly proud to be the federal member for Perth.

Firstly, Perth has been officially selected to host the Gay Games in 2030. This is the first time that this global celebration of sport, culture and inclusion will be held in Australia. I want to congratulate the organisers, who have put together an outstanding and successful bid. I want to say thank you to Pride WA for the work that they have done in putting this bid together. I'm looking forward to seeing the values of participation, inclusion and respect ring loudly through the streets of Perth as our world class city hosts that event.

Secondly, I want to share with this chamber an exciting moment that happened just this weekend. There was a massive milestone for a much-loved community club in my electorate. The Bayswater Bowling & Recreation Club celebrated their 90th anniversary. They were formed just after the Great Depression and just after Western Australia voted to leave the Commonwealth. They have gone from strength to strength to strength. They kept their community together during World War II, and they have become an inclusive and welcoming club in the heart of Bayswater that now boasts more than a thousand members. They embody the community spirit of the community which I represent, and I want to congratulate all of their life members and all of the club committee for the outstanding work that they do in building an inclusive sporting club of which anyone is more than welcome to be a member.

Finally, Monday of this week saw the opening of the East Perth Common Ground project. The common ground model, as many would know, has been a huge success in Brisbane, in Melbourne and around the world. We didn't have one in Perth, but that has now changed thanks to investment from both the Albanese Labor government and the Cook Labor government. It makes sure that this 14-storey complex with 112 self-contained apartments can provide support for the most vulnerable in our society—people who are living on the edge or on the street, or who have been at serious risk of homelessness. It's got 24/7 support services. It brings all of the services that people need to an excellent location in East Perth. It is right where it makes perfect sense and is connected to some of the other good services that are provided to those doing it tough in my electorate. I want to thank all who've made it possible, those who've helped build it. I was there with Minister Clare O'Neil just a few months ago seeing the final bits being poured, and now it's open. It's a tribute to everyone who has built it and, now, everyone who runs it. I'm very pleased that that additional support is now available.

I rise to acknowledge the work of Gary Crawford and Mick Downs, who have been instrumental in envisioning and establishing the Wingham Amateur Boxing Club. The club is a small, volunteer, not-for-profit organisation. It was conceived by Gary and Mick, two ex-Australian Defence Force veterans, with the intent of providing free boxing and coaching fitness to young people aged 13 to 18 in Wingham and surrounding areas.

Gary, who will be the primary instructor, has been involved in amateur boxing since the age of eight. After serving in the Australian Army for five years, Gary began coaching as a way of finding purpose. Gary was a boxing coach for six years at the PCYC in Taree. He trained local youth weekly, often taking competitors to Dubbo, Cobar, Parkes and various locations interstate to participate in organised bouts and championships. Gary was approached by Wingham locals inquiring if he would be interested in starting a boxing club in Wingham with a focus on local youth. Gary agreed, but with the proviso that the service would be free.

Gary's partner in this venture, Mick Downs, spent over 20 years in the Australian Army. He has various qualifications in fitness and combative training, obtained while in the ADF, and has experience working with youth through the Australian Army Cadets scheme.

Seeing a community need for afterschool and weekend activities for local youth, Gary and Mick decided to establish the club with the aim of providing free fitness and boxing training—tailored to varying individual skill, experience, dedication and confidence levels—as well as a communal safe space for local youth. Participation in fitness or boxing classes is not mandatory, and all are welcome to use the facilities to observe, study, complete homework and generally socialise in a safe, strictly alcohol- and drug-free environment.

I recently visited the club and can tell you that the feedback around town is extremely positive, with many teenagers and their families excited about a local, free boxing club and the many social, physical and mental benefits such an organisation can have and is having.

This opportunity would not be possible without generous donations from the community, who have already provided boxing rings, bags, gloves, beanbags, lounge chairs and study tables. I would like to acknowledge the work of locals John Caldron, Secretary Kelly Anderson, the Wingham Anglican church, Reverend Brian Ford and Don Smith, who are playing an instrumental role in the club's development. With the recent floods that caused substantial damage throughout Wingham, the need for a positive, inclusive community facility whereby fitness, health, safety and mentorship are prioritised cannot be overstated. I therefore congratulate all involved in its establishment and extend my full support.

Darwin and Palmerston and much of the Top End were buffeted by Cyclone Fina on the weekend, with Territory resilience and spirit shining through once again. I give a big shout-out to all the people of the Solomon electorate, those living in Darwin and Palmerston, but also to all Territorians across the Top End for their work to prepare ahead of Cyclone Fina and in its aftermath. I want to thank all the first responders, everyone working in our hospitals and everyone who assisted. That work continues—to clear the roads and to get the lights back on. Power has been restored to many homes, but many suburbs are still without power. People needing urgent assistance should visit the welfare recovery centre at the Marrara Indoor Stadium.

The Albanese government, in partnership with the Northern Territory government, has activated disaster recovery assistance. As the Minister for Emergency Management said today in question time, in order to facilitate the recovery process, financial assistance has been made available under the disaster recovery funding arrangements, the DRFA, to provide immediate relief to individuals and families that have been displaced by Cyclone Fina and any flooding. Further information is available on the Secure NT website, or call the Cyclone Fina hotline on 1800888901 between 7 am and 7 pm daily, and, after that, normal emergency numbers if you need assistance.

Witnessing the response of Territorians reminded me once again of the stories of bravery and fortitude that were shared at the Cyclone Tracy 50th anniversary commemorative event that we held in Darwin, with the Prime Minister and the Governor-General in attendance, on Christmas Eve and on Christmas Day last year. The organisers of that event, Remembering Cyclone Tracy, brought together many of the survivors to reconnect, to remember and to reflect on the time when we lost at least 66 lives and more than 70 per cent of Darwin's buildings were destroyed. It was Australia's worst peacetime disaster in modern times until, of course, the devastating Black Saturday bushfires in 2009. It was the largest peacetime evacuation in Australian history, with 25,000 people evacuated by air and 7,000 by road. One week later, just 10,000 people remained in Darwin.

We've come a long way since then. Thankfully, there were no serious injuries this time around. But, again, as they did 50 years ago, the Darwin community rallied together. It's important to note that this cyclone was a category 3, but in Darwin only a category 1. It can get much worse. Don't become complacent.

More than 200,000 Australians, many living within my electorate in the Redlands, spent part of their working lives in the United Kingdom. They contributed to the system, they paid their national insurance contributions and they earned the British state pension. Unlike the Australian age pension, the British state pension functions more like a superannuation scheme. It is an entitlement purchased through years of compulsory contributions made by workers and their employers. Yet, for those who choose to retire in Australia, that entitlement is frozen at the moment that they receive it. There is no annual increase, no inflation adjustment and no recognition of rising living costs—nothing. A pension that might start at 155 pounds a week in 2016 stays at 155 pounds forever. Over time, it's not just inconvenient—it's devastating. In real terms, many retirees have seen the value of their pensions cut in half.

What makes this even more unjust is that this policy is not applied universally. Pensioners living in the United States, across Europe and in six other Commonwealth countries have their payments automatically indexed every year. But Australians, who are among Britain's most loyal, longstanding and dependable partners, are singled out for inferior treatment by having their pensions frozen. Bernie from Alexandra Hills wrote to my office about this. He left home at the age of 16 to serve in the British army, where he served for 11 years before emigrating to Australia. He went on to serve for 20 years in the Queensland Police Service. When he turned 65, he claimed a part British pension. He was given 45 pounds a week at the age of 65, and that is exactly what he's on today at the age of 80.

This is not only unfair for the individuals who earned these pensions; it's also costly to Australia. As their frozen pensions fail to keep pace with living expenses, many of these retirees must rely more heavily on our own social support systems. Our government estimates that Britain's frozen pension policy costs Australian taxpayers over $100 million every year. For these reasons, this issue is something that the federal government should be taking up directly with the United Kingdom government at every opportunity. I certainly took the opportunity recently, when a UK parliamentary delegation was here, to raise some of these issues with them. It is discrimination, plain and simple. It is unacceptable and not the way for a friend to treat the people of a nation that has stood beside them in war, in peace and in partnership. These Australians deserve far better. My heart goes out to many British people who are mourning their cricket team's loss earlier this week, but can we say this simply is not cricket It is not fair and it is not a way to treat a loyal and longstanding friend.

As a former school teacher, I know just how far a little recognition can go. When we celebrate a young person, we build confidence, spark ambition and strengthen character. That is what the Deakin Shield awards are all about. Each year, every primary and secondary school in Deakin is given the opportunity to choose students whose achievements truly stand out. This is a special occasion every year to highlight the efforts of our young people and remind them that their community sees and values their hard work. What makes the Deakin Shield so special is that each school decides what the award should honour. Every school community has its own culture, values and priorities and its own goals for its students. This makes sure that every award is grounded in real experiences, real challenges and real triumphs.

The Deakin Shield, part of a long and proud bipartisan tradition in Deakin stretching back more than a decade, also reflects something bigger: a belief that every young person deserves a fair chance to succeed. I'll take this opportunity again to say how proud I am to be part of a government that has put every public school on the path to full and fair funding. People in my community know that good outcomes and great education don't come about without the right investment. If we want students to achieve extraordinary things, we must give them the resources and opportunities that they need to do so. The Deakin Shield and our commitment to full and fair funding send a clear message that we believe in our schools, our teachers and our students. We want every young person to have the chance to thrive and to pursue great opportunities, and we're backing them to make it happen. I'm proud to play my small part in celebrating the achievements of so many people in our community. I'm sorry to miss a few presentations this week while I'm obviously here in Canberra, but I say to every award recipient: congratulations. You've made your families, your teachers and your school communities proud.

To everyone who has just wrapped up their VCE: congratulations on completing your exams. Enjoy a well-earned break, but please be safe and be responsible. We want to have you back in one piece in the coming months, because, whatever comes next, I believe that you'll be able to succeed, and I can't wait to see what you do with your talent and potential.

Our investment in schools demonstrates our commitment to the future of young people, and we're focusing on that with free TAFE, with investments in making sure that courses are available to our young people to pursue whatever dreams they want and making sure they're not going to be bogged down in debt and unable to buy their first house before they reach a point in life where it's almost too late. We're investing in the next generation to make sure that they can aspire to live lives better than the ones our parents and we are able to enjoy. That's the aim of the game, that's why we're in parliament and I'm so proud to be part of a government that is delivering for the young people of Australia.

I rise to acknowledge several respected Western Australians whose recent passing has touched communities across Durack and beyond. Dr Erica Smyth AC was a pioneering geologist and one of the most influential leaders in Australia's minerals and petroleum sectors. From her early days cleaning crayfish during school holidays in Geraldton to senior roles at BHP and Woodside, Erica's career embodied determination, innovation and public service. She championed research and exploration in uranium, serving as the chair of Toro Energy and as a non-executive director at ANSTO, Emeco Holdings and the Commonwealth minerals exploration CRC program. Beyond industry, she was a passionate advocate for scientific and medical research, particularly in diabetes. In 2018 she was appointed a Companion of the Order of Australia for her extraordinary contribution to industry and to the nation. Her passing leaves a significant void, and I extend my deepest sympathy to her family, friends and colleagues.

Greg Weller was a stalwart of the WA Liberal Party and a tireless advocate for regional Western Australia. He dedicated more than 50 years of service across the Canning, Durack and O'Connor divisions and made a lasting impact on regional road safety. Through his long involvement with the Livestock and Rural Transporters Association, Greg helped secure important improvements throughout the 1990s, including overtaking lanes at Bindoon Hill, 'prepare to stop' signals on Perth's highways and essential truck rest areas across the wheatbelt. These practical outcomes continue to keep motorists safe today. Greg and his late wife, Fran Weller, formed a formidable team committed to sound governance and strong representation for rural and regional WA. Fran was a passionate educator and stood for the agricultural region in the 1993 and 1996 elections, and together they proudly supported the work of Liberal governments under leaders such as John Howard, Peter Costello and Richard Court. In 2013, both Greg and Fran received a federal meritorious service award, from Prime Minister Tony Abbott, recognising their decades of loyal service. I enjoyed Greg and Fran's company very much. Both were never shy to share their point of view, and their advice was always intended to be encouraging and well meaning. Greg remained engaged right to the end, serving as a Liberal Party selection committee delegate as recently as 2024.

Former member for Geraldton Shane Hill, whose recent, sudden passing has been felt deeply across the mid-west, also leaves a lasting legacy. Shane served as the member for Geraldton from 2001 to 2008, with a passion for and strong belief in opportunity for all. His dedication to community service will not be forgotten. I extend my sympathy to his family, his friends, his former colleagues and all of those who loved him.

I'd like to start with a light hearted observation about what I've got between my nose and my lips at the moment. I think we're about 24 days into Movember now, and this is what I've got! But, on a serious note, it is there to bring attention to men's health and, especially, men's mental health. My experiences are very much informed by where I grew up—Broken Hill, in outback New South Wales. It's a mining town—mining city, really—of about 25,000 people. It's a working-class environment to its bootstraps. It's tough, and it's really there that my early experiences of mental health were born. Even though Broken Hill is 1,400 kilometres away, according to demographics it's not much different to the area that I represent now—tough, working-class people and tough, working-class men.

There are two friends that I remember very much growing up with, and I'll use their first names, because I haven't talked to their families for a while. Jezza and Benny were the rough, tough kids. Benny was probably one of the people that really sparked my interest in politics in many ways. When we had a school strike, Benny was the one who was up there encouraging me—not that he cared about the politics behind it all. He just wanted to have a day off! But he had that real, natural leadership, that natural gravitas, that carried people with him. Jezza was slightly different. He was really quiet and just a lovely bloke. And neither of them are here anymore—my age.

People say we shouldn't talk about suicide, but I think the only thing worse than talking about suicide is not talking about it. And why the focus on men? I think it's because 75 per cent of suicide victims are men. If we can improve the opportunities for people to access mental health care for men, we will improve those opportunities for everybody. In fact, maybe it's typical of blokes that the people who most often bring mental health support for men up with me are women—the mums, the sisters, the daughters and the wives.

In the last 20 seconds that I have, I will say that there are lots of positive things we can do. Look at MATES in Construction. In 2007 or so, when they started, the suicide rate of men in construction was way over the national average. Today it's at about the average, and it's going down. So there are things that can be done. There are some timely interventions that can be made. I think the Albanese Labor government's investment in mental health care, particularly in the Medicare mental health clinics, is really going to hold us in good stead.

It's been another busy and uplifting period for our southern Gold Coast community. I've met with local residents, businesses and community groups who've celebrated milestones and cherished opportunities to come together as we move into the festive season. I'd like to extend my warm congratulations to all southern Gold Coast students on a fantastic school year, particularly the year 12s, who celebrated their final day last week. It has been a pleasure to join our school communities as they wrap up the year and to help recognise students whose achievements, character and contributions make our community proud.

I'd also like to make very special mention of and welcome representatives from the incredible Currumbin Wildlife Hospital in my electorate, including senior veterinarian Dr Michael Pyne OAM, who is here in the chamber today. Also joining them are representatives from the RSPCA and Australia Zoo. The Currumbin Wildlife Hospital does vital work in protecting our wildlife. In 2024 they faced their most demanding year on record, admitting more than 16,000 sick, injured and orphaned native animals, a surge driven by the devastating impacts of natural disasters, disease and ongoing habitat loss. The hospital has delivered groundbreaking progress through applied research programs that are changing the trajectory for some of Australia's most at-risk species, including our beloved koalas.

The team is here in Canberra this week to advocate for, amongst other things, certainty in their recurring funding. I'm proud to help amplify their needs to ensure that they can continue their vital work in conservation, research and caring for our wildlife. I'd like to thank each and every one of the volunteers and the workers at the Currumbin Wildlife Hospital for everything they do for our community.

Earlier this month our community gathered for Remembrance Day to honour all who've served our nation to safeguard the freedoms that we cherish today. It was wonderful to see so many young people and also school groups who attended and took part in local services. This ensures that the next generation will carry forward this reverence for our veterans, and that is critical. In the lead-up to Remembrance Day I had the honour to meet 104-year-old Sergeant Audrey Kingsbury from the Coolangatta RSL Sub Branch. Audrey served as an Army signaller during the Second World War, and I was inspired to hear her story of service, her quiet strength and her lifelong dedication and devotion to our nation. I thank Audrey and all our veterans for their extraordinary service. None of us here would enjoy the freedoms we have today without them.

I want to let the parliament know about the incredible success of the 14th annual Chifley Coral McLean Awards, a celebration of women whose compassion, leadership and strength continue to shape our community for the better. We also took the opportunity to raise funds for a local women's group, Community in Fellowship Together. I wanted to give a special shout-out to our terrific guest speaker this year, journalist and radio presenter Chris Bath, who proved to be one of the most entertaining speakers we've had in a while—other than, say, the member for Riverina. Her warmth and wisdom truly struck a chord with everyone in the room.

Each year, the awards honour the legacy of Coral McLean. Coral was a woman who dedicated her life to social justice, reconciliation and community service. It was estimated that she devoted 100,000 hours of her time to people in our area. Even when she moved out of Mount Druitt and was up on the Central Coast, her door would be open to people who would travel to her in an hour of need, and she would be there for them. She was a tremendous Australian. This year's recipients, especially the Coral McLean Award winner Sister Carlene Allen, could not have embodied Coral McLean's spirit more. For nearly two decades, Sister Carlene supported women, families and vulnerable locals through her work at Holy Family Parish. She's a true pillar of compassion in Mount Druitt and the surrounding suburbs.

We also recognised Chifley Woman of the Year, Hanna Shamoka, and Chifley Young Woman of the Year, Aarushi Duggal. The MP Recognition Award went to Learning Ground's Cassandra Jackson. Each of these women gives so much of themselves, from supporting vulnerable families to uplifting and inspiring young people, building bridges across cultures, generations and communities. Their stories remind us of something deeply important—that strong communities are built by people who care, people who show up and people who quietly change lives every single day. Our winners and nominees reflect the very best of Western Sydney. The dedication they have is inspiring. It challenges us. It gives us hope for the future.

I want to thank every volunteer, supporter, performer and community member who helped make this year's ceremony such a success—as they do each and every year. Most importantly, I want to thank the women that we honoured. Their work doesn't just strengthen our community; it strengthens the sense of who we are and makes our area a better, kinder place to live.

Today, I rise to commend two remarkable youth organisations in my electorate, the Bunbury Sea Scouts and the Bunbury Girl Guides, on achieving the truly extraordinary anniversary of 110 years of local operation. I was privileged to join Jaysen Miguel, the City of Bunbury mayor, at their respective halls in Bunbury to celebrate this momentous milestone. Such longevity comes from an unwavering commitment of parents, leaders and volunteers alike over decades upon decades, and we owe them a deep gratitude for the contribution that they've made through time to our local community. As a former sea scout who sailed in the United States representing Australian Scouts in 2007, I find the core objectives of these youth organisations—building teamwork, self-reliance, patriotism and citizenship in our community—more relevant today than ever. I congratulate the Bunbury Sea Scouts and the Bunbury Girl Guides on achieving a truly outstanding milestone.

In the heart of my electorate lies something very special indeed. The Ludlow Tuart Forest is the only remaining natural tuart forest in the world. The Ludlow Tuart Forest Restoration Group is a group of individuals who've banded together to work tirelessly to ensure that this special part of the world isn't lost to history. A few months ago, I had the privilege to see the local group in action, so a special thank you to Des, Holger and Phil for welcoming me, for their time and for allowing me to understand more deeply the true scale of the work that the group are doing. To all at the Ludlow Tuart Forest Restoration Group, thank you for the energy and passion that you bring to our community. Your tireless work doesn't go unnoticed.

I rise today to recognise and celebrate the amazing work of local star Alexis McDonald. I use the word 'star' very deliberately. In 2019, at just 17 years old, Alexis McDonald created the app HerHelp. It's a platform that serves as a safe and inspiring place for women to access support for issues such as mental health. The HerHelp platform now reaches millions and millions of users across the globe. In 2023, Alexis was a recipient of the prestigious Diana Award that celebrated these achievements. Not done yet, earlier this year she was named in the Forbes 30 Under 30 Asia 2025 list and, more recently, was announced as a 2026 Western Australian Young Australian of the Year nominee. Alexis, congratulations. Thank you for the important work that you do in our community and, indeed, across the world.

I'm very proud to be part of a government that is delivering a better and fairer education system for all, because we know that education has the power to change lives. As we approach the year end, the season of graduations, awards nights, farewells and celebrations reminds us of just that. Today I recognise all the teachers, students, staff and families across each of the 50-plus schools providing critical learning to young people in the Brisbane electorate. Together, this community gives our young people the opportunity to be who and what they want to be.

Over recent weeks, I've had the privilege of attending many graduation and awards celebrations across primary, secondary, public and private schools. Some of these include Aviation High School, Everton Park, St James College, Kedron State High School, Marist College Ashgrove, Mt St Michael's, Brisbane Girls Grammar and Kelvin Grove State College. I could not have been more inspired by the calibre of young people I met—their achievements, their optimism and the strong sense of community that surrounds them—and it leaves me feeling incredibly positive about what is possible in our shared future.

To the teachers, principals and staff: thank you for your commitment to education, to care and to opportunity. You spend significant formative time with our young people, shaping them into who they will become. To the families and friends: thank you, as well. Your encouragement, your patience, your tuckshop duties, your packed lunches, your taxi services, those last minute assignments, et cetera—your presence has been vital. And to our students: congratulations. Another chapter is closed. For many, this time brings some mixed emotions. Maybe it's pride in what's been achieved. Maybe it's excitement about what lies ahead, or perhaps even a little trepidation as graduates step into unfamiliar territory. Whatever the next chapter, whether it's university training, an apprenticeship, work or even just time to explore the world, I wish them courage, curiosity and confidence.

In recent weeks I also visited a number of primary schools looking at civics and citizenship modules. We talked about democracy, what it's like being a member of parliament and how to be active members in our communities. Some students even wrote to me in advance, expressing their views on the challenges we're facing. I got letters on the cost of living, inflation, house prices, aged care, the war in Ukraine, and a humanitarian approach to refugees. Once again, I feel very hopeful and inspired. These young students are on the cusp of finishing primary school. They have many distractions and interests, yet they're very engaged in our world, and they're engaged with empathy, awareness and intent. These students are our future. Given their quality, our future is in very capable hands. Well done to all of them, and thank you to those who make our Brisbane schools vibrant, supportive and hopeful places.

I'd like to start this constituency statement with a big shout-out to this year's school leavers as they celebrate the end of their school days and the beginning of summer holidays. You've all worked so hard, and I'm sure I join your parents, siblings and friends in congratulating you on this milestone achievement. I trust you're safely celebrating at the end of your journey through primary and secondary education, sharing your joy with the friends you have made along the way, who will likely be there for you long into the future. I wish you every success for your brave new journey into continuing education, training or employment and what I'm sure will be a bright future ahead.

In this, my final parliamentary speech of 2025, I take this opportunity to thank the entire O'Connor community for putting their faith in me by re-electing me for a fifth term. I promise to continue to work hard to represent your interests in Canberra and make sure regional communities like ours thrive and grow. O'Connor is an electorate of great beauty, varied and wonderful people, and boundless opportunity. At this time of year, whatever your faith, I hope Christmas provides you with time to reflect on the year past and make plans for the future. It's an opportunity to appreciate the simple things in life: good food, good friends and the love of your partner and family. I'll close by wishing you a merry Christmas, a blessed holiday season and a healthy, hopeful start to a terrific 2026.

In closing, I'd like to say a big thank you to a much valued community asset that closed its business doors last week, the Esperance Weekender. A casualty of COVID, the town's previous local masthead closed in 2020, and the resourceful locals established a new weekly newspaper, the Esperance Weekender, to fill the news void. It was started more as a social enterprise than a business prospect due to a combination of economic uncertainty and what the local appetite for advertising might be. Editor Geoff Vivian had previous experience on another independent newspaper that had folded, the Great Southern Weekender. Geoff was appointed in 2022 and was still at the helm when the final edition hit the newsstands on Friday 14 November. I pay tribute to Malcolm Heasman and his leadership of the tight team of locals who had a clear vision for a newspaper that would engage the local community, support local businesses and provide topical local news. To Geoff, Nikki, Greg, Clara and Roslyn: thank you for your dedication to the Esperance community and for producing a paper that delivered on its purpose until the end. I know that your drive and talent will stand you in good stead for the future.

Today I rise to pay tribute to one of Australia's greatest people, and that is Allan George Moffat. Allan Moffat was a Canadian-born race car driver who came to Australia and became up there equally one of the best drivers that this country has ever produced. Allan and his good friend Peter Brock went toe-to-toe for a decade through car racing. Allan's record still stands as one of the greatest we've seen through his Coca-Cola Mustang, the Boss 302, which won two out of every three races it was ever entered into. There were four Bathurst wins at a time. Allan and Peter are the only two who actually stand in Australian history to have won in both the 500-mile format and the 1,000-kilometre format.

Allan has made a lot of people think about Australian cars. We think about the Toranas and the GT Falcons. Of course, the 65E in 1971 was one of Allan's greatest wins, where he drove solo from start to finish in a car and finished laps and laps ahead of everyone else. But I think my favourite was Allan's win in 1977—the famous one-two finish—which I know still hurts today for Holden people. They watched cars 1 and 2, side-by-side, go down the track, with his great mate Colin Bond beside him.

I was just reading some stuff on Allan the other night and read about the commercial for the XC Ford that was built back in '77. Australia's top race car drivers all lined up, and the car weaved between them just to show how good the Ford Australia car was made. It was Allan who suggested that the only person he would allow to drive a car with him standing in the middle of the road was his mate Fred Gibson, who was another great champion.

Allan was someone who, throughout his racing career, was always seen as very much matter of fact. He was the kind of bloke who never suffered fools easily. He was always a great person to talk to and very knowledgeable and very friendly to share his time with. Unfortunately, as he got older, Allan suffered the ravages of dementia and became an absolute icon in trying to raise awareness and deliver that through Allan Moffat Foundation. His son Andrew told me about how he encouraged all Australians to honour his legacy by supporting the Allan Moffat Foundation for its work to assist others facing dementia.

I want to put on the record my view that the support he got throughout his later years from a great mate of mine Phil Grant was second to none. Phil really made sure that Allan's legacy was protected and that Allan as a person got to enjoy his final years with his friends and enjoy the stuff that he did. So I pay tribute to him because Allan was a great hero of mine, and I think that with him and Peter Brock gone, we've lost two Australian legends. But Allan certainly stood head and shoulders above everyone, and there are a lot of people driving their Falcon GTs today that owe their value and support to the great work that Allan Moffat did. Vale, Allan George Moffat; you are a champion.

In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members' constituency statements has concluded.

I rise today to speak in support of the Commonwealth Parole Board Bill 2025 and the Commonwealth Parole Board (Consequential and Transitional Provisions Bill) 2025. These bills are an important step in ensuring that, for federal offences, there is an independent and effective process for assessing the risk of releasing an offender and an independent and effective process for determining whether to grant, deny or cancel parole—and to set appropriate conditions for parole release. In order to do this, the bills make consequential amendments to part 1B of the Crimes Act of 1914, which is the part of that legislation that deals with sentencing, imprisonment and release of federal offenders.

There are 10 divisions within this part, covering general sentencing principles; sentences of imprisonment; the fixing of non-parole periods and recognisance release orders; conditional release on parole or licence, including revocation of parole or licence; discharge without conviction; conditional release and alternative sentencing; unfitness to be tried; acquittal because of mental illness; summary disposition of persons suffering from mental illness or intellectual disability, including alternative sentencing for persons falling within those categories; and finally, the sharing of information in relation to federal offences. It is therefore entirely appropriate that these two bills would amend part 1B of the Crimes Act 1914 to establish a statutory independent Commonwealth parole board to make effective and risk-informed decisions about the conditional release and management of federal offenders and other detained persons.

Federal offences are offences against the law of the Commonwealth, and a federal offender is one who commits a federal offence. It is only fair to the people of Australia that decisions regarding the release of federal offenders into the community are to be made following a carefully managed process that has at its heart community safety. Australians expect this, and Australians deserve this.

What this means is that determinations about the circumstances under which a federal offender should be released into the community on parole are critical decisions. These bills would ensure that these decisions are made by experts who not only have the qualifications, experience and knowledge to assess the risk posed to the community about whether an offender is suitable for release into the community on parole but are independent and impartial, with no actual or perceived skin in the game, and equipped to operate in an environment that promotes transparency and accountability. The bills therefore improve the integrity levels in the federal criminal justice system because of the way that these key principles will be embedded.

How does it work? The parole board bill will establish the Commonwealth Parole Board and set out the process and framework required to support the work of the board so that it can make the effective, risk-informed decisions about federal offenders, including those who have been found mentally unfit to be tried or acquitted because of mental illness. The decisions are about whether these persons should be released into the community on parole or other conditional release arrangements.

By way of background, the purpose of parole is set out in section 19AKA of the Crimes Act, being the protection of the community, the rehabilitation of the offender and the reintegration of the offender into the community. Section 19ALA of the Crimes Act then sets out a comprehensive list of factors to be considered when determining whether parole should be granted. At the top of the list, quite rightly, is community safety and the risk to community safety that would arise if the person in question were released on parole. Other factors include: the person's conduct while serving his or her sentence; the likely effect on the victim or the victim's family of releasing the person on parole; the nature and circumstances of the offence relating to the person sentenced; the person's criminal history; the risk of noncompliance with any parole order, the behaviour of the person when under previous parole orders, if that is relevant; whether releasing the person on parole is likely to assist the person to adjust to lawful community life; whether the length of the parole period is sufficient to achieve the purposes of parole; and then any special circumstances, including the likelihood that the person will be subject to removal or deportation upon release. Then, once parole is granted, the person is subject—

I will suspend the Federation Chamber, because we're no longer quorate. The chair will be resumed when a quorum is present.

Sitting suspended from 17:25 to 17:29

(Quorum formed)

The objective that the board be equipped with the tools to make independent, impartial and accurate decisions regarding parole and other forms of conditional release will be achieved in the Commonwealth Parole Board Bill, which provides the functions and powers of the board, the chair and the deputy chair and outlines the board's decision-making arrangements, including convening meetings, quorum, voting at meetings, and providing for the appointment of office holders and sessional members who have the expertise to support the risk-informed decision-making required of the board. The board will also have conferred on it powers to make those efficient and effective independent, risk-informed decisions about the conditional release and management of federal offenders and other detained persons.

The Commonwealth Parole Board (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill will operate to amend the Crimes Act to give effect to the Parole Board Bill. One of the most important aspects of schedule 1 to the consequential provisions bill is that those amendments to the Crimes Act facilitate the shift of the decision-making responsibility regarding parole and conditional release from the Attorney-General to the board in a way that ensures that the transfer of parole decision-making functions from the Attorney-General to the new Commonwealth Parole Board occurs seamlessly and does not impact the effective operations of state and territory corrective services or law enforcement agencies. This is in order to align with best-practice approaches in current operations in states, territories and internationally. In this respect, the bill makes a number of changes to parole decision-making, with the specific goal of providing the board with flexibility to ensure that decisions are made effectively and efficiently but still in concert with the critical statutory protections and time frames for offenders to be considered for parole.

The current operation of the Crimes Act requires the decision-maker to consider an offender for parole before the end of the non-parole period set by the court and reconsider an offender within every 12 months after any parole refusal. At present there is no discretion available for a decision-maker to defer a parole decision for any reason, which can have the unwelcome consequence of delaying or preventing rehabilitation or reintegration outcomes for offenders. Examples include where decision-making requires more information in order to make a justifiable decision but that information is not available ahead of the statutory consideration date. This would mean that a decision would have to be made on the basis of insufficient information, which does nothing to promote public trust and confidence in the process.

Circumstances also exist where there are obvious factors for a refusal that will take longer than 12 months for an offender to address, such as a sex offender treatment program that may take up to 18 months to complete. But, because of the current 12-month statutory review provision, the decision-maker would be required to reconsider that offender for parole before they had a chance to complete their treatment, potentially resulting in a waste of resources and significant stress and anxiety to all interested parties.

To address these issues, part 1B of the Crimes Act will be amended to provide the board with discretion to do a number of things: defer the initial parole consideration or reconsideration for up to three months if the board refuses parole to set a date for reconsideration that is more than 12 months after the date of refusal but no more than 24 months to allow the board to interview an offender to hear directly from them and to seek any further information that is required to inform their decision.

These amendments strike the right balance between the management of statutory deadlines and procedural fairness for federal offenders during that decision-making process and maintaining the statutory protection of regular parole reconsideration for offenders. To assist with the implementation of this board, the Australian government has committed $28.3 million over four years from 2025-26, and $7.3 million a year ongoing for the establishment and operation of the board.

Finally, decisions regarding a person's ongoing detention following their conviction and sentencing for an offence necessarily engages with human rights. The bill engages directly and indirectly with several human rights pursuant to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, including the right to an effective remedy, the right to a fair hearing, the prohibition on interference with privacy, the right to freedom of movement, the right to security of the person and freedom from arbitrary detention, the right to humane treatment in detention, and reformation and social rehabilitation in detention systems.

With respect to the right to a fair hearing, the bills promote this because the board will be comprised of appropriately qualified experts that are impartial and independent from government, and its decisions will remain subject to judicial review under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 and the Judiciary Act 1903, providing appropriate oversight. Existing procedural fairness obligations and review avenues will continue to apply, and an offender may engage legal representation or support should they wish to do so. The bill provides for the board to be able to hear from an offender by way of interview, thereby enabling more active participation in the board's decision-making process and supporting procedural fairness.

With respect to arbitrary detention, it's not arbitrary where in all circumstances it is reasonable, necessary and proportionate to achieving a legitimate objective. Federal sentences are only imposed following valid and lawful arrest and conviction for one or more Commonwealth crimes, and following a fair trial in accordance with procedures established by law. Federal offenders who are sentenced to a term of imprisonment suffer deprivation of liberty only in accordance with the law, and these bills do not change this.

The right to humane treatment in detention and to reformation and social rehabilitation in detention systems for federal offenders is promoted by this bill because it requires consideration of a person's prospects of rehabilitation and reintegration into the community. The broad and expert composition of the board will ensure relevant experience informs the board's decisions. If the board refuses parole, it must provide written reasons for the refusal, which might include that an offender needs to engage further in custodial based rehabilitation and treatment programs, which may ultimately positively impact access to an uptake of rehabilitation and treatment programs by offenders. The bills promote, on that basis, the right to humane treatment in detention and to reformation and social rehabilitation in detention systems.

The bill is compatible with human rights because it promotes the right to a fair hearing and the right to humane treatment in detention and to reformation and social rehabilitation. I commend the bill.

The member for Sturt and the speaker who will follow me, the member for Blair, are both lawyers, and I respect that. But I cannot understand why Labor wants to outsource what should be the work of a minister—it should be the role of the Attorney-General—particularly to the member for Sturt, who one day may well occupy the Attorney-General's chair. I hope she does. Why would she want to be advocating something that is going to lessen her role and responsibility in the Parliament of Australia? I just don't understand it.

There are only four speakers in the Federation Chamber on the Commonwealth Parole Board Bill 2025—the member for Sturt, the member for Blair, the member for Pearce, who will follow the member for Blair, and me—and this is an important bill. Sometimes, when we look at legislation, as legislators we get mired in perhaps the complexity of the particular legislation. There's no question that the Commonwealth Parole Board (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2025 carries with it a degree of complexity. But you don't need to be a lawyer. You don't need to have studied law to know that, once again, we're seeing this Albanese Labor government wanting to outsource its responsibilities. And what do they want to do here? Well, they want to outsource the responsibilities of the Attorney-General to a minister, to a board—a board described by the member for Sturt as having transparency and accountability, a board that will have a carefully managed process. Those deliberations by said board will have at their heart community safety. Well, let's hope so.

Now, I like the member for Sturt. I do. I have a lot of time for her. She speaks on just about every bit of legislation, and, for a new member of parliament, I really admire that. I take my hat off to her for that. I respect her for her successful legal profession. I know she studied in London. I know she mentioned the international experience. I know she also referred to the states as having best practice, and this is what the Commonwealth is now going to do. And let's face it: with a 51-seat majority, this will become law—unless, of course, it's held up in the Senate. But the coalition is opposing this particular piece of legislation.

The fact that the government is going to rely on a board astounds me. The fact that more people aren't getting up and belling the cat also, I have to say, surprises me. Now, the board will replace the Attorney-General as the decision-maker for the management and release of federal offenders into the community on parole and licence, including the conditions under which they are released. I know the member for Sturt mentioned those who have mental health issues. We know that 'federal offence' means an offence against the law of the Commonwealth. We know too that a 'federal offender' means a person convicted of a federal offence, and these sorts of offences include drug trafficking—awful, terrible; they take lives. They include child exploitation—nothing is worse than that—social security fraud and terrorism, which is a heinous act against society. Let me put this on the record: whilst people often think blue collar crime is the worst, it's white collar crime which also destroys lives. It does—truly. So federal offenders are people who should be locked up, people who need to have justice served on them. And justice must not only be done; it must also be seen to be done.

I don't think this legislation achieves what society needs or wants, particularly at this important juncture, where we are in a society where there is so much hatred and there is so much divisiveness. We see decisions made by Justice Belinda Rigg in early August where, despite the protestations of the New South Wales Premier, Chris Minns, who I also have a bit of time for, and, moreover, the New South Wales Police Force, those brave men and women in blue who go out every day and place their lives on the line to keep our state safe—they objected to a pro-Palestinian march on Sydney Harbour Bridge, and Justice Rigg allowed it. She went against the premier of the state. She went against, worse still, the police in that state to allow that protest to happen.

And what did we see? Well, we saw people waving al-Qaeda flags. We saw people who support Nazism. We saw people who were writing slogans on the Sydney Harbour Bridge: 'This is colonialism. Let's tear it down.' It is one of the most iconic pieces of infrastructure in the world which connects the north with the Sydney central business district, built in the early thirties during a time of great depression, and here we have these idiots, these—let's call them what they are—criminals, wanting to tear the bridge down. They foster hate.

And yet now we see a Labor government that wants to outsource parole responsibility to a board. Do you know what we'll see? We'll see a board of woke wets. That's what I fear the board will be made up of. These are people who, let's face it, don't have, in my view—and this is my view, and people can have their own view because the great thing about democracy is that you can have a view. I can see the member for Blair grimacing, but you often see these decisions made at committee level that don't concur with what society's expectation are. It'll be like these focus groups that political parties—don't shake your head, member for Blair. Just hear me out here. You know what focus groups are like with politics. It's the person who speaks first and speaks loudest who sways the rest of the committee, the rest of the focus group, with what they think. Then, all of a sudden, the polls are going this way and that way.

I really worry when the government of the day outsources the work of the Attorney-General, and we've got a good Attorney-General. I really wonder what the member for Greenway thinks deep down in her heart of hearts about this particular legislation. Now, you'll tell me that she brought it to the chamber. You'll tell me that she thinks it's a good thing, but she's outsourcing her work—why would you want to do that—to a board which is not elected, which is faceless—

Well, you may think that, but we see these decisions. They crop up in our tabloid newspapers. They'll release someone; they'll let someone out in society who, quite frankly, should not be allowed out into society. We have seen it all too often in recent times, decisions made regarding people who came to this country and then, because they didn't have their correct identification or paperwork, they had a little anklet, a little bracelet, put on their leg and were allowed out in society where they recommitted offences. People right across the nation, ordinary, average people—I'll call them Mr and Mrs Average—were outraged. They thought: 'Why is our government doing this? This is not in the best interests of the safety and security of average, ordinary, everyday Australians of our communities.' And they're right.

This is what I worry about with this particular bill. I do. You may say that I'm off on the wrong tangent, but I don't believe that we should be outsourcing ministerial work to committees. Otherwise, why don't we just outsource everything to committees? I saw it when Labor got into power in May—

An honourable member interjecting—

Let me have my say. Labor got into power in May 2022, and, all of a sudden, they wanted to outsource regional infrastructure to a committee. What have we got now? We've got a pause on regional infrastructure. Ministers should do their job. Attorney-General is the title of the first law officer of the land. I'll say this. I'll put it on the record that I think we've got an outstanding first law officer of the land in the member for Greenway. She is an outstanding member of parliament, and I think she'll make a very good Attorney-General, but I don't agree with this piece of legislation.

Members opposite can disagree with me all they like, but mark my words: down the track, when this becomes law—and we know that it will because you've got the majority, and majority rules; I get that, I understand that, I recognise that—you will see this committee make a decision in the future, and people will just slump their shoulders and go, 'Why did a board designated by the parliament to do a job allow that decision to take place?' They will. Member for Blair, you will too. I think one day in the future you'll go: 'You know what, member for Riverina? You were right.' We'll be in our dotage; we probably already are there. But you'll say: 'You know what? You were right. You were right.' And that's what I fear.

I just think this sort of legislation is unnecessary. Why is it happening? I don't get it. I mean, we've got the Commonwealth Parole Board. 'This legislation seeks to establish an independent'—well, everybody's always making as if 'independent' means that they are totally devoid of having political acumen or political decision-making ideas. No-one—let's face it—is really, truly independent. They have to vote for someone. They'll come here with their biases. They'll all be lefties. You can just see it. But, anyway. It continues with 'an independent federal parole authority to replace the Attorney-General'—why? I don't know—'as the primary decision maker for parole or federal offenders'. It says, 'Currently the Commonwealth is the only jurisdiction in Australia where elected officials make parole decisions.' Good! Excellent! Fantastic! Let's keep it that way. 'The Parole Board bill aims to depoliticise'—go figure that one out—'this process by appointing a board of experts.' Experts? That's a drip under pressure. 'This would include legal professionals, law enforcement, psychologists and victims advocates to assess parole applications based on risk and rehabilitation potential.'

You know what we'll see? We'll see these federal offenders making all sorts of wonderful applications and reasons as to why they should be released and why they should be out in the community, and you'll get this bunch of woke wets who'll go: 'Oh, yes—poor little Johnny and poor little Mary suffered a traumatised childhood. They should be released.' I say bunkum! I'm sorry if I'm the lone voice against that, but sometimes you've got to take a stand. Sometimes you can't be silent when you ought to speak, and I'm speaking because I think this is a folly. This is a risk, and it's a risk to good law and order.

I'm no lawyer, and you could probably shoot holes in my argument left, right and centre. But I'll tell you what. I stand here for ordinary, average, everyday Australians who expect better. They expect better from a government which they gave a landslide majority to—in the number of seats, not necessarily the number of votes—at the May election this year.

This legislation worries me. It truly does. 'The Parole Board will have the powers and functions to make decisions about whether convicted federal offenders are released into the community.' I really worry about this because what we'll see is when the first offender is released by the first woke, wet, leftie board—you can laugh all you like, but that's what they'll be made up of—Ben Fordham and the other shock jocks will have a field day, as well they should. And I hope they refer to my speech as the lone voice against it. I hope they say: 'You know what? The member for Riverina was right. He was a hundred per cent correct, because he belled the cat on this particular piece of legislation, which should not have even been debated.'

Why we are outsourcing the work of the Attorney-General to a bunch of so-called experts I will never know. And that is why the coalition will be opposing this all the way. Even if I am the only voice speaking against it, I think it's bad policy. I think Labor should go back to the drawing board on this, and I think the Attorney-General should do the job that she was elected to do—'she' at the moment; 'he', maybe, in the future. Who knows? It doesn't matter. We've got a good Attorney-General. She should do her job.

I'm pleased to speak on the Commonwealth Parole Board Bill 2025 and the Commonwealth Parole Board (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2025. At the outset, the Albanese government's highest priority is keeping Australians safe. To that end, the legislation will establish a new independent Commonwealth Parole Board, which will strengthen community safety by empowering law enforcement and community safety experts to make critical decisions about whether convicted federal offenders are released into the community on parole and the conditions under which they are released. Determining what circumstances a federal offender should be released into the community on parole is a critical decision. The bills will ensure these decisions are made by experts who have the qualifications, experience and knowledge to assess the risk posed to the community and whether an offender is suitable for release into the community on parole. We believe these decisions should be made by law enforcement and other community safety experts, not by politicians. Currently decisions are made by the Commonwealth Attorney-General. Parole decisions are complex.

Sitting suspended from 17:55 to 17:57

The Commonwealth Parole Board will strengthen the public's trust and confidence in the federal parole system by protecting the rights of incarcerated individuals to have their applications for liberty considered in an independent, transparent, fair and accountable manner and by addressing the risks of perceived political interference in parole decisions.

What we're doing here is very similar to what's happening in the states and territories, and it's important that we have separation of powers. I grew up under the Bjelke-Petersen regime, which had no respect for the separation of powers. It's critical that we have separation of powers. It's best practice, and it's happening across the states and territories. International partners who we follow and respect—such as Canada, the United Kingdom and New Zealand—are doing it as well. Independent parole decision-making bodies are widely accepted as an improvement in the administration of justice, having been adopted throughout Australia. All states and territories have implemented parole decision-making schemes that provide a degree of independence from the primary decision-making of the executive.

The Commonwealth is currently the only jurisdiction in Australia where elected officials make primary decisions about parole. Currently, once a federal offender is sentenced, responsibility for determining parole shifts to the executive branch of the government in the federal Attorney-General and delegates within the Attorney-General's Department. And that's exactly the problem which the member for Riverina does not quite understand, in terms of separation of powers. A federal parole authority will help take the politics out of parole and address the risk of perceived political interference, ensuring apolitical, consistent and evidence based parole decisions. If we were to take reductio ad absurdum, for the member for Riverina, we would have no Administrative Review Tribunal, no Federal Circuit and Family Court, no Federal Court and no High Court of Australia. That's the argument he's putting, if you take it to the extreme, because everyone brings their own views, philosophies and beliefs into the system, but judges and people who engage in these particular roles, in terms of the Parole Board, have to make decisions based on the evidence, the facts of the case and the law. That's the case. At the same time, we're making amendments here that provide the Commonwealth Parole Board with flexibility.

The background is really important. The member for Riverina should listen to this. The idea of a parole board is not new. There have been a range of calls for an independent Commonwealth parole board over the years, as well as some preparatory work to establish such a board. The former Whitlam government attorney-general Kep Enderby, who's widely respected as a very important figure not just in terms of the law but in Australian Labor history, was reported as having early discussions with state justice ministers to establish a federal parole board back in 1975. At different times, the Australian Law Reform Commission recommended that the Commonwealth could and should establish a federal parole board, noting intractable challenges within the federal parole system.

Then, during the Gillard government, the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs recommended 'the Australian government give further consideration to establishing a federal parole board' in a report on the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Powers and Offences) Bill 2011. More recently, the Law Council of Australia called for an independent Commonwealth parole board, including in its detailed 2022 position paper Principles underpinning a federal parole authority. So this is not new. It's been going on for 50 years, and it's about time we did it because it's the right thing to do and it's the right thing to do in terms of separation of powers.

Given this history of expert and stakeholder support and the current environment, the government believes the time is right to establish a Commonwealth parole board. There are about 1,200 federal offenders currently serving sentences across every state and territory in Australia, which is more than the prison populations of the ACT and Tasmania combined. The current legislative framework is no longer appropriate, given the significant rise in the number of Commonwealth criminal prosecutions and convictions since 1990.

We don't have the Attorney-General make decisions here with respect to prosecuting people. We have the Director of Public Prosecutions, the DPP, do that because we live in a democracy that believes in the rule of law and the separation of powers. That's what the member for Riverina could not understand, and that's why what we're doing is at the back end of this process. At the front of the process, we anticipate and expect that the DPP will act in an apolitical way and act on the law and the evidence and the facts in determining whether someone gets prosecuted. We do not live in a communist dictatorship or a fascist dictatorship. We live in a democracy, a liberal democracy, where the rule of law is absolutely critical and the separation of powers is absolutely vital to respect human rights and liberties that we anticipate and expect all Australian citizens to experience.

The number of parole decision at a federal level has continued to rise every year. More than 530 parole related decisions were made in 2024-25, and the number of decisions has increased by 10 per cent every year. On top of this, over time the federal offender cohort has changed, and now that includes increasing numbers of offenders that pose a direct risk to community safety, such as terrorists and child sex offenders. That's happened, by the way, at a state level, in my experience and observation, as well. So we need to act now to address this based on the evidence, based on the reports, based on the Law Council's recommendation and based on the parliamentary committee's recommendation.

Looking at these bills, just briefly, I want to say what this will do. It will establish a Commonwealth parole board as a secondary statutory structure in the federal Attorney-General's portfolio. It will provide for the Commonwealth Parole Board's membership, functions, decision-making and administrative arrangements for the release and management of federal offenders and other detainees. We will amend the Crimes Act 1914 to replace the Attorney-General with the board as the decision-maker for the management and release of federal offenders in the community on parole and licence, including the conditions under which they are released. We'll also make changes to the statutory timeframes for parole decision-making.

The board will bring together experts from a range of professions. If you listen to the member for Riverina, he obviously doesn't trust crime advocates, psychologists and other community safety experts. They're the kinds of people—experts in law and order, experts in law enforcement and corrective services staff—that will be on the board because they're the people we would employ to be on the board.

When recommending appointments to the board, the Attorney-General would ensure that the board possesses a range and a mix of qualifications, experience and knowledge and reflects as closely as possible the composition of the Australian community at large, to ensure the integrity of the scheme. Many parts of the Australian community have different experiences of the criminal justice system, either as victims or offenders. It's important that the board's membership includes individuals with a range of skills, expertise, lived experience and knowledge of the needs of the people and groups of people significantly affected by the board's decisions. That includes experts in law enforcement, the criminal justice system and the effective reintegration of offenders—making sure that people don't re-offend. Recidivism is a big issue in our community, and we've got to make sure that people no longer commit repeat offences.

The board will include people who are involved in community issues such as substance abuse or mental health issues—experts that understand these things and the impact of offences on victims. I've got a lot of faith in the Attorney-General, but I don't think she would portray herself as an expert on substance abuse or mental health issues. She was a very experienced lawyer and she's a good parliamentarian as well. So she is not an expert, and neither am I, and I spent nearly 10 years practising in criminal law as well as other areas of litigation. I don't consider myself an expert in the area. My grade 12 biology at Bundamba State Secondary College does not qualify me for understanding anything in relation to the human brain and how it operates. It does not.

So we need experts in this area to strike a balance between having relevant subject expertise on the board and people who are reflective of the wider community, in tune with community expectations and standards. That's absolutely critical. Ultimately, community safety will be the board's highest priority. It's important to ensure that all decisions about parole assess risk.

We're going to have a chair and a deputy chair. It's not unusual. You would think, if you listen to the member for Riverina, that we will just gather a few people off the street without any expertise and no knowledge and put them on the board, and they can go into a room and make decisions. We're going to have a chair, a deputy chair and three sessional members who will have the power to amend, make, revoke and rescind parole for offenders. It's absolutely important.

The board will consider a broad range of matters. I won't go through the whole thing, but it's really important for people to understand that the board's remit does not override the states and territories. It's limited to federally convicted criminals, those who committed crimes under Commonwealth legislation, including drug importation, online child sex offenders and social security fraud among other things. Let's be clear; the board's going to make decisions in relation to terrorism offenders, and the bill won't change the statutory prohibition against parole for terrorism offenders. It's a very high threshold that must be met for a person convicted of terrorism offences to gain parole, and parole can only be granted in exceptional circumstances that justify the release. That won't change at all.

The board is expected to commence operation in the second half of 2026, subject to passage of the legislation, and we've allocated money for it.

The feedback from stakeholders is that they are overwhelmingly in favour of this method, including the Australian Law Reform Commission, the Law Council of Australia and National Legal Aid. The Law Council has had a longstanding position supporting the establishment of a Commonwealth parole board and welcomes the legislation. The Law Council said the Parole Board would 'protect the rights of prisoners to have their application for freedom considered in a transparent manner and without political interference'. The chair of National Legal Aid and chief executive of the Legal Services Commission South Australia has supported the change. She said:

This will promote high-quality, evidence-based decision-making, and guard against the risk of politicisation …

It's also been welcomed by victim support groups and legal advocacy organisations.

I know how important this is. It is important reform legislation. I think it's one of those things about which the current Attorney-General could say, at the end of her long career, 'I was involved in this process.' It's a good thing. It's a good outcome. I have no qualms and I have no reservations in relation to this. This happens at the state and territory level. It's good practice. It's world's best practice. We should do it. It's long overdue, and I support the bills.

I thank honourable members for their contributions to the debate on the Commonwealth Parole Board bills. This legislation will ensure that decisions about the release and management of federal offenders are made by people who have the appropriate skills and experience to make decisions about an offender's prospects of rehabilitation and reintegration into the community and, ultimately, the risks they pose to community safety.

These bills will provide for the establishment of an independent Commonwealth Parole Board as a secondary statutory structure in the Attorney-General's Department. The members of the board will be independent, statutory office holders. The legislation will provide for the decision-making arrangements, structure and framework of the board to make independent, risk-informed decisions about the conditional release and management of federal offenders and other detained persons, in accordance with part 1B of the Crimes Act 1914. It will set out the membership of the board, the appointment process of board members and the mandatory requirements for board positions.

These requirements will ensure that the board's membership includes individuals who have a diverse range of skills, expertise, lived experience and knowledge of the needs of people and groups of people significantly affected by the board's decisions. The board will also retain discretion to consider all information that is known and relevant to a decision and will have the appropriate information-sharing powers to support their decision making.

To reinforce the board's independence, this legislation explicitly states that the board is not subject to direction from anyone in performing or exercising its functions or powers. To support transparency and accountability, the chair will be required to develop an annual report to be tabled in parliament on the board's performance and its functions. The bills will also provide for a legislative review to commence three years after the board's commencement. The amendments to part 1B of the Crimes Act will replace the Attorney-General with the board as the decision-maker for parole.

The purpose of parole will continue to be the rehabilitation and reintegration of federal offenders and the protection of the community. These amendments will ensure the board has key decision-making powers, including the power to make, refuse to make or amend parole orders for federal offenders and to deal with other relevant matters such as release on licence orders, breaches and revocation of parole or licence orders, overseas travel requests, and the ability to amend orders in certain circumstances.

The amendments to the Crimes Act will also provide the board with the discretion to manage statutory deadlines for people being considered for parole. The legislation also provides for the necessary transitional arrangements.

The establishment of the Commonwealth Parole Board will promote community safety and justice outcomes, as it will ensure these critical decisions are made by independent experts who are best placed to make the robust assessments of risk required to protect the community. I commend the bill to the House.

The question is that this bill be now read a second time.

Question unresolved.

As it is necessary to resolve this question to enable further questions to be considered in relation to this bill, in accordance with standing order 195 the bill will be returned to the House for further consideration.

Is there anyone that wishes to speak? As there are none, the question is that this bill be now read a second time.

Question unresolved.

As it is necessary to resolve this question to enable further questions to be considered in relation to the bill, in accordance with standing order 195 the bill will be returned to the House for further consideration.

The VET Student Loans (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2025 addresses a technical but important issue in the administration of our vocational education loan system. It ensures that students, training providers and the government all have the clarity and confidence that they deserve in the operation of the VET Student Loans program. This is a responsible and necessary measure that fixes a problem identified during a review. It provides certainty to the sector, and it strengthens the integrity of a system that supports tens of thousands of Australians to gain new skills and qualifications. Vocational education is a highly valued resource in my community, and much of this important work to upskill workers is happening in north-eastern Melbourne, in my electorate of Jagajaga, thanks to some really important investments from our Labor government.

Income-contingent student loans for vocational education and training students were first introduced under the Rudd Labor government in 2008 under the VET FEE-HELP scheme. That allowed VET providers to handle student tax file numbers, as those identifiers are essential to linking students' loans with their Australian Taxation Office accounts. In 2017, the VET Student Loans program replaced the VET FEE-HELP scheme. It brought in stronger integrity requirements and a new legislative framework: the VET Student Loans Act 2016. However, the new legislation did not explicitly provide a role for VSL providers to handle tax file numbers, even though the IT systems that supported the program continued to operate as they had under the previous framework.

During a review of the program, the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations identified this misalignment between the legislation and the technology platforms that manage loan applications and data. This bill ensures that the law will now match what has occurred in practice. It retrospectively authorises the handling of students' tax file numbers by approved VSL providers for the purpose of administering student loans. This retrospective authorisation will apply from 1 January 2017, when the program commenced, until 30 September 2025, when final system updates fully removed the need for providers to handle tax file numbers. Put simply, this bill provides legal certainty that past actions that were taken in good faith to administer student loans were lawful.

While this bill deals with the past, it also ensures confidence for the future. Throughout 2025, the department has implemented system updates to mask tax file numbers from providers and automate their secure transfer between the student interface and government systems. This means that from 1 October 2025, providers will no longer handle tax file numbers at all. These are important reforms that strengthen privacy and reduce the administrative burden for training providers while maintaining integrity and accuracy in the loan system. I also want to assure members and students in my community that no students have been adversely affected by the past handling of tax file numbers and that the department has received no complaints relating to this issue since the program began in 2017.

This bill is all about certainty and integrity, but I also think it's about something broader. It's about the value that our government places on skills and training, and the work we are trying to do to continue to build a robust TAFE and training system that is giving Australians the best possible future and the best possible chance at a good future with the job and the skills they need. We know, on this side, that free TAFE is delivering real opportunity right around the country. It's helping hundreds of thousands of Australians to gain the skills they need while also strengthening our workforce in key industries. That's why I continue to be surprised that those opposite have free TAFE on the chopping block.

Despite having recently gone to an election where it was wholeheartedly endorsed by my electorate and others, despite the results we see through our TAFE and training sector—where people are getting the skills they need to get good jobs, where we are filling workforce shortages right around our country in key industries—the Leader of the Opposition and her colleagues continue to come into this place, and go out to the community, and oppose Australians getting the skills they want for the jobs we need. I was here in the last parliament when the Leader of the Opposition said: 'It's a key principle and tenet of the Liberal Party: if you don't pay for something, you don't value it.'

I want to be very clear. Our government does not see it that way. We believe in opportunity. We believe that every Australian, no matter their background or their postcode, deserves the chance to learn, to upskill, to work and to build a better life for themselves and their families. We believe that education should open doors, not close them—that skills and knowledge are the great equalisers of our society. The truth is, as the Prime Minister has said, that, no matter how far TAFE helps you climb or what opportunities it opens for you and your family, the Liberals and Nationals will always look down on the very education that gave you that lift. We do not see it in this way. That is the difference. This opportunity to help people to get these skills, to get the future that they deserve, is what drives and defines our government: helping Australians now while also building for the future.

I'm really pleased to see how this is playing out in my electorate in north-eastern Melbourne. We have a number of excellent TAFEs and vocational institutions locally that have for many years been playing a vital role in creating opportunity and that I know are feeling reinvigorated by this government's focus on skills and training and by the investments we are making in this.

Unfortunately we don't have a quorum, so I have to suspend proceedings. The chair will be resumed when a quorum is present.

Sitting suspended from 18:21 to 18:24

(Quorum formed)

As I was saying, in my community I certainly know that these skills are very much valued, and the investment in TAFEs is very much valued. We are fortunate to have Melbourne Polytechnic campuses in both Greensborough and West Heidelberg. I've visited these many times, and I often hear from students about the quality of the education and support they receive. The Centre of Excellence at Melbourne Polytechnic's West Heidelberg campus is already upskilling locals in Jagajaga and across Melbourne in critical and emerging industries. This includes targeted training in affordable and environmentally sustainable construction techniques. I was talking earlier about how our investment is helping to fill skills shortages, and this is really about us using these skills and using this investment, not just to give young people and other people the skills and training they need but also to deliver on our national housing needs, which is obviously especially timely given the significant housing investments we are making.

By allowing these students at these facilities in my electorate and, as I said, right around Australia to defer the cost of their tuition until they earn a sufficient income, this program opens the door to opportunities for thousands of Australians every year. Without it, many would not be able to study at all and our businesses and communities would lose the benefits of a skilled and qualified workforce. That is why this bill and the broader work we are doing are so important in making sure we have a system that operates in a strong, transparent way and is set up to deliver for our country now and into the future.

So I'm really pleased that this bill is fixing a technical issue that arose from the transition between the two loan schemes, providing students and providers with the certainty they deserve. But I'm also really pleased that as a government we are putting such a focus on skills and training. I get to see frequently, as I said, what a difference that makes in my community. I always love meeting particularly the construction apprentices at the West Heidelberg site and learning from them about the opportunities they see in their future and learning from their instructors about how important they know the work is.

So we as a Labor government are opening up these doors to opportunity for everyone. We are saying that this is not about how much money you earn, this is not about your background; this is an opportunity for every Australian to get the skills they need in order to get a good job and to help us as a country to build the workforces we need. So I'm very pleased to be speaking on this bill and to be supporting this bill and our government's broader work in skills and training. Thank you.

On this side of the House we believe in technical education. We believe in equipping Australians with the skills they need to succeed in their futures. Those opposite don't believe in TAFE; they don't believe in the skills sector. On this side of the House we believe in making TAFE more affordable. That's why we've drastically expanded access to fee-free TAFE right across the country.

Those opposite say that if you don't pay for something you don't value it. Well, in May, Australians showed that they disagree. They elected a government that believes that Australians value bulk-billing, even when they don't pay for it, because it keeps Australians healthy and working. They elected a government that believes that Australians value getting 20 per cent off their student loans because it lessens financial burdens that keep young people out of homeownership. They elected a government that believes that Australians value investments in TAFE and investments in Australian skills because of the value that skills add to the Australian economy.

The VET Student Loans (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2025 represents additional recognition of the value of the skills sector. It's a bill that represents real certainty to students, training providers and the government alike. This legislation is about fixing a gap. It ensures that the Vocational Education and Training Student Loans Program—the system that helps tens of thousands of Australians train for essential jobs—continues to operate on firm and lawful footing. It matters to people right across my electorate of Hughes, from Liverpool to Menai to Ingleburn to Macquarie Fields. It matters to apprentices studying at the Loftus campus of TAFE Sutherland or TAFE Liverpool. It matters to the next generation of builders in Macquarie Fields and to parents returning to work after a break who rely on flexible vocational education to get ahead. It was fantastic to visit Macquarie Fields TAFE with Minister Giles, the Minister for Skills, and see all the members of our community who are learning new skills to help them get to the careers they want to achieve.

The VET Student Loans Program replaced the old VET FEE-HELP scheme in 2017. That change was necessary after widespread rorting of the old system. But during a review of how VET student loans were being administered it became clear that the 2016 legislation did not explicitly authorise providers to handle students' tax file numbers. The tax file numbers needed to match student loans to their tax account. That created a technical inconsistency between what the system was required to do to function and what the law actually said providers could do. Training providers had to collect TFNs to process loans, but the law had never given them the power to do so. This bill fixes that inconsistency and retrospectively authorises VET providers' handling of TFNs from the time the program commenced on 1 January 2017 through to 30 September 2025 when the IT systems of the department were able to remove the need for providers to handle TFNs altogether. This is not an additional loophole. It's not an additional power grab. This is just an alignment between the law and the technology that supports the vocational education system. It provides certainty to students, training providers and government officers who have done the right thing administering these loans in good faith.

With regard to why is this retrospective and privacy, this change has no impact on students' privacy rights. Since 2017, VET providers have been required to meet strict information security and integrity standards. They must notify the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations if there is any data breach. They face civil and criminal penalties for any misuse of personal information.

During a review of how VET student loans are administered, the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations identified that there was no clear role in the VSL act for VSL providers to handle TFNs and that stronger alignment between relevant IT systems and legislation was required for handling TFNs. Our government is taking steps to fix a problem identified during the review in the last term of government—that of how VET student loans, VSLs, were administered. We've taken action to ensure that this issue is resolved and that there is certainty for students and providers.

The bill is a fix for the issue of VSL providers handling tax file numbers when the VSL act of 2016 did not authorise it. The Department of Employment and Workplace Relations identified that there is no clear role for VSL providers to handle tax file numbers in the VET Student Loans Act 2016. A stronger alignment between relevant IT systems and legislation was required, and that's why this Albanese Labor government is bringing forward the VET Student Loans (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2025 to ensure that this alignment is fixed and this problem is resolved.

This bill will retrospectively authorise VET student loan providers handling of students' tax file numbers for administering the VET Student Loans program. This bill will also provide certainty to providers and government officers that their past handling of student TFNs, for administering the VET Student Loans program from 1 January 2017 to 30 September 2025, was lawful. The Department of Employment and Workplace Relations has, since early 2025, made updates to relevant IT systems to mask tax file numbers from VSL providers and automate the transfer of tax file numbers between relevant systems, meaning that VSL providers no longer need to handle tax file numbers.

A tax file number is information that is essential for administering a loans program of this kind. This is because tax file numbers enable accurate tracking and repayment of VET student loans through the tax system. There will be no change to the way students apply for a VET student loan using electronic systems. There have been no VSL student complaints as a result of past tax file number handling practices for the purposes of the VSL program since it commenced. Providers have also been subject to security controls in the relevant IT systems and integrity safeguards to protect students' personal information. These safeguards include requirements for providers to comply with strict use and disclosure provisions that apply to vet information under the VSL Act, to undergo extensive approval processes to become an approved provider and to notify the department of any student related data breaches. These protections that have previously applied to VSL providers' handling of tax file numbers will continue to do so after the bill's commencement.

This bill will apply to all current and former VSL providers and their officers who have handled students' tax file numbers to administer their VSL loan applications and their VET student loans themselves prior to 1 October 2025. It also extends to other relevant persons, including the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations secretary, the Commissioner of Taxation and Commonwealth officers. The Department of Employment and Workplace Relations has communicated with VSL providers about the IT changes throughout the year and continues to communicate with providers about this bill.

This government is ensuring that there is certainty in this system and that no-one else will be affected by a problem of this kind in the future. This government is determined to ensure that TAFE has a future in this country. VET student-loan providers are registered training organisations approved by the Australian government to deliver VSL approved courses, including TAFE institutions and private colleges. This bill will be applied retrospectively to be in effect from 1 January 2017 to 30 September 2025. This is a government that believes in the skills sector and, importantly, this is a government that is investing in the skills sector. I see the scepticism from the member for Goldstein. We know that they don't value things that they don't pay for, but we know that Australians do. And Australians voted for a government that wants to invest in TAFE, that wants to invest in skills, and that's what this bill is part of. This bill modernises the skills sector to ensure that it fits the situation as it exists, and it's another way that the Albanese Labor government is delivering for Australians and delivering for the future of our skills sector. I commend the bill to the House.

I'm really proud to stand here today to speak about the VET Student Loans (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2025. It might sound like a mouthful, but it is a simple, commonsense fix that makes sure our vocational education and training loan system works the way it was supposed to. This bill is about making sure students and training providers have certainty. It's about cleaning up the technical issues in the law so that everything's being done to help students get their training loans properly and lawfully. It's about making sure our system continues to be safe, secure and fair. Now, this isn't one of those flashy bills that gets all the headlines. It doesn't come with a big new announcement or a big funding package, but it is still important because, when you're dealing with something as serious as people's education and personal information, you've got to make sure the system is rock solid. If you're a student taking out a VET student loan, you want to know your personal details are protected. If you're a training provider, you want to know that your rules are being followed and that you're following them. And if you're a taxpayer, you want to know that the system is fair, transparent and being managed correctly. That's exactly what this bill delivers.

To understand what this bill does, it helps people to look back at how the system started. Back in 2008, the government introduced a scheme called VET FEE-HELP. It gave vocational education students access to income-contingent loans, meaning they could study now and pay later when they were earning enough. It was supposed to be a good thing, and it ran under the Higher Education Support Act 2003, the same law that runs student loans for university students. Under that old scheme, training providers were allowed to handle students' tax file numbers, or TFNs, because they was needed to set up the loans and link them to the students' Australian Tax Office accounts. But, as we all remember, that scheme went badly off the rails.

A handful of dodgy private providers took advantage of this system, signing people up for useless courses, offering free laptops and fake incentives and pocketing millions in taxpayers' dollars. The victims were often everyday Aussies—people on low incomes, people trying to upskill and get back into the workforce, young people who were just starting out and people in rural and regional areas like mine in the Hunter who just wanted a fair go. The system lost trust, and the students lost out.

In 2017, the government replaced VET FEE-HELP with the VET Student Loans program. It was a complete overhaul. It brought in a whole new act, the Vet Student Loans Act 2016, with stricter rules, tighter controls and better protection for students and taxpayers. It weeded out the bad operators, made sure only quality providers could access the scheme and brought back a bit of faith in the vocational training system. But there was one small detail that slipped through the cracks. When the new act was written, it didn't clearly say that VET student loan providers were authorised to handle students' tax file numbers. The old system allowed it. The new one didn't mention it, but the IT system and the processes that linked the loans to the tax system stayed the same.

That has meant that, since 2017, providers have still been collecting and using TFNs while students applied for VET student loans, because you can't set up a student loan without a tax file number. It's what allows repayments to happen through the tax system once a student starts earning enough. The Department of Employment and Workplace Relations picked up on this issue during a review. They realised that, while providers had been doing everything right in practice, the law hadn't kept up. There is no clear legal wording that allowed them to handle those TFNs under the VET Student Loan Act. So this bill fixes that problem. It retrospectively authorises approved VET student loans providers to have handled students' tax file numbers since the program began on 1 January 2017. It also covers government officials and agencies that were involved in administrating those loans, like the department, the Commissioner of Taxation and other Commonwealth officers.

In simple terms, the bill says that what providers and officials did to help students access VET loans was lawful. It gives everyone certainty and protects them from any potential legal issues that could have come up because of a small gap in the law. It's important to point out that this bill doesn't give providers any new powers. It doesn't let them collect or use tax file numbers in the future. In fact, it does the opposite. In 2025, the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations updated the IT systems used to run the Vet Student Loans program. Those updates mean that, from September 2025, providers no longer needed to handle a tax file number at all. The system now automatically and securely transfers that information between the student and the government systems. The TFN is masked so providers can't see it, store it or use it.

This bill isn't about giving more access; it's about closing the gaps and strengthening privacy. It makes sure everything that's been done since 2007 is lawful and everything going forward is even more secure. Some people might hear the word retrospective and think, 'Hang on, what's going on here?' Retrospective laws should always be used carefully, and they should only ever be used to fix something that needs to be fixed and not to change the rules after the fact. That's what's happening here. This bill doesn't change anyone's rights. It doesn't remove any protections. It doesn't let anyone off the hook. What it does, though, is confirm that everything that's already been done under the VET Student Loans program has been done properly and lawfully. It gives certainty to students, providers and the government.

It's worth noting that, since the program started in 2017, there haven't been any complaints from students about how tax file numbers were handled. There's been no evidence of misuse or privacy breaches. That's because the system has always had strong protections in place. Approved providers have to go through a detailed approval process before they can even offer VET student loans. Their directors and senior staff are checked to make sure they're fit and proper people to run a training business. They have to meet ongoing compliance requirements. If they misuse personal information, or fail to protect it, they face serious civil and criminal penalties. They also have to notify the department if there's ever a data breach.

These rules have been there since day one, and they're staying in place. Nothing in this bill weakens them. It just makes sense that everything is now legally watertight and in line with how systems operate. When we talk about fixing systems like this, it's about more than just tidying up paperwork. It's about trust. It's about showing that government is paying attention, that we're fixing the things that need to be fixed and that we're not afraid to clean up problems that have been sitting there for years.

We all remember what went wrong under the old VET FEE-HELP system. There were rorts. There were scams, and huge amounts of taxpayer dollars were wasted. People were signing up to courses they didn't even know they were in. Some of the stories were absolutely heartbreaking. Labor fixed that mess by replacing it with a better, stronger and more transparent system, and we've continued to make sure it keeps improving. This bill is part of that work.

It's not about rewriting the rules; it's about confirming that the existing rules have been followed and are solid and lawful. It gives students confidence that their personal information was handled properly. It gives providers confidence that they've done the right thing. And it gives the public confidence that the VET student loan system is being managed with integrity.

Every year, thousands of Australians rely on vocational education and training to build better lives for themselves. They're the people training to be electricians, mechanics, childcare workers, aged-care workers, chefs, welders, boilermakers and hospitality staff, or maybe even fitters like me. They're the backbone of this country and the people that keep things running. In regions like mine, across the Hunter, vocational training is a huge lifeline. It's how people get their start. It's how industries find skilled workers, and it's how local communities keep growing. When we make sure the system behind that training is strong and fair, we're investing in those people.

The Albanese Labor government has been clear that we're backing skills and training. We've delivered hundreds of thousands of fee-free TAFE places so that cost isn't a barrier for people who want to study. We've worked with the states and territories on a new National Skills Agreement that puts TAFE right at the heart of the system. We're investing in modern training facilities and better equipment. We're rebuilding trust in vocational education because we know how vital it is for Australia's future workforce, and this bill is part of that story.

It's a small fix but a hugely important one. It's about making sure the system works as it should behind the scenes, so students and providers can focus on what really matters: learning, training and building a future. It's also worth noting that this bill doesn't cost anything. It doesn't change the way students apply for their loans. The Electronic Commonwealth Assistance Form, or eCAF, will keep working exactly the same way as it does now. The difference now is that, behind the scenes, everything is properly aligned between the IT systems and the legislation.

This bill also protects the integrity of government officers who were doing their jobs in good faith. It makes sure that officials in the department, or the tax office, who helped process these loans weren't unknowingly breaching the law because of a gap in some wording. It provides legal certainty and peace of mind that everyone was operating properly. And I want to make something else clear: Commonwealth officers are bound by the same standards and laws as always. They must continue to follow the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act and the Public Service Act. Nothing in this bill changes those obligations for any of them.

In summary, this bill fixes a problem identified in the administration of the VET Student Loans Program. It aligns the legislation with how the system is actually meant to be operated. It provides retrospective authorisation that providers and officials are protected. It strengthens privacy protections. It doesn't change the way students apply. It doesn't give anyone any new powers. And it gives confidence and certainty to everyone involved. This is good, practical government. It's what happens when you pay attention, listen to the experts and take the time to fix the small things that keep the system running smoothly. The VET Student Loans Program is an important part of Australia's education system. It helps people to get skilled, find work and build a better life. It deserves to operate on strong, clear and lawful foundations. And that's exactly what this bill delivers.

Investing in skills is one of the smartest things a government can do. It builds our workforce, it supports small local business as well as large business in this country, it gives people pride and purpose, and it helps communities like mine in the Hunter to thrive. We want every Australian, no matter where they live or what their background is, to have the chance to study, train and succeed. The VET Student Loans Program helps make that possible, and this bill makes sure it will continue to run properly and securely.

While it may look like a small technical measure, it has huge impacts. It keeps the system strong, it protects students, it reassures providers and it ensures that the law reflects what is happening in the real world. That is why I'm proud to support the VET Student Loans (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2025. It's another step in strengthening our training system, backing Australian students and doing what good governments should do: fix problems properly and make things work better. I commend the bill to the House.

I rise today in support of the VET Student Loans (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2025. I don't think it is possible to understate just how important vocational education is. To put it simply, it changes lives, giving students career paths, helping them gain skills and confidence, and opening doors that might otherwise be closed to so many. It is also absolutely vital to ensure the effective running of our country. From tradies to childcare workers, from nurses to baristas and even graphic designers and HR workers, there are endless possibilities available through TAFE and private vocational education providers. The VET FEE-HELP scheme has helped to make these careers possible for so many people, deferring costs—the same as for the university system—and supporting students with income-contingent loans. Many could not go to TAFE without this. Education would simply be out of reach. So it is absolutely vital that the systems and processes that make this possible are fit for purpose and clear for all.

The VET Student Loans legislation has been in place since 2017. During a review, the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations identified an issue with how VET student loans were administered. The issue related to the handling of student tax file numbers and showed that there was no clear role for VET student loan providers to handle them. We are taking action to fix that today, and I am really pleased about that—applying the new rules retrospectively to ensure that there is continuity and clarity in how the law should be applied.

At the same time, the department has been working on its back-end IT systems to mask tax file numbers and automate their transfer between relevant systems. This bill will make the previous handling of tax file numbers lawful while also making that unnecessary and restricted in the future, streamlining the process and ensuring that the loans can be administered properly. I want to stress that providers have always been subject to security controls and integrity safeguards in order to protect students' personal information. These protections and safeguards will continue. It is also important to note that there will be no change to the way students apply for or receive these loans.

We have invested $42.2 million over four years from 1 July 2023 to build a modernised VET student loans IT system that further strengthens the department's administration of the VET Student Loans program. From the start of 2026, VET student loans will be underpinned by a new, modern assessment and payment system—just one of the ways we are improving government processes and efficiencies to help businesses and the Australian people.

As I said at the beginning, vocational education changes lives. It is so incredibly important, and, to be frank, without it we would lose workers from a whole range of critical industries that keep this country moving. The Albanese Labor government believe in TAFE, and we believe in vocational education. We will always invest in TAFE because we understand the hugely significant role that it plays in our community, and that's why we have worked hard to make TAFE free for over 685,000 students across Australia since 2023. That includes more than 50,000 childcare workers, more than 73,000 care economy workers, more than 11,000 construction workers and more than 10,000 clean energy workers with certificates III and IV in electrotechnology, electrician, plumbing and services, just to name a few. In the Illawarra alone, between January 2024 and June 2025, 4,781 people benefited from free TAFE. How incredible is that?

Just recently I was so excited to join the Minister for Skills and Training—along with the New South Wales Minister for Skills, TAFE and Tertiary Education; the member for Keira; and the member for Wollongong—to officially launch the brand-new renewable energy training facility at Wollongong TAFE, funded with $2.5 million from the Australian government that I was delighted to secure under the TAFE Technology Fund. These mobile training units will bring renewable energy education and career engagement programs directly to students in regional communities like the Illawarra. We had so much fun trying out all of the fantastic equipment—cycling to power household appliances, virtual reality welding, tracking electricity consumption across Australia and so much more.

The project includes a mobile community engagement truck featuring virtual reality experiences and interactive displays that showcase renewable energy concepts and career pathways; a mobile training truck providing hands-on experience with wind turbine, solar and electric vehicle components, aligned to TAFE NSW qualifications; and two dual-purpose shipping containers that double as mobile classrooms, fitted with renewable energy systems, battery storage and interactive learning tools.

It was a collaboration with the University of Wollongong through the Energy Futures Skills Centre—another amazing centre that we have invested $10 million in—to create the clean energy workforce of the future. It was impeccably designed by Australian company Exhibition Studios and their incredible team, with special mention to Karl Meyer, Meagan O'Neill and Matthew Riley—with all jobs remaining here in Australia. I want to also acknowledge the incredible work of Professor Ty Christopher, Director of the Energy Futures Network at the University of Wollongong. Without Ty's passion, incredible knowledge and dedication to a better energy future, none of this would be possible.

I know that in the Illawarra we absolutely must be training the workers of the future—preparing the workforce and our community for the energy transition that we must have. It's already here. It has already started. There are plenty of jobs already being created in the Illawarra as we carve out a spot for ourselves as a clean energy powerhouse. I am sure that these mobile training units will play a key role in that future.

I also want to touch briefly on another exciting announcement to come out of the Energy Futures Skills Centre just last week—the launch of the Energy Futures Zone at the Science Space, located at the University of Wollongong Innovation Campus. I could not have been more excited to open this new space on Thursday last week, along with the vice-chancellor of the University of Wollongong, Max Lu. No run-of-the mill cutting of ribbon for us—we got to open the zone with a liquid nitrogen science experiment, which I have to say is probably one of the most fun openings that I have ever done. There are zones to learn, zones to practise skills and zones to get excited about the job possibilities of the future, all in an interactive environment for everyone aged five to 105. Working in partnership with the TAFE units and with the broader Energy Futures Skills Centre which will open next year is how we will ensure that the Illawarra is ready, skilled and available to supply the workforce we need tomorrow and in the future. It's something I am so proud to deliver for our community because I know this is absolutely going to transform our local economy and the lives of so many young people who will gain the essential skills and knowledge that they need.

The renewable energy training facility is not all we are doing to invest in Wollongong TAFE. The Illawarra is home to a thriving advanced manufacturing industry that is innovating and growing locally, nationally and internationally. We've got BlueScope, of course—the backbone of the Illawarra for 50 years. We've also got newer innovators like Hysata, Gravitas Technologies, Sicona Battery Technologies and so many more that are working to ensure that Australia and the world have the tools and the technology for our future. These companies are expanding, they are innovating and they need a workforce pool that they can call on—a workforce with the skills to really contribute to these growing industries.

That's why I am also really excited that the Albanese Labor government has invested $23.53 million, matched by the New South Wales government, to develop the Illawarra Heavy Industry Manufacturing Centre of Excellence. This centre of excellence will focus on traditional and renewable manufacturing to support the development of a skilled workforce that can meet the demands of new technologies and rising automation. It will provide targeted training in traditional and renewable heavy industry manufacturing for the defence and transport sectors. It will also integrate emerging technologies and automation into training, equipping students for work in digital, electrical and robotic manufacturing. It will also deliver microskills and microcredentials to upskill current workers. It is amazing that we will have, based in the Illawarra, one of only three of these centres of excellence.

It is not just one piece that will help our economy transition from a coal based workforce to the new clean energy market. It is all of these pieces together, combined with real investment in industries and in the companies that are doing that work. They are being given the signals that the Illawarra is serious about playing a significant role in that transition.

Young people are excited about the jobs that the clean energy transition is providing and will provide. They want to be a part of it because they see it as their future, and local companies see that too. We're backing them in with our Future Made in Australia policies, including the Industry Growth Program, which is helping local companies like Gravitas Technologies scale their innovation and bring it to the world market.

We believe in the transition. We believe in the jobs and opportunities that it can provide, and we are backing it with world-class education and training. Free TAFE and VET loans put this within the reach of everyone in our community and tells them that this future is possible for them and they can fulfil that dream to be part of this new revolution.

We are also backing apprentices—supporting and encouraging businesses to invest in the education of our future workforce. As of December 2024, the electorate of Cunningham had 2,790 apprentices. Our government is investing in apprentices because we know how important they are for our economy and how important they are for growing skills. Apprenticeships support businesses. They put young people on a viable career pathway and they ensure that we have the skilled workforce we need for the future.

We're doubling the level of support for apprentices who finish a trade in the residential housing sector and in the clean energy sector, providing them with a $10,000 incentive payment under the Key Apprenticeship Program. The program provides eligible apprentices with $10,000 in incentive payments, on top of their wages over the life of their apprenticeship, to work in housing construction and in over 40 different energy careers. We've also increased the living-away-from-home allowance from 1 July this year to help apprentices who are struggling with the cost of relocating to undertake their apprenticeship. Investing in apprentices means we will have more tradies, which means more homes can be built today, tomorrow and in the future, and it encourages more people into the sectors that are playing a crucial role in transitioning our economy to net zero and supporting our aspiration for a future made in Australia. Eligible apprenticeships include designing and constructing; hydroelectricity; solar and battery installations; electric vehicle maintenance; and more. This is great news for young people, and it is great news for the future of our country. I am so excited to see what the future will hold.

I have been a big support of renewable energy because I can see the potential. I can see the opportunities that it holds, particularly in regional areas like ours. Net zero is the future. It has to be, and it will be. I want to see the Illawarra embrace it, because the reality is that we embrace it or we miss out. These jobs will be created, and we want them to be created right in the Illawarra. We want those jobs for our kids as well as for those workers in fossil fuel industries that are facing huge challenges and changes ahead. There is opportunity, and, as a government, it is our job to make sure that we are putting support into the right places to allow community and industry to move in the direction that we need them to. That starts with vocational education. It must be affordable, it must be accessible, and it must be fit for purpose. That is what I see as the common denominator across all of these areas I have just outlined—affordable vocational education using state-of-the-art equipment in the regions, local and accessible to anyone who wants to embrace it.

I am a proud supporter of TAFE and a proud backer of vocational education. I am pleased to see this bill supporting the mechanisms that allow young people to access VET loans while securing their information, and I really want to thank the Minister for Skills and Training for not only his work on this bill but his commitment to affordable and accessible vocational education. It was a pleasure to have him in Wollongong just recently, and I look forward to welcoming him back soon. I also want to take this opportunity to say a huge thank you to all of our hardworking TAFE and vocational education teachers. The work that you do is so valued and so valuable. Lastly I want to acknowledge all of those businesses who are taking on apprentices, investing in their education and their future. I want you all to know that you are making a difference in someone's life and giving them the key to their future.

The Albanese Labor government will continue doing all we can to support business, support students and support our community by investing in TAFE, investing in the jobs of the future and creating a future made in Australia. I commend the bill to the House.

I rise in support of the VET Student Loans (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2025 before the House. Vocational education and training is skills based learning. It producers our builders, bakers, aged-care workers, healthcare workers, electricians, technicians, gardeners, landscapers and many, many more. These are great careers, but importantly they're jobs that keep our economy thriving. The Albanese government has always supported TAFE and vocational education, and that's why we introduced fee-free TAFE. Fee-free TAFE has opened many pathways for Australians to build a new path in life. Fee-free TAFE is removing financial barriers for students undertaking vocational education and training courses. Fee-free TAFE opens doors for all Australians, whether you're finishing school, changing careers or upskilling.

In my own electorate just last month, I visited Eagle Farm TAFE alongside the Minister for Skills and Training. The Eagle Farm campus is nestled in the east of the electorate and is largely in an industrial hub that sits north of the Brisbane River. It is high tech. There are robots. There's 3D. There's everything you can think of. It offers a diverse range of trades and courses for many occupations for many constituents in my electorate and beyond. That TAFE college is training students right now in automation, security, locksmithing, glass glazing, boat-building, telecommunications, renewable technologies and utilities.

While I was there I met Zac, Tahi and their class. They were finishing their locksmithing apprenticeship—yes, locksmithing. Like many jobs, the skill requirements have changed, and technology and electronics now feature very heavily. Tahi's just from across the river, but Zac came all the way down from Townsville. They talked about the things that they were learning and the new pathways TAFE has opened for them. After four years, they're both excited to be fully qualified locksmiths. This is a great example of how our government, the Labor government, is helping young people achieve their dreams. TAFEs like Eagle Farm campus are delivering the skills and training needed to grow Australia's economy, caring for Australians, building the homes we need, supporting and building renewable energy, and creating a Future Made in Australia.

Fee-free TAFE—we've heard a bit about it from our earlier speaker—is part of training more Australians for these high-demand industries. Fee-free TAFE is a Labor legacy and has been extraordinarily popular, with many constituents in my electorate signing up. Over 128,000 Queenslanders are enjoying fee-free TAFE and are saving thousands in student fees thanks to the Albanese Labor government. Free TAFE is also required to build the Australia of tomorrow, making it easier for Australians to pick up the tools and get into high-demand industries. From school leavers to career changers, TAFE opens the doors to opportunity and lifelong learning. Places like Eagle Farm TAFE are at the heart of the vocational education and training sector, with the states and the territories growing our investment in fee-free TAFE and continuing to build a national network of TAFE centres of excellence.

TAFE is just as valuable as university. It gives Australians of all ages the skills they need to build their future. We see life-changing benefits not only in my electorate of Brisbane but also across Australia. Every week more Australians are enrolling in fee-free TAFE courses and more are getting qualified to make their contribution. Recent free TAFE data shows enrolments and course completions continuing to reach new milestones, showing just how popular this Albanese government program is. Hundreds of thousands of Australians are now directly benefiting from the program, with fee-free TAFE enrolments now over 725,000.

The Albanese government's free-TAFE policy focuses on priority areas agreed between the government and the states and territories to help address skills shortages. Priority areas include construction, health and aged care, manufacturing, and technology and digital.

One important skill area that is required in my electorate is construction, where we need skilled tradies from across the vocations. We are teaching Australians the skills to build the homes and the infrastructure required for our growing cities and suburbs. But we also need to supercharge our housing build to get more homes built sooner, and we can't do this without training more people in essential trades. Across Australia, construction sector courses have seen a surge in sign-ups, with 59,000 enrolments, making them the third-most popular type of free TAFE course. This popularity shows how effective and essential free TAFE is. There is a strong take-up in construction sector courses like carpentry, plumbing, building and construction, and electrotechnology.

Fee-free TAFE is particularly benefiting Australians from priority cohorts, with 170,000 young Australians, 124,000 jobseekers and 30,000 First Nations Australians enrolling in the programs. Fee-free TAFE is breaking down barriers for Australians to learn the skills we need. This program is saving Australians thousands of dollars and helping set them up for new careers with secure, well-paid work—setting them up for life.

So if you've been sitting on the fence and thinking about a career change or you're just starting to think about your career, reach out to a TAFE campus near you. You never know; it just might change your life.

A Future Made in Australia is a cornerstone of our economic and industrial policy and is one of the many measures to achieve our net zero ambitions. The Albanese government continues to deliver an ambitious reform agenda to strengthen the vocational education and training sector, close national skills gaps and train the skilled workforce we need right across the country. Around $600 million in measures in the 2024-25 budget will bolster skills growth and develop the clean energy, construction and manufacturing sectors, as well as support apprentices and help break down barriers for women in male dominated industries.

We will see demand and job growth in areas such as our critical minerals, batteries, solar panel manufacturing, electric vehicle mechanics and much, much more. These investments continue our work to remove the cost of barriers to education and training and incentivise people to train in areas our economy needs the most. This bill before the House, though, will provide certainty to VET student loan providers and government officers that their past handling of student tax file numbers in the student loan program from 2017 was lawful under taxation and privacy laws. It's a little technical. Income contingent student loans for vocational education and training students were first introduced in 2008 under the former VET FEE-HELP scheme.

Now, this scheme operated under legislation that allowed for the handling of student tax file numbers by VET FEE-HELP providers and higher education loan program providers. This continued under the VET Student Loans program with its own legislative framework, but a review of how the VET student loans are administered by the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations identified that there is no clear role for VET student loan providers to handle tax file numbers in the VET Student Loans Act and stronger alignment between relevant IT systems and legislation was required for handling tax file numbers. So the department has since early 2025 made updates to relevant IT systems to mask tax file numbers from the VET student loan providers and automate the transfer of tax file numbers between relevant systems, meaning that VET student loan providers no longer need to handle tax file numbers. But this bill ensures that the alignment by retrospectivity ensures that VET student loan providers were authorised to handle students' tax file numbers to administer the VET Student Loans program. I understand that it's unlikely that there will be any persons adversely affected by the retrospective operations of the bill and there have been no VET student loan student complaints as a result of past tax file number handling practices since the commencement of the VET Student Loans program.

The VET Student Loans program does have strict use and disclosure provisions that are applied to VET information under the VET Student Loans Act, which VET student loan providers must comply with. These protections have previously applied to providers and will continue to apply after the bill's commencement. These safeguards include requirements for providers to comply with strict use and disclosure provisions that apply to vet information under the VET Student Loans Act, undergo extensive approval processes to become an approved provider and notify the department of any student related data breaches. These protections have previously applied to VET student loan providers handling tax file numbers and will continue to do so after the commencement of this bill. With this bill, we are ensuring that there is certainty in the system and that no-one else will be affected by any problems in the future.

Now, the Labor government's approach to vocational training is in complete contrast to those opposite. The coalition cut $3 billion from TAFE last time they were in government, and almost 10,000 jobs were lost. The coalition at the last election also threatened to end fee-free TAFE. During this time of cost-of-living pressures and demand for vocational skills, free TAFE is an essential program to build Australia. Australian voters decided to back TAFE and prevent the coalition stopping investment in TAFE like they did the last time they were in government. We want to make sure Australians can go on to have well-paid and secure jobs, and fee-free TAFE creates those opportunities for individuals as well as for investing in the future of our great country. That's why the Albanese government has legislated permanent free TAFE to ensure Australians can continue to access courses without the cost barrier. We are locking in 100,000 fee-free places each year from 2027.

After a decade of neglect under the Liberals, the Albanese government is rebuilding vocational education and training and building out that sector. Free TAFE continues to be an enormous success, helping Australians get ahead while easing cost-of-living pressures. More than 500,000 Australians are gaining skills and the opportunity to work in meaningful jobs that give back to our society. Like Zac and Tahi, I met students across the country saying how life changing fee-free TAFE has been for them, and this bill, like fee-free TAFE, is part of the many ways we are rebuilding and securing our vocational education system to keep Australia thriving and to build the Brisbane and Australia of tomorrow.

I understand that the member for Pearce would like to present a copy of their speech for incorporation into Hansard in accordance with the resolution agreed to on 6 November this year.

The incorporated speech read as follows—

Thank you Deputy Speaker

I am pleased to give my strong support for the VET Student Loans (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2025. While this Bill addresses a technical and legislative issue, its implications are far-reaching. This legislation not only resolves an important legal gap but also strengthens the foundation of Australia's vocational education and training system, which is crucial to our workforce and economy.

Vocational Education and Training, or VET, is often described as a pathway—but it is so much more than that. It is the backbone of skilled employment and economic growth throughout Australia.

From the suburbs to regional towns and cities, Vocational Education and Training delivers the practical skills that industries rely on every day. Whether it is plumbing houses, engineering infrastructure, carpentry, automotive repairs, aged care, or information technology, VET supports a diverse range of professions essential for our nation.

The accessibility of vocational education is critical. Many Australians choose Vocational Education and Training because it delivers hands-on education aligned with workforce needs. It provides opportunities for young people starting out, for mature-age learners looking to upskill or retrain, and for communities in regional and remote areas where options can be limited. The VET Student Loans program is an important part of this ecosystem.

By offering income-contingent loans for eligible diploma-level courses and above, the program removes upfront financial barriers. This means students can focus on their studies without the immediate worry of tuition fees, and repay based on their income once they enter the workforce. It is an equitable, sustainable funding model that broadens access and supports lifelong learning.

The Bill under discussion today tackles an issue that emerged during a review by the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations (DEWR)—specifically, how students' tax file numbers, or TFNs, are handled by VET Student Loans providers during loan administration. Although it may seem technical or administrative, how this sensitive data is governed impacts student privacy, program integrity, and legal clarity for providers and government alike.

Under the existing VET Student Loans Act 2016, students must submit their TFNs as part of the loan application. TFNs are fundamental because repayments of these loans happen through the tax system. The TFN links the student's loan obligations correctly to their tax records at the Australian Taxation Office. So, proper handling of these numbers is essential for accurate tracking and repayment.

However, the Department's review revealed a gap. The 2016 legislation did not expressly authorise VET Student Loans providers to handle or manage students' TFNs. This was a significant issue because the previous VET FEE-HELP scheme—now replaced—was governed by the Higher Education Support Act 2003, which clearly permitted providers to manage TFNs within defined controls.

This legislative ambiguity presented risks: providers managing TFNs without clear legal backing, exposing themselves, the department, and government officials to potential legal challenges.

In response, DEWR acted decisively. Since early 2025, they implemented IT system upgrades to better safeguard this sensitive information. Now, TFNs are masked from providers in the student interfaces, and the transfer of TFNs is automated securely within government systems. This technical solution enhances security and privacy by limiting provider access to sensitive data.

The Bill now formalises these improvements by retrospectively authorising providers' handling of TFNs from 1 January 2017 through to 30 September 2025. Retrospective authorisation is critical because it removes any doubt about the legality of past administration of TFNs, providing certainty to providers, government officers, and the department.

I want to make clear that there have been no complaints from students about TFN handling since the program started—it is an issue that has been well-managed with appropriate safeguards. Providers operate under stringent security controls, including strict use and disclosure provisions under the VET Student Loans Act, rigorous approval processes, and mandatory notification of any student-related data breaches. These safeguards protect student privacy and will continue under this Bill.

Let me take a moment to highlight why this matter, while technical, is so vital. The TFN is not just a number; it is a key that unlocks equitable administration of the loans program and proper repayment tracking through the tax system. It ensures loan repayments are fair, timely, and tied to real income levels.

At the same time, the privacy and security of personal information must be guarded carefully. In today's digital world, with growing concerns about data breaches and misuse of personal information, robust security measures are non-negotiable. This Bill balances those considerations—upholding administrative effectiveness, legal clarity, and data protection.

It is also important to assure students and the public that this Bill does not change how students apply for loans. The current electronic Commonwealth Assistance Form, or eCAF, remains the user-friendly portal for applications, preserving ease of access as intended by the program's design.

Beyond data handling, this legislation supports the foundational role vocational education plays in Australia's economy and society. It supports students on pathways leading to high-demand, skilled professions.

These trades and careers—electricians, plumbers, carpenters, engineers, aged care workers, and many others—are the backbone of everyday life and critical to national productivity and innovation.

Vocational education drives social mobility. It opens doors for individuals who might otherwise be excluded due to financial or geographic barriers. By enabling students to access education without upfront financial strain, VET Student Loans promote workforce participation, skill development, and economic inclusion.

In addition, this Bill provides support to providers and governments by clarifying the law to align with current practices and technology. When legislation falls behind technological advancements or administrative practices, it creates risk and uncertainty. Bills like this one are necessary to modernise the legal framework, ensuring ongoing, uninterrupted, and lawful delivery of programs.

This Bill is part of the Albanese Labor Government's broader commitment to continual improvement and integrity in our public programs. It shows an attention to detail in governance—ensuring our systems are secure, compliant, and fit-for-purpose as they evolve.

To conclude, the VET Student Loans {Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2025 addresses an important technical gap with a practical, forward-looking solution. It safeguards sensitive student information, protects providers and government officers retrospectively, strengthens legal certainty, and supports students' access to vital vocational education and training.

On behalf of my constituents and all Australians seeking skills and qualifications through VET to build fulfilling lives and careers, I commend this Bill to the House.

Thank you.

I rise to speak on the VET Student Loans (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2025. On this side of the House, we know the importance of vocational education and training and its impact on opening up opportunities for so many in my community and right across Australia, whether it's a young person beginning their journey in the workforce or someone looking to reskill or upskill—a need which will become even more important to help address the economic changes our country is witnessing. It's the confidence of knowing that there are initiatives such as the VET and TAFE systems that are not only available but funded, supported and protected by the Albanese Labor government that gives certainty to students enrolled and looking to be enrolled knowing they have a government that supports them on their journey.

I want to highlight the importance of VET student loans to my community, to Australians and to our economy. The VET student loans program makes vocational education and training more accessible to Australians. It enables students to undertake a VET course and defer the payment of tuition fees to an income-contingent loan—a similar scheme to the HECS-HELP loans that enable university students to defer their fees until they pass certain wage thresholds. It's very much about fairness in our tertiary education system. It provides financial support to students undertaking higher level training and courses that address workplace and industry needs. These courses have arguably never been more important with respect to employment outcomes and opportunities, with the opportunities they afford by helping to address skills shortages in industries right across our economy, involving fields such as science, technology, engineering or mathematics and occupational licencing trades. This is particularly important for communities such as mine. Without programs such as the VET student loans, many students would not have the opportunity to undertake tertiary studies. Australian businesses and the economy would also miss out on the skill these students and alumni bring to our industries.

Our government is taking steps to fix a problem identified during a review of how VET student loans were administered in relation to the handling of a student's tax file number by a provider when completing an application for a VET student loan. The use of a tax file number plays a critical role when it comes to the use of a loan scheme such as the VET student loan scheme. It enables students to accurately track and repay their loans via the tax system. This legislation will take steps that will see providers no longer be required to handle tax file numbers of students. It provides the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations with the ability to realign its IT systems to enable this to occur. The changes will allow the department to mask tax file numbers of students and allow for the department to transfer tax file numbers within their relevant systems, relinquishing VET student loan providers from the need to handle tax file numbers. We've taken action to ensure that this issue is resolved and that there is certainty for students and providers. It provides integrity to the system and ensures that there's no disruption imposed on both students and providers. Students will still be able to fulfill the enrolment process when applying for a loan using the Electronic Commonwealth Assistance Form, as they were before these reforms.

We're a government that believes that bureaucracy should not override practicality so that technicalities don't hinder vocational education and training, don't hinder progress and don't inhibit the Albanese Labor government's focus on the skills and training required for today and into the future. These changes reflect the careful and considered work of our government in ensuring that Australians are able to participate in acquiring the skills they need to pursue their career of choice. As they embark on their education journey, it can be one made with confidence knowing that the system works.

On this side of the House, we'll continue to fight for VET and TAFE because we understand that a strong vocational education system is vital to addressing the economic challenges and opportunities that are before us. Australia's economy, both at present and going into the future, depends on a workforce with the skills that vocational training helps deliver and on the ability to skill and reskill our workforce to advance both our economy and Australia's national interest, delivering the future of energy and housing, delivering on manufacturing and delivering on a future made in Australia.

We understand the importance of having a workforce with the skills needed to seize new industries, support employers, meet community needs and stay competitive, and we, on this side of the House, back this in through policy and with purpose.

Our government supports those who will be on the front line in addressing the need to build more housing because we, on this side of the House, understand the role that apprentices play in addressing housing supply. Our government has invested in our future tradies by expanding the Key Apprenticeship Program to include a housing construction apprenticeship stream, providing up to $10,000 in financial incentives to new apprentices. This is on top of other key initiatives that support apprentices in their work whilst also delivering real cost-of-living relief, including the living-away-from-home allowance, the Australian apprentice training support payment and the priority hiring incentive.

This government's commitment to skills and training extends beyond VET. Free TAFE reflects what the Albanese Labor government stands for—providing real cost-of-living relief while also advancing opportunities for Australians to get the skills they need to participate in our workforce. Free TAFE, and our TAFE system more broadly, has been the cornerstone of economic participation in communities like mine in my electorate of Calwell, which has seen major changes to its industrial base, specifically the fall of the automotive industry that saw Ford and a raft of employers dependent on Ford close down, causing job losses for thousands in my electorate and surrounding areas. Our supply chains were torn up, and manufacturing was driven out of our community by a Liberal Party that launched a full-scale attack on Australian manufacturing, on Australian industry, on Australian jobs and on Australian families. It is these types of workers who will find the provision of VET TAFE and, specifically, free TAFE of significant help.

When workers need to reskill and to find their feet again in the workforce to regain the dignity of work and provide for themselves and their families, initiatives like this are a necessity. We had those on the other side—those responsible for destroying Australian industry, whose imaginations cannot extend beyond the vision of Australia solely as a quarry—shipping our resources overseas, failing to support value added manufacturing and driving down Australia's economic and manufacturing complexity to the floor. While we set standards, they see floors as ceilings. The now Leader of the Opposition, while talking about free TAFE, said, 'If you don't pay for something, you don't value it.' What a cynical view of the Australian people! Those opposite view communities like mine with disdain and view the Australian people with disdain.

We, on this side, value free TAFE, and we value the Australians who benefit from free TAFE, whether it's a young person leaving school and beginning their journey into further education, towards starting their career, or someone who's been retrenched in middle age, a difficult experience. Regrettably, that was not an uncommon experience in my electorate when those opposite were in charge and actively goaded our local industry to leave, seeing thousands of workers across Melbourne's north left to fend for themselves in an act of economic vandalism only those opposite could ever put together.

Workers like the ones I just mentioned are a key reason why fee-free TAFE is so critical. We remove a key barrier for those who need the opportunity and assistance the most. It's real cost-of-living relief for those who are looking to rejoin the workforce after a job loss or for younger Australians, who are set to benefit. That's why our government is supporting 100,000 places in free TAFE each year from 2027.

On this side of the House we understand that if we embark on large initiatives, such as Future Made in Australia and the Housing Australia Future Fund, we need to invest and support the institutions that will train and equip our workforce with the skills necessary to see these initiatives through and enable Australians to participate in the employment opportunities that these record investments bring.

I am proud of the work that TAFEs like the Kangan Institute do in my electorate, and I want to thank the Minister for Skills and Training for his steadfast advocacy when it comes to providing greater access to skills and training opportunities for all Australians. I know his commitment to our community, to Melbourne's north and to all Australians seeking to skill, upskill and reskill. Fighting for greater access to education irrespective of one's background or circumstances is a core Labor principle. It is a principle that drives members on this side of the House and indeed the Albanese Labor government.

The Albanese Labor government's commitment to opening opportunities to pursue education also extends to students enrolled in university and to those who have graduated. The very first thing we legislated was to cut student debt by 20 per cent and to change the way fees are indexed and repayments are made going forward. We legislated this promise, this commitment, and already student debt reductions have come into effect, providing major cost-of-living relief for so many Australians.

I want to also thank and acknowledge the work of the Minister for Education, someone who cares deeply about education but equally about the importance of the access and opportunity that education brings, particularly and importantly to our outer suburbs.

This reform is often associated with university students who have incurred a HECS debt from either their current or prior university studies. But it's not limited to just the cohort of students who attended a university, as over 280,000 VET student loans and Australian Apprenticeship Support Loans will also see a 20 per cent reduction. This gives students more financial freedom to focus on doing what matters to them. It's worth noting that often this comes at a critical time in their lives as they are starting a family, looking to purchase a new home and tackling the cost of living.

On top of the 20 per cent reduction in student loans, the Albanese Labor government has provided real support to students in my community in Melbourne's outer suburbs. For students in areas that I represent, it can be difficult to access university campuses. The government understands this challenge and has acted by establishing a suburban university study hub in my electorate, because we know that where these study hubs are, university participation rates go up. During the opening of the university study hub in my electorate, a student shared her experience of how the university study hub has enabled her to cut her commute time down to just minutes thanks to her close proximity to the study hub. This has enabled her to study and focus on the studies without disruptions to her work and personal life. Students shared not only the convenience that the university study hub delivers but also the importance of being able to access an environment and the facilities, resources and added wraparound support that it provides. One student was the first in her family to attend a university—a milestone. Students like this are the reason why we fight for education on this side of the House.

I am proud to support this bill. We will always support and fight for measures that make our education system more accessible, stronger and fairer. I commend this bill to the House.

Debate adjourned.

Federation Chamber adjourned at 19:33