I inform the House that, due to the recent party changes, certain members are no longer members of certain committees. As the list is a lengthy one, I do not propose to read it to the House. Details will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.

Is there any chance that could be read to the House, please?

I don't intend to delay the House with those details. They will be available for all members.

This procedure is in two parts. First of all, this is a procedure I hadn't expected to have to come back here and update. I move:

That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the House from moving the following motion immediately—That sessional order 65A be amended to read as follows:

65A Opportunities for crossbench Members

Consistent with the principle that the call should alternate between government and non-government Members and to enable crossbench Members to receive the call in accordance with the crossbench proportion of the non-government membership of the House:

(a) During Question Time, priority shall be given to:

(i) a crossbench Member seeking the call on the third, seventh, eleventh, fifteenth, seventeenth, twenty-first, twenty-fifth and twenty-ninth questions; and

(ii) an opposition Member seeking the call on the first, fifth, ninth, thirteenth, nineteenth, twenty-third, twenty-seventh and thirty-first questions.

(b) During each period of Members' statements in the House, priority shall be given to at least five crossbench Members seeking the call (standing order 43).

(c) During each period of Members' statements in the Federation Chamber on Mondays, priority shall be given to at least seven crossbench Members seeking the call (standing order 43).

(d) During each 30 minute period of Members' constituency statements in the Federation Chamber, priority shall be given to at least two crossbench Members seeking the call (standing order 193).

(e) During each one hour period of Members' constituency statements in the Federation Chamber, priority shall be given to at least five crossbench Members seeking the call (standing order 193).

(f) During the grievance debate in the Federation Chamber, priority shall be given to a crossbench Member seeking the call as the first speaker (standing order 192B).

(g) During the adjournment debate in the House, priority shall be given to a crossbench Member seeking the call as the first speaker (standing order 31).

(h) During the adjournment debate in the Federation Chamber, priority shall be given to a crossbench Member seeking the call as the first speaker (standing order 191).

(i) For the matter of public importance discussion, the Speaker shall have regard to the crossbench proportion of the non-government membership of the House in selecting matters proposed (standing order 46).

I'll save the arguments for after the suspension, when we get to the second motion.

Question agreed to, with an absolute majority.

I move:

That sessional order 65A be amended to read as follows:

65A Opportunities for crossbench Members

Consistent with the principle that the call should alternate between government and non-government Members and to enable crossbench Members to receive the call in accordance with the crossbench proportion of the non-government membership of the House:

(a) During Question Time, priority shall be given to:

(i) a crossbench Member seeking the call on the third, seventh, eleventh, fifteenth, seventeenth, twenty-first, twenty-fifth and twenty-ninth questions; and

(ii) an opposition Member seeking the call on the first, fifth, ninth, thirteenth, nineteenth, twenty-third, twenty-seventh and thirty-first questions.

(b) During each period of Members' statements in the House, priority shall be given to at least five crossbench Members seeking the call (standing order 43).

(c) During each period of Members' statements in the Federation Chamber on Mondays, priority shall be given to at least seven crossbench Members seeking the call (standing order 43).

(d) During each 30 minute period of Members' constituency statements in the Federation Chamber, priority shall be given to at least two crossbench Members seeking the call (standing order 193).

(e) During each one hour period of Members' constituency statements in the Federation Chamber, priority shall be given to at least five crossbench Members seeking the call (standing order 193).

(f) During the grievance debate in the Federation Chamber, priority shall be given to a crossbench Member seeking the call as the first speaker (standing order 192B).

(g) During the adjournment debate in the House, priority shall be given to a crossbench Member seeking the call as the first speaker (standing order 31).

(h) During the adjournment debate in the Federation Chamber, priority shall be given to a crossbench Member seeking the call as the first speaker (standing order 191).

(i) For the matter of public importance discussion, the Speaker shall have regard to the crossbench proportion of the non-government membership of the House in selecting matters proposed (standing order 46).

For the information of members, the reason we have to do this is significantly changed seating arrangements on the other side of the House. Effectively, when the member for New England moved to the crossbench, it had not occurred to us at the time that the entire National Party was going to move to the crossbench with him, and, while he's not their leader, they appear to be his followers in the pathway over there. We end up with a new seating arrangement here. We still have the traditional crossbench over in the corner there, but we now have the cross, the very cross and the apoplectic all in front of us here.

An honourable member interjecting—

How long did it take you to come up with this arrangement? Seriously! The one who just interjected was one of the people who, over summer, were saying: 'Gotta get the parliament here quickly. Gotta legislate straightaway. Gotta implement the whole of the antisemitism report straightaway.' The moment he gets here—the exact person interjecting now—it's: 'Oh, it's all too fast. Can you slow down, and these bits from the antisemitism report—can you just not go ahead with that, please? Can you not implement those?' Those at the back were saying, 'Can you please split the bill so we can vote against it twice?' That's the position they ended up with, effectively opposing any measures of change as a result of the horrors that happened with the antisemitic terrorist attack in Bondi.

We end up with a situation now where we go back to Billy Hughes with, 'You've got to draw the line somewhere.' He would join every party except the predecessor of the National Party. But where did the National Party decide to draw the line? On the bit of the legislation that would ban the Nazis. Of all the hills to die on, that's the one that made them decide they couldn't possibly remain part of the coalition anymore. They couldn't possibly stay there, because of the part of the legislation that would ban the Nazi Party. Effectively, the Nazis saw it coming, and we had two strong reactions to that part of the legislation: the Nazis disassembled themselves, and the Nationals disassembled the coalition. Those were the reactions that we had from both.

There are a number of things that change as a result. While the Speaker wasn't willing to oblige in terms of reading out the names of the committees, there are a whole series of committees where you have opposition members defined as members. Anyone who was a Nat in any of those committees has now been forced to leave immediately. They're no longer eligible, because they're not members of the coalition.

Now, we could restructure the committees this week; I just have no idea what the arrangements on that side will be in seven days time, and I don't want to be in a situation where the committee process of this House is completely left hostage to the chaos and the indulgence of the coalition—well, the former coalition. In fact, I might remind you, Speaker, now that there is no longer a coalition, the term 'no-alition' should be completely in order because it is not the official name of any of them in any permutation whatsoever. So we're not changing the committees today. At some point we might have to, because the number of people on the crossbench is now 28 and the number of people in the opposition is 28. It has happened before. It happened in the early 1930s, but it has not happened since then that we've had a situation where the crossbench has managed to rival the opposition in this House.

What we will change today is the order of questions for question time. Effectively, we can't have a situation where we only have—while the sessional order covers a much longer period of time, very often we end up with nine or 10 questions a side, and that would mean, at the moment, under the sessional order, that the crossbench—which occupies half of the non-government benches—would in fact only get three of the questions. We need to be able to change the sessional orders as a result of that.

The change that we're doing is that, while the first question will still be from the opposition, it will then alternate from this part of the non-government benches to that part, and it'll go back and forth for the first eight non-government questions. Then we have the second set of eight, under the sessional order, where it will alternate but start with the crossbench, going back and forth.

How long this will last I don't know. Watching the media, I don't know if we're moving to a situation where the crossbench in fact starts to become larger than the opposition. I see members of the crossbench nodding, but you might not want the ones you get. Be careful what you wish for! When we talked about the growth of the crossbench last time, you never expected this one was going to happen.

This is the only practical way to be able to deal with the chaos that we have from those opposite. As I say, maybe I have to come back in a week's time and do another sessional order—maybe not. Maybe we end up with a situation where—there's a tradition that the opposition always get the first question. We've kept that here, but no-one who watches Australian politics closely and is still alive has seen this before. The concept that two parties who are unable to govern their relationship with each other in any sort of adult way could be credibly considered to govern an entire nation just beggars belief.

When I first arrived here, it was the Howard government. We disagreed with a lot of what they were doing, but they were formidable and they were unified. To see the disaster that is before us now is something which is extraordinary and, I will say, unexpected. We will continue to update the procedures as the mayhem from those opposite demands.

I move an amendment to the motion moved by the minister:

(1) After "sessional order 65a", insert "and standing order 97".

(2) At the end of the motion, insert:

97 Daily Question Time

(a) Question Time shall begin at 2 pm on each sitting day, at which time the Speaker shall interrupt any business before the House and call on questions without notice.

(b) The business interrupted shall be dealt with in the following manner:

(i) if a division is in progress at the time, the division shall be completed and the result announced; or

(ii) the Speaker shall set the time for resumption of debate.

(c) Question Time shall not conclude until at least eight questions have been asked by opposition Members.

We were subjected to that unedifying display from the government, who have a right to change the sessional orders and the standing orders of this parliament—the right given to them by the Australian people to have 93 seats and do what they like. But just because you can do something doesn't mean you should do something.

I say to the government the following about these standing and sessional orders: it's reasonable for them to propose them under the circumstances, but the National Party is a defined political party under this parliament's rules and is sitting proudly as its own individual party separate from the Liberal Party—and the government knows that. It's purely a government trick to define them as crossbenchers. It's purely a government decision to say that the Nationals aren't sitting as their own party room. They are their own party and they sit together as their own political party. We don't accept the government's definition that they're part of the crossbench; the crossbench includes people elected as Independents and individuals to this place and people who have decided to sit independently. They meet the definition of 'party' in this House, by this House's rules, and they have an elected leader, by this House's rules; those are the facts. Regardless of any disagreement we have with them, or decision to sit separately as Liberal and National parties, they have the right to be treated as their own political party. They have the right to be given their own respect. They are not the crossbench. We reject that definition, absolutely.

The government has done that because, in its hubris and arrogance, it's decided to weaken the transparency of this House over time by various measures. We have seen the time allowed for the actual asking of a question reduced to a very simple 30 seconds, in a desperate, long-term measure to say, 'You have less and less time to get a question out to a minister.' We've seen a prime minister who, over time, has let fewer and fewer questions be asked each question time the longer he has been in office. Why do we think that is? Regardless of who's asking them, the Prime Minister has been cutting question time shorter and shorter.

If the Leader of the House admires the Howard government, he'll note that the Howard government—

Well, I think you said you're a big fan of the Howard government; I think that's what you were trying to say. 'In retrospect, it was a brilliant government' is what you were saying to us. At the time you didn't realise it, but now you see how good it was. One day you will see that about other governments. The Howard government allowed more questions in question time than you're allowing, more than the Prime Minister is allowing—and he's deliberately doing so.

These changes mean less scrutiny over the executive of the government—a vital function of this parliament, regardless of what side you sit on. Therefore, we don't agree with the ongoing process of the Albanese government to reduce transparency. When you couple this with the freedom-of-information changes the government is proposing that are friendless in our polity, friendless amongst the media, friendless amongst the crossbench, the National Party, the Liberal Party and anybody elected to this parliament, friendless in academia—they are friendless because they reduce transparency and scrutiny over government. This agenda the Albanese government are pursuing is deliberately against what they told the Australian people to get this supermajority they have got. Every opportunity they get, regardless of what it is, they will reduce transparency and reduce scrutiny. Over time, this erodes the whole parliament's ability to do its job.

So, while the manager of government business laughs and enjoys his political day, he is actually, under the cover of the problems we are having, reducing the parliament's ability to do its job. The truth of it is that the crossbench, the National Party and the Liberal Party agreed on a different order of business for question time, and the government rejected the fact that we could agree. That's the revealing truth about this situation. The government will not allow the parliament to agree if it isn't in the government's interests. We cannot decide the non-government order of questions, and the Leader of the House knows this. He's going to try and make sure that we fight amongst ourselves. This is deliberate. It's the agenda.

Government members interjecting—

It is. No, no, it is!

Order, members on my right!

It is. It is you, and of course you'll exploit and wedge this. I understand that, but you're doing it openly, brazenly, in the full light of day. I'd invite Australians not to forget that this government, from the moment it was elected until this moment, has reduced—at every juncture it can—scrutiny and transparency. It seeks to cut off the freedom of information rights of Australians, even as we speak.

I move my amendment because this will actually force the hand of the Prime Minister, and it will reveal the government's true agenda. My amendment says—and I say to every member here—that the Prime Minister may not cut off question time until eight opposition questions have been asked. That means that the non-government side will get its chance every day to have a minimum number of questions, stopping this slide that the Albanese government has started of the fewest questions asked per parliament of any parliament in our history. The manager of government business is right; he hasn't seen some things here, but we haven't seen a prime minister with fewer questions asked per question time either, and that is a problem for our democracy. That's why we move these amendments. That's why I believe all of the crossbench and the National Party and the Liberal Party and the opposition are all united in saying that we should have more scrutiny, more transparency and more opportunity for questions in question time in parliament.

Is the motion seconded?

I second the motion. I tell you what—there is a lot of hubris in the House on that side. There is a lot of hubris within the Canberra bubble. Yesterday, while the government got together and the Prime Minister was making jokes about the Australian people, talking about MAFS and other things, I was out in my community talking to community members. Someone said to me yesterday that they are shocked and scared. They are shocked and scared about 2.30 this afternoon. They are shocked and scared about what the RBA is going to do. And there is a reason they are scared. They are struggling to put food on the table.

The reason this government continues to fail is because it has no scrutiny. This prime minister has no scrutiny within his caucus. The backbench of the Labor Party know very clearly that they cannot follow their own conscience. The backbench of the government know that, if they go against the Prime Minister, what happens to them is that they're out. They get kicked out of the government. They get kicked out of the ALP.

Government members interjecting—

The minister for aged care asks me: who's been kicked out of the ALP? A lady called Senator Payman. Did you forget about Senator Payman, who had the temerity to talk in caucus with a different opinion to the Prime Minister and had the temerity to vote with her conscience in the Senate? How dare a member of the government have a conscience and choose what they would like to do, Minister for Aged Care! What happened when Senator Payman exercised her conscience? She did not leave; she was kicked out. She was told, 'You cannot sit with the ALP anymore because you do not follow orders.' So it is crucial that the opposition be able to hold this bad government to account because there is no-one within that caucus that will hold the government to account.

Let's use another example: gambling reform. Let's talk about the Murphy report. The member for Bennelong is prepared to put a few statements out there publicly about the importance of gambling reform. The member for Macarthur has said—and I want to commend the member for Macarthur; he's had the courage repeatedly, last term and this term, to speak out about this government without voting against them—that if the Murphy report and gambling reform went to a conscience vote it would pass this House. They are the words of the member for Macarthur. Do you need better evidence and proof of why you need an opposition with the ability to hold the government to account? This caucus does not have the courage of their convictions to vote on a private member's bill about gambling reform to honour Peta Murphy and to honour the Murphy report. They know that if they do, they will follow Senator Payman out of the ALP and out of the government. This is the challenge that we have here, being able to hold this government to account.

At 2.30 today, they know that the Australian people are going to be let down again. What has happened with this Treasurer is he has continued to pour fuel on the economic fire of inflation and he has made it worse. He promised the Australian people that he had slayed the inflation dragon. There is one country in the world where inflation and interest rates are going up, and that's Australia. These are the examples of why the coalition needs these questions, why the Liberal Party and why the non-opposition members need these questions to hold this government to account. I support the motion moved by the member for Mitchell.

Obviously, the issue we have is that there is no coalition. Just looking at it, if the Liberal Party have eight then obviously the crossbench will have to get eight, which means that the government will have to get 16. That's 32 questions. So what are we looking at? About 112 minutes. And with the condolence motions and everything else, that means question time is going for around two hours every day. And then, after that, you're going to have the MPI. You're starting to tie things up quite considerably.

The one thing you don't want to draw attention to is exactly what's happening. Staying here for two hours with the cameras focusing on what inevitably will be sorted out, but currently is a total fiasco, is probably not the best thing for the Australian people. It's a little bit of an indictment. I ask the coalition to just get it together and get us back to a normal parliament.

The question is the amendments moved by the Manager of Opposition Business be agreed to.

I declare that, unless otherwise ordered, the Copyright Amendment Bill 2025, Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures No. 2) Bill 2025 and Corporations Amendment (Digital Assets Framework Bill) 2025 stand referred to the Federation Chamber for further consideration at the adjournment of debate on the motion for the second reading of each bill.

I have to report to the House that, on 9 and 16 December 2025, I received advice from the Chief Opposition Whip and Chief Government Whip nominating changes in the membership of certain committees. In accordance with standing order 229(b), as the House was not expected to sit for several weeks, the appointments became effective on those dates. I now call the Leader of the House to move a motion to resolve the membership of the committees.

by leave—I move:

That:

(1) Mr Caldwell and Mr Pike be appointed participating members of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters for the purpose of the committee's inquiry into the 2025 federal election; and

(2) Mr M Smith be appointed a supplementary member of the Standing Committee on Regional Development, Infrastructure and Transport for the purpose of the committee's inquiry into local government funding and fiscal sustainability.

Question agreed to.

I have received a letter from the honourable member for Wide Bay resigning from the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement.

I rise to speak on the Copyright Amendment Bill 2025. This is a largely technical bill, the product of several years of consultation, roundtables and review work undertaken by the government in 2023. It's also been the subject of examination by the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee. While the coalition will not oppose the bill in the House and is likely to support it in the Senate based on the outcome of that inquiry, it is important that this parliament understand what this bill does, what it does not do and why its reforms matter.

Copyright is not an abstract legal concept. It is about protecting Australian creators, teachers, students, libraries, museums, small innovators and the cultural and economic value of the material that they both produce and preserve. It's about balance, clarity and fairness, and it's about making sure our laws keep pace with how Australians learn, teach, share and create today. Australia's Copyright Act 1968 is more than 50 years old. It has been amended often, but it has not always kept up with new technology, new learning environments or new cultural expectations.

This bill makes two sets of reforms. Firstly, it establishes a statutory orphan works scheme to allow responsible use of materials where rights holders cannot be found. It clarifies education exceptions for remote learning, ensuring teachers and students are protected when classes are delivered online or in hybrid form. Finally, it makes a series of technical and administrative amendments to modernise appointments, tribunal processes, archival definitions and notification methods. These reforms are incremental, but they're sensible and widely supported by a broad range of stakeholders. These amendments do not alter the fundamental rights of creators. They do not diminish the value of copyright, and they do not introduce the highly contentious text and data mining exception that many artists and creators feared.

Schedule 1 introduces a long-awaited statutory framework to deal with orphan works. Evidence suggests that as much as 70 per cent of library collections may include works where the copyright owner cannot be identified or located. Under the bill, a user is protected from infringement remedies in such a situation only if they have conducted a reasonably diligent search for the copyright owner, if they have undertaken that search within a reasonable period before use and if they've maintained records of that search and provided clear and reasonably prominent notice that they are using the work under the orphan works scheme. If the owner later emerges, they are entitled to a reasonable payment or to negotiate terms for its continued use. If an agreement cannot be reached, a court may set terms or issue an injunction to prevent the ongoing use. These protections are set out in new division 2AAA of part V of the act, including sections 116AAD to 116AAF.

This scheme unlocks enormous cultural value for galleries, libraries, archives and educational institutions. For too long, these institutions have been unable to digitise, preserve or make available materials simply because a rights holder from 60 years ago cannot be traced. This bill provides a lawful path forward. At the same time, the scheme safeguards the rights of creators. A diligent search must occur, records must be kept, notice must be given and any payment demanded by the rights holder must be reasonable and fair. However, the Senate inquiry heard stakeholders' concerns about lack of clarity in defining terms such as 'reasonably diligent search' and 'reasonable payment', particularly in commercial settings. These questions are not insignificant, and clarity will be essential to avoid unnecessary litigation. The opposition will keep a keen eye on how these terms are considered in practice.

Schedule 2 clarifies one of the most important issues arising from the pandemic: the copyright status of remote education. Section 28 of the Copyright Act currently allows teachers to perform or communicate works in the presence of students. This language made sense in 1968; it makes very little sense in 2025. The amendments make it clear that the exception applies to educational instruction delivered in person, online, through hybrid teaching or through real-time digital platforms. These changes reflect the way modern classrooms operate. Teachers no longer stand in front of a blackboard with chalk. They teach via Zoom, Teams, interactive whiteboards, learning portals and live streams.

Importantly, the bill also ensures that parents, guardians and community members assisting instruction are protected under the exception, provided they are not doing so for commercial gain. This is especially relevant for children learning from home, for students with disabilities, and for regional and remote families. However, the exception is not intended to apply to delayed viewing of pre-recorded classes. Copyright holders strongly opposed extending the exemption to recorded or delayed instruction. This issue was explored further by the Senate inquiry and remains a pressing concern. In their additional comments, coalition senators noted the need to balance copyright holders' rights with the needs of regional, remote and special-needs educators. The opposition will continue to monitor whether the contemporaneous instruction requirement strikes the right balance between providing educational access and protecting creators' rights.

Schedule 3 is largely housekeeping, but it matters for the clarity of the law. The bill modernises appointment processes for the Copyright Tribunal, shifting some functions from the Governor-General to the minister or the Federal Court CEO. It updates the definition of 'archives' to align with current state and territory archival bodies. It replaces outdated references to the Gazette with modern notifiable instruments and clarifies the interaction between Crown copyright and part VII of the act. None of these measures are controversial. They streamline administration and they remove redundant provisions.

It is also important to be very clear about what this bill does not do. The orphan work scheme cannot be used to justify large-scale AI training on copyrighted material. The explanatory memorandum itself acknowledges that this would be impractical and inconsistent with the requirement for an individual, diligent search for each work used. The Attorney-General ruled out a text and data mining exception in October 2024. The coalition strongly supports that position and, in fact, has been calling for such since the beginning of 2024. I should give a shout-out to my predecessor, the former shadow attorney-general the member for Berowra, for his good work in that space. Australian creators must not have their work scraped, copied or monetised by AI companies without permission and fair payment. This bill does not alter that principle in any way.

Most stakeholders support the bill, but several have raised concerns that the reforms are too incremental. The education sector welcomes the remote-learning clarity but argues further reforms are needed. Independent and Catholic schools have called for broader fair-dealing exceptions and a modernised approach to digital content, technology and AI. The copyright and publishing sector largely supports the orphan work scheme but wants clearer guidance on diligence requirements so small institutions are not exposed to risk or inconsistency. These concerns are precisely why the opposition supported the Senate inquiry process.

The Senate inquiry, which reported on 19 December last year, allowed stakeholders to provide detailed evidence regarding these concerns. Ultimately, the committee recommended that the bill be passed as drafted, reflecting the position of most stakeholders. Coalition senators supported the bill, noting it aligns with longstanding coalition support for modern copyright laws that balance access with protection for creators. In its additional comments, the coalition noted it would continue to monitor stakeholder issues throughout the bill's implementation. This includes concerns that ongoing use in exchange for court-determined compensation could weaken deterrence or bargaining power if not carefully managed. It also noted the need for clearer guidance on reasonably diligent search and compliance burdens for businesses and, as mentioned, the issues around recorded lessons, particularly for regional, remote and special-needs education.

Copyright laws must support Australian creators, protect the value of their work and encourage innovation and learning. This bill broadly achieves those aims. The bill is measured and responsible. We will not oppose the bill in the House, and we are very likely to support the bill in the Senate based on the findings of the Senate inquiry. We will continue to push for clarity around key terms, including 'reasonably diligent search' and 'reasonable payment', and we will continue to defend the rights of Australian creators against any attempt to open the door to unauthorised AI training. These reforms are practical, incremental and beneficial. They do not alter the fundamentals of copyright. They do not diminish creators' rights, and they deliver long-sought clarity for teachers, students and cultural institutions.

This is an uncontroversial bill, but it is an important one. It modernises our law in sensible ways. It supports the responsible use of cultural materials. It clarifies educational practice for the digital age, and it updates long-outdated administrative processes. The coalition will continue to approach these reforms with commonsense and respect for the rights of creators, educators and institutions and will continue to ensure that copyright law remains fit for purpose in a world where technology is evolving faster than ever before. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned.

I rise to speak on the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures No. 2) Bill and move:

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 calls on the Government to remove any references to a notification of the Chief of the Defence Force, considering the impact this would have on a member's right to privacy and access to care".

The coalition will support the passage of this bill because it's necessary to keep the veterans' compensation reforms on track and to ensure the transition to a single, simplified compensation and rehabilitation framework operating properly from 1 July 2026.

I want to begin with a simple message to every veteran and every service member who might be watching this debate. To every Australian war fighter and every veteran warrior who has worn the uniform: we see you, we respect you and we will fight to make sure the system that's meant to support you actually works for you. This, for defence personnel, is not abstract. It's not theoretical. This is a person in uniform deciding whether to put their hand up for help. This is a partner filling out paperwork late at night. This is a family trying to navigate a system in the worst week of their lives.

Now, the coalition supported the royal commission's push to simplify and harmonise veterans' compensation arrangements, because the current multiact system is complex, difficult to navigate and too often confusing for veterans and for their families. That's why we supported the primary reform legislation and that's why we continue to support the objective of a single ongoing framework under the MRCA, reducing duplication, improving administrative consistency and making entitlements, claims and review pathways easier to understand and to access.

This bill is largely technical and consequential, but technical does not mean trivial when you are the person living with the consequences. These provisions go to continuity, clarity and certainty. Our priority throughout this process has been simple: no veteran and no ADF member should be disadvantaged during the transition, and review rights and entitlements must be preserved. This bill makes important clarifications to ensure the new single-scheme framework functions properly and fairly in practice. It clarifies and preserves review and appeal rights, including internal reconsideration and external merit review pathways, including through the Veterans' Review Board. It tightens transitional rules for claims and decisions spanning the commencement date to reduce legal uncertainty and inconsistent outcomes. It ensures dependent compensation is not distorted by timing technicalities, clarifies funeral benefit rules, aligns education assistance under the consolidated framework and clarifies impairment and additional disablement payment rules so assessments and payments remain correct and consistent. It also preserves key allowances in decoration payments, clarifies coverage for treatment related injuries and diseases, maintains non-liability healthcare arrangements and improves offsets in deductions to prevent duplication while protecting overall entitlements. That is what good legislative housekeeping looks like—making sure the intent of reform survives contact with reality.

But we should be frank. Parts of this bill are required to complete or correct the government's original package. Now, these are not new policy ideas. They are core implementation details that should have been settled the first time, and veterans and their families deserve stability, not rolling legislative corrections that add uncertainty to a system we're supposed to be simplifying. The coalition's amendment is saying trust and early help must come first. While we support this legislation overall, the coalition's amendment goes to a fundamental principle, which is trust. It calls on the government to remove the mandatory legislative requirements to notify the Chief of the Defence Force when a serving member lodges a Veterans' Review Board application or accesses non-liability healthcare.

Let me be clear about this principle. It's incredibly important. Unless there are extraordinary circumstances, it should be up to the war fighter whether defence is notified when they make a health claim. We recognise that there will be extraordinary circumstances where a member of the Defence Force makes a claim and the health condition they are facing may have consequences for them or for their colleagues and for others that that deserves notification. We are not blind to that set of circumstances. But there are many circumstances where it's just completely inappropriate that notification be mandatory to the Chief of the Defence Force when a member of the Defence Force makes a claim. If you want a force that is ready, resilient and lethal when it needs to be, you have to have a system where people in uniform can seek help early and with confidence, not late and in silence.

The government's rationale is operational—that notification supports defence requirements and helps access medical records—but it fails to take seriously how real people respond to perceived career risk and stigma. They will not seek care when they need it. The evidence is plain. Some serving members are reluctant to seek mental health support or other support when they believe it could affect their career progression or deployability. If you bake automatic notification into legislation, you risk reinforcing that fear, and you risk deterring early care. We know so well that in health, in so many different areas, early care is the key to pre-empting much greater care requirements down the track. This is a well-understood principle of health care, and it should absolutely be applied to those incredibly brave men and women who are prepared to put themselves in harm's way in the right circumstances for our great nation. When early care is deterred, problems get worse—as we know. Families pay the price, units pay the price and, tragically, in some cases, the nation pays the price.

If you're designing a system with the objective of preventing unnecessary health problems down the track, the test is simple: does this reduce the barriers to care, or does it add to them? And our view is simple: automatic notification in every circumstance is a barrier. We recognise that there are occasions when it's necessary, but automatic notification is a barrier. So we stand ready to work with the government on fixing this either through a clearer threshold—a consent provision—or, indeed, if appropriate, removing the clause entirely. But what we're proposing here immediately is to seek to refer the bill to a short Senate inquiry to work through the detail of this issue. We certainly hope that the government will work with us to make sure that we get the right outcome for our defence personnel.

Leadership in this place is about doing the hard work—the hard and sometimes unglamorous work—to make systems perform under pressure for the people who rely on them. There are a few groups in the country who have earned that seriousness more than the men and women who serve, the veteran warriors who have served and the families who serve alongside them. The coalition has a strong record of backing veterans and their families from establishing the veterans' covenant, to expanding Open Arms, to non-liability mental health care, and to employment initiatives and wellbeing centres across the country. That record reflects a simple belief that service deserves respect and respect must be practical.

So we won't stand in the way of technical amendments, but we will hold the government to account for incomplete delivery, and we will push for reforms that make one thing absolutely clear to every serving member and veteran—to every war fighter and veteran warrior—that you should never have to choose between your career and your care. You should never have to fight your own system for the support you have earned, and you will always have our respect.

Is the amendment seconded

I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.

Debate adjourned.

Digital assets, blockchain infrastructure and tokenisation are taking over global financial markets. They're reshaping payments, custody, capital raising, trading and clearing; they will all be done by what is essentially smart money—tokenised money that is decentralised. This sector is growing, and blockchain is going to revolutionise the entire sector. The question is not whether it will grow. The questions are: Will Australia continue to be a place where financial markets are served through Asia? Will we build jobs or will we lose jobs? Will we build capability and sovereign expertise, or will we continue to watch innovation and investment move offshore?

That's why the Corporations Amendment (Digital Assets Framework) Bill 2025 is a welcome step. It provides legal clarity where uncertainty has long hindered development and frustrated industry. It also highlights something else: just how long this reform has taken and how much ground Australia has lost in what is a race. It is a global race, and Australia is slipping behind.

But, before we get to that, let's focus on what this bill gets right. This bill does something that the Australian digital asset sector has needed for a long time and is long overdue. It brings some clarity. Activity in this space has sat in a grey area not properly regulated and enforced by ASIC through enforcement actions and creating laws, testing them by suing companies in courts, rather than administering laws. Now we have some legal frameworks that can be applied and that business can conform to. The bill finally draws clear lines in the Corporations Act about what a digital token is, when a token constitutes a financial product and when platforms holding these tokens form part of Australia's regulated financial system. This matters because uncertainty is not neutral. Uncertainty deters investment. It drives jobs offshore, it drives capital offshore and we have seen that happen already.

Now, no-one is pretending heavy handed regulation helps industry or innovation. But we needed confidence—confidence so people could invest in this sector. More importantly, we do not need to treat these platforms as outsiders; we need to welcome them as part of the financial regulation system. Instead of forcing digital asset businesses into parallel regulatory universes or into grey areas, this bill allows them, where appropriate, to be recognised with the same regulatory architecture, the same regulatory certainty, that other corporations and banks are subject to. This integration matters for confidence, interoperability, system stability, and jobs and investment for Australia.

The bill also improves transparency for everyday Australians. We now will have clearer disclosure. We'll have clearer expectations of how rights are attached to underlying assets and are protecting Australian consumers who operate in the blockchain or crypto sectors. So, while this bill is not perfect, it is very sensible.

But we can't assess this bill in isolation. We must be honest about the policy context that led us here. The road map for this reform originated with the coalition. Recognising the rapid pace of change in the last government, the coalition commissioned a Senate inquiry into Australia as a technology and financial centre chaired by Senator Andrew Bragg. We developed a comprehensive payment and crypto assets reform agenda which was timely and critical. It recognised digital assets are not simply about speculation and trading. It's not just about people buying crypto and hoping it will go up; it's about payments, market settlement, currency and the very rails the financial system itself operates on. The hard policy thinking has been done over the last six years. The coalition does not support prolonged delay, regulatory drift or enforcement ahead of this legislation. ASIC must now pause, wait for this legislation and work with industry.

This delay has mattered. Instead of having clear rules set by parliament six years ago or three years ago, when the Albanese government came in, Australia has seen regulatory uncertainty and enforcement approaches fill this vacuum. ASIC, in the absence of this legislation, has been forced into a quasi-legislative role, suing companies, taking them to court and destroying business models to try and create test cases to see how the law should apply. This bill addresses some of that, but unfortunately it's too little too late. Digital assets, blockchain and tokenisation are part of the global financial system, but let there be no doubt about this: it is a race, and it's a race that Australia is losing. Comparable jurisdictions including the United Kingdom, the EU and the US have moved quickly and decisively. By the end of 2024, more than 12 months ago, two thirds of comparable jurisdictions worldwide had already regulated stablecoins or crypto assets or had firm plans to do it imminently.

Australia has not kept pace. We are losing investment, we are losing jobs, and we are falling behind as a major financial player on world markets. Countries that provide this regulatory clarity, proportionate rules and certainty attract investment, jobs and technology. The innovation that this sector drives will drive productivity, something we are desperately in search of in this country. Productivity drives wages. It helps make Australians richer. Right now, Australians feel poorer every day because of declining productivity. This is one of the answers, and the government has sat on it for over three years. The case the coalition has made and continues to make is that delay is costly and we must act.

According to KPMG's Pulse of fintech report, in the first half of 2025 Australia recorded just $142 million in fintech investment across 32 deals. That's an 84 per cent fall in deal value and a 42 per cent in deal volume compared to the previous half year. KPMG attributes this to a slowly growing domestic economy and an increasingly cautious investor sentiment. In a sector as mobile as fintech and digital assets, this matters. Capital doesn't wait for certainty. It doesn't wait for the House of Reps or the Senate to pass laws. It moves, and it has moved. We're seeing 84 per cent of capital falling away in this sector.

Also, this bill does not address the widespread practice of debanking, where banks will not bank these fintech, crypto or blockchain players or, in some instances, their customers. Despite the many issue papers acknowledging this as a serious issue and despite government supported regulations by the Council of Financial Regulators, this remains unaddressed. It doesn't provide a clear pathway for Australia to lead in tokenisation. The next generation of financial infrastructure is tokenisation. The EU and the UK are moving there rapidly. The United States actively partners on token markets with major global exchanges, and they are now announcing moves to bring equities on chain. That would be the equivalent of the ASX. This bill lays a foundation but does not yet constitute a strategy, and it's not building on top of it.

It also doesn't address the fact that broker model platforms should not be regulated as financial markets. Broker model digital-asset platforms do not operate multiparty trading venues like traditional financial markets. Applying market license concepts to broker models is disproportionate and unworkable, particularly for platforms accessing global liquidity. Regulatory uncertainty in this area is forcing Australian platforms into isolated, Australia-only liquidity pools, harming consumers and harming competition. Australian consumers are getting a raw deal. We need clear differentiations of business models to avoid unintended consequences.

Stablecoin listing rules place issuer risk onto platforms. Australian platforms face significant compliance and uncertainty when listing stablecoins issued by offshore entities, not licensed locally. Platforms do not control the issuance, the reserves, the governance or redemption mechanics, yet they bear the regulatory risk by listing the asset. Without clearer rules or workable relief, platforms may be forced to delist globally used stablecoins, undermining payments and tokenised use cases for Australian consumers and Australian businesses. Regulatory responsibility should sit exclusively with issuers and not be indirectly imposed through regulatory exchanges.

Lastly, group licensing flexibility is still missing. Digital assets and businesses often operate through integrated corporate groups for legitimate government and risk reasons, no different to any other corporate on the ASX. The framework should allow for corporate authorised representatives within related bodies corporate, reducing duplication of licences and compliance systems. Consumer protection would not be weakened. The accountability would remain with the licensee. Without this flexibility, Australian firms face unnecessary costs compared to global competitors which will ultimately be passed on to consumers.

Australia still lacks this stablecoins framework. The digital-assets bill does not unlock stablecoins as a payment instrument. Other jurisdictions are moving faster. The US is explicitly enabling regulated stablecoins for payments; the US has done this under the GENIUS Act. Australia needs something similar and needs to act now.

Uncertainty around licensing and compliance means stablecoins are still treated primarily as trading products, not as a payment infrastructure. This limits the real-world use cases such as merchant payments, cross-border settlement and programmable money. All these things would save businesses and consumers millions of dollars. But it's not too late. We must act on this now, and we can act in a bipartisan way. I'm asking the Labor government, again, to join us. Let's push Australia to the forefront of this so we can capture jobs.

Digital assets is not an isolated case; the same pattern is also emerging in artificial intelligence. Once again, Australia risks watching the global technology play out from the sidelines. Labor's instinct is to delay. In fast-moving technology markets, be it blockchain, crypto or AI, markets and capital do not wait. Delay means the talent, the money, the jobs and the expertise move offshore. The opposition supports sensible guardrails for emerging technologies including blockchain and AI, but not delay, drift or failure to compete for global talent and global capital and for productivity to make Australians wealthier.

AI, like blockchain, is being treated primarily as a regulatory risk rather than as a major economic pillar that can unlock wealth for Australia. The government has failed to articulate how Australia will participate across the blockchain or AI supply chain, from data centres to energy, from advanced computing to exportable AI services. Energy policy remains the single biggest constraint on AI growth, also inhibiting blockchain growth. If Australia repeats these mistakes in digital assets, the cost will be even greater.

The Corporations Amendment (Digital Assets Framework) Bill 2025 represents progress. It brings clarity to structure where uncertainty has persisted for far too long. But it's only the first step. Australia should not be content with just catching up and not being as far behind as it was. Australia needs to lead. Australia needs to lead to create jobs, Australia needs to lead to capture capital and Australia needs to lead to make Australians wealthy again. If we want to compete in a world of tokenised markets, blockchain infrastructure and artificial intelligence, we must move faster, think bigger and act with ambition. A framework is good, but a long-term strategy and ambition is better. This bill is a start. Now we must finish the job.

Debate adjourned.

I joke with friends that representing Forrest in this place should really be called being the member for wineries and breweries, because I take both a close personal and professional interest in their affairs throughout the south-west of Western Australia.

I started my very first business in the hospitality industry with a tavern that was focused on showcasing local produce, beer and wine to local people. I've subsequently sold that business, but the point is I come to this place with a deep understanding of the impact that excise tax plays on both the alcohol industry and the hospitality industry more broadly, and what isn't widely understood is that the craft brewery industry, whilst it only accounts for about 10 per cent of the Australian beer market by volume, accounts for some 47 per cent of the jobs that the industry creates. And so, when we consider reform to the excise tax system, it must be through the lens of enabling those predominantly small and family owned businesses to do what they do best, and that's create jobs.

The reality is that the excise tax system, which, for decades now, has slugged consumers and businesses with an increase twice a year, regardless of economic conditions, consumer demand or the health of the businesses that pay it, means that it is pubs and punters that pay excise tax and that it is pubs and punters who pay through the glass when the government fails to control inflation. Unfortunately, in the last few years, that is exactly what has resulted in the price of pints skyrocketing. Whilst I won't stand between Australian consumers and some relief, the reality is that the government's bill is, in effect, giving Australians a 1c per pint reduction in that excise tax. I think Aussies at the moment are asking for some fairness, some sustainability in the industry and some common sense, and, unfortunately, this bill falls short of that.

Because alcohol excise is ultimately a consumer tax, every increase flows straight through to consumers. A two-year freeze on that, delivering some 1c per pint in relief, is just a start. The reality is that Australians—certainly the people in my electorate—are doing it tough. That means that they're not indulging on the night out with the family, they're not going down to the pub with their mates to watch sport, and they're not investing in their own community, and that is what is ultimately making this cost-of-living crisis bite harder. It's making it harder for families and harder for Australians to enjoy an affordable social experience. I think, when our social fabric is under perhaps more tension than it has been for many decades, that is worthy of deeper attention. Slashing excise would provide immediate relief not just to those small businesses but to the everyday Australians who are their customers, and that's why we shouldn't be talking about a two-year freeze but about wholesale reform of the excise tax system.

As I said, ultimately, our craft brewing industry in Australia is predominantly one of small and family owned businesses. They're innovative. They add character. They bring tourism opportunities and local jobs to our communities, especially in the seat of Forrest. But those producers currently face one of the highest beer-tax regimes in the world. Depending on whose numbers you believe, Australians are paying certainly in the top five and perhaps even in the top four levels of excise tax on their beer in the world. That's not giving our small and family businesses in this industry a break, and it's not helping our consumers in Australia spend in their local communities.

Excise is charged by volume, not profitability, and that means that a small brewer owned by perhaps just a husband and wife pays the same tax per litre on the beer that they brew as the very large multinational corporations who operate in Australia, even though they do so with very different scale, very different margins and very different market power with which to absorb those costs. For many craft brewers, excise is one of their single largest expenses, and it has a massive cash-flow impact, because it needs to be paid at the point of production not the point of sale. That means that these small and family businesses are carrying several hundred thousand dollars a quarter, in many cases, of excise liability on beer that hasn't even been sold yet. As industry groups have consistently warned, the excise system in Australia currently discourages innovation, investment and growth in an industry that I think all Australians have a soft spot for.

So, if we acknowledge the pressure on hospitality venues, we've got to understand that those pubs are more than businesses. They're community hubs; they're employers of young people, often giving them their first leg-up into the workforce; and they're anchors of the local economy, especially in regional parts of Australia. But this continual rise in excise—twice a year, automatically—combined with the higher wages, higher energy costs, higher insurance premiums and higher rents has pushed many venues to the brink. Again, a two-year freeze in excise goes no way to addressing these cost pressures on these businesses. And, because it is pubs and punters that pay the price for the government's failure to manage inflation, ultimately you pay the price, through every pint of beer, for the ongoing inflation problem we have in Australia.

A healthier hospitality and brewing sector means more jobs, more investment and stronger local supply chains. In the seat of Forrest, that means more people growing barley and hops, which requires a great deal of innovation to do in Australia. It includes more opportunities for truck drivers, technicians and tourism operators. Cutting the excise tax in Australia would stimulate economic activity in my part of the world, when we continually talk about the need to diversify away from the mining sector and yet do nothing about it. Over time, I believe that the impact to government revenue through a significant cut to excise would be offset through the increased economic growth and increased employment growth that we would see directly result from that decision.

I guess there's always the fun police, though, that want to say that any change to alcohol tax in Australia would unleash a wave of irresponsible drinking. No industry group or participant in the hospitality sector opposes sensible regulation, effective education and harm minimisation in our communities. But blunt, automatic and heavy-handed tax increases go no way towards substituting for targeted health policy in Australia. Indeed, they currently punish everyday responsible Australians and the small businesses that they support while doing very little to address harmful drinking behaviours in our community. Smart policy could balance health objectives with the economic reality that these small and family businesses face, and that's why I think that our excise regime overall needs to be the subject of parliamentary inquiry to take stock around Australia, to understand the impacts in the beer, wine and spirits sectors, and to land at a reform package that would benefit Australia and Australians. Instead, we've seen a stunt, frankly, that delivers Australians 1c per pint in tax relief but nothing else. And I think that's why this is such a missed opportunity for Australia.

I rise to foreshadow an amendment to the amendment but not to move it at this stage. In so many regional areas, the issue surrounding the excise is closely related to the viability of local hotels, local restaurants and suchlike. I believe that, to maintain the viability of these crucial parts of local communities and to support the hospitality venues struggling under the growing burden of government regulation, we should be eliminating the alcohol excise duty on any alcoholic product sold for consumption on premises in a hospitality venue.

In a local area such as Walcha Road or right out west in Thargomindah, if you didn't have a hotel you'd have nothing at all. In so many instances, you wouldn't have that fabric; you wouldn't have that community involvement. The local hotel is also the cornerstone of the local cricket club. It's the cornerstone, for many people, of any social outing. But it is beyond the scope of people to be able to recreate, commune or be part of their community with the price of alcohol as it currently is within those premises. There are other things in regional areas where we can find the offset for this. Obviously, in balancing the books, the offset can easily be found in such things as the 'intermittent power swindle', where the hundreds of billions of dollars are floating out the door to support billionaires—domestically and overseas—and foreign companies. Rather than sponsor them, we should be sponsoring local communities.

If we do not solve this, another string of hotels will close down. It is just beyond the scope of a working person's budget to be able to take a family out, or to actually take themselves out, to a hotel and drink at the bar, so what they do is grab a case of beer—grab a slab—and take it home. This is a very unhealthy way to live, and it would be a lot better if people were with other people rather than taking a case of beer home, sitting on the verandah and working their way steadily through it. You're seeing this more and more and more. If you look at the difference between buying a beer at the bottle shop as opposed to buying it out of the tap in the hotel you can see why people are making an economic choice to basically move to takeaways. Our local hotel is iconic in Australia, and here in this place we have to make a statement about standing up for those local hotels.

In the past, we have just kept on increasing excises to the point where the product basically became unviable. A classic example of that, to the detriment of Australia and to the detriment of many towns, is illicit tobacco. It's just everywhere. We've successfully created the new Al Capones of 2026 with the illicit tobacco industry. How have we created them? We've created them by putting the tobacco excise and price up so high. We sort of had a foot in both camps—we wanted the money from it yet we told people they shouldn't do it—and we created the criminal gangs that now operate it. If you keep on putting up the excise on beer and keep on putting up the excise on wines and think that you're not going to double up on that process, well, you will, and this is not conducive to a healthy society or to a society that allows communities to bind together at one common point.

In the past in a lot of country towns we used to have post offices. They were closed. We used to have train stations. They were closed. We used to have police stations. Sometimes they get them; mostly they are closed. Many medical facilities are not there, and the one thing that's sort of been maintained is the local hotel. But what we are seeing now is a rolling of new owners into these hotels. As each one turns up, they think they are going to make a buck out of it but, unfortunately, they then have to peel out after a short period of time because the tragic reality of their commercial circumstances become apparent—that they just can't survive. You're not going to survive in a local hotel in a country town with two or three patrons. You have to have that capacity, especially during the 4.30 to 8.00 session—I used to work in a hotel—to get those customers through, who are basically working families—working men and women—who have their four or five pots then they're out; they've gone home. It's easy. It's clean. They're a great clientele, so you're happy to have them within the premises because you know that they're going to go home, that they're going to go to bed. This is their recreation. This is the time where they spend just a short period of time with their friends. But now we're seeing less and less of that because the costs have become exorbitant in this cost-of-living crisis. The cost-of-living crisis has exacerbated the pressure that's been put on these hotels. Once more, if you go out to some of these regional areas like Foxtrap—west of Charleville—or Adavale, without a hotel, there's just nothing. There is nothing there at all. A part of the cultural fabric of this nation will be removed.

So, yes, this amendment is substantial. It's removing the excise in total for what's been consumed in a hospitality venue—a removal in total. I fervently believe that we have the capacity to pay for this by the offsets in other areas, such as the fanciful idea—

There is a point of order.

The member is referring to an amendment that he has not tabled. I was just wondering if he could—

It has been circulated.

Are you sure? Apologies.

I'm interrupting because it is now time for 90-second statements. Apologies. The debate will be resumed at a later hour of the day. The member for New England can continue his speech then.

I bring the attention of the House to the case of Reyna Nangan, Karin Yechoku and their beautiful daughter, Kaia. Reyna came to Australia in 2011 and Karin in 2014. Kaia was born here in 2017. Through no fault of their own—details of this are on the public record—the visa system has failed them. They found themselves facing deportation just last Friday. This family did the right things. They followed the right processes. But the system failed them.

Last week, they launched a last-minute appeal for ministerial intervention for an extension to their visa, and I'm very proud to say that the people of Toowoomba got right behind them. This is a family whose members, since coming to Australia, have committed themselves to their community, fulfilling that great tradition of people coming here with a desire to make our country better. They worked hard. They followed the rules. They paid their taxes, volunteered at a soup kitchen, started a business, invested in our community and employed locals.

Last Monday I became aware of the extreme urgency of the case and immediately contacted the Minister for Home Affairs directly. I want to thank him and his team, particularly Ann Clark, for their prompt response. Because of that prompt response—a three-day turnaround whilst the minister was overseas—I'm very happy to report that Reyna, Karin and Kaia are still in Toowoomba. Kaia's Kitchen, their restaurant, is still open, and their nasi goreng is still excellent. I want to especially thank all of the people in Toowoomba, and indeed across Queensland and Australia, who got behind the family during this time. The next step is permanent residency, and I'm very hopeful of giving a similar speech to this in due course.

When it comes to bolstering health care—and, in particular, Medicare—the Albanese Labor government's record is second to none. The government's record investment in health has been a real game changer for people in my community. As a result of boosting the bulk-billing incentives for GPs, bulk-billing numbers are way up. Not only that, but the government has also made sure that scripts at the chemist are cheaper. Then there is the record investment in mental health, women's health and funding for our hospitals.

One of the key initiatives also introduced by the Albanese Labor government was bulk-billed Medicare urgent care clinics that have opened across the country. These Medicare urgent care clinics make it easier for Australians to get the urgent treatment they need, free of charge. They are also taking the pressure off our hospitals. For some time, our community has had access to urgent care clinics located in both Liverpool and Campbelltown. I'm delighted that my constituents will now have access to a third clinic located in Austral. Austral joins over 120 clinics Australia-wide. This is great news and will complement the existing network of bulk-billing GPs in Werriwa. The opening of the new UCC in Werriwa demonstrates again that it is the Albanese government which is delivering for our community.

Over summer, I had the privilege of visiting many local schools across our community. It was fantastic to congratulate new leaders and hear from students about what they'd been learning, and it was a privilege to recognise local students with my Casey Shield award. I created this award to recognise student achievement and contribution that is over and above academic achievement. My award recognises students who embody their school core values and who display personal growth, leadership and community spirit.

It was an honour to recognise the following students with my Casey Shield award: Mackenzie from Upper Yarra Secondary College; Madison from Lilydale High School; Bethany from Edinburgh College; Michaela from Oxley Christian College; Clover from Lilydale Heights College; Shayla from Mooroolbark College; Lucia from Yarra Hills Secondary College; Inuka from Belgrave Heights Christian School; Oscar from Upwey High School; Jacinta from Mount Lilydale Mercy College; and Kailee from Healesville High School. Congratulations to you all. These students were recognised for supporting other students; their commitment to personal growth, respect and kindness; their assistance with school events; and their positive can-do attitude. I'm looking forward to also recognising a student from Mater Christi College in Belgrave as well as students from Monbulk College and Mount Evelyn Christian School. Congratulations to the 2025 recipients of the Casey Shield award. Keep up the great work in our community.

Jim Ferguson was dedicated to serving the Australian community on both the international and domestic stages. From 1966 to 1986, Jim worked for DFAT, with several senior overseas postings, most notably as ambassador to Peru between 1981 and 1983. In 1990, he was appointed the Executive Director of the Australian Sports Commission, coming in at a time of great change with the merging of the ASC and AIS. Jim was able to guide the ASC through this turbulent time, greatly expanding into new sports and programs and leading the organisation up to and beyond the Sydney Olympics. The then ASC chair, Peter Bartels, stated:

Jim's contribution to the development of sport in Australia is immeasurable. The level of excellence now reached and the international standing of Australian sport is the best testament to Jim's time at the ASC.

Jim continued to play an active role in his community right up until his final days. I met him initially through his work with Boxing Australia and the successful campaign to revive and retain the AIS in Canberra. I was honoured to have him assist in my campaigns in Bean, including my most recent one. Vale, James Alexander 'Jim' Ferguson. Our hearts go out to your family and to your many, many friends.

In our electorate of Calare, we have a growing Hindu community comprising well over 500 families. They've recently come together with a shared dream of building the first Hindu temple in the Central West. Currently, there is no dedicated local place to gather for prayer, festivals or cultural activities or to teach children the values and traditions of the Hindu faith. By recently establishing the Color City Hindu Corporation, the Hindu community is passionately pursuing its dream of having a space that serves as a spiritual, cultural and educational centre for generations to come. The corporation's inauguration is an important milestone, and I wish to acknowledge the corporation's committee members: president Balaji Chakravarthy, vice-president Sanjay Sood, organisation promoter Sreejith Kuramanghat, manager Monica Sood and Treasurer Lakshmikanth Tammineni. The corporation is seeking to raise funds for the purchase of land, which has been identified, and the construction of a temple. I congratulate all corporation members on the launch of this vibrant new group and support them in their advocacy efforts. Thank you to all members of the Hindu community for their significant and important contribution to the life of our region and our country.

I rise to recognise some great Territorians who have passed in recent weeks. My Darwin neighbours, Territory legends Benny and Sandra Lew Fatt, husband and wife, passed away weeks apart, Sandra on 14 December and Benny last week. Sandra was a legend of the Darwin travel industry. For over 50 years, she was renowned for her service to fellow Territorians and formed lifelong relationships with her customers. Benny was an AFL legend, particularly of the Nightcliff Tigers footy club. He was inducted into the hall of fame in 2012. For Benny's dedication to AFL football and the broader Darwin community, he received the Order of Australia Medal in 2019.

Also recently, in Fannie Bay, Edward Francis 'Frank' Connell passed. He was a Vietnam veteran. I presented Frank with an Australian flag on Australia Day to thank him for his service to our nation. He passed away peacefully the following morning.

Last week, Kwementyaye Shaw was laid to rest in Alice Springs. Also an Army veteran of Malaya and Vietnam, his life story is an inspiring one of courage, service and progress for Aboriginal people. Improving the lives of his fellow First Nations people in Central Australia, he was instrumental in starting Central Australian Aboriginal Congress and was an absolute legend.

Every year in Queensland under the old Country Party government, we built a major dam. I will quote but three examples. There were 800 people living in a little town called Griffith in New South Wales. They built a dam. Now there are 28,000 people living and making a very good living in Griffith. There were, ironically, 831 people living in a town called Mareeba. They built a dam, and now there are 26,000 people living in Mareeba, all on very, very high incomes. God bless them. There was a third town in Queensland—a little railway siding, Emerald—that had 1,100 people and it now has 17,000 people.

There has not been a dam built in Queensland in 33 years—or whatever it is since the Bjelke-Petersen government fell. Bjelke-Petersen was stabbed in the back by his own mob. Not one single dam has been built. I represent half of Australia's water. Half of the water that falls on Australia falls in the Kennedy electorate. We were building dams, and now we've stopped building dams. The water just runs down the street, taking millions of tonnes of topsoil— (Time expired)

I rise today to acknowledge the amazing work of the Warrandyte Pink Ladies—Katie, Sandra and Nicole. Every year for the past five years, the Warrandyte Pink Ladies have been bringing our community together to raise funds for the McGrath Foundation and awareness of cancer, and, every year, their efforts get bigger and bigger. This year, they have raised over $200,000 for care nurses for people experiencing cancer. But what's truly extraordinary is the way that they're able to get more and more of our local businesses and organisations involved in the Pink Up Warrandyte campaign, from our local pub, the Grand Hotel Warrandyte, to the Donvale Bowls Club.

Last Saturday I had the privilege of joining the ladies at Pink Stumps Day at the Warrandyte sports club, where over 160 people attended and over $15,000 was raised. Now, there aren't many people that can get me to put on a bra in public, but, when the Pink Ladies called me up to the stage and presented me with a bra embroidered with my initials in diamantes, how could I refuse? It's always an honour to support my community, and I certainly felt well supported too!

I'm also glad to hear that the Pink Ladies are getting the recognition they so richly deserve. They were honoured at the Pink Test in Sydney and were even invited to dinner at Admiralty House by the Governor-General. Her Excellency clearly has great taste in fine dinner companions. Congratulations again to the Warrandyte Pink Ladies.

On the Australia Day long weekend, I was proud to attend awards and citizenship ceremonies in Hinkler. They were a true celebration of the people of my community and a salute to what it means to be living in the best country in the world.

On the honours list, Member of the Order of Australia medals were awarded to Terry Doherty, my former PE teacher at Bundy high school, for service to basketball; and to Robert Blair, for service to our First Nations community. Dee-Anne Kuilboer received an Australian Corrections Medal for working in corrective services, and Hinkler's newest OAM recipients were Ernest Drew from Burnett Heads for service to people with disability, particularly those who are vision impaired or blind; and Bundaberg's Luke Harding, for outstanding service to the community, through various organisations including the SES, the RSL and Defence.

Congratulations also to the winners of the Fraser Coast 2026 Australia Day Awards: the Citizen of the Year was Bernard Whebell, of the Hervey Bay Neighbourhood Centre; the Young Citizen of the Year was Toby Robinson; the Art and Culture Award of the Year was won by Emma Newman; the Sport and Wellbeing Award of the Year winner was Cody Steele-Sullivan; and Community Group of the Year was Scouts Queensland.

Meanwhile, the Bundaberg region winners included the Citizen of the Year, Jo Leveritt, founder of Wide Bay Advocacy and Bundaberg Street Law; the Young Citizen of the Year, Harrison Titmarsh; the Senior Citizen of the Year, Lester Lewis; the Sportsperson of the Year, Michael Ebert; the Creative Citizen of the Year, Ross Driver; and Community Group of the Year, Next Level Youth Jam. They are all worthy recipients. I congratulate them all.

School is back. Right across Australia and throughout my community in Griffith, the contact has been patiently placed on the books, the lunch boxes have been lovingly packed and oversized backpacks have been heaved onto small shoulders. While our little ones are on track for the new school year, our public schools are on track for full funding.

This is the biggest new investment in public schools by the Australian government ever. It's worth $16.5 billion over the next 10 years. It's not a blank cheque; it is tied to real, practical reforms to reduce the number of students who need additional support for literacy and numeracy, and help students who fall behind to catch up, keep up and to finish school. What this means in practice is more teachers in classrooms, early support for kids who fall behind, better access to wellbeing services, and properly resourced public schools that are not forced to do more with less, no matter what your postcode. When we properly fund education, we give every child a fair start and we strengthen our whole community.

Earlier last month large areas of my electorate and the member for Indi's electorate were ravaged by bushfire. Fires that started around the Longwood area were pushed by a north-westerly into farmland and bushland, devastating more than 140,000 hectares. In addition, there were fires up in the north of my electorate in a place called Yarroweyah. Many houses have been lost. Many businesses have been affected, including farms. The iconic Fowles Winery has lost vineyards, and farmers have been forced to go out there with their rifles and put down livestock. I want to give a big shout-out to the state member for Euroa, my National Party colleague Annabelle Cleeland, who has gone above and beyond to help her community with fodder drives and other support.

The member for Indi and I met with the Strathbogie Shire Council, which is the council that was most affected. They are saying, 'We have had so much infrastructure damage and we have such a small rate base; how are we going to build it back?' I thank the Minister for Emergency Management for coming to visit with them, but the issue we have is the Strathbogie shire is still awaiting funding for infrastructure that was damaged in the 2022 floods—namely, Kirwans bridge. They're worried that they're not going to get the government support to fix the infrastructure that they've lost in this natural disaster. I ask the Minister for Emergency Management and Minister for Regional Development, Local Government and Territories to come to the party and help the Strathbogie Shire Council.

I'd like to congratulate three of Aston's finest who received the Medal of the Order of Australia last week as part of the Australia Day 2026 honours list. Mrs Elizabeth Aylett OAM received the award for her service to netball. Elizabeth has been a netball player since 1952 and an umpire since 1964. Elizabeth is the founder of the White Horse Netball Association, and went on to become a life member of the association in 1981. Following her outstanding contribution to netball, the Lizzie Aylett Umpires Award was established in 2016.

Mrs Rita Brown received the OAM for her service to community health. Rita has been the Australian Borderline Personality Disorder Foundation President and Chair since 2018, and foundation director since 2013. Rita is additionally a member of the International Society for the Study of Personality Disorders, a member of the Lived Experience Advisory Committee, and is the Associate Director of the Lived Experience Workforce.

Mr John McGrath received the OAM for his service to surf lifesaving and to the community. From 2011 to 2020, John was the Director of Communications at Far South Coast Branch Surf Life Saving New South Wales. In 2014, John became the deputy president of the surf life saving club and presided over this role for three years. John has been a member of the surf life saving community since 1964 and has played a major role in the communities in which he has served.

I thank them all for their contribution to Aston and also our nation. Thank you.

Recently, many communities across the Australian continent have celebrated Australia Day. That was the same in the electorate of Flynn, where Australia Day is revered. It is one of the No. 1 days on the Australian calendar. Her Excellency the Honourable Ms Sam Mostyn AC, Governor-General, obviously announced all of the Australia Day honours lists awards, and these included, in the Flynn electorate, Mrs Alison Ray from Emerald, who has been awarded the Medal of the Order of Australia, the OAM, for services to the community through her charitable organisations. Ms Quinn Cramer from Gladstone has been awarded the Australian Fire Service Medal. I offer my congratulations to them both on behalf of the whole Flynn community. Congratulations.

There were also many other community events across the Flynn electorate. I attended the Australia Day Awards ceremony at Proston and the Australia Day Awards in my hometown of Taroom. I extend my congratulations to everybody and all of the organisers concerned. I gave a speech at Australia Day, and it is important that everybody in Australia understand that we have won life's lottery. If you're an Australian, you're living in the best country on this planet. Everybody needs to revere Australia, and as I said in my message, have a go, ya mug.

In recent weeks, Victoria faced its most severe bushfire emergency since Black Summer and too many families faced the terrifying reality of fire at their door. Victoria also experienced its hottest day on record, reaching 48.9 degrees, creating dangerous conditions that spread fires quickly, with some still burning. Tragically, we mourn the loss of Maxwell Hobson, who died defending his farm and cattle. My heart goes out to his family and community.

In the face of tragedy, we have seen extraordinary courage since the first catastrophic fire warnings issued on 7 January. Thousands of CFA volunteers and emergency service workers stepped forward without hesitation. Local brigades stood on the frontline, day and night, battling fast-moving fires in extreme conditions. This spirit is best captured by Michael Harper, from Alexandra, who remained on the fireground to help others despite learning his own home was destroyed. That speaks volumes. Their bravery saved lives and prevented even greater loss.

I want to thank all CFA firefighters, especially those at Cranbourne, Hampton Park, Narre Warren, Clyde, Devon Meadows, Tooradin and Warneet-Blind Bight: your courage, selflessness and tireless— (Time expired)

I rise today to acknowledge an extraordinary woman from my electorate of La Trobe, Norliah Syer-Peterson, who I had the great honour of presenting the Citizen of the Year to at the Latrobe Australia Day awards for her remarkable courage, compassion and unwavering adversity after the tragic death of her son Levi Syer. Levi was just 16 years of age, a bright year 10 student, at St Francis Xavier College at Beaconsfield when he passed away from meningococcal B disease in September last year. Heartbreakingly, he passed away within six hours of realising that something was actually wrong with him.

Meningococcal B is a very fast-moving bacterial infection. It causes meningitis and blood-poisoning. And I would just say to Norliah, you are so amazing and you had so many friends and family with you—it was a very emotional day. What the family is fighting for is to make sure that the meningococcal B vaccine is funded in Victoria, especially for year 10 students. It's currently funded in South Australia, Queensland and the Northern Territory. I call on the Australian government—I know Minister Mark Butler is working with the family—to make sure we have all kids in Australia receive the vaccination so that there are no more tragic deaths.

On 17 December 2025, a new Medicare urgent care clinic opened in a suburb of Norwood, in my electorate of Sturt, providing the people of Sturt with free and accessible urgent medical care.

When I recently met with staff members Dr Max Adams and nurse Kirsten to ask how the clinic was going, they told me that, since opening, approximately 40 patients a day had sought and received care, and that of those 40 patients, 75 per cent would probably have had to seek treatment at the Royal Adelaide Hospital.

Urgent care clinics work by taking the strain off the hospital system. They take away the stress, time and uncertainty of attending a hospital emergency room, and they mean that people who need non-life-threatening urgent care can get it. People like Janet and Peter, who live in Kensington Gardens. When I doorknocked them last week, they told me they had received prompt and quality care when Janet, who is in a wheelchair due to MS, suffered an injury to her ankle, requiring stitches. Or like Hermione, who wrote to me and said:

… my daughter used the walk in Medicare clinic at Norwood on NYE. It was great. She got the high quality care she needed in a timely fashion without sitting around in emergency for hours.

Hermione, like the more than one million visitors to urgent care clinics across Australia, understands that taking the strain off hospitals is what urgent care clinics are all about.

I rise to celebrate the extraordinary Mornington Peninsula locals who were honoured this Australia Day. We are not overrepresented in the honours list; we are overrepresented with people who will not sit still and who always insist on getting things done. Their recognition spans the Order of Australia, the Medal of the Order of Australia, the Australian Fire Service Medal, the Emergency Services Medal and distinguished military honours, including the Conspicuous Service Cross and medal.

Debra Griffiths AM was honoured for significant service to nursing and medico-legal education. Aunty Helen Bnads OAM was recognised for her leadership within the Indigenous community. Margaret McArthur OAM, the late Michael O'Rourke OAM and the marvellous Charles Reis OAM have strengthened our peninsula through community service and sport over decades. Graham Kirk and Tony Marchesani represent the courage of our fire and emergency services. Among the men and women of service to the ADF most associated with HMAS Cerberus, which I visited with the member for Hume on Friday, Commander Stefanie Curic, Leading Seaman Jack Schulze, Lieutenant Commander Scott Shipton and Lieutenant Perri Trew were all recognised for their devotion to the defence of our nation.

On Australia Day, we can acknowledge past injustice while recognising how far we have come and the good Australia continues to do for her people. One of our defining achievements has been the weaving together of Indigenous heritage, British foundations and successive waves of migration, an achievement seen across the peninsula on Australia Day.

Regional media matters because local stories matter. For more than 60 years, NBN News has been part of the fabric of the Hunter. It's been through floods, fires, factory openings, factory closures, footy grand finals, school achievements and community heartbreaks. It's how the people see themselves reflected on the screens all around the Hunter. So it's encouraging to see regional media being invested in. The recent purchase of NBN News by WIN Network is a reminder that local broadcasting still has value. But investment must come with a clear commitment that local content must stay local.

People across the Hunter are rightly concerned about what change might mean. They don't want a scaled-back service, they don't want stories replaced with content from somewhere else and they certainly don't want to lose the hour-long local bulletin that has kept communities informed for generations.

Regional media isn't a nice-to-have; it's essential. It holds decision-makers to account. It tells the stories that won't make it onto capital city news, and it gives people confidence that what matters in their towns, their streets and their workplaces actually counts. Keeping strong locally-produced news alive means backing local journalists, backing local camera operators and backing local voices. If we care about strong regions, we must care about strong regional media and we must make sure it stays truly local.

The part-time energy minister is at it again—just splashing taxpayers' cash around to try and make up for his failed energy policies, which are causing Australian households an enormous amount of pain. As a matter of fact, since Labor have been in government electricity prices have risen by 40 per cent. They're driving up inflation in this country, and it could well lead to an interest-rate increase, which is going to put further pressure on the household budget.

But what does this part-time energy minister think the response should be? 'Let's just keep splashing the cash around.' And we've seen it now. He's handpicked a particular EV vehicle he wants to subsidise. But not only that; he's done a secret deal with the Victorian state government on offshore wind. There's no transparency. No-one knows what the cost is. How much is it? Look at his Capacity Investment Scheme. He's spending billions and billions of dollars. Where is the transparency? There is none.

This fellow, this part-time energy minister, should focus on household budgets and deliver lower energy prices for households, because, at the moment, they're forecast to go up by another 24 per cent this financial year. Part-time minister, focus full time on getting electricity prices down.

Today I want to talk about a clear choice in Australian politics: delivery versus division. In the last two months, Labor has delivered not one but two Medicare urgent care clinics to service my community of Bonner and the surrounding electorates. The Capalaba and Carindale urgent care clinics are now open seven days a week, fully bulk-billed, and taking pressure off our emergency departments. All you need is your Medicare card, not your credit card, to receive quality urgent care, thanks to Labor delivering for all Australians.

This didn't happen by accident; it happened because Labor believes in Medicare, and we're rebuilding it after a decade of neglect by those opposite. While Labor is rolling out urgent care clinics across the country and delivering more bulk-billed GPs and cheaper medicines, those opposite are divided and divisive. They can't agree on a leader, let alone a health policy. Australians deserve better than chaos and culture wars. They deserve care. Labor is strengthening Medicare, expanding urgent care and delivering practical solutions for communities like mine in Bonner. That's the difference: Labor delivers; those opposite divide.

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

I inform the House of the death on 23 December 2025 of Dr Katrina Jane Allen, a member of this House for the division of Higgins from 2019 to 2022. As a mark of respect to the memory of Katie Allen, I invite all present to rise in their places.

Honourable members having stood in their places—

I thank the House.

I declare that the resumption of debate on the Prime Minister's motion of condolence in connection with the death of the hon. Nick Bolkus is referred to the Federation Chamber.

I inform the House that the Minister for Resources and Northern Australia will be absent from question time this week. She has travelled to the United States to have further discussions about critical minerals. The Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations will answer questions on her behalf.

My question is to the Prime Minister. The average mortgage holder is already paying around $21,000 more each year in interest under Labor. Today, Australians anxiously await the RBA's announcement on interest rates. The Prime Minister promised Australians we had 'turned the corner on inflation' and that his government had it 'under control'. Countless economists and each of the big four banks predict that rates will rise even further today and this year. Government spending is fuelling this mortgage pain. When will the Treasurer's reckless spending end, Prime Minister?

I'd like to hear from the Manager of Opposition Business.

A point of order—Speaker, you have been consistent, for this whole parliament, that it is out of order and disorderly to yell out 'time' when either a minister is finishing their answer and you've extended their time or when a questioner is running a little bit long on their time. Several members were yelling 'time', in defiance of your ruling—in direct defiance.

Honourable members interjecting—

Order! I thank the manager. It will assist the House greatly if everyone can stick to the time limits in the first principle. In that instance, people will be warned or they won't be here to hear the answer. You know it works both ways, and the Leader of the Opposition was well over time with her question. I have been generous, and, to ensure that every question is allowed, I'd like the same respect shown on both sides. We'll start on the right foot. The Prime Minister has the call.

I do encourage my people to not yell out 'time'. There are enough behind her doing that at the moment. When we were elected, inflation had a six in front of it. It's now got a three in front of it. We turned two budget deficits into two budget surpluses, and we used them to pay down debt. That's just part of what we're doing for responsible economic management. As the Reserve Bank has said, the budget is not the main game when it comes to inflation. At the same time that we have got inflation down, wages are up and unemployment is low compared with what we inherited.

We'll continue to understand that there are real cost-of-living pressures on Australians, and that is why we have implemented a range of cost-of-living measures. The only cost-of-living issue they're interested in talking about is the cost of living with each other. That's what they're interested in, and they can't shut up about it.

What we're focused on is cheaper medicines, making sure people can see a doctor for free, making sure that batteries are rolled out around the country, free TAFE and getting wages up. These are all measures that we've implemented—all measures that were opposed by those opposite. We'll continue to engage in responsible economic management. We'll continue to make sure that we deal with the pressures which are there by having a focus on cost-of-living measures. But those opposite, who went to the last election with higher taxes and a higher deficit over the next two years, can't be in a position of doing anything other than—

Inflation's almost double.

I take the interjection from the Leader of the Opposition. It was six when we were elected, and now it's got a three in front. That's less. We've done that, and we've done that while keeping unemployment low and getting wages up.

My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, how is the Albanese Labor government strengthening Medicare, including our public hospital systems, so Australians can access the world-class quality health care they deserve? Why is it important that the government remains focused on delivering for Australians?

I thank the member for Bullwinkel for her question. She is someone who made a difference as a nurse and is now bringing the skills that she has and knowledge of the health system into this parliament.

On Friday, we signed a landmark funding agreement for our public hospitals—a landmark agreement with three times the increase that was there in the Morrison agreement that was done during the last decade. This will secure national access to world-class health care as well as disability supports, reducing wait times for surgery and in emergency departments and helping long-stay patients stay out of hospital rooms and get into dedicated care.

Every Australian relies upon Medicare. That's the principle that, if you're sick, all you need is your Medicare card, not your credit card. We know how important that is to Australians, and that's why we're strengthening Medicare across the board. We promised 50 urgent care clinics, and during the last term we delivered 87. Now there are 120 of the 137 we have committed to, being opened right now.

We've made PBS medicines even cheaper. A script now costs just $25, the same price that it was back in 2004, and we're adding more and more essential medicines to the PBS listing. That happened on 1 January, and, on the same day, 1800MEDICARE came online—a 24/7 free health advice line, making a difference already. Tens of thousands of Australians have taken advantage of that. We're also making it easier to see a GP for free, with 3,300 fully bulk-billed clinics around Australia—an extra 1,300 in just a few months, far exceeding what the predictions were.

All of those measures are good for people's wallets, but, importantly as well, they're taking pressure off the emergency departments of our hospitals, making an enormous difference. Labor created Medicare, and each and every day we're working to strengthen Medicare for all Australians. It's a big difference between the two sides of this chamber. We are absolutely determined that Medicare will continue to be strengthened, will continue to have more people seeing doctors with just their Medicare card and will continue to take pressure off the emergency departments of hospitals. I thank the premiers and chief ministers for their unanimous support.

Before I call the honourable member for Warringah, I'll just welcome a few guests to our parliament today. I'm pleased to advise that the Hon. Reece Whitby MLA, Minister for Police; Road Safety; Tourism; Great Southern, is accompanied by the Commissioner of the WA Police Force, Col Blanch. It's good to see Queenslanders in the gallery today: from the Queensland Legislative Assembly, Mr Mark Boothman MP, Dr Christian Rowan MP and Mr Glen Kelly MP. I'm also pleased to inform the House that present in the gallery today are representatives from Air T, who are visiting Australia from the United States following the acquisition of Rex Airlines.

My question is to the Prime Minister. In recent times, federal governments have called royal commissions into veteran suicide, aged care, antisemitism and social cohesion. Last year, the Prime Minister said Australia faced a domestic violence crisis, with one woman being killed every four days. Will the government elevate the safety of women and children to the same level of urgency and attention by calling a royal commission into femicide and domestic violence?

I want to thank the member for Warringah for her question. I know the members for Warringah, for Kooyong and for Mackellar have written to the Prime Minister in similar terms, and I absolutely understand where they're coming from and the intent of their letter and this question. The government absolutely agrees with the urgency of the issues that the member for Warringah is raising.

But the truth is—and frontline workers will tell you this—we don't need another royal commission to tell us what's happening with the deaths of women in Australia and what we need to do. In fact, frontline workers have been very clear that they don't want another report; they want the implementation of the work that we're doing right now. Last year, the Domestic, Family and Sexual Violence Commissioner's annual report to parliament pointed out that we have a thousand recommendations from at least eight major royal commissions, inquiries and reviews. Most recently, we had the rapid review that the National Cabinet commissioned at the behest of the Prime Minister and the premiers. We're implementing that work right now. We've had the South Australian royal commission most recently, the NT coronial inquest, many parliamentary inquiries and the Victorian royal commission. We need to get on with the work of implementing these recommendations, and we are. Right now, there are 583 initiatives happening around the country—122 of those are Commonwealth led. They're being reported on publicly.

Every family violence peak body in this country released a statement that said 'royal commissions have an important role in the Australian system, including gathering evidence when we have no other way to get to the root of a problem'. That is not the situation here. The evidence is clear. We know what needs to be done to prevent, respond to and help people heal from family violence. That's why this government has invested $4 billion in those 122 initiatives that I spoke about a minute ago. It's why we're working so closely with the states and territories, which are responsible for policing, for courts, for the justice system and for the day-to-day operation of domestic violence refuges, and it's why we're about to start the consultation on the second action plan of the National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children. That will be a very important opportunity to say what comes next in the implementation of these recommendations. The member for Warringah and other members will have the opportunity to make contributions at that time. Frontline workers will absolutely be a part of designing that second action plan, as will victims and survivors of family, domestic and sexual violence.

We agree with you, the member for Warringah and the members for Kooyong and Mackellar, about the urgency of this, and I would say that every member of parliament agrees with the urgency, but we don't need more reports. We need to focus on the actions that will make a difference.

The minister's time has concluded. Leader of the Opposition, to associate your remarks with the minister, yes, you may proceed on indulgence.

The minister referenced all members of this House, and I know that all members of this House are committed to acting on domestic and family violence. I would just remind the minister and the Prime Minister of her commitment to 500 frontline domestic violence workers during the last term of parliament. At some point, if she could update the House—

Resume your seat. I reminded the Leader of the Opposition during the last sitting of parliament not to abuse—

Order! The minister will cease interjecting. I reminded the Leader of the Opposition not to abuse the issue of indulgence, and I was crystal clear in my explanation before. She's clearly ignoring my rulings and my advice now. Indulgence is something I grant to the Leader of the Opposition on behalf of the House. I'm going to ask you again not to abuse when I grant indulgence. I was specific that your remarks were to be associated with the minister, and you ignored me on that. Not only is it completely disrespectful to me, but it's disrespectful to the House.

My question is to the Minister for Emergency Management. What support measures have been activated for communities in Victoria hit by recent bushfires, and what is the outlook for the rest of the high-risk-weather season?

I thank the member for Bendigo for her question. As she knows and as many people across the House and the country know, it's been a terrible start for many communities across Victoria. We've seen bushfires across the state, most recently across the greater Otways. I was in Colac last week, where I attended the Incident Control Centre to understand the impacts of the Carlisle River blaze. I spent time in Castlemaine, Yarck, Alexandra, Euroa, Ruffy and Harcourt over the past few weeks, meeting with emergency services, local councils, businesses and, most importantly, community members. I'd like to thank the member for Indi and the member for Nicholls, who were on the ground with me to hear directly from locals about the best way that we can aid in their recovery.

Residents in Ruffy told us that they were worried about the local environment, including the impact on waterways, despite losing their own homes. I met with both Strathbogie and Murrindindi shire councils in their council chambers, who reiterated the importance of building back better after a natural disaster.

Through our Commonwealth-state disaster recovery funding arrangements, we've now committed over $330 million in response to the Victorian bushfires. This includes $158 million, which the Prime Minister announced at the state control centre last week. This latest funding package includes funding for clean-up, business support and advice; funding to rebuild the Harcourt cooperative cool store that I visited with the Prime Minister and the member for Bendigo; repairs to public land and waterways; temporary accommodation; power outage payments for businesses; rebates to repair water tanks; and mental health support. This expanded funding package is about delivering practical and respectful support that helps communities begin to rebuild with confidence.

On top of that, we've got federal government payments available, including the disaster recovery payment, available to eligible residents in 57 locations. It's a one-off payment to support community members who have been most affected in this disaster. The disaster recovery allowance is income support up to 13 weeks, which is now available in 23 local government areas as well as the Lake Mountain Alpine Resort.

I want Victorians to know this: we stand with you and we'll continue to support you. I give a big thankyou and a shout-out to the thousands of workers and volunteers from all over Australia, as well as New Zealand and Canada, who have been supporting firefighting efforts in Victoria. Of course, we're not out of the high-risk weather season yet; heatwave conditions may have eased, but conditions can turn really quickly. Please listen to local authorities, follow the advice of our emergency services and continue to look out for family, friends and neighbours who may be doing it tough. As a nation, we have learned a lot since the Black Summer bushfires. We know that the three levels of government have to work collaboratively together for the benefit of our local communities, and we'll continue to do that.

My question is to the Treasurer. In 2022 the now Treasurer declared, 'There are things that real leaders take responsibility for, which matter in the context of high inflation, rising interest rates, plummeting consumer confidence and falling real wages.' The Treasurer is, right now, failing on all these same metrics and Australians are getting poorer by the day. Treasurer, when will you start living by your own words and take responsibility?

As I've said on a number of occasions today, and before that as well, I take responsibility for all aspects of my job. I take responsibility for my part and our part in the fight against inflation. I take responsibility for the fact that this government is rolling out cost-of-living help that those opposite oppose. I take responsibility for the fact that the budget is much, much stronger now, because of our collective efforts, than what we inherited from those opposite. I take responsibility for all aspects of my job. More than that, we are taking action. We are taking action with cheaper medicines, with more bulk-billing, with student debt relief, with free TAFE and with two more tax cuts, opposed by those opposite, after the first one, also opposed by those opposite. I have made it clear that I take responsibility for all aspects of my job, including my part of the fight against inflation.

What makes it especially galling to get this question from those opposite is they left us with inflation north of six per cent and absolutely galloping when we came to office. The inflation challenge peaked in 2022 because we inherited from them inflation much higher and rising. We also inherited much bigger deficits and more debt. To make it worse, those opposite, every one of them—when they used to be in the same party before they went their three separate ways—took to the last election a policy for higher income taxes, higher electricity bills, bigger deficits and more debt. We won't be taking lectures from those opposite about responsible economic management. They might change their leader, but they can't change their record. They can't change the fact they left us higher and rising inflation. They left us bigger deficits and more debt. They took to the election a policy for higher taxes, higher electricity prices, bigger deficits and more debt as well.

What this government is doing is rolling out cost-of-living help in a responsible way at the same time as we get the budget in a much better condition than we inherited from those opposite. We delivered two surpluses. We found $114 billion in savings. We got the Liberal debt down. We got real wages growing for two years. We got inflation down from a six in front of it and rising, which is what we inherited from those opposite. So, again, we won't be taking lectures from those opposite. They are the key reasons why nobody takes them seriously on the economy anymore, a point that Peter Costello himself made when he was talking to Troy Bramston at Christmas.

There are real challenges in our economy. We are focused on them. They're just focused on themselves.

My question is to the Treasurer. Can the Treasurer update the House on the interest rates decision taken this afternoon by the Reserve Bank.

Thank you to the member for Adelaide for his question today. As expected, the independent Reserve Bank has increased the cash rate by 25 basis points. This will be difficult news for millions of Australians with a mortgage, and we understand the pressure that this puts on Australian families and businesses. Now while today's decision was widely expected, obviously, that doesn't make it any easier. We know that many Australians are doing it tough, which is why we continue to roll out responsible cost-of-living relief, including a further tax cut this year and another one next year—both of them opposed by those opposite. At the same time, we're doing what we can to strengthen the budget and to address our longstanding productivity challenge. Our mid-year budget update showed the budget is more than $233 billion better than we inherited from those opposite, and part of the reason for that is $114 billion in savings since we came to office, including $20 billion in the mid-year update.

I want to make it really clear to the House and to people watching from home that the statement released by the independent Reserve Bank explaining the decision that they have taken today does not mention 'government spending' at all. It doesn't mention 'government spending' at all. In fact, it makes it very clear that the pressure on inflation is coming from private demand. Let me make this really clear. This is the Reserve Bank board in their statement just released: 'Growth in private demand has strengthened substantially more than expected …' This is the point that the Reserve Bank has made today. Pressure on inflation, the big contribution to growth in our economy, is coming from private demand and not public demand, and that is clear. And the statement on monetary policy, which the Bank has also released today, said that the upgrade to the near-term outlook was due to stronger private demand. They said the near-term upward revision is driven by private demand and that the contribution of public demand to year-end GDP growth has continued to ease in recent quarters, as expected.

So what we've seen in our economy is public demand in retreat over the course of the last year, private demand growing strongly, and that explains the additional pressure on inflation.

Now, I want to make it clear that, even though inflation has moderated substantially since those opposite were in office, it is higher than we would like. We've acknowledged that since the data came out. Some of that is temporary pressures. Some of that is more persistent pressures. All of that is adding to the pressures that people are feeling around the country. That's why our cost-of-living relief is so important and that's why it's so important that we've got the budget in better nick than what those opposite left us.

My question is to the Treasurer. Treasurer, after today's interest rate hike, mortgage holders are paying more because inflation is staying higher for longer. Treasurer, when will you apologise to all mortgage holders in Australia?

I thank the leader of one of the three far-right parties in this country for his question.

Opposition members interjecting—

Order! Members on my left. There is far too much noise. I can't hear what the Treasurer is saying.

The member for Lyne is not helping the situation. The Treasurer will return to the question.

Thank you to the member for his question. As I made clear a moment ago, we know that, even though today's decision was expected, it doesn't make it any easier for people who are already under pressure. I think I've made that really clear. We do know and we have said repeatedly through the course of today and before now that Australians are still under pressure. Despite all of the progress that we've made together in our economy, we know that Australians are still under pressure. That's why our cost-of-living relief is so important, and that's why it's so strange that those opposite oppose that cost-of-living relief. It's why our budget repair is so important and why it's so strange that those opposite left us such a mess and now want to give us lectures about the budget position that we've spent 3½ years cleaning up.

As we know, some of these inflationary pressures are temporary; some of them are more persistent. All of them are adding to the pressures that people feel in real communities. We don't just acknowledge that; we're acting on that as a government, collectively. We're acting on that with cheaper medicines, tax cuts, more bulk-billing, student debt relief and the like. If those opposite really cared about the pressure on people around this country, they would have supported that cost-of-living help. Instead, they opposed that cost-of-living help. Worse than that, the same people asking these questions today took to the election a policy of higher income taxes on every single Australian worker.

The only thing that they've been able to agree on in the course of recent months is that they all desperately wanted interest rates to go up today. They all desperately wanted interest rates to go up today. It's the only thing that they can agree on right now. So they should spare us their confected outrage. They left us much higher inflation. They left us a much weaker budget. They took to the election a policy to make all of that worse, not better. This side of the House is focused on the cost-of-living challenge. That side of the House is focused on who sits where from one week to the next. We won't be distracted by opposition parties which are divided, divisive and in disarray.

My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government. How is the Albanese Labor government focused on keeping regional communities connected in the air and on the ground? What approaches to regional Australia has the government rejected.

I thank the member for Braddon for her question. I know she, as the member representing Devonport, Bernie and King Island, was very pleased to meet today, as was I, with the Air T CEO, board and executives, the new owners of Rex airlines, to further reiterate this government's commitment to regional Australia. I, like the Speaker, welcome Air T and Rex to the gallery today. We look forward to working with you to see you deliver the valuable service for our regional communities across this country.

Our government backed Rex. We committed to keeping it flying until we could secure a buyer. And now Rex is moving on to a new chapter of regional aviation. Because of the work of this government, whether you're travelling Moruya to Sydney, Coober Pedy to Adelaide, Monkey Mia to Perth—or, in fact, from the opposition benches maybe to the crossbench—Rex will continue to get you there. Ensuring Rex kept flying is just one of the ways that we have invested in our regions to keep them connected.

Back here on the ground, while the Nationals are busy playing musical chairs, we're building major infrastructure in their electorates, because someone has to actually do the job of delivering for the regions. In the former shadow assistant treasurer's seat of Cowper, we're making strong progress with the Coffs Harbour bypass, a project promised for decades, announced but not delivered, but now being delivered by the federal and state Labor governments.

Opposition members interjecting—

Sorry, I can't hear you from way over there. I really can't.

In the Nationals Chief Whip's seat—congratulations on keeping your role—not only are we making a record investment in improving the Bruce Highway; we're also delivering the Rocky ring road and upgrading key beef roads across her electorate. And, while the shadow assistant minister for communications has been busy setting up SurveyMonkey surveys about the future of the coalition, we're upgrading level crossings; pushing ahead with the Western Highway Upgrade, from Stawell to the South Australian border; upgrading the Horsham junction; and fixing bridges right the way across her electorate.

For those that do remain on those benches opposite—I know the member for Wannon is now the acting shadow minister for northern Australia. To give him an update, we're, of course, sealing further sections of the iconic Tanami, we're working with the Territory government to deliver the new ship lift, and we've committed $440 million to develop new logistics hubs.

We are delivering again, right across our regions. There's a lot of work happening across the country to ensure regional communities can actually get ahead. I know it can be hard for those opposite to keep up when they're stuck in their internal party machinations. It's Labor that is the party of the bush, and we're getting on with delivering for the regions.

My question is to the Prime Minister. The RBA has just confirmed the worst fears of Australians. Interest rates have risen by a quarter of a per cent, meaning the mortgage repayments of millions of Australians will rise. The Prime Minister promised that Australia had 'turned the corner' on inflation and that his government had it 'under control'. The Prime Minister took credit for rate cuts last year. Will he now take responsibility for the rate rise today?

We've acknowledged, certainly, that many Australians are doing it tough, and that is why we have engaged in responsible economic management, turning those massive budget deficits into budget surpluses and smaller deficits going forward. It's why we have made sure that we've paid off some of that Liberal debt by lowering the amount of debt that is owed.

Honourable members interjecting—

It's just a fact—$176 billion. That's why we went to the election in 2025 promising lower taxes and lower deficits than those opposite, than the shadow leader over there. What we have done is continue to engage during all of that, dealing with those macroeconomic issues whilst making sure, because we understand that people are doing it tough—it's not enough just to express grievance. What you have to do is come up with solutions, and that is what we have done, whether it be a tax cut for every taxpayer, which they opposed—they opposed it at the time, remember? Before they even saw what it was, they said they were against it and they'd reverse it—they'd turn it over. They then opposed and actually went to an election saying they would reverse the legislated tax cuts that come in on 1 July.

The member for Wannon on a point of order?

It just goes to relevance. This was a very specific question about taking responsibility for the interest rate rise.

The question was specific, but it was broad in the preamble, accusing the Prime Minister of things, so I think he'll—

Worst fears!

The member for Goldstein will leave the chamber under 94(a)—for goodness sake!

The member for Goldstein then left the chamber.

When we're trying to deal with points of order—and to give the member for Wannon a fair go—chirping away is not the way to do it. The member for Wannon has raised his point of order on relevance. I'm going to make sure the Prime Minister is being directly relevant to the question he was asked, but it was broad in its context. I'm asking him to return to the question.

I note the interjections from those opposite. They take these issues so seriously that they're playing bets on who can get thrown out of parliament first, as the member for Goldstein leaves the chamber—the shadow manager of opposition business. What we have done—

Honourable members interjecting—

Order! The House is going to settle down. There have been far too many interjections. We're going to deal with this in an orderly way. The Prime Minister will continue and be heard in silence.

There are the tax cuts that were opposed by those opposite, including the one that will come in in July this year and the one next year, and the 15 per cent wage increases for aged-care and childcare workers, which those opposite described as waste, helping people to earn more and keep more of what they earn. We cut student debt by 20 per cent—they said that was waste as well—making an enormous difference to three million Australians, making them $5½ thousand better off. Over 70,000 student nurses, midwives, social workers and teachers now actually get paid prac during their placements, and 725,000 Australians have benefited from free TAFE. There are cheaper medicines. There are over 200,000 cheaper home batteries, which are cutting electricity bills of households. These are measures that a responsible government does to actually make a difference.

My question is to the Minister for Health and Ageing. How is the Albanese Labor government delivering cheaper medicines for all Australians and making life-changing medicines available on the PBS? Why is this so important after a decade of cuts and neglect?

I thank the member for Hunter for the question but also for his amazing work as the Special Envoy for Men's Health. He's busy lifting awareness and having honest, sometimes brutally frank conversations with Australian men about looking after themselves, about getting checked regularly, about seeking help if something doesn't seem quite right and about looking out for each other as well. I'm delighted that the member has agreed to take a leading role this year in the fight against prostate cancer as well. Of course, this is Australia's most common cancer. One in five Australian men will receive a prostate cancer diagnosis at some point in their life. Although we have very, very high five-year survival rates, around 4,000 Australian men every single year lose their battle to this cancer.

On Sunday I was delighted to announce the government's 399th new listing on the PBS, a drug called Andriga-10. It's a new combination therapy for advanced prostate cancer that has proved resistant to surgical or chemical castration. Around 2,000 men will have access to this medicine, including Charles Abdilla, a terrific 84-year-old who joined us at the announcement at the Royal Adelaide Hospital on Sunday. Before Sunday, this new combination therapy would have cost around $900 per script, or $10,000 a year. Now it will be available to those 2,000 men at affordable PBS prices.

As the member for Hunter knows, we've been busy ever since we were elected, making PBS scripts cheaper and cheaper and cheaper. In our first few months in government, three years ago, we slashed, by 25 per cent, the maximum amount that pensioners and concession card holders would pay for all of their medicine needs in a given year. Since then, pensioners and concession card holders have received an additional 87½ million scripts completely free of charge—scripts they otherwise would have had to pay for—saving them hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars. Finally, we delivered 60-day scripts for hundreds of common medicines, saving patients more time and even more money. As the Prime Minister has already said, last month we delivered another huge cut to the maximum price of PBS scripts, lowering it to just $25, the same level it was way back in 2004. For pensioners and concession card holders, we haven't just frozen their medicine prices this year; we've frozen them for the rest of the decade.

When we came to government, a million Australians were saying they weren't filling scripts that their doctor had said were important for their health, because of cost. These cheaper medicines policies are changing that equation. It's good for their hip pocket, but it's also good for our nation's health.

My question is to the Treasurer. AMP Chief Economist Shane Oliver and many other economists have warned that record government spending is adding to inflationary pressures and keeping prices higher for longer. Treasurer, why is this government making Australians pay more for mortgages, groceries, fuel and electricity?

I'll deal with the parts of the question in reverse order. Inflation was running much higher when he was in government than it is under us, but the substantive part of the question—

Twelve interest rate rises, Jimmy—all under you!

Order! The member for Page has asked his question. We're just going to show each other respect. The Treasurer will return to the question.

I'm asked about the views of economists about what's contributing to the inflation pressures which are in our economy. Let me read you three examples of economists who have pointed out, as has the Reserve Bank today, that the pressure on the economy, the upward revision, is because of faster-than-expected private demand at the same time as public demand taking a back seat, actually retreating. Diana Mousina from AMP said just this morning:

… government spending has peaked and the growth of government spending is going to add less to inflation …

Belinda Allen from the Commonwealth Bank said, 'The public sector's contribution to growth has eased significantly.' Luci Ellis from Westpac said:

Public sector demand growth is slowing and indeed was negative over the first half of 2025.

If the honourable member doesn't want to take those economists' word for it—I acknowledge that there are, as always in the economist profession, contested views about these sorts of things—I encourage him to read the Reserve Bank's statement today, because what that makes clear is that the pressure on inflation is coming from private demand. I know that it's terribly embarrassing for the member, who wrote this question before the statement came out, but the statement has made it really clear where the pressure is coming from and so does the statement on monetary policy. I encourage him to check that out. He should have read that before he asked the question, but, in the absence of that, now is as good a time as any. Economists have got a range of views about the contribution that's being made to inflation, but the Reserve Bank has made their view very clear.

My question is to the Minister for Education. What is the Albanese Labor government doing to provide real cost-of-living relief to Australians and support them to get a university degree? Why is it so important to continue to deliver rather than divide when it comes to education?

If I can thank my friend the brilliant member for Bean for his question, I might just do that! I told the parliament in November last year that we'd cut the student debt, by 20 per cent, of 1½ million Australians, but I can inform the House that that is not correct—at least not anymore, because now it's double that. Now we've cut the student debt of more than three million Australians by 20 per cent. We promised it; now we've delivered it. It's the biggest cut to student debt in Australian history. To put it in perspective, for the average Australian with a student debt, we've taken now $5,500 off their back. That's a lot of help for a lot of young Australians who might be just out of TAFE or just out of university or maybe just out of home. They're just getting started. And this isn't the only thing that we're doing. We're also cutting the amount that they have to repay of their debt every year. For example, if you're on 70 grand a year, we're cutting the amount that you have to repay every year by $1,300. Now that's real cost-of-living help. It means an extra 1,300 bucks in your pocket rather than the government's.

And there's something else that we're doing to help Australians with the cost of living. That's paid prac—financial help while you do your practical training at university—because, as many people do, if you have to give up your part-time job to do your practical training or you've got to move a couple of hundred kilometres away and rent, then it can be tough to pay the bills. That's why we're doing this. It's real cost-of-living help. We're now rolling that out for teaching students, for nursing students, for midwifery students and for social work students—people who've signed up to do some of the most important jobs in this country, like looking after our kids and looking after us when we're ill or when we're old, or women fleeing domestic violence. That's what we're focused on: helping Australians with the cost of living, unlike those on the other side who are just focused on how much they hate each other. They make the Beckhams look like a happy family. They're like a couple who bought a non-refundable holiday and then they broke up and now they've just got to sit there and suffer through it. They don't like paid prac. They don't like cutting student debt by 20 per cent. They don't even like each other.

My question goes to the Treasurer. Scores of economists have linked higher inflation and interest rates to this government's spending spree. Former Treasury assistant secretary David Pearl said the Treasurer is 'squarely to blame for the inflation mess we're in'. IFM Investors' chief economist Alex Joiner said, 'The fiscal guardrails have come off.' Treasurer, as mortgage holders are hit with their 13th interest rate rise under Labor, will you now finally take responsibility?

One of the problems with them not talking to each other over there is that his mate over there just asked the same question, essentially the same question.

Order! The deputy leader has asked his question.

At least when they used to talk to each other they could work out who asks what instead of wasting two questions on the same one. But anyway—

Opposition members interjecting—

Order! The member for Lindsay and the member for Fairfax have had good goes, so we're just going to cool it. We're going to hear from the Treasurer.

I thank the shadow Treasurer, who is also now, I'm told, the shadow Assistant Treasurer. They found the only bloke over there who could work with him, and they're still not convinced there won't be leaking of private conversations!

Order! The Treasurer will return to the question.

As I said a moment ago to his colleague, there are a number of economists who have pointed out, as have the Reserve Bank today in coming to their decision, that the uptick in inflation, the pressure on the outlook, is coming from private demand. I remind him again. Diana Mousina from AMP said, 'Government spending has peaked, and the growth in government spending is going to add less to inflation.' Belinda Allen from the Commonwealth Bank said, 'The public sector's contribution to growth has eased significantly.' Luci Ellis from Westpac said, 'Public sector demand growth is slowing and indeed was negative over the first half of 2025.' They couldn't be clearer. There are a number of economists who've pointed out, as have the Reserve Bank today, that what's happened with the inflation outlook is an upside surprise in private demand, not public spending.

The shadow Treasurer and shadow Assistant Treasurer should also know, now that the statement has been out for almost half an hour, that the Reserve Bank board itself has said the pressure is coming from private demand. So, a bit like his friend earlier on, I encourage him to read the Reserve Bank statement that they put out. Similarly, the Statement onMonetary Policy makes it clear that the pressures are coming from private demand, not public demand.

On the last part of his question, about taking responsibility, I think in the first answer today I made really clear that I take responsibility for all parts of my job. I take responsibility for playing a helpful role in this fight against inflation. I remind the House that one of those things that I take responsibility for is cleaning up the mess that was left to us by those opposite, who had inflation higher than six per cent and absolutely roaring. They are the same people who had bigger deficits, never delivered a surplus, didn't show spending restraint and took to the election a policy for higher income taxes, bigger deficits and more debt. Of all of the people that I would take a lecture from on responsible economic management, not one of the three far-right parties over there would be on the list.

My question is to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. How is the Albanese Labor government delivering cost-of-living relief to Australian workers, and what could put workers' wages at risk?

I'd like to thank the member for Dunkley for that question and also her passionate advocacy for workers in her electorate and right across the country.

The Albanese Labor government was elected on a commitment to help working Aussies with the cost of living by getting their wages moving again. And we are delivering. One way we are boosting wages is through reinvigorating enterprise bargaining, and now we're seeing the evidence of these reforms delivering. New data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics shows that wages of workers covered by enterprise agreements have risen by an average of 9.6 per cent over two years. Under our government we've reached record high numbers of workers on enterprise agreements, and these workers are earning more. In reporting on this ABS data, The Australian newspaper pointed out workers on enterprise agreements are pocketing the biggest pay increases across all pay-setting methods. This is good news for Aussie workers and evidence that our reforms are delivering.

I'm asked about whether there are any risks, and there are. While this government is focusing on delivering higher wages, there are significant risks when it comes to the pay packet of Aussie workers, and they exist across the chamber. We've seen those opposite in absolute chaos over the last few weeks, squabbling over who gets the top job, who's in charge—focused only on themselves. However, the truth is that when it comes to Australians wages and conditions, it doesn't matter who leads the Liberal Party, it doesn't matter who's in the top job. Regardless of whether the Nationals are in or out, those opposite will always look to cut the wages and conditions of Australians. We know this because they have a long history under many, many leaders. We had the introduction of WorkChoices, we had the economic architecture of keeping wages low as a deliberate design feature when they were last in government. They refused to protect penalty rates, promised to rip away work-from-home rights, and opposed every single one of our government's changes to get wages moving.

It continues even in the midst of this confusion and chaos on the other side. Just yesterday, Senators Sharma, Hume and Bragg reminded us there is something that unites them, and that is attacking workers. It is still on their agenda and it doesn't matter who leads. While those opposite remain absolutely divided and wallow in their confusion and chaos, our government is laser focused on getting wages moving and delivering for Australians.

My question is to the Prime Minister. Australia's billionaires increased their wealth by almost $30 million a day in the last year, according to a new Oxfam report. They now hold more wealth than the bottom 40 per cent of the population combined, while everyday Australians struggle to get ahead. Will your government implement a billionaires wealth tax so that all Australians have what they need to live a good life?

I thank the member for Ryan for her question. Indeed, inequality in Australia is an issue on which this government is focused. The member is, I think, reflecting a view that many Australians would have when they look at the extraordinary growth in wealth at the very top end, and the fact that many Australians are doing it tough. That is an issue which is absolutely critical, but that's one of the reasons why our focus when it comes to tax cuts was—you might recall, and I'm sure the member voted for it—to change the stage 3 tax cuts. We made sure that, while lifting that top rate at which it cuts in from $180,000 to $190,000, we made sure that we took the same amount—around about $106 billion—and we redistributed it to people who really needed that tax cut. Of course, it was opposed by the Liberal Party and the National Party at that time. But that's why, when we were discussing with the Treasurer and the Finance minister in the lead-up to last year's budget how we could help people, our focus was on lowering that first marginal tax rate down to 15 and 14 per cent. We lowered that so that we targeted people who really needed the action.

The other thing that we have done is to make sure that we have provided government support through measures like the back-to-back rental assistance increases—for the first time—for more than one million households. Tens of thousands of older Australians are receiving a higher rate of JobSeeker, and 1.1 million Australians are benefiting from higher social security payments. That's why we've also made sure that 1.2 million people on low incomes continue to pay no or a reduced Medicare levy. The other thing that we have done is to change the LISTO for people in retirement, to benefit more than 1.3 million Australians.

But, in addition to the tax cuts, one of the things that we took to the election and that will take place is the automatic refund, so that, because of the system that we have put in place, those people who don't benefit from using accountants or trying to minimise their tax will get that automatic kickback in their bank accounts. In addition to that, of course, gender equity has been a big focus. Measures such as paying super on paid parental leave, closing the gender pay gap, lifting the wages of people in aged care and child care—all of these measures as well have been aimed at tackling inequality. That's something that the Australian Labor Party was formed to do and it's something that my government is absolutely committed to.

My question is to the Minister for Communications. What has been the impact of the Albanese Labor government's social media age restrictions so far, and how is this policy helping to protect young Australians from the harm of social media?

I thank the member for Petrie for her question and for introducing me to the students at the glorious Humpybong State School on 9 December last year, just 24 hours before the ban hit, to talk about what their life was going to look like in just 24 hours. On 10 December, Australia's online culture changed for the better. On 10 December, parents, teachers, carers, kids and government stood shoulder to shoulder against the social media giants. On 10 December, we sent a clear message to big tech to let Australian kids be kids, and, in the first week of Australia's world-leading social media law, 4.7 million accounts were deactivated, removed or restricted. That is a result to celebrate.

Order! The member for Lindsay will cease interjecting.

If you average that 4.7 million across all of our 151 electorates, it works out to 31,125 accounts in each of our electorates—electorates like Petrie or Banks or Bass. However, despite our best efforts—and I try to deactivate these accounts as quickly as possible—there are a number of accounts that still remain very active in particular electorates. There are social media accounts that remain very active in Hume and in Wannon and in Lindsay. Nonetheless, we can't catch them all, but we will keep working on this because implementation, we know, will not be perfect but will be really important. Every social media account that we deactivate is an extra opportunity for young Australians to make a connection in real life—to play sport, to listen to music, to learn an instrument or to read a book from the library. They can discover and learn who they are before these social media platforms assume who they are, and they get a bit of a reprieve from the algorithms, the endless scroll, the constant notifications and the pressure to get likes.

Australian parents can be confident that their kids can have their childhood back, and I've heard from kids, teachers, parents and carers right across the country who proudly back this law. One email that resonates was from a parent and educator, who wrote, 'Watching my daughter play with her younger siblings recently, I caught myself imagining the world that she might inherit because of the decisions that you've made.' This is what these changes are doing—helping kids build real-world connections. This is an incredible Australian story. It is about delivering cultural change that will take time. We don't expect information to be perfect, but we expect progress and continuous improvement, and we will hold social media companies accountable.

Prime Minister, it is well established that the opposition is the party or the group which has the most non-government members in the House of Representatives. Seeing as the crossbench is now as big as the Liberal Party and likely to soon exceed them with more defections, on what basis are the Libs still regarded as the opposition and enjoying the perks that go with it?

I thank the member for Clark for his question. Indeed, we have noticed the changes that have occurred in this chamber. What has been going on over recent weeks while we have been rolling out the cost-of-living measures, doing deals with states and territories to improve hospital funding and going to South Australia for the first of the new housing agreements helping 17,000 new homes to be built—7,000 of which are reserved for first homebuyers—is that those opposite have been solely focused on themselves. I used to get admonished sometimes by the Speaker for using the term 'no-alition'. I meant it as a joke, but those opposite regard it as a mission statement as they go through. They're fighting each other with the same sort of energy that they used to reserve for fighting our cost-of-living measures as they go through.

We will continue to focus on government. With regard to the issues that he raises, I'll wait and see what happens. I have said I'll have respectful discussions, including respectful discussions with the Leader of the Opposition, because I think that's appropriate. I am very much a traditionalist when it comes to—

Opposition members interjecting—

Okay, you won't come to the meeting, and don't bring him! When it comes to the traditions of this chamber, over a long period of time—

The member for Gippsland is warned.

Perhaps the leader of the Nats shouldn't bring the member for Gippsland either. The fact is that there are representations being made to me about a range of issues. I will treat those representations respectfully because I think it's important that this parliament is able to function in an appropriate way.

My question is to the Minister for Health and Ageing. How is the Albanese Labor government delivering more urgent care clinics across the country? Why is it important for Australians to be able to access urgent care when they need it after a decade of cuts and neglect?

Thank you to the member for Sturt. She's still in her first year, but she's already making a terrific contribution in this place and greatly representing her community in the eastern suburbs of Adelaide. Particularly on health, she brings really valuable insights from her time as a board director of the Royal Flying Doctor Service, and she's already delivered on the commitment she made to open a Medicare urgent care clinic in Norwood.

It opened on 17 December. It's in the heart of her community on the parade there in Norwood, and it's already seen hundreds and hundreds of patients, like Hermione Farmer's daughter. Ms Farmer wrote online about her experience. She said:

My daughter used the walk in Medicare clinic at Norwood on NYE—

and it's pretty hard to find a GP clinic open—

It was great She got the high quality of care she needed in a timely fashion without sitting around in emergency for hours.

That was the promise that the member for Sturt made, and it's just one of 122 Medicare urgent care clinics that are open right now. Another 15 clinics are opening in coming weeks.

Why are you ignoring the Mid North Coast?

They're all open seven days a week, 365 days a year, with extended hours. Already they've seen 2½ million patients. A third of those patients were children under the age of 15, and a third of them were seen on weekends, where they would find it very difficult to get into their usual general practice. Importantly, every single one of those patients has been fully bulk billed. All they needed was their Medicare card. Once this is fully up and running, the network will see two million patients—

Order! The minister will pause. I'm up to 11 interjections by the member for Lyne, so she won't make 12; she'll leave the chamber—now.

The member for Lyne then left the chamber.

The minister will continue.

Once fully up and running, this network will see two million patients every single year, not just delivering high-quality urgent care free of charge—all you need is your Medicare card—but, importantly, taking pressure off our busy emergency departments, something the Prime Minister talked to the premiers and chief ministers about on Friday. All of this is why Australians know what they get from the Labor Party when it comes to Medicare. But, after a decade of cuts and neglect, the alternative is still not very clear at all. Of course, the Leader of the Opposition has got a pretty infamous record on Medicare from her time as health minister. I'm not sure the member for Canning has ever mentioned the word 'Medicare' in this place, and, as for the great pretender to the throne, the member for Hume, who inexplicably remains on the front bench, a man with no apparent honour at all, plotting against his leader from the front bench, well, he described our Medicare investments as wasteful spending!

Government members interjecting—

Order! Members on my right. The manager on a point of order?

On relevance, the minister is not being relevant to the question he was asked, and he's not referring to members by their correct titles.

On the point of order, the Leader of the House?

To the point of order, I'd say two things: one, the minister was clearly, from the way that question was framed, able to give the comments that he gave and, two, I note the member for Hume never claimed to be misrepresented.

The manager?

Well, if that's okay, I can refer to the manager of opposition and also a pretender to the throne. That would be in order. That would be his title, if that's what he's saying is in order.

Look, the manager—

An opposition member interjecting—

Whose side are you on? I wouldn't want you.

Order! I'll deal with this. The Manager of Opposition Business is correct. I'm agreeing with him. He's entitled to raise a point of order. He has a job to do, and everyone has a role to play in this parliament. He's entitled to raise a point of order; he did that. All members have got to be referred to by their correct titles, and I ask everyone to temper their language. I want everyone to show each other respect. Let's ask the questions, get the answers and keep moving.

My point is on this side you'll get work for a stronger Medicare; on that side you get Hobson's choice.

My question is to the Prime Minister. Today, the Prime Minister's handpicked secretary of the treasury, Jenny Wilkinson, joined every other RBA board member in voting to raise interest rates. When Labor spends, Australians pay. Prime Minister, what does it say about Labor's economic incompetence when its own Treasury secretary is voting to lift rates?

I think it reflects a level of desperation on behalf of the Leader of the Opposition that she would go after a wonderful public servant in the way that she just has. Now, the Treasury secretary, under governments of both political persuasions, attends these board meetings as a representative of the Treasury—not the Treasurer, not the government—and they play an important and a meaningful role there. They did when you were in office—when they were in office, Mr Speaker—and they do now. I think it is entirely inappropriate for those opposite to try to drag into this one of the finest public servants that this country has ever seen, especially to do it on the day when we've appointed Sarah Court to be the Chair of ASIC, which means that, under this government, this Prime Minister and this cabinet, for the first time in the history of four major economic institutions in this country, they're led by women—the Treasury for the first time in our history, ASIC for the first time in our history, the Productivity Commission for the first time in our history and the Reserve Bank for the first time in our history. We are proud of the appointments that we have made and the progress that we have made, and those opposite shouldn't try to diminish a very fine public servant, as they just have.

My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. How is the Albanese Labor government getting on with the job of building cleaner, cheaper energy? Why is focusing on the needs of Australian families important, and what are the risks to delivering the reliable, fair and modern energy grid Australians deserve?

I thank my honourable friend for the question. As a fierce advocate for cheaper and more reliable renewable energy, I'm happy to give the member for Bennelong and the House a progress report since we last sat. We've seen the December quarter figures. We saw record energy demand in Australian history in the December quarter, and we saw the grid cope very well. We saw 24 gigawatts worth of demand, and, because of renewables hitting 51 per cent for the first time in Australian history, the grid coped well—52 per cent in Western Australia. NEM, National Energy Market, emissions are the lowest they've ever been, and it is no coincidence that wholesale prices were down 44 per cent in the quarter. Renewables are up, reliability is up, prices are down and emissions are down, and that is no coincidence.

An important part of that story is home batteries. I'm pleased to report to the House that we have now installed 218,023 home batteries. As I've said to the House before, this is very much a rural, regional and outer suburban story. Taking some electorates at random, the member for Hume is doing very well. In his electorate, we've seen 2,404 home batteries installed, which is more than the electorates of Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane combined—in the electorate of Hume. He's way ahead of the member for Farrer on numbers. In Farrer, we've seen 1,862 home batteries installed, which is good but behind the member for Hume. He's also in front of the member for Canning on 1,986 batteries. The member Canning has conceded he's unlikely to take top spot when it comes to batteries.

In the National Party, I'm pleased to report the member for Flynn has beaten the member for Maranoa for the first time this week on 1,128 batteries, compared to the member for Maranoa's 922 batteries. But perhaps reports of a comeback by the member for Riverina have something in them, because he's blitzing it with 2,390 batteries in the Riverina. I was pleased to visit Wagga Wagga before Christmas to visit some of those batteries. In New South Wales, the member for Mitchell has been very busy on the numbers. We've seen Mitchell instal 2,889 batteries—the highest number in New South Wales. I was pleased to visit the Litchfields with the Attorney-General just a couple of weeks ago. They are very pleased with their home battery. He's in front of the member for Lindsay, who also has good numbers. The member for Lindsay has expressed an aspiration to lead, but she's got some catching up to do. She's installed 1,592 batteries in Lindsay, which I read is about 1,591 more than leadership votes she would have in any proposed ballot.

While those opposite concentrate on rolling each other, we continue to concentrate on rolling out batteries, rolling out renewable energy and rolling out cheaper, more reliable energy, because that's what the Australian people want.

My question is for the Prime Minister. Parliament has passed laws to combat antisemitism, hate and extremism, but legislative levers are one of a myriad of responses required to prevent terror attacks of the type that we saw in Bondi. You've called for a royal commission, but what are the other steps to address the underlying cultural, social and economic factors which contribute to extremism? Will you commit to adequately resourcing the implementation of a national anti-racism framework, a comprehensive strategy commissioned by your government and released in November 2024?

I thank the member for Bradfield for her question. Indeed, we do need to deal with a comprehensive response not just to antisemitism but also to building social cohesion. I think the attack that we saw in Perth is an example of something that the authorities are dealing with. I'll be meeting with the WA commissioner, who was in the chamber earlier today, along with the AFP commissioner to be briefed on that at a later time, because that was a very serious incident that is being looked at being designated to be an act of terrorism, and the authorities are looking at that indeed. Having received a preliminary briefing, I think it is quite extraordinary that there weren't more serious consequences of what occurred there in Perth. Antisemitism requires constant vigilance. We brought forward the legislation before the parliament, and it is a fact that there was a considerable advance through legislation not just on guns but on hate speech. It didn't go as far as the envoy on antisemitism's report recommended, but, nonetheless, it was a significant advance forward. I thank all those who voted for that legislation in both the House and the Senate.

We'll continue to engage across the board on these issues. The member refers to extremism and to issues breaking down social cohesion. We have had incidents as well of so-called sovereign citizens being involved in the murder of police officers in Victoria and Queensland. There is a range of threats that are very real, including, of course, a number of incidents that have been publicised before the court involving myself and members of parliament.

I think we need a broader conversation as a society as well about the impact of polarisation and about the impact, as I've said, of social media pushing people towards more and more extremes down these rabbit holes, and the fact that it's, well, clickbait.

Well, there's two seconds to go.

I give the call to the member for Bradfield.

I rise on a point of order of relevance. The question was specifically around the reasons.

The Prime Minister has concluded his answer. The time has concluded.

My question is to the Minister for Skills and Training. How is the Albanese Labor government's policy of free TAFE supporting Australians to get the skills they want and need, and are there any threats to the future of free TAFE?

Thank you to the member for Deakin for the question. Every day in this place we see what a wise decision the people of Deakin made last May. He came to this place having been a teacher and saw first-hand the power of education changing people's lives. And he knows, as we all do on this side of the House, that Labor is the party of education and the party of training, and we're the party of TAFE too, which is why I'm so excited to be celebrating the third birthday of free TAFE.

There's much to celebrate. There are 725,000 enrolments in courses, which is building that pipeline of workers Australia needs, whether it's nurses, construction workers, tech workers, early childhood educators and so many more. And, already, 210,000 courses have been completed, with plenty more to come.

To celebrate the third birthday, I had the opportunity to catch up with some students past and present to hear about how free TAFE has helped set them up for their futures. In particular, I heard from Ryan from Croydon in the Deakin electorate, who started his working life as a trade apprentice but was injured. He told me that, at this stage, even though he wasn't earning because of this injury, free TAFE meant that he could actually, in his words, give it a shot and see if he enjoyed this change of course. And now, thanks to his cert IV in cyber, he's got a job in that field and is really contributing to Australia's future, one of near 70,000 enrolments in tech and digital courses playing their part in helping Australians navigate the online world and helping others to stay safe.

When students say free TAFE has been lifechanging, those of us in this place should listen. On that note, the member also asked me about the future of free TAFE and risks, and I can say to everyone on this side of the House that the future is secure. More Australians under us can do what Ryan has done and set themselves up for life, but those opposite, who used to in coalition, haven't been listening to people like Ryan. They're too busy arguing amongst themselves, but they can agree on one thing—they hate free TAFE. The Leader of the Opposition thinks Australians don't value it, and they would cut free TAFE and, with it, the benefits that hundreds of thousands of Australians have seen.

Let me be very clear about this. This Albanese government will always stand up for free TAFE. Australians have sent a really clear message at the last two elections. They backed free TAFE. That's why we legislated for free TAFE, and, starting next year, it will be permanent so Australians right around the country can continue to get skills they want to do the jobs we need.

My question goes to the Treasurer. In announcing today the 13th interest rate rise under Labor, the Reserve Bank said in its official statement:

… inflation is likely to remain above target for some time …

In light of this, can the Treasurer rule out future rate rises this year?

You'd think by now that the shadow Treasurer would know that the Reserve Bank takes its decisions independent of government.

Opposition members interjecting—

I can hear them interjecting over there, including the member for Hume, but when we took steps to make the Reserve Bank even more independent, the member for Hume supported us until everyone else rolled him and then they opposed us. So he doesn't come to this with a heap of credibility when it comes to Reserve Bank independence.

Now, as I said before in the answer to an earlier question, I have responsibilities when it comes to managing the budget, rolling out the cost of living and working with these colleagues to make sure that we play a helpful role in this really important fight against inflation. We have different responsibilities to the independent Reserve Bank. The shadow Treasurer really should know that by now. He's been in the role for a little while. We've got different responsibilities, but we've got the same objective. We need to get on top of this inflation challenge in our economy. We need to do that in a way that doesn't sacrifice too many jobs, and that's the task that the Reserve Bank independently and the government separately are engaged in.

If the shadow Treasurer wants to refer to the statement put out by the Reserve Bank a little while ago, he should concede that this whole campaign that they've been running up to today—they've been desperately hoping for a rate rise today—and that saying that the Reserve Bank was terribly concerned about public spending was rubbish. If you look at the Reserve Bank's statement today, it doesn't mention government spending. It's not a factor in the decision that they took today. In fact, they've gone out of their way to say that the upside surprise in inflation and the pressure on the outlook is coming from private demand.

These aren't my opinions on their own. They are now in a statement issued by the independent Reserve Bank. If those opposite want to pretend now that government sets interest rates, that is, obviously, dishonest. Of course we don't, but we do work as hard as we can to get on top of inflation and to roll out this cost-of-living relief, because we do understand that people are under pressure. But we do more than acknowledge that. We're acting on that. If those opposite really cared about cost-of-living pressures, they would have supported our tax cuts, they would have supported our cost-of-living relief, they wouldn't have left us a mess in the budget, and they wouldn't have taken to the election a policy for higher taxes, bigger deficits and more debt.

Those opposite spent the end of last year trying to divide the country. They spent the start of this year trying to divide themselves, and now they want the Australian people to believe that, all of a sudden, they care about the cost of living. Only this side of the House does.

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

Thanks so much to the member for Holt for her question. I know she is a huge supporter of paid parental leave, and it was lovely to see Baby Ilija yesterday. He is growing up so quickly.

Before the Rudd and Gillard governments, Australia was one of the very few developed nations that had no paid parental leave scheme. Labor started paid parental leave, and we are expanding it. And from 1 July this year, we will expand it again. Families will get the benefits of a full six months of paid parental leave.

Under this Prime Minister, people who are receiving paid parental leave are already $12,000 better off—just since 2022. We have almost doubled paid parental leave since coming to government, and 180,000 families are benefiting from our changes. Our changes mean: more time—the full six months; more money; higher payments, and also superannuation, on paid parental leave; more flexibility, so more time for mum and dad to take off together; and more people eligible as well. And, of course, when they go back to work, mums and dads get cheaper child care as well, saving thousands.

Of course those opposite have not been clear on paid parental leave—not ever. It was in fact former Treasurer Joe Hockey who called mothers 'double dippers'—on Mother's Day! It was former prime minister Scott Morrison who called them 'rorters'. And when those opposite tried to introduce their own scheme, the member for Mitchell called it 'unaffordable and unsustainable and an albatross around the neck of the party'. And the member for Goldstein said to me: 'It's a very bad scheme. It's not my choice that women have children; it's genetic.'

They have always been a mess on paid parental leave. And if we needed a reminder of that, we had a tragic one during the debate on Baby Priya's bill when we had the member for Canning, the member for Bowman and the member for Barker hijack the debate on Baby Priya's bill. While the Liberals and the Nationals have always been ambivalent about paid parental leave, we are absolutely clear on this side: we support new families; we support new parents; we support this investment. We are delivering. They are in disarray.

My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. How many Australians received the $275 reduction in their energy bill that Labor promised by the end of last year?

I thank the honourable member for Nicholls for his question. I say 218,000 Australian families have reduced their energy bills to very close to zero, or are now getting a rebate, because of the Albanese government's cheaper home batteries policy, and every single Australian saw wholesale prices fall by 44 per cent in the last quarter of last year. We have more work to do to make sure that flows through to retail prices, and we intend to keep that work up.

The member for Hume promised that wholesale prices would be $70 a megawatt hour; they were $341 when he left office in 2022. That's the track record of the member for Hume. And in Victoria, the wholesale price of electricity in May 2022 was $233 a megawatt hour. Today, it is $37 a megawatt hour.

My question is to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister inform the House about his recent visit to Timor-Leste and explain why building our partnerships, Australia's partnerships, in our region is so important?

I thank the member for Solomon for his question. Of course, he served in Timor-Leste with the Australian Defence Force and has an important relationship with the people of East Timor, including its leaders. One of the things that strikes you very clearly when you visit Timor-Leste is the respect that members of the Australian Defence Force and others who've provided support for the people over a period of time for their struggle of independence and since then are held in. Last week was the first time I visited as Prime Minister, and there was a very warm reception from President Ramos-Horta and Prime Minister Gusmao. I was honoured to address the national parliament. We spoke of our shared history but also our shared future—the deep bond between our two nations. Of course, that bond was forged during World War II. When Australian troops were there, fighting for the defence of our nation in our darkest hour, the people of East Timor provided extraordinary support. Fifty thousand lives were lost as a direct result of the fact that the Timorese were there, side-by-side with Australian diggers. Many Australians were captured and imprisoned by the Japanese during that struggle, including my mentor, Tom Uren.

After the 1999 independence referendum, and again in 2006, Australia stepped up to secure peace and democracy in Timor-Leste. Our historic bonds are important, and now we look towards our nations' shared future. We proudly supported Timor-Leste's ascension to ASEAN last year, the 11th nation to be given full membership. Together we signed, with Prime Minister Xanana Gusmao, a parseria, a new partnership for a new era, an updated security agreement focused on cooperation. This is a relationship between equal partners based on mutual respect. I thank Timor-Leste for the honour that I was given while I was there, which I received on behalf of Australia as well.

My visit to Indonesia on Thursday will also be an important step in engaging in our region. These relationships are so important for Australia. The new alliance with Papua New Guinea, the treaty that we will sign with President Prabowo on Friday in Indonesia, the parseria with Timor-Leste—these upgraded relationships in our region are critical. In a turbulent world, we have a crucial role as a middle power, bringing nations together, advocating for our shared interests, and building a region and a world where sovereignty is respected and where the economic potential of our nation and our region is fulfilled. We are always working in the national interest to make a positive difference in the lives that we serve and to represent the Australian people. I look forward to visiting Indonesia later this week, and I thank very much President Ramos-Horta and Prime Minister Gusmao for the very warm reception. They are both very good and dear friends of Australia.

On that note, Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.

I move:

That leave of absence for the remainder of the current period of sittings be given to Mr Neumann.

I spoke with the member for Blair yesterday. On behalf of all members, we wish him, as he deals with the illness of his beloved wife, Carolyn, all the very best for this period. I have said to him that this is his correct priority. He's continuing to serve his electorate, but it's important that he not travel at this time, and I'm sure that will be respected.

Question agreed to.

Pursuant to section 42 of the Parliamentary Service Act 1999, I present the report of the Parliamentary Service Commissioner for 2023-24.

Document made a parliamentary paper.

I present the Auditor-General's Audit Reports Nos 10 to 21 for 2025-26. Details of the reports will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.

Documents made parliamentary papers.

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

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 to curb its reckless spending, now at the highest levels in 40 years outside of recession and making Australian mortgages more expensive.

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—

Today I rise on this matter of public importance because Australian families are being squeezed harder and harder, and this government clearly refuses to take responsibility. If people were tuning in to question time—and apparently fewer and fewer Australians are—to listen to this Prime Minister, to his Treasurer and to the response from his ministers, they would feel an incredible sense of disappointment in their government and they would say: 'They just don't get it. Do they not understand what the lives of ordinary Australians are like at this point in time?' Clearly not.

For millions of Australians, today's decision isn't read in an economic statement, the arcane pages of a financial publication or a financial market update; today's 25 percentage basis points rise in interest rates hits like a hammer blow, and that is something that this government clearly does not understand—but we do. This announcement will be felt at the kitchen table, in the mortgage repayments of Australian householders with mortgages, in the rent notice, in the power bill, in the grocery bill that somehow just keeps getting higher and higher week after week, in the cost of supplies for a battling small business and in the cost of fertiliser and diesel imports for a struggling young family farmer. For somebody whose mortgage is just coming off a fixed interest rate, to look at this 13th interest rate rise under this Labor government will bring real pain. But it's a pain that the Labor Party simply does not understand.

It is the 13th interest rate rise, and it will hurt. It is a reminder that inflation is not going anywhere under Anthony Albanese's Labor government. To listen to the Prime Minister say, as he did, 'We've turned the corner'—we haven't turned the corner. If we have, we're stuck on completely the wrong road.

We're on a roundabout!

Absolutely, Member for Durack; we're going round in circles, in some sort of holding pattern, with inflation high because spending is so high.

When you listen to the miserable excuses from the Treasurer like, 'Oh, read the fine print'—people aren't interested in the fine print in the discussion; they're interested in the decision. They're interested in what happens to their household mortgages and what happens to their bank balances. I don't think this government has met anyone running a battling small business today but we have, and I have. If you go into any small business, they will tell you: 'Nobody's spending money. Everybody's worried. Kids are going back to school. Everything costs more. How do you pay for everything that the schoolkids need as they go back? How do you look at the credit card balance after Christmas?' It's really tough times.

The point I make very clearly is: if you listen to this government, they don't understand it. We are on our own here; I make that point. Every time you hear the Prime Minister say, 'Oh, it's all part of the big picture internationally; we're all working together,' he has no understanding. Two years ago, Australia had lower interest rates than the US, the UK, Canada, New Zealand and the euro area. Today, after this rate increase, Australia will have higher interest rates than all of them—and we need to let that sink in. Canada has cut interest rates nine times without a single increase. New Zealand has cut nine times, the euro area eight times, the US six times, the UK six times. We stand alone not because global conditions are different here but because the government have made the Reserve Bank's job harder, not easier, with their reckless spending.

The simple truth is this: inflation is staying higher for longer because Labor have spent too much, have borrowed too much and have refused to put guardrails around government spending. That's not the Liberal Party saying that; it's economists—the economists that the Treasurer clearly despises because they don't agree with him; he'll be on the phone now, giving them a piece of his mind. He always tells them they need to back him in. But today, and this week, and this month, and this year, they haven't and they won't. It's economists saying this.

It's businesses saying this. This morning the Australian Financial Review reported that big business is urging the government to cut more than $50 billion a year in spending to help tame inflation. Big business don't always come out and have a lot to say about what the Labor Party, or even the Liberal Party, is doing. They stick to their knitting, as they should. They're getting on with the job. But even they have come out to say—wow. Cut $50 billion a year in spending—that's their advice.

Shane Oliver, well-respected chief economist for AMP—another chief economist that was pooh-poohed today by the Treasurer—said very plainly:

The best thing that Australian governments can do to help bring down inflation would be to cut government spending back to more normal levels …

We hear this excuse: 'It's the private sector.' What the government has done is shrink the private sector by increasing public demand. The private sector is shrinking, but the private sector is the one of people who take risks, who give back, who build this country, who build our communities. That's the private sector. Those are the battling small businesses that we walk into every day of the week. That's who's hurting right now. Those are the people that this government does not understand. It flows into every sector of the economy and every household.

Under Labor, the cost-of-living crisis is just getting worse and worse. It's not modelling; it's lived experience. What does that mean? What do these numbers mean in real terms? Insurance is up 39 per cent. Electricity is up nearly 40 per cent. Rent is up 22 per cent. Health costs are up 18 per cent. Education is up 17 per cent. Food is up 16 per cent. I'm not reading out luxuries; I'm talking about essentials.

While families are tightening their belts, Labor keep spending. Every time they answer a question in this place by talking about money they're spent, I just want people to think of two things. We are paying—this country is paying—$50,000 a minute in interest on the debt. That's not going to Medicare. That's not going to schools. That's not going to hospitals. That's not going to tax relief. That's just interest on the debt. This is a government that is very generous with borrowed money.

And every time more money is borrowed—and it is; we're heading towards $1.2 trillion in debt—people need to think, 'What does that mean for the next generation?' It's them that I think of today. It's the next generation who can't find a pathway into a home, whose rents have gone up 22 per cent. It's gen Z and millennials who say, when asked, that the biggest worry they have is the cost of living and whether they will ever be able to afford a home. There's no time to talk about this government's dismal record when it comes to building houses, but trust me: it is incredibly dismal indeed, and Labor's debt is climbing fast and making it harder and harder. It's not fair on the next generation. It's not responsible. It's intergenerational recklessness.

Now, with today's announcement, the average mortgage holder is paying around $23,000 a year more in interest than they did under the coalition. Monthly repayments are up around $1,800. And small businesses are going under at record rates, as the member for Goldstein reminds us. He's in those small businesses too, and he knows the pain they're feeling. Nearly 15,000 collapsed last year. These are not statistics; these are families and livelihoods.

Labor treat these small businesses like an ATM. They pile on more costs. They pile on more debt. They pile on more red tape and regulation. Senator Bragg in the other place made some very strong announcements yesterday about red tape and deregulation, because that's what we want to do. We want to take this pain away. We want to give people the capacity to grow stronger, build their businesses and contribute to their community.

The Liberal Party believes in aspiration—that, if you work hard, if you play by the rules, if you do your best for your kids, if you contribute to your community, you should be able to build a better life. But that promise feels distant today because Labor have lost control of the budget, and they've lost control of the economy. We believe that you must live within your means. It was the first statement I made as opposition leader—how we do, in fact, have fiscal guardrails, live within our means and recognise that we should do that because that's how we deliver fairness to the next generation, and it's how we look after the vulnerable.

Our plan is clear. We will ease the squeeze. We will fix the budget. We will keep Australians safe. We will rein in the reckless spending. We will respect every single taxpayer dollar. We will always back small business. We'll make energy more affordable, and we will restore confidence that hard work in this country is always something to reward, not something to punish. Australians deserve better than the higher prices, higher rates and higher debt they're getting. That's the alternative the Liberal Party offers.

Our government knows that some people across our country are doing it tough. That's why we're so focused on helping them responsibly, thoughtfully, deliberately. If you look at the statement that was released by the RBA today, it talked about an increase in private demand. It didn't talk about government spending, which is the premise of the motion that we're debating here in this House today. That's a false premise, because what we know is that what our government is doing is helping Australians.

Have a look at what our government inherited from the opposition. They left us inflation with a six in front of it and rising. Now it's much lower than that. They left us with higher spending, no savings and bigger deficits. They went to the election with a plan for bigger deficits and more debt and a plan to hike up taxes for every taxpayer to pay for nuclear reactors. And weren't they popular—particularly in my home state of Tasmania, which is renowned for and proud of its renewable energy efforts with hydro? The fact that you were taking a plan like that to the election went down like a lead balloon.

We are focused on the cost of living; they are focused on themselves. We're focused on turning two budget deficits around and making them budget surpluses. Wages have come up. Unemployment is down compared to what we inherited, and our government is focused on supporting Australians dealing with the cost-of-living issues that they are facing. And we are serious about that—not just empty statements from the Leader of the Opposition about a plan. What plan? The opposition doesn't have a plan. They haven't even got a plan to reconcile with their former coalition partners. It's false promises from the Leader of the Opposition.

I think it's important to put it in context. Look at the decade of the former coalition government and think about that decade as a lost decade, a decade of cuts and neglect. They left the country with structural deficits, wages stagnating, a housing crisis. They did nothing about it. For the Leader of the Opposition to come in here and lecture us about our program to build more homes, to support Australians into homeownership and to support them into affordable and social housing, when they did barely anything at all to support Australians dealing with this, is offensive. Think about the way that they left families struggling to access affordable child care and people struggling to find a bulk-billing GP. How many Medicare urgent care clinics did you build? Zero. The member for Lyne up there is giving the member for Lyons a bad name because she gets ejected and people think it's me! Our government is building Medicare urgent care clinics; their government didn't build a single one.

The records of those opposite speak for themselves. The Australian people voted them out for a number of reason. Amongst them was the fact that those opposite didn't have a plan to help tackle the cost of living. In fact, the opposition leader got up just now and said they've got a plan. Where is it? You certainly didn't take it to the election. You didn't present to the Australian people an option for them to vote for you, because you were outlining a range of measures to help to support them to deal with the cost of living, and you haven't done that since. The reality is that those opposite have nothing to offer Australians today. What solutions are they providing? Those opposite can't agree on who should sit where in the chamber. We saw that again today. We're focused on the cost of living and delivering for Australians; those opposite are focused on themselves.

I thought it was notable today that, when the opposition leader was giving her remarks, the member for Hume was missing. Where was he? The division in the opposition benches is clear for all to see. Those opposite can't help but have a giggle about it because they know it's true. It's on display for all Australians. How can we take you seriously—how can Australians take you seriously—when you can't take each other seriously? You can't even show up for the speech the opposition leader gives in this chamber on the first day back of the parliamentary year on the official calendar. I think it was interesting, some of the remarks made by the opposition leader. She spoke about a 'pain the Labor Party simply does not understand'. Was she talking about herself—the pain of the coalition split? When she talked about going around in circles, stuck in some kind of holding pattern, was she talking about this malaise the opposition find themselves in as they negotiate behind closed doors to roll her?

The government is focused on Australians. Our priority is supporting them to make sure they live a life of dignity and live a productive life. That's why we've been serious about taking deliberate steps to support initiatives that not only reduce the cost-of-living pressures Australian families are feeling but also increase the productivity of our economy. Look at some of the measures that our government has invested in. This is not wasteful spending, and I challenge members opposite to tell me which of these initiatives you don't support. Some of them we know—you don't support tax cuts, for one. We know you don't support tax cuts for hardworking Australians. You've made that plain. You voted against it, and you took a policy to the election to increase taxes. So we know you don't support that. Energy bill relief is another thing you didn't support. In fact, you wanted to spend taxpayer money building nuclear reactors—billions of dollars. That would have put power prices up through the roof for hardworking Australians.

What about more free GP visits? This has been a hallmark of our Labor government that understands the value and the importance of Medicare. It's in our DNA. Do you propose to roll back the investments that we've made to fund Medicare urgent care clinics across our country? Is that reckless spending? What about the increase in the bulk-billing rate? We've seen 1,300 more practices convert to be fully bulk-billing across the country since 1 November last year. Is that reckless spending? Is it? Are you going to roll that back? Are you going to introduce the co-payment again? Why don't we go back to the ghosts of Liberals past, like the former member for Dickson, and introduce a co-payment? The opposition leader, when she was the health minister, did nothing about addressing the falling rates of bulk-billing. What did she do about the Medicare rebate? Did she increase it once? Doughnuts.

I think the record of the Liberal Party speaks for itself, but maybe it's an interesting question for constituents in their electorates and the Australian public to ask them. Is spending on health care reckless spending? Is increasing the bulk-billing rate for Australians, who can now finally see a doctor for free, reckless spending? Is investment in Medicare urgent care clinics, which are supporting millions of Australians to see a health professional in their time of need, reckless spending? What about cheaper medicines and the $1 billion that Australians have saved on cheaper medicines because of our government's commitment to lower the price of medicines to support Australians to get the health care that they need? Is that reckless spending? These are serious questions for the opposition to confront, and there's no response.

What about free TAFE? We know you're not a fan of that. This is a productivity-enhancing measure. This is about equipping Australians with the skills they need to be able to go and pursue their dreams to get a job here in our country and support in areas of economic activity, in child care, in aged care and in teaching. These are investments that are supporting Australians to live a good life. This is not reckless spending. What about the cuts we made to student debt of 20 per cent? Are you going to put that back on? You're going to increase student debt by 20 per cent. This is what Australians need to ask themselves when they hear the Liberal opposition leader talk about reckless spending.

The RBA has been clear in its statements today. It's private demand that's been the key reason why they've made a decision as an independent board to lift rates. There is no doubt that this will hurt some Australians who've got a mortgage, and that is why our government has been so single-mindedly focused on delivering cost-of-living relief to all Australians. It's why we've supported pay rises for some who are working in highly feminised industries, like aged care and child care. It's why we've supported pay rises for those who are on the minimum wage. We're supporting parents through enhancing paid parental leave, access to cheaper child care and more childcare places, because I know that this is one of the key ways that we unlock opportunity for women, in particular, to participate in our economy. These are productivity-enhancing investments. This is not reckless spending.

I would like to just finally make the point that, when Australians think about who's going to give them a fair go, I feel confident when I look at our benches that there is a competent group of ministers and a team here working every single day in their electorates for that single purpose—to give Australians a fair go. Do those opposite really think they have anything to offer Australians at the moment with respect to a comprehensive economic narrative? Do you? Really? You can't even work out who's going to be your shadow Assistant Treasurer. It's just embarrassing. You can mark yourself up if you like, but I think Australians are marking you down right now. (Time expired)

It actually genuinely is with great sadness that I stand today, because Australia, today, has received some very bad news. I think first and foremost of the families who have come through Christmas and whose family budgets are looking awful. They've been dropping the kids off to school. They don't know whether or not they have to forego takeouts or school sport. They're having to buy the shoes, the uniforms and the textbooks. They're struggling. Today, they received the news from the Reserve Bank of Australia that interest rates are going up. I don't know how bad this has to get for the Australian people before the Albanese government starts taking this matter seriously.

Throughout question time today, despite this being the most important issue facing Australians, we had continuous hubris from the Prime Minister and giggles and laughs and jokes from the frontbench of the Labor government. Meanwhile, the Australian people are struggling. It might be true, of course, that most Australians aren't going to be glued into question time, but it does go to the character of those who are running this country. The fact that the Treasurer continues to refuse to take any responsibility for the fact that interest rates are going up due to his spending spree—I can't find a credible economist in the country who is not saying that the Albanese government isn't overspending. All economists are saying they are overspending, and the more they spend, the more it's basically putting pressure on the RBA to lift rates.

This government cannot stop spending. This is the highest spending government in 40 years, outside a pandemic. In 40 years, no government has spent as much as this government. It's an extraordinary amount. Spending as a percentage of GDP has gone from 24 per cent to 27 per cent—amazing! Every single time we see an economist come out say the government is overspending and it's driving up interest rates, the Treasurer denies it. And who are the ones who lose? It's the Australian people.

Spending is so bad that, last week, we revealed a $60 billion black hole in Labor's government. That is a deterioration of $60 billion since the election. Did they come forward and transparently tell the Australian people about this? No, they didn't. We had to go and find it. We had to go and find it in the MYEFO report that they laid down in December. They want to keep it a secret—$60 billion. To put that in context, that's around the size of our entire defence budget. But here's the thing, when the Treasurer has been asked to explain that deterioration, he hasn't known the answer. So spending is so bad the majority of that $60 billion, according to the official figures, is due to more spending, but the Treasurer himself doesn't know what he's going to spend that money on. This is how bad it is. In fact, when he was challenged to explain, he tried to brush it off and say it's only a small deterioration. Since when is $60 billion a small deterioration? We know economist after economist is coming forward and saying that this government is overspending.

We have also revealed that, in this financial year alone, there is an additional $50 billion being spent by the Albanese government on discretionary items. We're not talking here about health, education, the NDIS and social welfare. We're not talking about those pressures on the budget. We are separately talking about cabinet ministers sitting around the table and deciding on separate initiatives. Governments have every right—they are entitled to decide what they want to spend the money on, but they have an obligation to find offsets in the budget, and this is what they are not doing. They are pouring more money into the economy. The economy has capped out with a speed limit, but they keep putting money in, forcing the Reserve Bank to come in and take money out. And how do they do that? They do that by increasing interest rates. This is why it is the responsibility of this government. But they refuse to take responsibility.

So let's not take this debate today really as being the Labor Party versus the Liberal Party. This is about the Labor Party versus the Australian people. This is the Labor Party against Australian families. This is the Labor Party going to hardworking Australian families, taxing them more, taking more money out of their pockets to feed a spending spree, forcing interest rates up—and then they have to pay higher mortgages. That's this problem.

I am privileged to have the opportunity to stand here and talk about this moment. It's interesting to hear the shadow treasurer lecturing the government on credibility. It is fascinating, considering that, during question time, he did not know how interest rates were set and that they're independent from the government. Neither did he read the RBA governor's statement on interest rates. If he had read the statement, he would have seen that it was a growth in private demand. The truth is that, if we have a shadow Treasurer that lacks credibility, what does that say about the coalition as a whole? But I won't talk about that, because what we really want to talk about is Australian families.

I am the member for Swan. I have an electorate which has many people that have households. I got to drop off my daughter at school yesterday. Sometimes those opposite talk about things in an esoteric way. I had the privilege of dropping her off for her very first day of full-time school, and what I would say is that I'm in touch with what's happening in our communities and I know that households are doing it tough, but what I also know is that people out there in Australia know which government or which side of politics has their backs, and it is indeed the Albanese Labor government.

We are a government that managed to deliver two surpluses. We have been looking for savings for every single part of our budget. I know that the Minister for Finance has been working very hard on this, and what I would say is that the finance minister and the Treasurer are a dream team. There is so much talent on this side of the bench. The truth is that, when we talk about dream teams, theoretically that should be the Liberal Party and maybe the Nationals, but they can't even decide on whether or not they're a team. It's fascinating that we're at a time in politics where the opposition and the crossbench have exactly the same numbers. When you talk about numbers, you want to trust a side that understands numbers, and it doesn't sound like that side understands the numbers—very, very concerning!

This government has been working very intentionally to bring down inflation, and we have been doing that for a long time—slaying that naughty inflation dragon.

I totally recognise that. It has been persistent. There are parts of it that have been persistent. But I'm going to say that we have done a better job of dealing with inflation than the other side. What our side of politics has been doing is looking at what sensible investment looks like, and I have seen that in my community. And an example is METRONET, where we have seen the elevated rail line, which is increasing productivity on our roads. It's also activating community spaces.

Also, last week, I got to attend the Chung Wah community centre, which will be a new project, again, in the heart of Swan. One of the things that we got to hear about is the Lunar New Year and the project that symbolises something bigger. The Lunar New Year calls us to remember that prosperity is not created overnight. It is built step by step, one brick at a time, one apprenticeship at a time, one community at a time. That is what responsible delivery looks like.

It also looks like strengthening Medicare so people can get care without a credit card. Medicare urgent clinics are providing fully bulk-billed care for urgent care but not life-threatening issues. We began this commitment with 50 clinics and we've already delivered 90, with a plan to expand the network further. This means that more families are getting seen sooner and putting less pressure on our hospital departments.

Cost-of-living relief also looks like the two tax cuts that are coming this way towards households, something that those opposite did not take to the last election. Yes, the Labor Party is the party of lower taxes. We are also moving on wages because the Labor Party fundamentally want to see incomes increase, something that those opposite do not believe in.

Today is a sad day for millions of Australians. As they finish their work and drive home—or catch the train or a tram if they're in Melbourne—they'll be hearing over the radio about how the Reserve Bank has increased interest rates off the back of inflationary data that shows that the government has lost all control of its fiscal purse strings. Australians are going to receive this news at a time when their Christmas credit card is coming and when they've just paid for new uniforms and books and all the other costs of kids going to school for the new school year. There has never been a time in Australian history where people can less afford to absorb higher interest rates, particularly families who are only just getting their head above the financial water.

But, unfortunately, the Reserve Bank has delivered some terrible news to those households today. And, of course, we know it will be passed on by the banks quickly. While the government want to defer responsibility and say they are not to blame, that simply isn't the case. Even IFM Investors' chief economist has said, 'The fiscal guardrails have come off.' Time and time again we have heard from economists that it's government expenditure at both the state and federal level that is driving inflation. Debt spending of borrowing from tomorrow to fund today is driving the inflationary pressure and the pressure that sits on the Reserve Bank to increase interest rates.

You can see it in the headlines of only a few days ago, where it was reported that the government got its projections around expenditure $57 billion off. Well, Deputy Speaker Claydon, have you ever watched Monty Python and the Holy Grail, the episode with the Black Knight? I think they, on the other side of this chamber, in the Albanese government, are trying to pretend that it's a fiscal flesh wound. It is so much more serious, because, when you borrow from the future to spend for today, you have too much money chasing too few goods and services, so prices rise and interest rates go up. And that's precisely what is happening under this government.

We know it's not just their fiscal recklessness; it's also industrial relations inflation. They come into this parliament every single time and make the case about why they need to increase the costs on employers, directly attacking the root and branch of small business in this country. That's why, off the back of inflationary data, you don't just see a rise in the cost of prices of goods and services; you also see it in tax rates, where so many state governments now engage in the active process of taxation inflation to increase the charges that are going on small business.

Households are doing it tough. Small business are doing it tough. What does the Labor Party say? 'There's nothing to see here. It has nothing to do with us.' Well, that isn't the lived experience of the 40,000 small businesses that have gone insolvent under the Albanese government. They can't bear the cost any more of higher interest rates, higher inflation, higher industrial relations inflation and higher taxation inflation—15,000 in the past year alone, a record in Australian history since records have been kept. And I can tell you, Deputy Speaker, that I would never come into this parliament and boast, as members of the Labor Party have, about how I'm such a successful economic manager when 15,000 Australian households lost their capacity to be able to fund their costs last year, lost the pathway to be able to support their families. It isn't something to be proud of. It is an absolute disgrace. Forty thousand Australians have lost their incomes since this Labor Party came to government. Labor have their priorities wrong.

I hear so many Labor members screaming out, 'Well, what would you cut?' I'll make it crystal clear: we would not resist for one second cutting the cartel kickbacks that the Labor government wants to pass on to the CFMEU, which is increasing the cost and passing it on to Australian taxpayers and consumers. We know the Labor Party is compromised after the Prime Minister said previously that he would never accept donations from the CFMEU, and in the ABC disclosures he was exposed for telling a fib. We know directly that the Prime Minister has now been caught out misleading the public—and why? So they can continue the cartel kickbacks from taxpayers' dollars at the state and federal level, funded by Australians, to the CFMEU, who have direct connections to bikie gangs and organised crime. Taxpayers' money should never land in the hands of organised crime or bikie gangs, but this seems completely irrelevant. There is only one pathway through this: we must change the government.

This afternoon, we have outrage unencumbered by self-awareness. The assistant minister asked earlier why the member for Hume wasn't in the chamber before. I think I can guess: it may have something to do with the fact that he, as the shadow Treasurer at the last election, proposed a budget that would have had a $7.9 billion deterioration in the first two financial years of a hypothetical Dutton government. When they wave the finger at big spending, they forget the fact that they were kind of for it only a few months ago. This isn't ancient history, and we're not going back to 2022 or 1981; this is recent history. They did not propose responsible spending measures. Now we have yet another misdiagnosis of economic reality.

Today is a tough day for mortgage holders; we shouldn't walk away from that. There are many people in my electorate, often described as part of the mortgage belt, for whom today is going to be a really difficult day—another weight on the shoulder. When something that serious happens, we have to take the issue seriously, which means we have to look at the driving factors that have led to it. The RBA says it's largely from the private sector this time—and that's not about a blame game or saying, 'The private sector has done the wrong thing'; it means we have to dig a little deeper.

What are the issues? One of them is that our demand is starting to be too high relative to our productive capacity. Where do we go from there? The Albanese Labor government has been investing in the productive capacity of our economy, skilling up our workforce with free TAFE and working to cut red tape. Since the productivity roundtable last year, we've seen a number of measures begin looking at simplifying government processes, ensuring that pieces of information don't have to be inputted more than once—time-wasting silly forms and things like that. They have been a focus of our government because we know that in order to support our industry, to support our economy to get that kickstart it needs at this point in time, we need to ensure we are as productive as we can possibly be. That means working with the private sector. It means ensuring we, as government, are setting an example by ensuring we're as being as efficient and effective as we can be. But we don't let fairness go by the wayside. We have focused on the impact of households, ensuring that medicines are cheaper and that young people and people returning to the workforce have access to the skills they need to get the job they deserve—and that in turn means employers have access to the labour they need in order to improve the way their businesses are operating and to maximise their profits in the long term.

Inflation is the most pernicious tax. It is something that affects all of us, and we as a country get nothing in return. The fight against inflation is real and important, and it's been one of the three focuses of the Treasurer in recent times. It is looking at doing what we can to support a reduction in inflation over time, ensuring we are resilient to global headwinds and making sure we are building productivity in our economy across the board—and that is exactly what we're doing.

Today is a very serious day, and that is why we need to talk about serious solutions rather than relying on tropes and cheap tricks and trying to throw blame about—'Is it the amount of money?' or things like that. The RBA has said the reasoning for its decision—the fact that private consumption has gone up in relative terms to public is there in black and white. It wasn't only in recent data; it was in the last monetary statement as well. It's right there in the ABS data. It's not a mystery. We also know there are variations between states in terms of what's going on in their economies—housing prices and increases in other particular prices. It is a complex set of circumstances, and that is why we have to work to deal with it in a very serious, very methodical way, rather than relying on what has, frankly, become cheap theatrics and predetermined indignation. We've got to take this job seriously. Governing isn't as simple as throwing away lines that might make the other side feel a little sad for a moment; it is about getting the important work done. It is about identifying what we can do to support the success of Australians and ensure that our economy is going at the best pace possible.

When we look at today's announcement, this isn't one of glee. It's not one where any of us should be saying, 'Job well done.' The job is nowhere near done. There is a lot of work to do. The good news is that this government is doing it. We are focused on the task of improving the economy, improving the impact that has on households in Australia.

Things are getting more expensive because of inflation. We need to deal with inflation, which means we have to take it seriously. Misdiagnosing it is not the solution to that problem. Simply throwing out political tropes, cheap tricks and saying, 'Your fault, your fault, your fault'—that does not get anything done. We need to invest the time in reading the full report by the RBA. Rather than drawing our own conclusions, rather than cherrypicking quotes from economists here, there and everywhere, the RBA tells us why they have made the decisions they have. Read the full document, and then we can have a serious adult conversation about what steps to take next. We should be taking the politics out of this. We should be a solutions focused parliament. It is the least we can do for the hardworking Australians who are having a very, very tough day today.

By representing more than 92 per cent of South Australia, I represent small-business owners, farmers and families who understand the value of a dollar. Out in the country we know that weather, like the economy, can be unpredictable. We know that good years can be followed by lean ones. Because of this, country people understand the discipline that, when you have a good harvest, you don't run into town and blow every cent in the pub. No; farmers put money aside to prepare for the drought that they know is coming. They show restraint.

Unfortunately, our Treasurer, Dr Jim Chalmers, is no diligent farmer. Indeed, he has no economic credentials at all. He has a PhD in political science. He, by its very definition, is a spin doctor. I'll go again: he's a spin doctor! I'm a farmer from Bute, but I also went to uni and studied economics and engineering. Economics 101: a fundamental principle of government is to act in a countercyclical fashion to the private sector. In fact, Mr Maguire, my high school teacher, taught me this very fact. Unfortunately, our Treasurer, the spin doctor, cannot stop borrowing our money and spending it, completely ignoring the inflation right under his nose. We saw it today. The Reserve Bank of Australia has been forced to raise interest rates again, and Dr Jim, with a PhD in spin, has nobody to blame but himself.

The facts are simple. Rates are higher than they should be because this Treasurer has absolutely no discipline. Higher grocery prices; higher mortgage repayments; higher energy prices. The Treasurer's own budget papers tell this story. Since Labor came to office, they've added $50 billion of new discretionary spending to this financial year alone—$50 billion! To put this massive number into simple terms: that is money the government chose to spend, but it wasn't scheduled and it wasn't necessary. It was Labor sitting around the table, deciding to spend more money without finding any savings. When a farmer spends more money than they earn, the bank manager steps in. In this case, the Reserve Bank is that bank manager. When the government borrows more and pumps that extra money into the economy, it drives up prices. It makes inflation worse. To fix that, the RBA must raise interest rates to slow the economy and increase prices in the process. And here we are. What a surprise!

Standard economic analysis tells us a scary truth: to cancel out the damage of Labor's $50 billion spending spree, the RBA will need to raise interest rates nine times. You heard that right: nine times. The Treasurer tries to hide. He blames the former government, yet he's the one responsible. It's like being surprised that everyone is drunk when you were the one buying the beers.

The Treasurer even hides behind the Governor of the Reserve Bank. He boasts that she hasn't explicitly called him out. Well, out in the country we know that polite folk don't always go around shouting at people. The governor is polite; she tries not to embarrass this Labor government. But for the Treasurer to use her professionalism as an excuse for his bad management shows a total lack of respect.

Here is the reality for families in the country. If we swapped out one for the other, economists say that Labor's extra spending spree has the same impact on the economy as nine interest rate cuts. Think about that: if Labor had done the responsible thing, if they had acted like the disciplined farmers I represent in regional SA and showed restraint, we could effectively be enjoying the benefits of nine rate cuts now. For the average mortgage holder, that is worth about $14,000 a year. That is $14,000 that should be in the pockets of Australian families, but it isn't, because Jim Chalmers couldn't say no to more borrowing and more spending. To go back to my farm analogy, he couldn't resist the new double-cab 70 series with a lift kit, a snorkel and a bull bar when really the old one was plenty good enough.

Public spending is currently growing twice as fast as the rest of the economy. The government is getting fat while the private sector—our farmers, our tradies and our small businesses—are starving. It is simple. The more the government spends, the higher your mortgage goes. The Treasurer won't take responsibility for this mess. If he can't take responsibility for the problem, he certainly cannot be trusted to fix it. For that, we need a different government.

It's been a really interesting day. We've just heard that apparently the Reserve Bank governor was not telling the truth, because she was being polite, which frankly is a little bit patronising for a professional woman at the top of her career. During question time, we discovered that the member for Fairfax, who is now both the shadow Treasurer and the shadow Assistant Treasurer, doesn't know how interest rates are set. Perhaps he needs a better assistant. Anyway, while it may be inconvenient for an opposition desperate to politicise everything to deflect attention from their chaos and disorder, Reserve Bank Governor Bullock has in fact said that the drivers of inflation in Australia are strong domestic demand relative to supply, housing costs and market service prices, labour and non-labour pressures, temporary price movements and a tight labour market, which of course means we have low unemployment. You will note that government spending was not included in her comments, and I don't think she was just being polite. I think she knows her stuff. In fact, nor was it included in the Reserve Bank board's comments today, where the cause identified was in fact growth in private demand.

Let's not forget that the opposition, when they were in government, left Australia with inflation that was 6.1 per cent and rising. It's now much lower than that. They left us with higher spending, no savings and bigger deficits. And then most recently, as coalition opposition, they went to the election with a plan for bigger deficits, more debt and a plan to hike up taxes for every taxpayer to pay for nuclear reactors. We are focused on cost of living. They're focused on themselves. They oppose pretty much every cost-of-living measure to help Australians that we put forward over the last term of government, right down to voting against tax cuts for Australians. Meanwhile, we delivered two surpluses after a decade of deficits under them and paid down some of the Liberal debt we inherited from those opposite. The MYEFO showed the budget is now $233 billion better than what we inherited, and we found more than $114 billion in savings.

But, if the opposition truly thinks we should be cutting government spending, perhaps they could suggest exactly where they would like those cuts. Do they want us to cut health funding? We know they've tried to undermine Medicare since it was introduced, and, at a time when we have an ageing population with increased demands on the health system, we have responded by investing in Medicare urgent care clinics, Medicare mental health clinics, 1800MEDICARE, cheaper medicines, 60-day scripts and extra funding for the hospital system in our agreement with the states. So do they want to cut funding for health?

We know they neglected veterans, so maybe that's where those opposite think we should be cutting spending. When we came to government in 2022, there was a backlog of 42,000 veterans total and permanent incapacitation claims. These claims were sitting in the department for up to 18 months or more. They had not even been allocated to a worker for assessment, and I can only assume that's their idea of saving money—by not paying veterans' TPI claims. Shame on them for targeting people who've served our country, who, as we know, often only put their claims in when they're really desperate. But, when we came to government, we were appalled at their treatment of veterans, so we fixed the problem. We allocated an extra $477 million to process the claims, and those claims, paying veterans who've served our country what they are justly entitled to, have cost an additional $8.5 billion. So is that the government funding that those opposite think we should cut?

We know they don't believe in or maybe don't understand climate change and the need for energy transition, since 22 coal-fired power stations announced closure under them and they did nothing about it. Perhaps they want to cut funding for clean energy and instead spend squillions of government dollars on nuclear power plants. Perhaps they want us to get rid of the tax cut that will be coming in July this year and the one in the following July. We know they opposed our tax cuts in the last term of government, and they took a policy to reverse tax cuts and in fact increase taxes on Australians to the last election.

It really is easy to say 'cut government spending' with no detail. They don't seem to have learned from their detail-free policies at the last election, and they've reverted to a three-word slogan: cut government spending. But budgets are serious business, and spending cuts have impacts on real Australians. I challenge those opposite: give us some detail on what you actually think we should cut. Are you saying we should cut spending on infrastructure like roads? Should we cut on defence? Should it be education? Are we cutting the age pension or cost-of-living measures? You need to tell us what it is. (Time expired)

It might be a new year, but Australians are still lumped with the same hardships inflicted upon them by this government as they were last year. As families in my electorate of Monash sent their kids back to school last week, on top of the school supplies and new uniforms, they continued to get slugged with the cost of economic mismanagement by this government. Inflation is a homegrown problem, as the former governor of the Reserve Bank Philip Lowe has said. It's a homegrown problem because, as he noted as well as many others, government spending continues to grow.

As the MPI says, the government's reckless spending is now at the highest levels in 40 years outside of a recession. This is a primary driver of inflation, and the Treasurer's continued revenue ram-raids are driving this—so much so it's known as 'Jimflation'. 'Jimflation' is an invisible tax on the financial security of every Australian. Australians work bloody hard for the tax that they contribute, and this government's got complete disregard for those efforts. Australians deserve to know that their hard earned taxes are going to be spent in the most effective and efficient way possible. This government disrespects the tax that they work hard to pay. Australians deserve better than a government that continues to channel Paul Keating's 'you've never had it better' every time our economy goes backwards, every time we see someone struggling to get ahead.

Today we've seen the 13th interest rate rise under this government, and it's important to note that the minutes provided by the RBA today have left the door open for further rises. Meanwhile the Treasurer, again, tells us the budget is in better nick. He refuses to see that government spending is making inflation worse. Now, here are just a couple of examples, which Judith Sloan put forward in the Australian earlier. According to MYEFO, real government spending will increase by 4.5 per cent this financial year. It grew 5½ per cent last financial year. Government payments, as a percentage of GDP, are close to 27 per cent—another record outside of COVID and several years in the early 1980s. The Treasurer cannot continue to hide behind these figures, because government spending is driving inflation.

Just today, the Australian Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman released a report on the health and wellbeing of Australian small businesses. He says:

The December 2025 quarter marked the end of another demanding year for—

Australian—

small and family businesses that saw rising input costs, squeezed margins—

and—

new regulatory demands …

I note that the government continues to fail on its word to reduce red tape. Small businesses have never worked harder for less and faced more risk and red tape than under this government. And it's not just small businesses; it's households too who are at the coalface of this government's inflation crisis, which went up to 3.8 per cent in December last year. This is at the worst possible time for families, heading into a Christmas and into the new year. When the coalition was last in government, inflation averaged just 2.1 per cent—nearly half the four per cent Australians are seeing under Labor.

Everywhere I go across my electorate of Monash, people are telling me that they're struggling to pay their bills. Community groups are telling me they're struggling to keep their heads above water. Insurance has gone up. Energy has gone up. Rent has gone up. We have a prime minister that loves to wave his Medicare card around, telling us that's all you need to see a GP, when in reality health has gone up 18 per cent. Education is up 17 per cent. When I was at a listening post recently, I had a lady come out of the supermarket holding two bags of groceries, saying, 'Mary, I cannot get my groceries—these two bags of groceries—for under a hundred dollars.'

People are struggling. They deserve a government that cares, they deserve a treasurer that is going to be real with them about the economy and they deserve a prime minister that will face up to the challenges that we have instead of continuing to mislead them.

I want to thank the Leader of the Opposition for this fantastic opportunity to talk about the important measures the Albanese Labor government has taken to ease the cost of living for families right around the country. We have spent this entire term in government focused on the needs of the Australian community, delivering for all Australians.

The Liberals and the Nationals—the 'no-alition'—on the other hand have spent their entire time in opposition focused on themselves and their own political infighting. If those opposite want to talk about failure, they should be focusing on the failure of their own coalition. There have been so many break-ups, reshuffles, get-back-togethers and will-they-won't-theys that I'm not even sure who's on the front bench any more. Seriously, I cannot handle another seating plan. If the new season of Married at First Sighttanks, channel 9 has some new material to draw from right across this chamber.

Those opposite want to talk about Labor's cost-of-living relief. Sure—I'd be more than happy to oblige. The Albanese Labor government is delivering real cost-of-living relief for all Australians. As the member for Gorton, I've spoken to many members of my community about the cost of living—young people struggling to get into the housing market, people on pensions struggling to make ends meet when they pay their bills, a generation saddled with student debt. People are doing it tough; there's no doubt about that.

That's exactly why we've introduced the five per cent deposit scheme and expanded eligibility to all first home buyers, so more people can break into the housing market. In my own electorate of Gorton, Labor's expanded home guarantee scheme has meant more than 1,800 people have been able to buy their first home. That's real change for real families. And we're building more homes. In Labor's last term in government, we built 500,000 homes, and we're delivering more than 21,000 new social and affordable homes right across the country through round 3 of the Housing Australia Future Fund, its largest round yet.

There's no doubt today is a tough day for mortgage holders. It's why we've cut student debt by 20 per cent. It's why we've given every Australian household energy bill relief. It's why we've added more medicines to the PBS and capped costs for PBS listed medicines at $25. It's why we've increased the LISTO and raised the eligibility threshold to give low-income workers a superannuation boost. It's why we've delivered a tax cut for every Australian and will deliver a further tax cut this year and another one next year. Then there's the three-day childcare guarantee, paid prac and the biggest ever investment in Medicare so people can see a GP for free. And then there's free TAFE. It's actually free TAFE's third birthday. That's three years of free vocational education and training for Australians—something that unlocks doors and something that I know well. Thanks to free TAFE, my husband, Chris, can retrain to become a sparky. All this comes alongside our most recent announcement of $25 billion to state and territory governments for public hospitals as part of a landmark agreement.

I could go on, but the point is that this is not reckless spending. These are real cost-of-living measures that are making a difference to household budgets around the country, real cost-of-living measures that those opposite consistently voted against. Tell that to the families in Melbourne's western suburbs. Tell that to my community. We are listening to communities like mine, and we are responding. Meanwhile, by the way, we're appropriately managing inflation. When Labor came to government in 2022, the inflation rate had a six in front of it—a six. Now it's got a three in front of it. We've had two budget surpluses, and we've used those to pay down debt. Compared to what we inherited, wages are up and unemployment is low.

To be clear, those opposite call this reckless spending, yet they can't string together a reasonable policy agenda. They're inconsistent. They struggle to find a coherent position to scrutinise the government from. Last month brought us a clear example. They insisted we recall parliament early. Fine. Done. Then, when we recalled parliament early, they told us it was rushed. There is no consistent position in the 'no-alition', and it's no wonder because, looking over there at the Libs and way over there at the Nats, right now, I can't see a coalition at all—and I'm wearing my contact lenses today! Their inconsistency on key issues and their failure to form a functioning opposition is not helping Australians. This motion is not government scrutiny; it's a thinly veiled attempt to distract from their own political infighting and, quite frankly, it's just not working. I thank the House.

The discussion has concluded.

I move:

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

(1) the Member for Curtin immediately moving a motion relating to the Boorloo (Perth) bombing attack;

(2) debate on the motion continuing immediately;

(3) no amendment to the motion being permitted; and

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

Is the motion seconded?

Yes, I second the motion.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That the House:

(1) condemns the attempted bombing on January 26 in Boorloo (Perth) that targeted First Peoples and their supporters;

(2) notes that the Western Australia Joint Counter Terrorism Team, consisting of the Western Australia Police Force, the Australian Federal Police and the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, is investigating the incident as a potential terrorist act;

(3) acknowledges the serious harm this has caused and expresses its solidarity with all those impacted by this event;

(4) further notes that an attack against First Nations people is an attack against all Australians;

(5) notes that for many First Nations people, January 26 is a day of mourning and that an attack on this day, at an Invasion Day rally, represents a serious escalation of racial violence against First Peoples;

(6) further condemns all acts of violence and racism against First Peoples, and stands in solidarity with First Peoples against rising racism and hate directed at them;

(7) affirms that this Parliament's recent condemnation of racially motivated hatred unambiguously includes racism directed at First Peoples;

(8) further notes that the Federal Government has a duty to equally protect all people in this country from racism, discrimination, hate speech and the threat of racially motivated violence;

(9) further acknowledges that First Peoples in Australia continue to face entrenched racism, racially-motivated hate and threats of violence, and that any instance of this is unacceptable and must be addressed; and

(10) calls for governments to continue to take urgent action to address racism, discrimination, hate speech and violence against First Peoples.

I thank the House for allocating this time in the parliamentary schedule to discuss this motion, and I thank Senator Thorpe for preparing the words of this motion. This is the first sitting day since the incident at Forrest Place occurred, and it is so important that we acknowledge it, reflect on it and offer support to those affected.

On 26 January, a peaceful Invasion Day rally in the heart of Perth was violently targeted in what police are now treating as a potential terrorist act. A homemade explosive device, a bomb, was thrown into a crowd of people—families, young people, elders, community leaders—who were simply exercising their democratic right to gather, listen and be heard. We now know that only luck prevented a mass casualty tragedy.

An attack on a peaceful protest strikes at the core of our democracy. Our system depends on people being able to express views, including uncomfortable ones, without fear of violence or intimidation. This is not a privilege; it's a cornerstone of our democracy. Any act intended to frighten people away from participating in public debate is an act that threatens the health of our civic culture.

We must also recognise the particular context of this event. This rally was attended predominantly by First Nations people and those who stand in solidarity with them.

First Nations communities continue to face systemic racism and marginalisation which shapes how this incident is understood and felt. Violence does not occur in a vacuum. It lands differently on communities already carrying the weight of intergenerational trauma and ongoing inequity. Jim Morrison, Noongar elder and head of Yokai, reminded me today that not long ago Aboriginal people were not allowed to gather in the city of Perth. They were not permitted past Newcastle Street. That context makes it even more important that we fiercely protect the right of First Nations people to gather and protest in our streets.

At a time when the strength of our social fabric is being tested in so many ways, maintaining social cohesion has never been more important. Acts like this don't just harm individuals; they undermine people's sense of belonging and safety. When a marginalised group is targeted, the ripple effect extends far beyond those who are physically present. People begin to question whether they feel safe participating in public life, in gathering, in advocating or even just in being visible. After an attack like this, it is so important that the parliament sends a clear message that attacks on First Nations people, as with attacks on any Australians, will not be tolerated and will be pursued with the full force of the law.

For many Australians, particularly First Nations people, 26 January is not a day of celebration but a day of reflection, grief and remembrance. It's a reminder of dispossession and the enduring impacts of colonisation. That a violent act occurred during a peaceful gathering on that difficult day only heightened the sense of distress. Last week I spoke with a constituent who attended the rally. He shared with me the confusion and fear that swept through the crowd. He explained how profoundly vulnerable they felt. They were doing something entirely lawful and peaceful, yet suddenly they felt like targets. They did not understand why they were being asked to move, and the traumatic history of relations between Aboriginal people and police made them fearful and suspicious.

Many in my community have also expressed concern about the limited mainstream visibility of the incident and the dismissal of racism as a factor. When a serious act of violence that appears to have targeted a racial group receives minimal national attention, it raises legitimate questions about consistency in how we perceive threats, how we categorise them and how we respond. Australians want to trust that violence is condemned wherever it occurs and whoever the victims are. That consistency is essential to building and maintaining social cohesion.

I welcome the joint investigation by WA police, the Australian Federal Police and the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, and I urge those involved in the investigation to act with urgency. Their coordinated effort is vital to ensure the full circumstances of this shocking incident are understood and that appropriate charges are pursued using the full range of federal and state offences that apply. But as important as law enforcement is, our response cannot stop there. We must consider what this incident means for social cohesion in Australia. Cohesion is not something we can take for granted. It requires leadership that brings people together, that encourages understanding and shared purpose and that resists attempts to inflame or divide.

Violence aimed at supressing participation has no place in our democracy, and neither does indifference. We have a responsibility to acknowledge harm and to stand with all communities who feel targeted or unsafe. We also have a responsibility to commit ourselves to a more cohesive future, one where differences are aired respectfully and where all Australians feel they can participate freely in our shared civic life. For these reasons, I commend to the House the motion to condemn the attempted bombing, to acknowledge the serious harm that this has caused, to stand in solidarity with the First Nations people affected by this attack and to condemn all acts of violence and racism against First Nations people and all people.

Is the motion seconded?

I second the motion and I rise to speak in support of it. I unequivocally condemn the horrendous attack against peaceful protesters marching in Boorloo/Perth on 26 January and acknowledge the deep fear, anger and grief that this attack has caused, particularly for Indigenous people but also for Australians right across the country. For decades, protests on 26 January, often referred to as Invasion Day marches, have been held every year. This year, in capital cities and regional towns alike, tens of thousands of people gathered peacefully. They gathered to recognise the suffering of Indigenous Australians, the enduring impacts of colonialisation, the trauma of stolen generations, ongoing racism and the devastating reality of deaths in custody.

In Boorloo, around 2,500 people came together peacefully. Families were there. Children were there. People were marching peacefully to express their support for Indigenous Australians, exercising a fundamental democratic right and calling on the government to do better. At approximately 12.40, it is alleged that a homemade explosive device was thrown into that crowd, landing among women and children. By sheer luck, it did not detonate. This was not a hoax bomb. This explosive was reportedly packed with ball bearings and nails to deliberately inflict maximum injury and death in that peaceful crowd of families. This bomb reportedly failed only because of a faulty fuse. The thought of what could have happened is horrifying. Police confirmed that, had this bomb exploded, this could have been a mass casualty event. It should not be an image that any community has to imagine, and it should stop every one of us in our tracks. Tragically, Australians now find it easier to imagine the horror of terrorism. Many Australians are understandably afraid that hatred has motivated another attack—this time on the Invasion Day protest.

Australia is a nation woven from many sources. First Australians trace their history on this continent back 70,000 years, but most Australian families have come to this place through migration. The strength of Australia is, to paraphrase Noel Pearson, braided from ancient Indigenous history and culture, British institutions and multicultural achievement. Binding us together is a shared tolerance that accepts the rights of all to practise their faith, enjoy their culture and express their opinions in a way that accepts difference and acknowledges the reciprocal rights of others. This attack on this march was not just an attack on a protest. It was an attack on our shared values; on the right to gather peacefully without fear, hatred, racism or violence motivated by racial hatred; and on the safety of Indigenous Australians to simply stand together in a public space.

I welcome the fact that the Western Australian Joint Counter Terrorism Team is now investigating this incident as a potential terrorist attack. That acknowledgement matters because it reflects the seriousness of what occurred. But acknowledgement is not enough. Differences of opinion are inevitable. For some, 26 January is a day of mourning; for others, it is a day to come together and celebrate. We must make room for both. I am a very proud Australian, but I recognise that, for many Indigenous Australians, the celebration of Australia Day is a painful reminder of the impact of colonisation on their people. For some Australians, the Invasion Day protests are an affront to their national pride. But we must accept these differences and recognise the importance of the rights of all to express their views. This is something I think all Australians can unite on.

We and everyone in this country should be able to gather peacefully without any threat or fear of violence. We cannot tolerate those who turn difference into extremism and violence. We must ensure that free speech does not become an excuse for speech intended to generate hate and excuse violence. We must ensure that we have effective deradicalisation programs in place to steer vulnerable people away from radicalisation. We must ensure that our police and security forces have the necessary tools to prevent this violence before it happens. Those protections must extend to all Australians, including, absolutely fundamentally, our Indigenous Australians and their allies, who were targeted at the Invasion Day rally in Boorloo/Perth. We must act. We must stand with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians, and we must ensure that no-one in this country is made to fear for their life simply for exercising their democratic rights.

On 26 January, people gathered in Boorloo, in Forrest Place in Perth. It's been the home of democratic expression in my electorate for more than a century. What followed was the most abhorrent attempted attack on people simply exercising their democratic rights. This was an attack on First Nations people. This was an attack on all Australians. Indeed, it was an attack on our democracy. This was a potential terrorist act designed to cause significant harm, to cause fear and to kill our fellow Australians. A weapon was thrown into the crowd: a homemade explosive device that was there to kill and harm innocent civilians. That breaks my heart. Any attempt to attack or intimidate First Nations Australians is completely unacceptable, and this indeed was a direct attack on the social cohesion which we treasure here in Australia. There is no place for hate, intimidation or racism in our country. It's not the sort of country that we are and it's not the direction in which we will head, because our democratic rights, whether for First Nations Australians or our newest Australians, are fundamental to who we are. Democracy must never be met with threats of violence or threats of terrorist acts.

I'm so grateful that this parliament didn't have to deal with a condolence motion as the first item of business when we gathered today. I'm grateful that we've not had to have leaders and colleagues come and lay flowers in Forrest Place and that we have not had to attend funerals—but there is significant hurt in my electorate and across this country because what happened was potentially devastating for many of our fellow Australians.

I want to talk a little bit about the crowd. This was not just a crowd; they were treasured members of my community, gathered in our peaceful town square. Noongar people have stood on and cared for that land for 45,000 years. At the event we had First Nations leaders and Australians from all walks of life. Young people were at this gathering, engaging in public debate. Friends and neighbours jumped on trains to attend a rally that's been happening in Perth for many decades. We had parents pushing their kids in prams. When I was a kid in a pram, my parents used to take me to Aboriginal land rights marches through the streets of Perth. Back then, there were horrible chants. As a baby, I was spat on for attending those marches with my parents.

This was a thousand times worse. This was an attack on people who were simply having their say. It was not just a crowd; it was our community. It was Australia. This location, for those who don't know, sits between Perth's two CBD train stations—next to what we call the 'Cactus', a big piece of art in our city. Every day, 200,000 people go into Perth to work, to study and to spend time together. And that's why I thank the member for Curtin—because the Perth CBD belongs to all Australians. It is Australia's west-coast capital. It is where visitors come for tourism. It's our cultural capital, our nightlife capital, our business capital and a retail and hospitality hub. And I don't think there's any Western Australian who hasn't at some point found themselves in that very location. It's important that this motion passes through this House—and I also want to thank the member for Wentworth for seconding it—because it sends a very powerful message across this country.

Our government has stood firm in condemning this disgusting attack. I first put out a statement just hours afterwards, thanking police and first responders, when details were still very unclear. But what was clear even then was the vile nature of this act.

I want to again thank the WA police and, equally, the members of the public who spoke out when something didn't seem right—when they saw this explosive device thrown into the crowd. And I say, to all Australians: we all have a responsibility. If you have information that can keep your fellow citizens safe, please take action. Don't wait until it's too late. The National Security Hotline is there for all Australians on 1800123400, or there is Crime Stoppers on 1800333000.

Shortly after this happened, I said to our First Nations community in Perth, 'I stand with you.' That commitment has not wavered. I stand with that community. And I stand with those who seek to uphold our democratic freedoms, even when, as has been said very well by other speakers, people are putting forward views that don't sit with our own. I've said very clearly that I want to see our town square in the Perth CBD be a place where people can express their views in the democratic traditions we've had since Federation. As the investigation continues, I hold firm in that view.

On 28 January, it was announced that the Western Australian Joint Counter Terrorism Team would investigate this attack as a potential terrorist act. I thank WA police, the Australian Federal Police and the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation for their continued efforts in this regard. I also note in this place that I've had a number of conversations with WA police commissioner Col Blanch. He's continually briefed me on the situation, and I thank him for that and thank his team, who have been working incredibly hard following this incident. I met with him again today, and yesterday I was briefed by the deputy commissioner of the Australian Federal Police, Hilda Sirec. Today I also met with Minister Reece Whitby, the WA police minister, as part of the ongoing work across Commonwealth and the state to make sure that this is a full, thorough investigation. We await the outcomes of the work that's underway.

The WA government has shared in our commitment to keeping Perth the peaceful and vibrant city it has long been. In the words of Premier Roger Cook:

… we must also recommit ourselves to making sure that we maintain a peaceful and safe community, doing everything we can …

Indeed, we are doing everything we can.

I also note that the Prime Minister firmly and clearly said, the day after the incident:

This was an incident that is quite shocking. He's been charged with two serious offences and I look forward to him being prosecuted to the full force of the law.

I couldn't agree more.

I put on record my thanks to Minister Malarndirri McCarthy, who has engaged extensively with First Nations communities across Australia. As other speakers have noted, the hurt is real not just in Boorloo but across this country. Minister McCarthy said:

I have heard from Elders who met with the West Australian Police Commissioner. They have been briefed on what took place on the day at the rally. They were certainly very pleased to be a part of that briefing. The WA Police are working closely with them to keep them informed.

The response, while ongoing, has been clear. We've got law enforcement officials, the WA government and the Commonwealth government sharing a determination to keep Perth safe, to keep First Nations Australians safe and to keep our democracy safe from those who seek to harm it.

I rise to speak in support of the member for Curtin's motion, and I rise also to ask: what does it say about our democracy when we seem to have two sets of standards for protecting citizens from hate? We had a violent start to the modern Australian nation, and we have made some but very little progress on making good on that—little progress politically, institutionally, economically and culturally. Let's not forget report after report showing that we're not adequately closing the gap. We don't have an ATSIC, and we don't have a voice to parliament or a permanent way to have solid representation in this parliament of the hundreds of First Nations that make up Australia. We continue to stand by whilst the states and territories pass laws to allegedly address crime but which have the practical effect of discriminating, targeting young First Peoples offenders and institutionalising them in harsh, cruel cells and detention centres with little regard for their cultural, social and economic needs. We essentially add to their harm rather than help remove it.

Last week, we watched as people with hate in their hearts and harm in their hands hurled a bomb into a crowd of people peacefully demonstrating—as they have for years on 26 January, as is their right, as is everyone's right in this precious but increasingly precarious democracy. Let me be clear: just as in Bondi, Sydney, where the target was Jewish people, in Forrest Place, Perth, the target was our First Peoples. This is a hate crime on the basis of race, of othering. Sadly, it felt to me that the hate shown against First Peoples on this day wasn't as seriously considered as the hate shown to others, and, therefore, that a strong response by our institutions wasn't as swift and wasn't as warranted. Let's be clear: hate on anyone in this country is hate on all of us. My message is: how our institutions, the media, the intelligence agencies and people in this place respond matters. Responding appropriately when this hate crime happened in Perth was not about protecting the weak and vulnerable. This is about acknowledging that everyone is equal before the law and within our communities, and it's all of our responsibility to ensure that this is so. When we don't speak up for our children, for all of our brothers and sisters, we're letting down the entire family, our Australian family.

With every thought, word and action—or lack of action—we are creating a permissive environment where this hate can continue and even thrive. And hate can't be solved with more hate. We need to grow understanding and courage and we need to make tangible progress. That starts with calling out hate every time wherever it occurs. It means applying the levers at our disposal—all of them—to match the wrongdoing. It means making sure that our lawmakers and enforcers, our commentators and our leaders, start to see that hate actually harms people. No matter what the colour of your skin, the God you worship or who you love, we are all entitled to the freedoms and securities of the person who lives next door to us, across the road or across the country. When we pass laws that lead to the clean-up of institutional behaviours that harm rather than nurture those who need us to have their backs, we start to replace the hate with care. We replace blame with responsibility. We replace 'them' with 'us'—'all of us'.

I strongly urge the government to adequately resource its own anti-racism framework that it commissioned in 2024. It's good. It may help. I'm really sorry that this has happened in our community across the country. Thank you for the opportunity to talk about something that is so important. We can do better, we must do better and we get this done by working together. That's why I commend the member for Curtin's motion to the House.

This motion confronts us with a truth that should unsettle every person in this chamber. Racial violence against First Nations people in Australia is not hypothetical, it is not historical and it is not isolated. It remains a real and present threat. The attempted bombing in Boorloo/Perth on 26 January was not just an attack on a peaceful protest; it was an attack on First People who were asserting their identity, their history and their right to gather on a day that to them marks a day of dispossession. That this incident is now being investigated as a possible act of terrorism is appropriate but also deeply alarming. It speaks to the seriousness of the threat that we are now all confronting.

Violence motivated by racial hate has no place in Australia. Many of us spoke to this fact, and we tried to legislate to that effect in this place last month. But words of condemnation, while necessary, are insufficient. When acts of racial violence occur and are not met with immediate, visible, decisive action by police forces and by government, they don't fade; they metastasise. An attack against First Nations people is an attack on all Australians. This is not a political slogan; it is a statement of fact. Our country and our culture rest on the principle that no group should live in fear because of who they are. When that principle is breached for one community, it is weakened for all of us.

For many First Nations people, 26 January is a day of mourning. As a country, we should have the heart and the maturity to respect that fact. To target a non-violent Invasion Day rally with an act of violence represents a deliberate attempt to intimidate and to silence. That's why this motion matters and why the response to it must be more than just the sum of the words that we speak here today.

What happened in Perth on 26 January didn't happen in isolation. Months earlier, after the March for Australia rally in September, Neo-Nazi protesters in Melbourne openly attacked a camp which was asserting Indigenous sovereignty. These were not covert acts. They were carried out in public in broad daylight with symbols and chants that left no ambiguity about their intent. But the response from authorities from both Victoria Police and from the AFP has been slow and opaque. Five months after this act of violence, we're still waiting on investigations to be completed and charges to be issued.

For First Nations people from Victoria and their allies, the message has been unmistakeable: expressions of white supremacist intimidation can occur in the open in the heart of our city without immediate consequence. That perception is corrosive. It emboldens extremists. It deepens fears in people who have already been subjected to entrenched racism for generations.

The federal government has a duty to protect all people in this country from racism, discrimination, hate speech and the threat of racially motivated violence. That duty doesn't end in statements. It requires coordination with the states. It requires the enforcement of policing standards. It requires the disruption of organised extremist networks and a willingness to name Neo-Nazism for what it is: an ideology of racism and violence.

First Peoples in Australia continue to face entrenched racism, threats and intimidation. This motion appropriately calls for urgent action in response. Urgent means now. It means ensuring that camps asserting sovereignty are protected, not ignored. It means ensuring that those who organise, incite or carry out racially motivated violence face consequences proportionate to the harm that they cause.

This parliament has recently and rightly condemned racially motivated hatred and extremism. That condemnation has to unambiguously include the incitement of hatred and violence towards First Nations people. So I thank the member for Curtin for moving this motion, and I join my colleagues here today in acknowledging the significance of this event and expressing solidarity with all those impacted by it.

I've remained incredibly silent about these issues. I was the minister in Queensland for six years. The First Nations people, as they are referred to here in this place, were kind enough to name the freehold titles issued under my administration the 'Katter leases'. My son, in a meeting, said: 'Cattle leases? There are no cattle on any of these places.' I said, 'Not cattle—it's Katter, your name!'

Now, that was because I simply went out to the 24 community areas in Queensland that are blackfella areas—they're not whitefella areas; they're blackfella areas—and I said, 'What do you want us to do with the land?' Do you know what they said? We put up all the alternatives on a big board: you can have tribal ownership; you can have community ownership; you can have local government ownership; you can have private ownership, the same as all the other places in Australia—whatever you want. Over 3,000 people voted. Three voted against private ownership, and the other 3,000 voted for private ownership. They did not vote for tribal ownership.

What does this place do? It moves for tribal ownership. Well, I don't know about you, but I'd be flat-out naming all the people in my bloody family tree. They come from everywhere. I'm dark and I come from Cloncurry, so I identify as a Murri pretty often, and no-one would object to that—'Murri from the Curry'. You said that you were going to look after the land for them, right? You're going to protect nature so that it'll be kept the way it was. Well, it may have passed your knowledge that these people are starving to death. Their life expectancy in this country has slipped from 54 to 49 years of age, when the rest of us enjoy 82 years of age. If you want to know why, it's because you won't let them own property the same way everyone else on Earth owns property. The Mystery of Capital was one of the most important books written in the last half-century. The World Bank economist Hernando de Soto has said, 'The creation of capital comes from the ownership of property.'

Now, let me be very specific. There was a very great Australian. He was getting a great Australian award from the Prime Minister because he'd mustered more cattle than any other person in human history. He became the mayor of Doomadgee when he returned home from running all the cattle station camps, and he got a thousand head together. He could not own land where his family had lived for 30,000 years. There was no process by which he could own land. So he did the same as the Australians from overseas did when we came to New South Wales. We just took up the bloody land and squatted on it. That's where the word 'squatter' comes from, because all the land in New South Wales was taken up by squatters. And that's exactly what he did: 'Righto, I'm taking up this 10,000 acres'—or 20,000 acres—'It's my land. Don't set foot on it.' That's squatters rights.

He's sick of waiting for you whitefellas to do anything. He's been waiting 200 years for you whitefellas to do something for him, except for a brief period when a bloke who is referred to as a blackfella—me—said, 'What do you want?' They said, 'We want private property rights.' So I gave them property rights. I'm just an ordinary, knockabout bloke, and I think most people that know me would say that. They named the lease after me because they were so appreciative that someone listened to them—to what they wanted.

I ran into a lovely young lady and I said, 'What do you do?' She said, 'I'm in economic development.' 'Righto.' This was in Cairns. I said, 'I'm not too sure what economic development is taking place.' And she said, 'Oh, no, I do it in the'—she used these words—'Aboriginal areas.' I said: 'Righto. So what does that entail?' She said, 'I'm preserving nature for them.' Well, you're not preserving it for them, because you're not allowing them to do anything there.

They've been taking kangaroos for the last 40,000 years, and you've said they're not allowed to take kangaroos anymore. God bless Murrandoo Yanner. He had many shortcomings, did Murrandoo, but good on him for taking them to court: 'No, I've got a right to take that kangaroo, and I've had that right for 20,000 years. You whitefellas that came here have got no right to take that off me.' Good on him. That's what he did. You've taken away their right to take game. You've taken away their right to use the water. You've taken away their right to use the land.

God bless Jason Ned. The Prime Minister of Australia was going to Mount Isa to give Jason Ned a Good Australian Award—there were two other people getting that award that day; they were equally distinguished—but he died before he got the award. The point of the story is, if we want people to have a decent income and a decent way of life and some opportunity for their kids, then the First Australians are left with no alternative but to simply defy the people in this place and those in the Queensland parliament and take the land and squat on it. God bless the people that came from Europe and did that in New South Wales.

Where I come from, we probably had maybe a thousand people living in north-west Queensland, or maybe 1,500—I don't know. It's an empty land. There is a message here for everyone in this parliament, and that message comes from von Clausewitz, the greatest commentator on warfare in human history. He wrote in his book On War, 'There is one truism of history: a people without land will look for a land without people.' Go and talk to my blackfellas—you can talk to me; I'm a blackfella too—and ask how we got on with a policy that we didn't have to have a population here, how that went. Well, it went real bad for us—real, real bad for us. So what are we doing now? If you take out a little, tiny strip around the coastline, about 120 kilometres wide, and a little dot around Perth, there's no-one living here. I represent half of Australia's water run-off. I get all the great rivers of Australia in the Kennedy electorate except the Murray-Darling. We're not using any of that water—we are; we're using 0.2 per cent of that water—we're not using it. What right have we got to do that when a thousand million people are going to bed hungry every night? Do you think the rest of the world is going to continue to accept this?

When we stand up today and talk about racism in this country, it takes many forms. I don't want to be disrespectful to my colleagues, but, when you start looking after us because we're blackfellas, we start to get a little bit toey, we blackfellas, because we don't want to be different. The whole idea is we just want to be ordinary Australians.

Where I come from, my father was in partnership with a bloke who owned a very big cattle station. He was a First Australian. They owned three or four mining undertakings together, and I was in a couple of those mining undertakings. My partner was Les Prosser, who was regarded as the 'last of the Kalkadoons'. His mother was one of the few 'piccaninny' survivors of the big battle on Battle range—which wasn't a battle, really. It was a massacre. That's a story for another day. When they were doing guerrilla warfare, we Kalkadoons did real good with guerrilla warfare. But, when we stupidly took them on in open combat, that was not a good idea at all. That's a story for another day.

They don't want to be regarded as different. You don't want different laws. All they want is the same laws that every other Australian has, which enables them to own their own house. You don't even give them a provision to own their own house in the land that they've been living on for 30,000 or 40,000 years. They're not allowed to own a house. There's no process in Queensland by which you can own your own house. Why haven't you got off your backside instead of crying about them in the Queensland parliament or the federal parliament? Why don't you go out and listen to them about what they want? If you do, you might be surprised at how much they appreciate what you do out there.

So I plead with people here to read The Mystery ofCapital. De Soto was a World Bank economist, not a lightweight. A cousin of his was the head of Rio Tinto, the second-biggest mining company in the world. These are heavyweight people. In The Mystery of Capital, he said that the thing that enabled the West to get ahead of the rest of the world is that they had property rights. If you got property rights, you can borrow money from the bank. I and one of my best mates, I'm ashamed to say, were a little bit under the weather. We bought half a million acres one night for $25,000 in a 24-inch rainfall area. That's good rainfall area. (Time expired)

I wish to thank the member for Curtin for bringing this important motion to the House and to Senator Thorpe for bringing the motion in the other place. I commend this motion, and I condemn the attempted bombing attack on First Nations people on 26 January in Boorloo, Perth. This was a deliberate and terrifying act designed to murder innocent people—innocent, ordinary Australian people. And it is rightly being investigated as a potential act of terrorism. Every Australian should pause and sit with what could have happened when this homemade bomb was hurled into a peaceful rally. As a nation, we should be outraged. I'm outraged. Around 2,500 people had gathered peacefully for an Invasion Day rally. This is not a one-off event. This is an event that happens year after year.

If that device had detonated, the consequences would have been catastrophic. We've heard from the member for Curtin and the member for Perth, representing those constituents who could relate so meaningfully what this could have meant in their communities. This could have meant that we saw a massacre of peaceful protesters on a day that is already one of deep mourning for many First Nations Australians. And make no mistake—this was an act of hate. This was an act with racist overtures. This was an attack on First Nations people, and therefore it was an attack on all Australians. An attack on peaceful process strikes at the very heart of our democracy. It's appalling, and I think that this House is right today to speak of what could have been the most dreadful atrocity but what was an absolute and appalling act of hate.

The date of 26 January, for many First Nations people, is one that marks dispossession, one that marks loss and deep grief and one that marks injustice. We must be a nation that comes together, not a nation that seeks to tear each other apart. I acknowledge the profound harm this incident has caused, and I express solidarity with everyone impacted, particularly our First Nations brothers and sisters, Australians who live daily with the threat of harm and with daily acts of prejudice and racism—many small, some big—because truly there is no place for violence or racism in Australia. There truly isn't. But what we're seeing really chills us, and this act on 26 January certainly reinforced that sense of dread.

I echo the motion's calls on governments at all levels to continue to take urgent action. It's been said many times this afternoon that we can't just use words; we must use the actions that we've formulated to address racism, discrimination, hate speech and violence against First Nations people. That action must be urgent. We have a framework that's been constituted already. It needs to be activated at its fullest level.

My words are brief today because I know others wish to express their sorrow and condemn this act of violence on 26 January. It's important that we do so, but, most importantly, we must act. Anything else would be a failure of our responsibility and ultimately a failure of our humanity.

I thank the member for Curtin for moving this motion and also Senator Thorpe for moving it in the other place. It is only by sheer luck that a bomb lobbed into the thick of a crowd at a peaceful rally of First Nations people in Boorloo on 26 January did not detonate, and it was only sheer luck that nobody was killed or seriously injured. This deeply disturbing event and the following response, or lack of it, raises many concerns and questions that need scrutiny and a response. The reality is a home-made bomb was thrown into a peaceful public gathering where families, elders and children were present, gathering in a way that was their democratic right to express their own views.

This was a potential mass casualty event and it was avoided not because the risks were managed but because the device failed. And yet, in the aftermath, the response from much of the political leadership and media was muted to the point of seeming indifference. Of particular note was the fact that the leader of Western Australia's opposition Liberal Party, Basil Zempilas, took three days to even mention it publicly. Where was the outrage? Where was the urgency, the clear and immediate condemnation, the sustained attention and the decisive action? Instead, there was minimisation and there was delay. It was only after First Nations leaders and communities pushed for answers that WA Police confirmed they were investigating the incident as a potential act of terrorism, but that response did not seem to happen automatically—it had to be demanded—and that should concern us.

This incident reflects how far racial hatred against our First Nations people has been allowed to mushroom, and how emboldened people now feel to act on it. The slow and muted response is also sadly indicative of the institutionalisation of racism against our First Nations people, and this incident has not happened in isolation. The attempted bombing at the Invasion Day rally at Boorloo follows a pattern of racism and violence directed at our First Nations people that so often does not make it into the media as it should and does not receive the response that it should.

Just last year in August, the Neo-Nazi attack on the Camp Sovereignty in Naarm, a sacred Indigenous site for healing, ceremony and protest, was similarly muted. Four people were injured that day, two seriously, with head injuries requiring hospitalisation. Again, this incident was initially underreported and minimised. The City of Melbourne had been warned of the potential threat against that camp, but those who made that warning received no response.

These events reflect an escalation in racism and threats against First Nations people that too often goes unnamed. Too often it is left to First Nations people themselves to fight for the recognition of the seriousness of these attacks, to ensure they are not again overlooked by the media, politicians and law enforcement, and to force a response that should have come immediately and automatically. There is a clear step that the government can take. More than a year ago, the National Anti-Racism Framework was delivered by the Australian Human Rights Commission. It sets out practical measures that can be used to address racism against First Nations peoples: truth-telling for First Nations people, support for self-determination, a nationally recognised definition for First Nations cultural safety and coordinated action across health, media, justice, the arts and data. It recognises that racism in Australia is systemic and structural. The government hasn't yet responded to this proposal, it has not yet funded the framework and it has not yet implemented it. That is a decision. If the government is serious about preventing violence against Australia's First Nations people, rather than simply reacting when it nearly costs lives, then it should urgently fund and implement the National Anti-Racism Framework in partnership with First Nations communities across the country.

I speak in support of the very important motion brought by the member for Curtin to this place—and which was moved by Senator Thorpe in the other place. The failed attack in Boorloo/Perth on an Invasion Day rally was an attempt to kill First Nations people—it was attempted murder; let's not mince words—and it needs to be taken incredibly seriously by authorities, by politicians and by the media. I—and I would assume all of us—am hugely grateful that the device didn't detonate. But the intent was crystal clear: this was an attempted terror attack. The definition of terrorism is a violent attack attempting to sow hate and division. That was clearly what the Boorloo Invasion Day attack was. We must reject that division and come together to take care of each other and show solidarity with our long-suffering First Nations brothers and sisters.

The significance of this attack on 26 January—on Invasion Day, a day of mourning for First Nations people around the country—cannot be overstated. For decades, First Nations people and allies have marched peacefully on 26 January to mark that day of mourning, and they've been attacked and criticised for it by many politicians and much of the media. This thankfully unsuccessful terrorist attack is a major escalation, and it should be treated as such. The initially muted response from the major party politicians and the media is nothing less than shameful, offensive and irresponsible. The same voices that are ignoring and turning a blind eye to the fundamental historic and ongoing violence committed against the First Nations peoples of this country since colonisation and the embedded institutional racism, the reason we march together on 26 January, are also ignoring this attempted terror attack.

Amnesty International Australia, and many other groups and organisations and legal experts, has condemned the attack at the Boorloo Invasion Day rally on 26 January and has called on the WA police and the government to conduct a proper investigation of this as a hate crime, with charges that properly reflect the severity and the intent of the alleged conduct. Amnesty International reasonably asked the federal government to implement the Australian Human Rights Commission's anti-racism framework and expand the royal commission into antisemitism to cover all forms of racism and far-right extremism.

This was a targeted act of violence against a First Nations led rally and must be treated as a hate crime. Repeated attempts to frame or downplay the incident as anything less misrepresents its seriousness and risks normalising violence directed at First Nations people. This warrants a clear and united response from this parliament—from us. It's racism, plain and simple. It is hate directed at First Nations peoples in this country, and this hate is rising. We all must stand united against it.

I want to rise in support of the spirit of the motion. I may not necessarily agree with every step of the wording that's used, but I think the spirit of it is resolutely clear. I would think that every member of this parliament is deeply distressed by what occurred in Perth on 26 January and what it could have been as well. I say this in context, of course, of what we have seen over the past couple of years. I'm not going to try and pretend—nor should anybody—that there haven't been past incidents of racism in this country; there absolutely have been. But, and I say this with a genuine sense of sadness, we have seen a spike in the level of racism in this country over the past few years on a scale that is very hard to imagine in our more recent history, particularly in the context of the rise of antisemitism, which of course we know led to tragedy in Bondi. And now we see very distressing signs in Perth—and I acknowledge that there is still a police investigation at the moment that may raise serious questions about what occurred in Perth.

Racism should be condemned by every good, decent, well-meaning Australian. I see the minister on the other side of the table nodding her head, and I do not doubt her sincerity for one second, knowing her previous experience in the area. And I'm sure it's shared very directly by other members in this chamber on the opposition side as well.

We do need to acknowledge, of course, that the matter is still being investigated, and it's very important that it's done. That is not to defer or delay; it's simply to acknowledge that we need to understand what the motivation was and what the intent was. But it's impossible to say that it was anything good. The investigation will go to the extent of the connections and matters beyond that.

What really distresses me is where we are seeing extremism and violence occur in this country. Many of the reasons that I and many members of parliament stood up for public office are that we're fighting for the type of country that we want to be. And the type of country and the type of nation that we want to be is one that's respectful, one where every Australian citizen can live out the fullness of their life. There certainly is no place for violence, whatever its motivation, in this country—whether it's, as some members quite justifiably regularly raise, family and domestic violence or the public acts of violence that we've seen more recently. Every single step of the way it comes down to leaders to stand up and condemn this violence. Not only is it the intent of so many people to cause specific harm; sitting behind that is the motivation of seeking to promote fear and to stop people living out the fullness of their lives.

That's why I wanted to speak on this motion—because I think the spirit of it is right. It behoves all of us in this parliament to stand up and fight for the type of country we want to be. But it isn't in our words; it is in our deeds. One of the things that has disappointed me over the past couple of years—and I've said in this parliament that I don't want to distract from this motion—is that I don't believe we've had enough strength in our leadership. And I think, as I've said in other debates, that extremism begets extremism. That's a very different thing from people's freedom to debate and contest the important issues and affairs that define our country and its future. But, when we don't stand up, it leads to a pathway through radicalisation or cultivation to the point of tragedy or near tragedy, as we have seen in this case. It behoves all of us to stand up for what we believe in and, importantly, for this country.

I want a nation that's built on respect. I want a nation where every Australian feels confident about how they're going to live their life—

And safe.

and safe—thank you, Member for Wright. Some of the most marginalised sections of our community have continued to be targeted by this type of conduct. Of course no person should have to tolerate it, and it is the responsibility of the people in this chamber and in public institutions to stand up this time and to stand up where others may not have that same privilege. We don't just want a nation of respect; we want a nation where we never have to see the evils that we have seen in recent months perpetuated on any other section of the community. We want to be, I would hope, a role model not just for Australians but for the world.

Question agreed to.

On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, I present the committee's report on the inquiry into the Department of Defence annual report 2023-24.

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

by leave—The Department of Defence and the Australian Defence Force protect Australia and our national interest to the advantage of our security and prosperity. Defence pursues this mission during a time of global uncertainty, where challenges to the rules based international order continue to shape our strategic environment. Defence effectiveness is essential for Australia's national interests.

The Defence Subcommittee of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade therefore conducted its inquiry into the Defence annual report 2023-24 to examine areas relating to Australia's overall defence strategy as outlined in the 2024 National defence strategy. The subcommittee found that, while Defence is fulfilling its mission to protect Australia, there are areas for improvement. The subcommittee has therefore made 23 recommendations which will enhance Defence's communications with the public and the Australian defence industry, strengthen Defence's social licence and improve industry's capacity to support Defence.

This is a comprehensive report put forward by the committee. They've done an enormous amount of work on it. I recommend that members read the report, as it goes on to say, in this world of uncertainty that we face today, it's important that we support our ADF personnel and, therefore, all their requirements.

I thank the subcommittee chair, Senator Deborah O'Neill, for her stewardship of the inquiry. I thank my fellow subcommittee members for their contributions throughout this inquiry. I also thank the Hon. Shayne Neumann MP, the chair of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, and Senator Dean Smith, the deputy chair, for their leadership and counsel. I note the Hon. Shayne Neumann is away from parliament; my best wishes to him and his family. I move:

That the House take note of the report.

The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.

I move:

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

Question agreed to.

On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, I present the committee's report entitled Review of administration and expenditure No. 23 (2023-24)—Australian intelligence agencies.

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

by leave—This annual review is undertaken in accordance with the committee's statutory responsibilities under the Intelligence Services Act 2001. It examines the administration, expenditure and financial statements of the six agencies that make up Australia's National Intelligence Community, the NIC—ASIO, ASIS, AGO, DIO, ASD and the Office of National Intelligence.

The committee's review is part of a strict oversight and accountability framework within which these agencies operate. Their public reporting is necessarily limited to protect sensitive capabilities and operations, so this annual parliamentary review is an important mechanism by which the parliament receives assurance on these agencies' governance, resource stewardship and administration.

The committee sought evidence on each agency's performance against its objectives, its budget situation and the health and integrity of its financial statements. This included examination of strategic priorities, organisational governance, risk management practices, workforce capability, security arrangements and major ICT and information-sharing initiatives. Submissions also covered the impact of the legislative changes on agency operations, workforce pressures in specialist fields, recruitment and retention challenges, and the coordination of intelligence activities across the NIC.

The committee received detailed material from all six intelligence agencies as well as from the Australian National Audit Office and the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security. Classified hearings assisted the committee in discharging its obligations while ensuring national security was maintained.

The report highlights the sustained high tempo at which intelligence agencies continue to operate and the importance of ensuring that administrative systems, governance structures and financial management remain robust. The committee notes the ongoing modernisation efforts across the NIC, including work to strengthen shared systems, enhance ICT platforms and uplift workforce capability in response to emerging national security challenges.

Although much of the committee's work understandably occurs in classified settings, the outcomes reflected in this report demonstrate that the parliament, through the committee, continues to exercise strong bipartisan oversight of intelligence administration and expenditure. This oversight is essential to maintaining public trust in agencies whose work, by necessity, is largely unseen.

The committee thanks all agencies, officials and oversight bodies for their cooperation throughout this review. Their engagement supports not only the committee's work but the broader accountability framework that underpins the operation of Australia's intelligence community.

I commend the report to the House.

It was Slim Dusty who said, '… there's-a nothing so lonesome, morbid or drear than to stand in the bar of a pub with no beer.' But there is. It's to stand at the bar of a pub with no patrons. If we don't start doing something about the cost of the fundamental core reason why people go to a hotel, there won't be patrons there because the obvious place to be will be to stand at the bottle shop with the slab with no fear, rather than the pub with no beer. Where the local hotel resides is embellished in the Australian psyche. We talk about it in everything from Crocodile Dundee to 'Priscilla of the desert'—what's that one?

It was 'queen of the desert'.

Yes, 'queen of the desert'. Yet we are doing our very best to try and put them out of business, and we will successfully put them out of business, even in my area such as Urbenville or Drake. In Drake there's a hotel called the Lunatic Hotel. They're always trying to get me to have my photo taken underneath it, but I'm not game. But these places just won't exist as that centre of a community, where you organise everything from your camp drafts to your bushfire rosters. But, most importantly, what are you going to do on the weekend? You've got to do something. You can go have a beer, have a 'countery', get away from the property for a bit and just relax.

If we lose our hotels in Australia, if we lose our little regional pubs, then we will be diminished as a nation. We are not going to maintain these hotels unless we remove the excise completely. Now, I believe the cost of removing the excise from hospitality venues is around about $2 billion. I can understand when people say, 'Well, where are you going to get the money from?' We are spending hundreds of billions of dollars on intermittent power, the so-called renewables, the euphemism for basically butchering our power grid, so you can find the money. The money is there. They say that intermittent power renewables are going to look after regional Australia. Well, they're doing a fine job of it. They're wrecking our roads. They're destroying our communities. They're putting pensioners out of their houses. Even for construction in a lot of areas, we can't find the water for the mixing of the concrete. They're a disaster. We believe that it's not that you should slow them down. We believe the construction of them should stop. That's enough. We've got enough. If you want them on your roofs, in your cities, knock yourself out. We have no problems with that. It's none of our business. But, if you want them in our areas, it is. This goes to show you the juxtaposition of things that are relevant to us in regional areas and what actually happens now.

My office had a bit of a discussion with a few of the publicans around this area, and they say a slight reduction in the excise is not going to help them. If you freeze it—it's already too high. We've got to go beyond freezing it. We've got to get rid of the excise completely. Whether it's Donny and Tina from the top pub at Stanthorpe or the Bernhards at Walcha Road Hotel—but Stephen Ferguson, the CEO of the Australian Hotels Association, quite properly says that every drink poured into a glass in the pub creates a job. The most sociable and safest place to have a drink is in a licensed premises. We need to make sure that excise does not force people to stay at home, away from their communities. And isn't that correct? How many people in country areas have had a period of their life where they worked at a hotel? I know I worked there for a couple of years. That's part of growing up. It's part of the socialisation. It also gets you a job. It's a job that's in a local community. It's a job that's proximate. You're paid at the award rates. But that opportunity also goes.

We have to do something substantial, if we are going to stand behind the iconography of the local Australian hotel. We have to do something substantial, if we truly believe that, in a country and remote regional areas, they have a right to the most minimal form of social infrastructure. In cities, you have so much taxpayer sponsored social infrastructure. It's immense. The classic ones you can see, like the opera house or parks—sponsored by the state or basically subsidised by the state. We don't have that. What we do have—one focal point—is our local hotel, and we are not going to have those. They are closing down. I can go to places such as Warialda Rail. There used to be a pub there. It's no longer there. As you drive along, you can go through areas where there were pubs and now there's just a ramshackle building that's falling over. Why would that happen? If they were commercially viable, of course, they wouldn't close. But they're not commercially viable. People are making the best attempts to try and turn the hotels into restaurants and stuff like that. It works on a form, but, of course, if you turn it into a restaurant, you're going to have to employ chefs. You've got to find chefs. You've got to pay them all rates that are probably beyond the scope of the hotel to manage. And, obviously, you're finding a much higher price per patron, and a lot of families can't afford that.

I'm going to move an amendment that we get rid of the excise on beer completely. The amendment as proposed has been circulated, so I move:

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

"calls on the Government to support hospitality venues struggling under the growing burden of government regulation and growth in overheads by eliminating alcohol excise duty on any alcoholic product sold for consumption on-premises in a hospitality venue".

I could tell a thousand stories, but I have just a quick one. I was in the pub at a little place called Garradunga in North Queensland, and I was going to a Lions Club meeting. I had my Lions badge on. Someone said, 'I didn't know you were a Lion.' The bloke across the bar said, 'Mate, he's been a lion all of his life,' and everyone roared laughing at my expense. It's fun, but it's also ironic that the ALP is moving this, because the ALP was founded in the pubs in North Queensland—you know, Barcaldine, Cloncurry and also western New South Wales. But I would say 'Red Ted' Theodore was the real founder of the labour movement in Australia. The story is told about him and 'Big Bill' McCormack—about 'Red Ted' Theodore and 'Big Bill' McCormack. He goes into the pub and says to one of the blokes drinking there, 'Tommy, you haven't taken out a ticket'. It's a union ticket. He just starts writing him out the ticket, and Tommy says, 'Stick it up'—well, we know the rest of 'stick it up'. 'Big Bill' McCormack comes up and says, 'Did you say to Ted that he should so-and-so and so-and-so?' and he says, 'Yes, I'll say it to you too.' So McCormack grabs him by the hair and punches him in the mouth. He goes down. He kicks him all around the floor, then lifts him up by the belt and says, 'Now take the bloody ticket out,' so he takes the ticket out. He says, 'Well, why didn't you take it out in the first place, Tommy? It would have saved you a lot of trouble,' and Tommy says, 'Oh, well, you didn't go to the trouble of explaining it to me properly, like Bill did.' He was bashing the hell out of him.

I tell that story to indicate that the labour movement—and both sides of the house would agree—has made a magnificent contribution to the people of Australia. One in 30 of us that went into cane fields never came back out alive. One in 30 of us that went down into the mines never came back up alive, until the Labor movement came along. I'm very proud to say that my family were very well off and threw their full weight behind the labour movement in its early years. But the point of the story is that the labour movement was founded in the hotels just the same as the democracy movement was founded in the coffee houses in France. I always thought this was very funny, but it was probably not so funny when the revolution took over. The revolution had been made in the coffee houses in France, and the minute the revolutionaries took over, the first thing they did was close down the coffee houses, because nobody else was going to make a revolution there. The minute the Labor Party gets in, they start banning pubs. The same story really is being repeated again.

Now, I don't want to get too dramatic here, but the good lord Jesus turned water into wine. There can't be anything much wrong with alcohol if the good lord turned water into wine. Deputy Speaker Freelander, if you're looking for money, you are importing, now, $62,000 million a year of petrol. In 1990 you imported no petrol at all, virtually. There's no reason why we can't move back to that immediately. In Brazil they're on about 60 per cent ethanol and other things, and they supply the other 30 per cent from indigenous crude. We have 30 per cent indigenous crude. Just one thing alone: if you buy the petrol here in Australia instead of importing it, the same as we did in 1990, then you give a gift to the Australian people of $62,000 million a year—a gift to the Australian people.

What if you built the Bradfield Scheme? He wasn't exactly an idiot, Bradfield. He built the Sydney Harbour Bridge, built the underground railway system, won the world prize for engineering and built the University of Queensland. But, if you build that great water transfer scheme, that's 40,000—it was a hundred thousand million in two hits. That's $25 billion in tax revenue for the government. Deputy Speaker Freelander, I'm sorry. Let me just repeat that. If you buy the government motor vehicles in Australia instead of importing them from overseas, there's a $40 billion or $50 billion benefit there for Australia. The Bradfield was $42,000 million. If you stop the importation of petrol and go back to the way the country was run in 1990, then it's $62,000 million. There's you go. There's all the money you could ever want to replace the little pittance that you're getting.

The honourable member for New England is dead right. Australia's identity very much comes out of the bush pub, and you are eroding the identity of Australians if you take that away. You are also eroding our ability to talk to each other. As a member of parliament, I like to find out what people are thinking—what their attitude is towards the government's policies—and the best way to do that is to go down to the local hotel. But I'm well aware of the foundations of the Labor movement, in which my own family was a very important little cog in the machine, and I can tell you that it is ironic that people are coming in here to abolish hotels when their very movement was founded in the hotels—including the bush hotels—of Australia.

There's a little town called Maxwelton, and I love pulling up there because of all the cockies in the area and all the contractors and various other people that are employed in the cattle and sheep industry. You find out what's going on. You could have a good time at the Maxwelton pub. Well, it doesn't exist anymore, because of the impositions that you placed upon it. In a pub in Queensland, you are watched by Big Brother. There's a camera there. When I went to university, on the reading list in the schools and in the university was 'Big Brother is watching'—Nineteen eighty-four, a very scary book. That Big Brother is now watching us all the time in hotels.

What sort of people would demand that you have the government watching you in a hotel when you're trying to have a bit of fun, a bit of good time, to let down your hair and get away from the stresses of the world? It's interesting to watch the graph of suicides amongst males in Australia. It parallels the graph of the decline of the hotels and people going into the pubs. I know that, if I myself am really down, I just go down to the pub, have a lot of good fun with my mates and go home a lot happier and more relaxed than before. But, for people who are more traumatised by reality than, probably, I am, it really is a matter of life and death in many cases, and that's not an exaggeration.

So I want to say: 'Hey, you people. Your party was born in the pubs, and the first thing you do is close them down.' The first thing that leaps to my mind is the Puritans, a very ugly group of people in Britain. The first thing they did, of course, was to ban people from celebrating Christmas, having a few beers and any other type of fun that they might have. Well, the people dug up the body of Pym and the other leader and they tore their bodies to pieces in the streets, such was their hatred of those two men, those two Puritans. There are very few examples in human history where the people just went out, dug skeletal remains out of the ground and tore them to pieces in the street. But their hatred of those people that stopped them from having fun, stopping them having a good time, stopping them talking to each other and maybe coming up with an improvement in society—that was the reaction of the English people, our forebears that came from England.

There's terrible and very sad irony here that the party that was founded in the pubs is the party that now is closing down the pubs. Shame upon them. Shame.

Well, mates, anyone in North Queensland will tell you our one day of winter normally falls on a Wednesday! For the rest of the year, it's prime beer drinking weather. There's nothing quite like the sound of just cracking a coldie open after a long hot day. Whether you're pulling up crab pots out in the creeks of the Burdekin, knocking off after a shift in Paget or wrapping up a week of training in Lavarack Barracks in Townsville, that first sip of frosty beer is one of life's simple pleasures. It's not just about the drink; it's about the moment, the mateship, the laughter, the stories told over the bar, the sense that, no matter what's going on in the world, you're among good people. And that's what this debate is really about. It's about protecting our way of life, protecting the local pubs, the clubs and the breweries that keep our communities connected. We are talking about the Excise Tariff Amendment (Draught Beer) Bill 2025, and, look, any relief for our pubs, sporting clubs and brewers is a good thing. The Nationals support this freeze on draught beer excise because we'll never stand between a cold pint and the Aussie public.

But let's be honest—this move from Labor is but a drop in the schooner. When you crunch the numbers, this so-called beer tax cut works out to be less than 1c per pint. That's not cost-of-living relief; that's a headline dressed up as a happy hour. The real pressure on Aussie families doesn't come from the bar tap. It comes from the bills on the kitchen table. Inflation has smashed through the RBA's target band. Mortgages are up, groceries are up, electricity is up, and it's all being driven by this government spending that is going faster than the economy can grow. Government spending is running at more than four times the rate of the economy, and Australians are paying the price. Since Labor took office, mortgage holders are, on average, paying $1,800 more per month. Families are paying 16 per cent more for food, 22 per cent more in rent, 39 per cent more for insurance and 38 per cent more for electricity. So, yes, 1c off your beer is a tiny step in the right direction, but it's cold comfort when your grocery bill is going up by 50 bucks and your mortgage is eating your pay packet.

In my electorate of Dawson, we don't just drink beer; we celebrate it. In Mackay, we've got two great breweries that come to mind. Red Dog Brewery was named one of the best breweries in Queensland, as a finalist in the Queensland Day best-pub awards last year. Congratulations to Jason and his team. And Goanna Brewing is a place where you can actually brew your own beer—pick your own ingredients, roll up your sleeves and make a beer that's as unique as you are. I'll give a shout-out to the team in Victoria Street. It's a fantastic microbrewery with great live entertainment on the weekend. That's the Australian spirit: hands on, proud and community driven.

Could I just interrupt for a moment and point out these great beers from North Queensland that have my picture on them?

Member for Kennedy, props are not allowed. I'm sure it's a very fine beer, but props are not allowed.

Sorry!

Thank you, Deputy Speaker. I'd like to thank the member for Kennedy for his assistance with this speech!

These places aren't just businesses. They're where our people come together—locals after work, tourists chasing a real taste of local life and mates catching up for a yarn. In the Whitsundays, hospitality is the lifeblood of our economy. People travel from all around the world to sip our fine Australian beer on a beach in paradise. And up in Townsville, our garrison city, there's no-one more deserving of a cold one than our fine men and women from our Australian Defence Force. They train, they serve, they protect our country, and they've earned a frothy at the end of the day.

That's why protecting the affordability of beer isn't just symbolic; it's cultural. It's the Aussie way. Behind every bar in North Queensland—from the Burdekin to Airlie Beach, Mackay to Townsville—there's a hardworking local doing their bit to keep the economy turning. Across Australia, around 176,000 people work in the alcohol and hospitality industries. They are students, parents, part-timers and full-timers, pouring beers, cleaning glasses and greeting guests. They're the heartbeat of our pubs and clubs. When we're talking about freezing the beer excise, we're not just talking about tax policy; we're talking about real people, real jobs and real communities. When a pub shuts down in a small town, it's not just a business that's lost. It's a meeting place, a fundraising venue and a social hub. It's where raffles raise money for the footy club and where stories are told. Pubs define who we are. But here's the rub: if Labor were serious about fixing the problem, they'd call for a comprehensive review of the alcohol excise system. The Nationals also believe this excise relief should be extended to include spirits on tap. It's hard to believe, I know, but not every Australian drinks beer.

We get patchwork fixes from this government that sound good on the news but barely make a dint in reality. This freeze is worth $90 million over the forward estimates—less than two per cent of what the government collects in alcohol taxes each year. Meanwhile, Labor's reckless spending has added $100 billion to our national debt in just three years. Debt is heading for $1.2 trillion by the next election. Every minute, Australians are paying $50,000 interest in debt. That money could be going into regional roads, hospitals and schools.

I don't want to sound like I'm frothing at the mouth here, but Labor's economic policy has gone flat. What we need isn't a quick pour from a tap; it's a full tap reset. We need leadership that's focused on growing the economic pie, not slicing it thinner, because a rising tide lifts all boats, and, in North Queensland, a lot of the ones that are moored are moored outside the pub. The Nationals' plan is simple: stop the spending spree and start growing the economic pie. That's how we will deliver lasting cost-of-living relief.

We believe in backing the people who are making things, growing things and employing Australians, not punishing them with higher taxes and endless red tape. When local businesses thrive, local communities grow. Whether it's a sugar mill, a farm or a small brewery, they all deserve a fair go. When I visit pubs and sporting clubs across Dawson, I see the hardworking people doing it tough, but they still show up with a smile. I see publicans who kept their doors open through COVID, cyclones, staff shortages and rising costs. I see bartenders who know every regular by name. I see families gathering for birthdays and mates catching up after a long week. That's who this bill should be helping, not in a token way but in a tangible, meaningful way, because, in places like Mackay and the Whitsundays, hospitality isn't just an industry. It's part of who we are.

I'll give this government some credit—at least they finally recognised that beer matters. But, when your idea of cost of living is shaving one cent off a pint while inflation eats your pay cheque, that's like offering a stubby cooler for a warm beer. Australians don't need a photo op at a pub by a politician. They need a plan—a plan to tackle inflation, a plan to grow the economy and a plan to back the industries that make this country tick. So, tonight, when we raise our glasses, whether it's Red Dog, Goanna or Great Northern, let's remember what we're really toasting. Let's toast our hospitality workers, the quiet heroes on the weekends. Let's raise a glass to our local brewers, who pour pride into every pint. Let's toast the soldiers, the farmers, the tradies, the nurses and the teachers—the Australians who have earned that knock-off beer the hard way. And let's toast to a better government, one that understands that cost-of-living relief can't be brewed overnight. In North Queensland, we don't just drink beer, we defend it. We know that, when the heat's up, mateship matters. When times are tough, communities rally, and, when there's work to be done, Australians roll up their sleeves and get it done, no excuses. So let's keep our pubs open, our breweries busy and our communities strong. Here's to common sense, and here's to a cold one that we can actually afford. Cheers!

Let me start by saying quite clearly that the Liberal Party supports the freeze on the beer excise indexation. Personally, I support reducing excises, especially in our pubs and clubs, and so we welcome this relief for every Australian who enjoys a cold one. I know I certainly do. The small country towns that I represent—I represent the most in this place—rely on three things: the primary school, the footy club and of course the pub. And the pubs are hurting. We're seeing closures every other week. Eventually, the community shrivels up, and that town becomes a ghost town. That story is all too familiar in regional South Australia.

In 2022, when this Labor government was elected, the Treasurer delivered his first budget. At that point in time, we already had the most expensive cigarettes in the world, and he hiked up the excise on tobacco yet again. And I can quote what I and my friends said. We said at the time that all he's going to do is create a black market. Well, indeed, that's exactly what happened. We're losing billions of dollars a year in excise, smoking rates are up, and illegal tobacco crime is up as well. I'm concerned that we're going to see the same with alcohol, particularly in my community in regional Australia.

Beer is a regional industry. I'm a farmer. We grow a lot of barley, particularly malting barley, which goes into the beer that we drink. We export barley. We export malt all over the world. South Australia's biggest export commodities are wheat, barley and lentils. They go to India, Indonesia and China. As I said before, it is our biggest export market. And, of course, South Australia has the famous Coopers. Beer is a regional industry, and it must be supported. But, while we are happy to take the discount, let's be honest about the service we are getting from this government and at Jim and Albo's pub. Just on that pub, I wonder what it should be called—maybe the 'Slug and Lettuce' or perhaps the 'Chook and Parrot'.

Anyway, I can't help but look at the Treasurer and see a man who has missed his calling. He's running the economy like a confused bartender. Bartender Jim is behind the tap. He waves at you with a big smile. He says: 'Mate, good news! This round is on me. I'm freezing the tax on that schooner.' And you think: 'Beauty! Finally a win.' But then you look at the change he hands you. It's less than 1c per pint. They don't even make a coin for that anymore. That is the extent of this so-called relief. It's enough to buy the Labor Party a headline, but it is not enough to buy a single peanut at the front bar. If this government were serious about alcohol excise reform, they would not be throwing us a 1c coin and asking for a round of applause. They would have the Treasury conducting a comprehensive review of the entire alcohol excise system. Instead, we get a patchwork fix. It doesn't help those buying a bottle of wine. It doesn't help those winemakers either. In fact, it doesn't help the wine industry at all.

From the Lower Eyre Peninsula to the Clare Valley, Grey, beautiful Grey, is home to some of Australia's finest wine-growing regions. And, while Bartender Jim is focused on beers, the wine industry needs help. Last year, I wrote to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry about the crisis facing our wine industry. Small family owned operators are drowning under commercial pressure, regulatory failure and rising costs. Where is their support?

Take Flinders Run, for example, in my electorate. They paid $14,000 to Wine Australia for their US market entry program. It was a disaster. It was poorly communicated and offered zero value, raising serious questions around how grower levies are spent. Additionally, while I welcome the government's response to the Emerson review and the decision to progress a mandatory code of conduct for wine grape purchasers, growers have been clear with me that regulatory reform alone will not address the market conditions facing this industry. Indeed, the impending container deposit scheme will also add massive costs. They're trying to solve a problem that does not exist. Industry estimates suggest that this will impose an additional cost of up to $100 million on the sector. This measure risks becoming a cost grab that further undermines the viability of wine businesses, particularly in regional South Australia. Wine producers have been forgotten by this government. They need targeted assistance packages and genuine accountability. While Labor is making a song and dance about saving a fraction of a cent on a schooner, business is hurting.

But it isn't just business; let's look at the rest of the menu prices at this Labor pub, the Chook and Parrot. Inflation just recently hit 3.8 per cent. Insurance is up 38 per cent. Energy bills are up 38 per cent. Rent is up 22 per cent. Health costs are up 18 per cent. Education is up 17 per cent, and food is up 16 per cent. These aren't luxuries. These are the essentials. But bartender Jim says, 'Don't worry about the mortgage; just grab another pint.' The reality is that this treasurer is watering down the drinks while charging top-shelf prices. Spending is at its highest level, outside of a recession, in nearly 40 years. Government spending has blown out from 24 per cent to 27 per cent of GDP under Labor. That is an addiction. Bartender Jim is drinking on the job, and it's on the taxpayers' tab.

We support this bill because any relief is better than no relief. But let's not pretend that this is a solution. This is a mid-strength distraction. The Treasurer is shouting a round with one hand and pickpocketing the nation with the other.

I rise to make a few brief comments on the Excise Tariff Amendment (Draught Beer) Bill 2025 and the amendment moved by Mr Joyce, the member for New England. I listened to the member for New England's contribution, and he's absolutely right to refer to the iconic song by Slim Dusty:

…there's-a nothing so lonesome, morbid or drear

Than to stand in the bar of a pub with no beer.

Well, there is; when you go to any of the outback towns where I come from and you walk into the bar, you're the only person there—that's the worst thing. This is what is happening across rural and regional Australia in the small communities where the only focal place in those communities is the local pub. The reality is there's a reason for that; people don't go to the pub anymore, because it costs too much money to have a beer. Whilst I support the intent of the government to address the beer excise and freeze it—I agree with that—it simply does not go far enough. One cent a pint, as many of my colleagues have pointed out, is not cost-of-living relief at all. That is a headline, as one of my colleagues has pointed out. The reality is that we need to get rid of the excise altogether—as suggested in the amendment moved by the member for New England, which I do support. In many of these small communities, people going to the pub and having a couple of beers and saving 2c is nonsense.

So, as I say, we must support our publicans. We must support the brewery industry, the beer industry, our local hotels and clubs and societies, the bowls club, the golf club, everywhere these licensed premises are that sell beer. The reality is the government needs to wake up to itself and go back to its own report, the Henry tax review, which was written more than a decade ago. But the alcohol tax system is broken and needs reform, it certainly does, and that's what I encourage the government to do.

The removal of the excise on beer and alcohol is reported to cost somewhere around $8 billion. Again, as the member for New England has pointed out in his contribution, we're quite happy to subsidise the renewable energy sector to the tune of billions yet we won't remove the beer excise and alcohol tax and help out our small communities, our clubs, our pubs and so forth. The renewable energy sector is driving up the cost of electricity. How can the small pubs and clubs and so forth keep the beer cold? This is another issue that needs to be addressed.

Furthermore, this goes all the way to the tobacco tax excise, and we've seen what's happened there—the loss of some $10 billion on revenue because the old ciggies, the durries, are just too expensive, so that's been taken over by the illegal tobacco trade, by the criminals and so forth. Are we now sending the alcohol industry down the same road?

We need to make significant reforms. I do support the government's intent, but it just simply does not go far enough. Let's support our small communities. Let's support the beer drinkers. That is about all I have to say today.

Debate adjourned.

I rise to speak on the Corporations (Review Fees) Amendment (Technical Amendments) Bill 2025. At first glance, the bill is technical and administrative. It validates certain fees collected by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, ASIC, between 1 July 2011 and 11 March 2025. These include late fees, upfront review fees and fees for special purpose companies.

The bill doesn't introduce new changes and it doesn't increase what Australians pay. It simply corrects a technical error in the indexation methodology introduced back in 2011. Over the years, practice on indexation diverged from parliament's intent and this bill fixes that. So, in many respects, the amendment is an integrity measure. It ensures the law reflects what parliament intended and what ASIC has consistently applied in practice. It's administrative in nature, but it matters because it validates ASIC's authority and it ensures consistency in the way that fees are understood.

While the bill is technical in nature, it points to something much larger—the authority of ASIC and the value of the work it does every day. ASIC isn't just a bureaucratic body; it's a frontline defender of fairness in our financial services system, and its work touches every Australian—whether you're a small-business owner, a shareholder, a superannuation fund member or simply someone with a bank account. Regulatory watchdogs like ASIC ensure that financial power serves the public interest, not just corporate interest, and that protection is not abstract; it's measured in real enforcement actions. We just need to look at specific cases, and none is more instructive than the action that ASIC took against one of our biggest banks, ANZ.

Last year, ASIC determined it would level the largest penalty ever secured against a single entity, penalising ANZ $240 million for a range of actions that ASIC characterised as a betrayal of the trust of Australians. In April 2023, ANZ was assisting the Commonwealth government's Australian Office of Financial Management with a $14 billion bond issuance. Instead of taking steps to limit the market impact on this issuance, ANZ sold a significant volume of 10-year bond futures around the time of pricing. ANZ knew its trading could expose its client, the Commonwealth, to significant risk, but didn't disclose this. ANZ also misled the government about its trading turnover for nearly two years. This was not just a technical breach; the bond deal was raising money to finance government services, health, education, infrastructure and defence. ANZ's conduct risked taxpayer funds and undermined trust in sovereign debt management. These are exceptionally serious issues.

ANZ's current chairman, Paul O'Sullivan, and new CEO Nuno Matos told investors there had been no loss to the Commonwealth after mishandling $14 billion in government bond sales, yet, according to ASIC, they estimated that the government suffered a $26 million loss as a direct result of ANZ's misconduct. So it appears that ANZ misled investors about how they misled the Commonwealth, which is simply extraordinary. How can you have confidence that ANZ will seriously tackle cultural issues in its bank when its senior leadership responds this way to an act that prompted one of the largest penalties ever?

ANZ has claimed that senior leadership were made accountable for this, yet the same senior managers are now contesting the action taken against them. While new CEO Nuno Matos is promising a new approach, I'm yet to be convinced this will be a serious effort. The CEO may be different, but the chairman seems unrepentant. How can the chairman of that bank, in a role that is supposed to shoulder a lion's share of responsibility for overseeing corporate governance, not appear to take any responsibility for the cultural issues that seem stubbornly ingrained at the bank?

It's worth noting that this is not the only misconduct by ANZ that has attracted regulator intervention, particularly from ASIC. Between May 2022 and September 2024, ANZ failed to respond to 488 customers who submitted hardship notices. These were Australians facing unemployment, illness, bereavement and family violence, yet ANZ pursued debt collection against them without responding to their hardship pleas in the required timeframe. Between 2013 and 2024, ANZ promoted bonus interest offers but failed to apply them consistently, making false, misleading or deceptive representation to customers. In 2024-25, further errors affected nearly 57,000 customers, with $480,000 in interest not paid. Between 2019 and 2023, ANZ failed to refund fees charged to thousands of deceased customers. Families dealing with grief were left to fight for refunds.

This is on top of prior misconduct spanning more than a decade: a $900,000 penalty for breaching disclosure laws in a $2.5 billion share placement; a $10 million penalty for contravening the credit act and accepting sensitive customer documents from unlicensed third parties in its Home Loan Introducer Program; a $15 million penalty for misleading customers about available funds in credit card accounts, leading to wrongful fees and interest; a $25 million penalty for failing to deliver fee waivers and interest discounts to 689,000 accounts over 20 years; a $10 million penalty for unconscionable conduct over improper periodic payment fees; a $5 million penalty for irresponsible lending in car finance; and a $10 million penalty for attempting to manipulate the bank bill swap rate on 10 occasions. The pattern is clear—repeated breaches, repeated penalties—yet the $250 million fine is minuscule compared to ANZ profits and far lower than the maximum penalty that ANZ could have incurred. While I respect the decision of ASIC in terms of levelling the penalty that it did to ANZ, I did make the point at the time and I make it again that they could have and they should have penalised ANZ harder, because, if deterrence is to work, penalties have got to bite. ASIC has the power to send that signal, and I would urge it to do so.

When misconduct is this widespread and repeated, it's not just a series of technical errors. It's a failure of governance at a serious level and a failure of oversight right at the top of the bank. The behaviour of ANZ has been so egregious that it attracted the attention of the Federal Court. Federal Court Justice Jonathan Beach summed up the reason why this litany of misconduct prevailed for so long: 'ANZ's lack of accountability at both management and execution levels and inadequate senior ownership of formal framework and governance arrangements'. Yet, despite record penalties, we've seen few meaningful consequences for those ultimately in charge. In fact, I'm informed that, at the recent ANZ shareholder meeting in December, uncomfortable questions were repeatedly shut down and given short shrift. This is not the sign of an organisation prepared to confront and repair its governance failings.

Docking a bonus while trimming an incentive payment is not accountability. It is not commensurate with systemic misconduct that costs Australians millions of dollars and erodes trust in our financial system. If leadership isn't truly held responsible, fines simply become a cost of doing business. We cannot have this mindset solidify in our banking system. I believe experience shows that bad corporate behaviour becomes a factor that reshapes political environments and, when the public believes that big businesses like this can act with impunity, it further undermines faith and trust in institutions and questions the ability of governments to act. That's why I'm so focused on the behaviour of the banks and their treatment of everyday Australians. If the ANZ can treat the Commonwealth with such disregard, imagine what they might do to a mum-and-dad retail investor—and that's before we even discuss the way that the Commonwealth Bank of Australia was prepared to have 2.2 million customers or concession holders, many low-income earners, inappropriately sitting in bank accounts attracting nearly $280 million in fees over five years, an act that on its face contravened the banking code of conduct, which requires banks to be proactive in protecting customers from fee related harm. They weren't the only bank to have been found to do this, but they were one of the few to set up hurdles for customers to claim back the fees that they were charged. I've got to say that, if customers owed money to the Commonwealth Bank, I'm sure the path to recovering that money off customers would have been as smooth as silk.

I'm concerned that we're seeing the same weeds that prompted the last royal commission pop up yet again, and the banks aren't taking this seriously. I do believe that it is imperative that we do focus on these governance issues and that the senior management of our biggest banks are held to account, because it does have an impact on ordinary Australians and, when they feel that they are not getting fairness delivered to them, it does have repercussions. If you don't believe that then you just need to see the growth of the Tea Party in the US following the global financial crisis. People reacted to the way in which major financial institutions seemed to get off scot-free for the decisions that they made that impacted on ordinary people and reacted to where people weren't held to account.

ASIC's work is vital not just in banking but also in superannuation, where Australians' retirement savings, security and dignity in later life are at stake. For most people, superannuation is decades of hard work. It's time away from family, missed holidays, overtime shifts and careful saving. It's the promise that, after a lifetime of hard work, the contributions you made to your savings via super will give you a chance to retire with confidence in your financial future. So when that promise is broken, the consequences are deeply personal.

In 2024 and 2025, two major superannuation schemes, Shield Master Fund and First Guardian, collapsed, leaving more than $1 billion in retirement savings at risk. More than 12,000 Australians were affected. Many lost what they believed were their life savings. One could just imagine the crippling anxiety and fear that people would have had when they believed that their life savings to sustain them in retirement had completely gone. Investigations revealed that high-risk investments were being marketed as safe. Research ratings misled investors. Networks of advisers and lead generators steered Australians into unsuitable products. Oversight failed. Ordinary people paid the price.

I'm grateful for the attendance of the Assistant Treasurer in the chamber, because I know the huge amount of work that he has undertaken with consumers directly impacted by these collapses. I know that hearing stories like those that he was forced to confront made clear the very real toll that these events took on families across the country. We cannot ever lose sight of that human cost. In December, the government announced it would be consulting on a range of actions in response to the collapses, including cracking down on lead generation, risky superannuation switching, high-pressure sales tactics and ensuring our regulatory settings are fit for purpose. I also understand the Assistant Treasurer wrote to regulators ASIC and APRA to identify action that could be taken to prevent anything like this happening again and has requested ASIC to consider whether current financial resource requirements for managed investment scheme operators are appropriate.

These collapses have exposed weaknesses across the broader financial ecosystem, where all have a responsibility to protect investors from risk. The release of the outcomes of APRA's thematic review of superannuation platforms is a welcome step, but right now the priority has got to be preserving what funds can be preserved and getting money back into people's hands. We cannot have faith in the superannuation system undermined, and I think it has been important that the work led by the Assistant Treasurer has come to the fore to be able to give people some sense of comfort.

Finally, I just want to congratulate Sarah Court on her appointment as chair of ASIC and starting her five-year term on 1 July. When Ms Court delivered ASIC's 2026 enforcement priorities, she revealed ASIC had doubled the number of new investigations and nearly doubled the new matters filed in court in the last 12 months. I wish her every success as she continues this important work on behalf of Australian consumers and investors, and I thank the House.

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) one in three of Australia's largest companies paid zero corporate income tax in the 2023-24 financial year;

(2) Labor and the Coalition have created a tax system where a single nurse or teacher paid more income tax than fossil fuel corporation Adani, streaming giant Netflix or the parent company of Optus, Singtel; and

(3) calls on the Government to:

(a) introduce an excessive corporate profits tax to make sure big corporations pay their fair share of tax; and

(b) extend the ban on supermarket price gouging to corporations across the economy".

The Greens will be supporting the Corporations (Review Fees) Amendment (Technical Amendments) Bill 2025 as it fixes a technical inconsistency to ensure certain fees collected by ASIC are valid. However, it is telling that when Labor mentions the word 'corporations' in a bill, it is to fix a technical error and is not the bold reform this country desperately needs.

The most recent ATO tax transparency report found that one in three of Australia's largest corporations, including fossil fuel, gambling and airline corporations, paid zero corporate income tax in the 2023-24 financial year. This means that a single nurse or teacher in my electorate of Ryan paid more income tax than fossil fuel corporation Adani, streaming giant Netflix or the parent company of disgraced telco Optus, which is Singtel. The amendment I have moved calls on Labor to support the Greens' push to impose an excessive profits tax on corporations. We took this policy to the election. A 40 per cent tax on the superprofits of Australia's largest companies would ensure that corporations pay their fair share of tax so we can properly fund the services people need, like affordable housing and expanding Medicare to include dental and mental health.

During the election campaign, Labor finally got on board with the Greens push to ban price gouging, at least in the supermarket sector. This is a good thing, a great thing, but it needs to apply right across the country and right across the economy. Supermarkets are not the only corporations that are pushing up prices to increase their own profits. The cost of insurance, mortgage payments and flights are through the roof and are definitely contributing to people's struggles in this cost-of-living crisis. This is why the Greens amendment also calls on Labor to implement an economy wide ban on price gouging. Experts, including the former head of CQC, Professor Allan Fels, have recommended a ban across the economy. No other international jurisdiction, including the European Union and the United Kingdom, have a ban on price gouging that singles out one sector.

It's your wealth and they're taking it from you. It's time to take it back. Taxing big corporations, taxing billionaires fairly, is not asking for handouts; it's people asking simply to keep hold of some of their own wealth, some of their own money. Every time you get price gouged for groceries at Coles and Woolies, that's your wealth being taken out of your hands by ultra-wealthy corporations. When you're in a mountain of debt for your first home and you're paying exorbitant interest to the bank, that's your wealth being siphoned off into record bank profits. When our gas, which we all own, gets ripped out of the ground for free and exported for massive profits, that's our wealth going to ultra-wealthy investors. As wealth accumulates further and further at the top, the big corporations and billionaires naturally consolidate their control over our political and economic system. No wonder it's getting harder and harder to get ahead.

One in three big corporations pays no tax. The wealth of Australian billionaires is increasing at a staggering rate. In 2024, their wealth increased by $3.2 million every single hour. It's time to make them pay their fair share. People aren't stupid. It's a controversial statement sometimes in this parliament, isn't it? But it's true. This Labor government wants to tell you that everything's fine, that all we need is a few tweaks here and there. But if you get to the end of a fortnight and you have far less in your bank account than you used to have, you're not falling for that. If you're shocked by your weekly shopping bill, if you can't buy a house no matter how hard you work, you are not falling for that.

People know that things are getting harder and that someone's at fault, but now the entire establishment is trying to shift blame onto migrants. Well, they're wrong. This is the fault of decades of privatisation, deregulation, tax breaks for the ultra-wealthy by both Labor and Liberals. The number of billionaires in Australia doubled over the last decade, and one in three big corporations pays no tax—wealth flowing upwards, out of your pockets.

It's time to turn the page on this hopeless politics. We all share more in common with a migrant than we do with a billionaire. We all deserve a decent, comfortable life, and Australia can afford it if we take our wealth back.

Is the amendment seconded?

Yes, I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.

Firstly, I would like to thank those members who have contributed to this debate. Can I acknowledge the contribution that was just made by the member for Chifley and chair of the House of Representatives Economics Committee? He made a number of observations about different players in the financial services sector and regulators, but I also wanted to acknowledge the great interest he's shown in the Shield and First Guardian matters, both as a local member and as the chair of the committee, and I look forward to him continuing to contribute to what is an extremely important and complex public policy issue. As he said, it is also, at its core, an issue that affects a lot of individual investors and families, and that is such a critically important dimension of that issue and the way that this chamber will deal with it going forward.

The government will not be supporting the amendment moved by the member for Ryan. Ensuring companies pay the right amount of tax means the services that the Australian community needs can be delivered. The Albanese government has strengthened the ATO to continue to do just that. The passage of the Corporations (Review Fees) Amendment (Technical Amendments) Bill 2025 affirms the longstanding fee structure for certain company review fees collected by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission. The government is addressing a technical error in regulations that have applied indexation to certain company review fees since 2011. The government has acted swiftly to ensure that the current fee structure does not need to change and that there will be no disruption to businesses and individuals who engage with the ASIC business registers. Users of the registries can have confidence that the government is correcting this error to maintain predictable and consistent business registry fees. I commend the bill to the House.

The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Ryan has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The immediate question is that the amendment be agreed to.

Question negatived.

Original question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

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 Health Legislation Amendment (Prescribing of Pharmaceutical Benefits) Bill 2025. This bill enables eligible registered nurses to prescribe certain medicines under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. It establishes a framework for approving authorised nurse prescribers, including safeguards that allow approvals to be suspended or revoked where necessary. It also formally recognises authorised nurse prescribers as a new category of PBS prescriber, ensuring that patients receiving care from authorised nurses can access medicines under the PBS.

Registered nurses make up around half of Australia's health workforce. They serve communities right across the country, including in rural, regional and remote areas, where access to doctors can be limited and where healthcare workforce shortages are most acute. Expanding scope of practice in a safe and regulated way has the potential to improve access to medicines, particularly for Australians living outside metropolitan centres.

The introduction of nurse prescribing follows extensive consultation and regulatory development through the Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia. An agreement among health ministers and the first cohort of nurses is expected to begin prescribing from mid-2026.

The opposition won't stand in the way of this bill passing the House. On its face, the bill is broadly consistent with the objective of ensuring Australians have timely and affordable access to essential health care, particularly in rural and remote communities. However, as always, the details matter. We will be carefully examining the implementation of these arrangements through the upcoming Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee process and considering any issues or amendments that arise once the committee reports later this month.

While this bill deals with prescribing arrangements, it sits within a broader challenge facing Australians—the rising costs and challenge of accessing healthcare. Australians relying on prescription medicines are facing increasing healthcare costs under this government, including the highest out-of-pocket GP fees on record. Patients are now paying, on average, more than $50 out of pocket simply to visit a GP. For many Australians, especially families and those managing chronic conditions, healthcare costs are becoming harder to absorb, particularly amongst the broader cost-of-living challenges impacting household budgets right across this country. Labor's mismanagement is forcing Australians to make difficult decisions about their health—decisions no Australian should ever have to make. We're seeing more Australians delaying doctor visits or putting off refilling their scripts because they simply cannot afford it.

The coalition and, of course, the opposition have always supported affordable access to medicines through a strong and sustainable PBS. Our record shows consistent investment and reform to ensure Australians have access to the medicines they need at prices they can afford. Supporting appropriately qualified registered nurses to prescribe PBS medicines is consistent with that commitment to improving access and affordability. But access is not just about who can write the prescription; it is also about whether medicines are available to Australians on the PBS in the first place, and, on this measure, Australia is falling behind.

Despite growing healthcare needs, investment in the PBS fell in real terms in the 2024-25 financial year under the Albanese government—a decline of almost $200 million compared to the previous year. This stands in contrast to the record of the former Liberal-National government, which approved more than 2,900 new or amended PBS listings, with investment totalling around $16.5 billion. Meanwhile, Australians are waiting longer than ever for new medicines to become available under the PBS. On average, it now takes around 466 days after registration for a medicine to be listed. That is more than a year's delay. Behind those numbers are real people waiting for treatments that could change or even save lives. Patients, clinicians and industry stakeholders consistently tell us that Australia's system for approving and funding medicines is slow, outdated and overly complex. The health technology assessment review was commissioned to fix precisely this problem, yet, more than 600 days later, many of its recommendations are still sitting unanswered. This review represents a critical opportunity to modernise our processes so they remain world class, responsive to innovation and genuinely patient centred. That opportunity must not be wasted.

While we support enabling nurse prescribers to prescribe PBS medicines, we also condemn the government's broader failure to ensure Australians can have timely and affordable access to life-saving and life-changing medicines. This bill also intersects with a broader discussion across the health sector regarding scope of practice reform. There is significant interest in the government's response to the scope of practice review and what it means for workforce reform across the healthcare system. We view this process as an opportunity for the government to provide a clear roadmap for reform. When health professionals are enabled to work to the full extent of their training and capability, patients benefit through improved access and more efficient care. Empowering the workforce is one of the most practical ways to relieve pressure on the health system. But reviews alone do not deliver reform; action does.

The government must now respond to the final report as a matter of priority. This review must not join others commissioned by the health minister that ultimately result in delay—we know this; it's a fact—inaction or simply more reviews instead of real reform. Healthcare workers and patients alike deserve clarity and progress. In closing, the opposition supports measures that responsibly improve access to health care for all Australians, particularly in rural and regional Australia, where this remains a significant challenge. We recognise the important role nurses play in our healthcare system, and the potential benefits of sensibly expanding scope of practice. At the same time, we will continue to scrutinise implementation details carefully to ensure patient safety, system efficiency and workforce sustainability are maintained.

We look forward to further clarity arising through the committee process, and to ensuring that reforms genuinely improve access to health care for Australians wherever they live. The opposition will not oppose the passage of this bill, and we will continue working to ensure Australia's healthcare system delivers timely, affordable access to health care for all Australians.

There is a certain irony in the member for Lindsay's raising the track record of the former coalition on the matter of health. What we know about the coalition, and what we know about those opposite, is that the Liberals, the Nationals—despite the fact that there is no current coalition, they were the coalition at the time—tried to introduce a co-payment for GPs when it came to health care. This co-payment would have destroyed bulk-billing—a system that is the bedrock of ensuring that every Australian has the ability to access affordable health care—in this country.

When it comes to this bill, I want to start by talking about my family. My daughter, Margaret, the apple of both her parents' eyes, is 2½ years old now—just a touch over that. Like many babies, toddlers, children across this country, Margaret suffers from reactive airways. Basically, it means that sometimes she finds it difficult to breathe; she has issues with her respiratory system. On more than a few occasions we have taken Margaret to the hospital. And when you go to the hospital as a parent, a few things become clear: your heart starts pounding, your brow has sweat on it and your mind is racing. And when those things happen, whether you're going in an ambulance to that hospital or whether you're driving in the car up to emergency, those things are constantly on your mind.

The thing for me, when I walk into the room and a nurse comes into that room, is the relief that hits me. Nurses are the beacon of care in our community. They are the people who make sure that Australians are okay every day. Nurses are absolutely at the core of our health system with the care that they give out every single day to make sure Australians get better.

I want to acknowledge the former nurses in this place. I acknowledge the member for Cooper, Ged Kearney, for her extraordinary work not only as a nurse on the ground but also for her work in advocacy for nurses across this nation. I acknowledge the member for Bullwinkle, Trish Cook, and her fantastic work as a nurse. And I acknowledge the member for Indi, Helen Haines. We are lucky to have those nurses here with us in this place. They bring the experience of nursing onto the national stage.

In my short time giving speeches in this place, I've had the great opportunity to speak on health legislation and health related issues numerous times. The reason for this is simple: the Albanese Labor government are committed to universal health care, and we are committed to Medicare. We are committed to strengthening it. We are committed to making medicines cheaper. We are committed to expanding bulk-billing. And we are committed to making access to timely health care easier for Australians every day. Urgent care clinics—I'm delighted to say I got to visit one just last week in Oxley in my local area—and Medicare mental health centres across the country enable this seven days a week.

Today we're acting on our commitment to health with the Health Legislation Amendment (Prescribing of Pharmaceutical Benefits) Bill. This bill builds on a strong Labor foundation of healthcare support by providing easier access to medicines. In December 2024, state and territory health ministers approved a new registration standard, which enables suitably qualified registered nurses, or RNs, to become designated RN prescribers. The Endorsement for Scheduled Medicines—Designated Registered Nurse Prescriberstandard enables this group of RNs to prescribe medicines. The standard outlines the required qualifications that an RN must have when applying to the Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia to attain and retain the endorsement for prescribing scheduled medicines.

This bill is important because reforming the scope of practice for health practitioners means real, tangible benefits for Australians, Australians who would be able to access the affordable medicines they need when they need them. That's what this bill is all about. This bill is about affordability and accessibility, and it builds on what we, the Albanese Labor government, have already done. We've already put in place urgent care clinics, and, as we heard from ministers earlier today, there are more and more rolling out every single day. We've put in place a $25 cap on PBS medicine prices so that, when you go to the pharmacy, you will never pay more than a $20 and a $5. And we've been investing in women's health, to make sure that women's health is front and centre, with the biggest investment in women's health in the history of this country.

As the Australian College of Nursing's chief nursing officer Frances Rice said:

This increases access to care, and boosts healthcare efficiency by allowing a registered nurse to work to the top of their scope. Further, it takes pressure off nurse practitioners and medical practitioners and allows them to focus on more complex cases.

This legislation is not just about increasing access to healthcare; it's also about freeing up time and giving more efficient healthcare options across the system.

The bill amends two acts. It amends the National Health Act 1953 to enable a suitably qualified RN to be an authorised medicines prescriber. Such RNs will be able to prescribe certain medicines that are available under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. And it also amends the Health Insurance Act 1973 to enable RNs to review their prescribing services under the Professional Services Review Scheme.

Most of us might think that we have a fair idea of what registered nurses do. I assure you we don't. Unless you have been a nurse, unless you have walked those halls, whether they be in aged care or in a hospital, you don't know the demands of nursing every single day. But, if you've been to a hospital, you know that they take your vitals and that they administer your medications. You'll also find them working in residential aged-care centres, at GP clinics, in the urgent care clinics that we've been rolling out across the country, at schools and at community health centres, to name just a few locations. If you look at the scope of workplaces, it's no surprise that the job description to plan and oversee the management of people in their care includes performing treatments and complex care, and starting, administering and monitoring medication and intravenous therapy. RNs also interpret test results and reports. They participate in medical and surgical procedures and they supervise nursing students. Crucially, and perhaps much harder to quantify, patients rely on RNs to provide emotional and psychological support as they are treated. This can include advocating for those patients.

With this scope of practice—and the intense patient contact and support—it makes sense for appropriately qualified RNs to be enabled to prescribe certain medications. This will allow safe and timely and efficient prescription for patients, especially in primary-care and aged-care settings. This system has been in place in the UK since the 1990s. Nurse Charlotte Coulson, who has worked there and in Victoria in palliative care, says that RNs being enabled to prescribe medicines in palliative care cases is particularly impactful and prevents suffering, noting that 'GPs have limited time and multiple priorities'.

To qualify, RNs are required to hold current general registration, have at least three years of full-time equivalent clinical experience after becoming registered and complete a board approved postgraduate course or equivalent study in registered nurse prescribing. This comprehensive program generally takes four to six months part time and covers topics like conducting physical health assessments and the principles of safe and appropriate medical use. RNs are also trained in pharmacodynamics, which is how medications affect the body, and pharmacokinetics, which focuses on how medicines on how medicines are absorbed, distributed, metabolised and eliminated. Registration also requires six months of supervised clinical mentorship with a medical practitioner or nurse practitioner. The level of supervision is similar to nurse practitioner training and evolves from monitoring of the RN's prescribing decisions to a collaborative working relationship. One endorsed, RNs will be able to prescribe specific types of medicines. This includes schedule 3 medicines which usually require pharmacist advice but not a prescription, such as an emergency contraception. They will also be able to prescribe schedule 4 prescription only medicines such as antibiotics and medicines for high blood pressure and high cholesterol.

The reform in this bill aligns with the intent of the Strengthening Medicare Taskforce and the October 2024 Unleashing the potential of our health workforcescope of practice review. The aim of that review was to, 'reform our primary care workforce to deliver high quality, equitable, integrated and sustainable healthcare for Australian communities'. This built on the extensive work of and consultations by the Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia and Australian Chief Nursing and Midwifery Officer since 2017 around the potential for RNs to increase their scope of practice. The registration standard was developed after comprehensive consultation with numerous peak bodies, including the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners, the AMA, the Congress of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Nurses and Midwives and the Australian Primary Healthcare Nurses Association.

The reforms in this bill are part of a bigger picture for the Albanese government. It is a picture of the Albanese Labor government's investment in public health. In 2023 Labor increased the bulk-billing incentive threefold for groups who rely on their GP the most. The Albanese Labor government increased that bulk-billing incentive for pensioners, for concession card holders and for families with children, and this change reversed the decline in bulk-billing and resulted in an extra 6.5 million bulk-billed GP appointments across the country.

A major milestone for Medicare then took effect on 1 November last year. From that date, for the first time, GPs received the bulk-billing incentive for every patient they bulk-billed, not just the groups I just mentioned. This is the largest single investment ever made in Medicare and is expected to support around 18 million additional bulk-billed visits every single year. In my electorate of Moreton, there are now 20 bulk-billed GP clinics, with 10 clinics moving from a mixed model to a full bulk-billing model. This is a 50 per cent increase, and it means that people on the south side of Brisbane have more access than ever before to bulk-billed GP clinics. With these reforms, projections show that by 2030 around 90 per cent of GP visits nationwide will be bulk-billed, and it also means that the number of fully bulk-billing practices is set to grow to roughly 4,800 clinics. That's more than three times the current figure, which is a significant improvement for communities across Australia.

Urgent care clinics are also easing demand on hospital emergency departments. In Oxley in my own electorate of Moreton the local clinic is already making a difference. It's the health professionals there who are treating over 12,200 patients as of mid-January, and it's the same with expanding networks across the country. I note the member for Griffith is in the chamber tonight. We have one right on our border which also helps so many people in Annerley. In the 2025 budget the government committed nearly $645 million over three years to expand the number of urgent care clinics from 87 to 137, and as a result four out five Australians live within a 20-minute drive of free, high quality, urgent medical care, something that could only be achieved under this Labor government. And from 1 January, as I said before, the maximum co-payment for a standard PBS subscription fell from $31.60 to $25.

Labor's commitment to health care is underpinned by our fundamental values. It's part of who we are. It's part of what runs through our blood. It's part of our DNA. We haven't held these values for a minute; we've held them for a very long time. The Australian Labor Party believes that everyone deserves access to health care, regardless of your income, regardless of your employment and regardless of where you live.

I rise to make a brief contribution on the Health Legislation Amendment (Prescribing of Pharmaceutical Benefits) Bill 2025. I acknowledge the member for Moreton, who's given us such an elegant explanation of what this bill is about, what this bill aims to do and what I feel very confident this bill will achieve. I thank her for her acknowledgement of nurses right across Australia, many of whom are old former colleagues of mine, and I thank her for her very clear recognition and understanding of the work that nurses do.

This bill amends the National Health Act 1953 and the Health Insurance Act 1973 to allow authorised registered nurses to prescribe medications under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. In doing so, it adds the final piece to an important reform that's been under development for almost a decade. This isn't a flash in the pan. This isn't something that someone's just come up with. This has been a long time in development, and that's because it's important to get these things right.

I highlight that this is about authorised registered nurses. This is about nurses who have undertaken significant further education and training to enable them to expand their scope of practice now to prescribe a formulary of medications. The introduction of registered nurse prescribing is the result of extensive coordination and collaboration between the Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia, the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency, the Australian and New Zealand Council of Chief Nursing and Midwifery Officers and the health ministers across all Australian jurisdictions.

The member for Moreton laid out the extensive training that's required in order for authorised nurses to prescribe schedule 3 and 4 medications, and made it quite clear that this is part of a bigger suite of reforms to strengthen Medicare. I was involved many years ago, in Australia, in the very beginning of nurse practitioner education and training. It was part of my role, leading the education of a cohort of 14 aspirant nurse practitioners in a rural and regional health service to assist them with their education and training in pharmacology and other elements of the higher training they required in order to meet the scope of practice that was critical to becoming an endorsed nurse practitioner. I've spent more than three decades working in health care, and one of the most extraordinary evolutions I've seen is how nurses' scope of practice, and, indeed, other health professionals—allied health, too—has grown over the last decade to respond to the growing requirements of our population, particularly our ageing population.

This initiative, just like the nurse practitioner pioneers, is especially important to me as a regional MP and as a former nurse and midwife. I know, because I've seen it and lived it, that regional, rural and remote Australians—and you know it, Deputy Speaker Scrymgour—have a higher burden of disease than our metropolitan counterparts. We know that our health care is dictated by our postcode, and in my electorate of Indi—which is a regional electorate, but it has some remote areas too—we experience conditions such as asthma, arthritis and heart disease at rates way above the national average. This piece of legislation enables fully authorised and educated nurses to prescribe medications in categories that will absolutely make a difference to timely care in these chronic diseases.

This bill is really important to me because I can give confidence to anybody in this House that this will make a difference to people who suffer from chronic disease, most particularly in rural and regional Australia. When I talk about chronic diseases being above the national rate and rural, regional and remote Australians dying earlier than their metropolitan counterparts, I do that knowing many of the people who have, in fact, died prematurely because they simply had not had access to the care that they needed. To make matters worse, we have healthcare workforce shortages in the regions that make it practically harder to effectively manage chronic health conditions and illnesses.

Now, while this bill doesn't directly address the issue of healthcare workforce supply, I do want to spend a little moment talking about this, because it is part of the broader picture. It's really important that we situate this legislation in the broader reality of health care in the regions. Of course, this legislation isn't restricted to nurses who work in the regions—it's across Australia—but I'm highlighting why it matters to communities like mine in particular. Regional communities absolutely struggle to access healthcare, including the prescribing of medications. To be clear, I want to say that the healthcare workforce in regional Australia is absolutely fantastic, filled with highly competent professionals, of whom the biggest group are nurses, and so many of them had not been able until more recent times to work to their full scope of practice. These problems aren't their doing. There's simply not enough workforce to meet our healthcare demands. So, with the workforce that we have, we need to ensure absolutely that we're providing the opportunities to access the training and education they need to expand their scope of practice and work closely with the people who need them most.

Further to that, when I think about health workforce in rural and regional Australia, it's not just a matter of attracting workforce; it's also a matter of retaining them. One of the challenges for many nurses is job satisfaction—the frustration of seeing a patient who needs further care and the restrictions on nurses in being able to provide that care. That's why this bill, again, is really important in a sense of expanding scope of practice and really building on job satisfaction for a nurse.

The reasons for workforce shortages in rural health are many and complex. Certainly there is inadequate resourcing of regional health systems. Training pathways make getting regional experience difficult or unaffordable. Housing and childcare shortages prevent talented professionals from moving to regional Australia. We really do have a wicked problem, and there isn't just one policy to solve it, but this piece of legislation is part of that puzzle, and I really welcome it. The truth is that, if we're going to address workforce challenges, we do need to come at it from all angles, and that includes making sure that every single healthcare professional is supported to work at their full scope of practice. This bill supports a reform that does precisely this.

In Victoria, the number of nurses is actually relatively consistent in proportion to population across major cities, inner and outer regions and remote communities. In fact, as I said before, nurses make up the highest number of healthcare professionals in the bush, and, where we do have the workforce in rural and regional Australia, we need to make sure that we're not putting unnecessary handbrakes on the care that they can provide their communities. I've been in that situation many times in my long distant past, working in a bush nursing hospital where I have waited on the phone, trying to get on to a medical practitioner to come and prescribe what is a pretty basic repeat medication for a patient who's driven for several hours to come to the hospital to get that medication. It all could have been sorted in a very short time if a nurse had this additional capacity. Enabling registered nurses to expand their scope of practice through additional training endorsement—really, it's a commonsense national solution and one I hope will materially improve access to health care in the regions. We've heard this evening that this isn't Robinson Crusoe; this is happening in many other parts of the world, most recognisably in the United Kingdom.

Right now there are people in my electorate of Indi who spend half a day travelling or wait weeks for GP appointments just to get that repeat prescription, and I'm hoping this legislation is going to be a godsend for them. It'll make a real difference to their lives if they can get their medications a little sooner and a little closer to home. I'm absolutely alive to concerns from some other members of the health team about fragmented care. I'm the first to say that we really must make sure that our communication and digital tools are sufficient to enable us to ensure that we do not have fragmentation.

Debate interrupted.

Strata living is now a defining feature of Australia's housing system. Yet too often strata owners and renters are being asked to carry risks they did not create and cannot control. Almost half of households in the electorate of Warringah live in strata. Apartments are central to how we meet our housing needs, manage density and support diverse communities, but strata residents are often locked out of opportunity to access clean energy rebates while being loaded with responsibilities and rising costs.

In Warringah, I recently met with residents on a single street where five apartment buildings are all battling serious water ingress issues. These are families who bought homes in good faith. Yet years later they are still fighting developers, paying special levies, facing rising insurance premiums and living with stress, mould and uncertainty. They cannot sell. Some cannot safely stay, and they cannot compel accountability. And governments are abandoning them—are failing to be there for them.

Strata residents are also being left behind in the clean energy transition. While around 30 per cent of standalone homes in Warringah now have solar, only three to four per cent of apartments do, and renters are almost entirely excluded. Unfortunately, we see time and time again that government policies are designed in a way that excludes strata. People want to electrify their homes whether they live in single dwellings or in strata. They want to cut their power bills, install batteries and enable EV charging, but they are blocked by complex governance, outdated strata regulation, high upfront costs and inconsistent government pathways, including local government pathways. For example, the New South Wales government's bond scheme to address building defects has also fallen short, shifting the burden onto owners with few tools for recourse.

Australia is now racing to build 1.2 million homes. Many of those will be in strata and in medium-to-high density. Experts are warning that, without stronger standards and accountability, up to half of new apartments could have serious defects. We need to be focusing more on the quality of what is being built, not just on the nice-to-announce numbers when it comes to what is being approved or built. We need national consistency, transparent developer and builder ratings, stronger certification and a national recall scheme to support owners when developers dodge responsibility or go into liquidation.

Too often, the property developer has moved on, the builders go into liquidation and it is the owners who are left carrying the debt and the serious consequences. So that means aligning federal leadership with state systems, fixing incentives and ensuring strata communities can access the many different programs, including energy programs—for example, the home batteries one that we hear about so often in this place. It also means supporting existing buildings, not just future ones, with fair insurance practices and access to low-cost finance for rectification of building defects when developers and builders are not available to take responsibility.

Strata residents are not asking for special treatment. They're just asking for a fair system that works for them and recognises the very difficult situation they are all too often in compared to single-dwelling homeowners. I attended a workshop and roundtable in the North Sydney local government area, where so many were absolutely despairing at the financial circumstances they faced. They found themselves in the situation where the legal responsibility passed with them upon contract exchange. Developers move on—have made their profits—builders go into liquidation or build substandard buildings, and those left to pay for the rectifications to ensure they even have something liveable are the owners, who are left in the situation where the property they've purchased could be hundreds of thousands of dollars less in value—quite stark. They are left with hundreds of thousands of dollars of rectification costs. They are unable to sell, they're unable to live in it and they are unable to move. It was quite dire. The level of stress and anxiety was huge.

So I urge the government to start focusing on the question of more equitable arrangements so that people living in strata situations have a fairer system.

Days after the horrific antisemitic attack at Bondi on 14 December, people in my community of Griffith were shaken. I was shaken, as I know every single Australian was. If we are honest, that shock has landed on top of something else that has been building for too long, a sense in parts of our community that it is getting harder to simply belong. Over recent months, and especially in the last few weeks, as I have met with constituents and community groups across Griffith, I have heard stories that have stayed with me. I've heard from a Jewish community member who no longer feels comfortable in his own gym, a man who feels judged and condemned by those around him. I have heard from Muslim families, including a father whose daughter-in-law is now afraid to wear her hijab on the way to work or to the shop simply because of her faith. This fear and concern did not start on the on 14 December last year. Our community is clear on this. It has been building for some time through the drip of hateful rhetoric, the spread of misinformation and the steady normalisation of behaviour that makes people second guess whether they will be safe and welcome in their own suburb.

Last week I had the opportunity to visit 4EB in Woolloongabba with the Assistant Minister for Citizenship, Customs and Multicultural Affairs, my friend, the member for Bruce. We sat down with the team and heard directly from trusted community voices that connect people across languages, cultures and generations. The member for Bruce said something that stuck with me about how social cohesion is a dynamic process, not an end state or a mere tick box, reminding us that it's a process that requires constant work. He said, 'Hate and violence don't result from diversity. Hate and violence result because of misinformation, polarisation and miscommunication of those differences.' We know what is putting strain on that work: echo chambers driven by algorithms, foreign malign influence and the weaponisation of overseas conflicts here at home.

Australia is proudly one of the world's most successful multicultural societies but that success didn't just happen. It takes investment, strong institutions, and it takes leadership in our communities and in this place, because leadership matters when there are people trying to make division feel normal. The politics of division is very easy. The quick hit of outrage, grievance and blame. The member for Bruce and I agree it is a political business model that scratches at the fringes and stokes anger and outrage to harvest votes at both ends of the political spectrum. We are seeing a concerning rise in deliberately divisive language from the likes of One Nation.

I grew up in 1990s Queensland when now Senator Hanson made her maiden speech. I vividly remember what it did to people's sense of safety and to the tone of community life. Then I was outraged and took action as a teenager, and I'm not going to pretend it is acceptable now. I share the concerns of many in my electorate. I worry about the normalisation of Senator Hanson's disgraceful rhetoric and her exclusionary form of patriotism. I worry because words set the temperature in our community. They signpost to people whether they belong. That is not the Australia we want; it is not the Griffith we want to see. I was asked recently on social media post about this very issue and how would I know what my community wants. I know, because I meet with people across Griffith every single day, whether it's at a pop-up office, at the electorate office or on the doorsteps while doorknocking. I know, because my electorate team and I receive and respond to hundreds of emails and phone calls every single week. I know, because I sit with families, community leaders, faith leaders and local organisations and I listen. I know, when a Jewish constituent tells me they no longer feel comfortable turning up to the gym or when a Muslim parent tells me their daughter-in-law is weighing up whether it's safe to wear a hijab, that's not politics; that's lived experience.

In my first speech to this parliament I spoke about the responsibility of listening to community and the honour of being trusted to represent Griffith. I did not come into this job to inflame things. I came into this job to bring people together and do the practical, patient work of strengthening the bonds that make a place like ours work. We assemble in this place, on Ngunnawal and Ngambri country, to make and amend laws, and laws matter. They set boundaries. But what must underpin them is our commitment to build understanding and strengthen cohesion. That commitment is the most important ingredient. It cannot be legislated. It is demonstrated in the choices each of us make every day, day in and day out, to practise mutual respect. The promise of Australia is simple: you can be safe, you can belong and you can build a life with others, not against them.

Australia Day is one of my favourite days in my community. We're a community backed by our strong volunteerism, a place where people show up, help others and find ways to bring our community together. That's exactly what our local Rotarians did at the annual Monbulk Rotary and the Wandin Rotary Australia Day breakfasts. It was great to chat with local families, hear from Megan from the Royal Children's Hospital about the impact of fundraising on sick Aussie kids and listen to Woori Yallock Primary School students Dixi and Molly, who were guest speakers at the Wandin Rotary event.

From there, it was on to the Rotary Club of Wandin's Free Family Fun Day, an amazing day with food, entertainment and fun for the whole family. In true Australian spirit, the Community Bank Wandin-Seville announced $10,000 each for four local CFA brigades: Coldstream CFA, Gruyere CFA, Wandin CFA and Seville CFA. This is the third time that the Community Bank Wandin-Seville have made this contribution. They have given $120,000 to these much-needed and deserving brigades. Thank you to Ray and the team at the Bendigo Bank. This money will help with equipment and operations as the brigades continue to protect our local community and communities all across Victoria and the country.

It was fantastic to welcome our newest citizens at the Yarra Ranges Council citizenship ceremony before the annual community awards event. I had the privilege of announcing the 2026 Yarra Ranges Citizen of the Year as Emma Sullivan. Emma was recognised for amazing work with the Wattle Wildlife Shelter in the Dandenong Ranges. Unfortunately, Emma couldn't be there—but it was for a great reason. She was out at the firegrounds volunteering to help look after wildlife. Thank you, Emma, for your service to our community. I also want to congratulate the Community Group of the Year, the Montrose Township Group; the Environmental Achiever, Patrick Natoli; the Young Environmental Achiever, Coen Pearson, who delivered a brilliant speech on the day. I also congratulate the recipient of the Ian De La Rue Award for Community Leadership, Heath Pawley; and the recipient of the Mayor's Lifetime Achievement Award, Mr Warburton, Gordon Buller.

It was special that I could also personally congratulate former mayor, current councillor and great friend of mine, Councillor Jim Child. He was awarded a Medal of the Order of Australia for his commitment to local government and our Yarra Ranges community. Jim has been serving our community for a long time that he was a councillor when it was the Shire of Upper Yarra, before the Yarra Ranges was created in the early nineties.

Congratulations to Jim Richards, Paul Birch, Alan Clayton, George McDonald and Neil McLeod for each receiving a Medal of the Order of Australia as well; and to Detective Sergeant Dr Jenelle Hardiman, who received the Australian Police Medal. Jessica Drummond received the Ambulance Service Medal and Anthony Kolmus received the Public Service Medal.

We have some wonderful schools in my community of Casey, and it was fantastic to get out to many of them while in the community over summer. I'd like to give a shout-out to the students at Yarra Junction Primary School, who've been learning about the impact of plastics on our marine life and local environment. Ms Thomas's grades 1 and 2 students took their knowledge of single-use plastics and turned it into a persuasive letter that they shared with me during a recent visit. Prime Minister, on behalf of the Yarra Junction Primary School students, I wanted to let you know that they are concerned about the single-use plastic packaging used by supermarkets and the impact it is having on our waterways. I urge you to do all you can to reduce this. In many of their letters, they have requested that supermarkets stop using or use less single-use plastic packaging. Congratulations to Ms Thomas and the grade 1/2s on their great environmental advocacy.

With so much of our community surrounded by the beautiful Yarra River, it is so important that students learn how to protect our environment for years to come. I recently had the opportunity to head back again to Yarra Junction to recognise the grade 6 leaders. Congratulations to them. I was also out last Friday at Bimbadeen Heights Primary School to recognise the leaders. Speaker, Bimbadeen Heights might sound familiar. That was the school you came and visited with me last year, and you're warmly remembered there. The new leaders will still debate whether pineapple should go on pizzas or not. I also had the opportunity to go to Oxley heights Christian school to recognise the new leaders for 2026. I want to wish all the primary school and high school students in Casey all the best for 2026.

I rise today to share stories of exceptional contributions being made by selfless and incredible people living in my electorate of Sturt. Sturt is home to seven local councils, and many of these local councils celebrated and recognised their outstanding citizens as part of their recent Australia Day awards. It was a privilege to be able to attend several of these ceremonies and to learn more about these remarkable people.

The citizen of the year at the Port Adelaide Enfield city council Australia Day awards was Ms Debbie Grace. In 2007, Debbie founded the OC Challenge, which is a not-for-profit charity that supports South Australian women with ovarian cancer, raises funds, educates and raises awareness about this cruel illness. Through the efforts of the OC Challenge, not only can newly diagnosed patients at the Royal Adelaide Hospital access a psychologist but they can access a dedicated nurse and support staff who are available to patients throughout their treatment and afterwards. This free service has, so far, supported over 230 women from metropolitan and regional areas in private and public health settings. Ovarian cancer is known as a silent killer because, by the time it presents, it has spread. Outcomes are poor, and a diagnosis can be devastating. Ovarian cancer has touched my family, and it means a great deal to me to know that people like Debbie are working selflessly to support affected patients and their families. Thank you, Debbie.

The Burnside city council's young citizen of the year was Tom Edwards, who was recognised for his longstanding service to the mighty Glenunga Rams footy club, where he has served as a committee member, secretary and president, as well as still playing in the backlines in the senior men's competition. Tom has dedicated countless hours to the club to create opportunities for players, families and volunteers. Under Tom's stewardship, the club's women's program has both skyrocketed and enjoyed success. I've met with Tom several times and can confirm that his balance of professionalism, knowledge and kindness makes him a very worthy winner. Congratulations, Tom, and go Rams.

At the Unley city council, David Woods was named the 2026 citizen of the year, announced during that council's Australia Day celebrations. Known for his work in community fundraising, resilience and animal welfare, David was recognised for his inspirational contributions to the local community. David lives with ataxia, and this has shaped his approach to life. Ataxia is a neurological condition characterised by uncoordinated muscle movements, including poor balance, unsteady gait and slurred speech, but it has not stopped David. He not only embraces life, but is dedicating his life to helping others.

At the City of Norwood, Payneham & St Peters council Australia Day awards, the citizen of the year was the beautiful Margaret McGregor. Margaret's contribution to the community has been profound, spanning decades of dedicated service—from opening her own home to refugees to helping families find housing, work and education and empowering Afghan women and youth through community sport. Margaret's compassion has changed lives across that community. After she won, I congratulated and thanked her for her service, and she replied simply by saying that it was important to her to do what she could to help others.

The City of Tea Tree Gully Council presented its Outstanding Citizen of the Year award to Noelle Wallis, who is a passionate community leader and the director of Pathway Community Centre in Modbury North. She mobilises a dedicated team of volunteers to deliver over 150 food relief packages to those doing it tough and spearheaded the opening of the Pathway wellbeing centre, offering holistic care and support to clients. Her tireless advocacy and commitment shine through challenges from replacing essential food vans to navigating renovations and financial hurdles, which she does with wisdom and patience.

I congratulate all nominees and winners across the electorate of Sturt and thank them for doing what they can every day to invest in our wonderful Sturt community by serving others.

Before I make a contribution, today in the House the Prime Minister advised the House that absent would be the member for Blair. This is the first opportunity I've had to get to my feet to offer my thoughts and prayers to him and his family as they navigate the waters ahead. He and I have been adversaries and neighbours from across the political divide, and I know him to be a good man. My thoughts are with him.

That aside, Labor are failing the Australian public. Shayne, if you're watching, you'll know that this is all true. I can see him firing up right now. Australians are poorer today as a result of the RBA's announcement to shift rates from 3.6 per cent to 3.85 per cent. There are so many people in Australia that will take the position that they don't own a house—'I don't have a mortgage, so the rate rise doesn't really affect me.' But can I tell you it does? It affects everyone because any business that's got an overdraft—and we come from a party of business; we come from a party that understands what it means to balance the books. We bet our lot. We bet our family home with a bank to say that we think we can get out the other side of this.

I know businesses in my electorate—my farming businesses, my coffee shops—have overdrafts. When their cost of business goes up, so does the cost of their production, so does the cost that gets pushed onto the consumers. That is, for those who can. Some of the larger ones that will deal with the larger retailers will make the argument that they can't push those costs on and they'll absorb it. But, to use the basic principles of business, you calculate your costs and you push them on. So today's rate rise means that everyone is going to be poorer as a result of the RBA's decision.

I remember being in grade 9. We had to debate, in an economics class, which was more important: fiscal or monetary policy. The lecturer or the teacher was trying to establish that you had a complete understanding of both policy settings. What's avoiding the Australian Labor Party, the Prime Minister and the Treasurer at the moment is that they're making the argument that there is now a complete separation between fiscal and monetary policy and the two are not connected. The Treasurer stood at the dispatch box today and tried to make the argument that none of the decisions that have been made by the Reserve Bank have got any unintended consequences for what we're doing here in this House. They've got no unintended consequences for what our spending habits are—none whatsoever.

You know, as a Labor Party, you're in trouble when you've got the ABC starting to roll the heat up on you. I draw you to the attention of no less than David Speers, who on 24 October had an interview with the Treasurer. The Treasurer said, 'I think, when it comes to inflation specifically, the worst is behind us, and better days are ahead.' I would have hoped that that was correct. And, as Australians, we all would have hoped that that was correct. Then, in April 2025, the comment from the Treasurer when inflation was going down was, 'This is proof of the responsible economic management which has been a defining feature of the Albanese government.' So they take credit for the numbers when they're going down, but it's always somebody else's fault when it's going up. I've got five kids. They're great kids, but even they're starting to see through it. How can you take the credit on one but not on the other? So Speers says in January 2026, just a couple of weeks ago— (Time expired)

Last week, I attended the Ngarrama, a much-loved community gathering on Awabakal and Worimi country in Newcastle, now in its fifth year. I want to acknowledge just how important this event has become in Newcastle's calendar of events. Through truth-telling performances, dance and song, the evening honours the past, the present and the enduring strength of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, as well as providing a powerful opportunity to reflect on the lives and ongoing contributions of First Nations people in Mooloobinba/Newcastle. It was powerful to see so many locals coming out—families, neighbours, workmates, elders and so many young people, all sharing in storytelling, music, art and truth-telling. Events like Ngarrama matter because they create space to listen, to learn and to walk forward together. They deepen our understanding of the world's oldest continuing culture and strengthen the respect that sits at the heart of our community.

I want to thank the organisers—the Awabakal, the Wollotuka and the University of Newcastle, in particular—the artists, the performers, the volunteers and the elders who made this event such a success. Thank you as well to all the partners, and I'm especially pleased to acknowledge the support of the Australian government this year. Ngarrama reminds us that reconciliation isn't a moment; it's a shared journey. In Newcastle, we are committed to walking that path together.

Across Australia, more than 218,000 households now have a home battery installed under Labor's cheaper home batteries plan, and that includes over 1,500 in my electorate of Newcastle. That's good news for families. It's good news for our energy system, and it's great news for the environment. Home batteries help households store the solar energy they generate through the day and then use it whenever they need it, not just when the sun is shining. This is lowering bills and giving families more control over their energy use. Home batteries are also strengthening the grid by reducing pressure during all those peak times, making our energy system more reliable and resilient. And, of course, they play a critical role in cutting emissions by helping us to use more clean, renewable energy. This is a practical climate action that delivers real benefits to everyday Australians right now, with lower bills, increased reliability of the grid and a cleaner energy future.

I love going out to O-Week events at the University of Newcastle, and last week I did just that. There was real excitement and energy amongst the students on campus. One thing kept coming up again and again, and that was student debt relief. It's good to have that word 'relief' at the end of that sentence. Returning students told me just what it meant to have their student debts cut last year. Labor cut 20 per cent off all student debt, and let's not forget that this is not just for university students. Every TAFE student that accumulated one of these debts, every apprentice and everyone under the VET schemes all stood to benefit from this scheme, delivering real relief for people in my electorate. More than 25,000 Novocastrians had 20 per cent cut off their student debt, and what relief that brought!

Let's not forget those students now studying teaching, nursing, midwifery or social work. They were telling me how thrilled they were about now being able to be paid while undertaking those mandatory placements as part of their degree program. These students do essential, demanding and often full-time work for their placements in order to qualify for professions that our communities desperatelyneed, and so paying these students during placement is about fairness. It's about dignity. It's about making sure that cost isn't a barrier to becoming a teacher, a nurse, a midwife or a social worker. And I can tell you that those social workers, who we desperately need many more of in our communities, especially now, were doing 1,000 hours of unpaid work in order to get their degree. Think about that. They were giving up paid work in order to become a great social worker in our community. So this paid Commonwealth prac payment system is a real game changer for those students, mostly women, doing these professions. It was really energising to hear their stories and their optimism. And that's exactly why Labor is committed to backing students and investing in our future workforce.

House adjourned at 20 : 01

Without trucking, the nation stops. Australia is so heavily reliant on our transport industry, particularly our truckies. They do a power of good, and they've never been under more pressure than right now with all the rules, compliance, obligations and regulations. They appreciate that they have to do the right thing, and, by and large, they do. But the onerous nature of what is expected of them is becoming all too much.

Under this government, so many of these wonderful trucking companies are going to the wall. D.J.K. Transport in New South Wales went into liquidation in August 2025 after operating for 57 years. A K G Trucking, from the same state, also entered voluntary liquidation in the same month and on the same day as Round Em Up Transport. XL Express, a national company, went under in August, after 35 years in business, leaving around 200 employees without jobs. That's 200 employees in a cost-of-living crisis. Where do they go? What do they do?

Don Watson Transport, another national company, closed its doors in June last year after 77 years of successful operation, carting much of the refrigerated transport demand. They're a logistics company with more than 300 staff, who transported cold goods between Sydney, Wodonga and Melbourne. There are over 140 trucks up for sale. Transtar Linehaul, another national company, entered administration in July 2025, leading to the company auctioning off their 38 prime movers and their 56 trailers.

Closer to home for me, in Wagga Wagga, there is Ron Crouch Transport. It, too, is a third-generation business, founded by Ron and Beverley Crouch in 1978. It started carting hay for a single client and grew into quite a powerhouse. Certainly, it's a large company for Wagga Wagga. Thankfully, a buyer has been found, and that is some relief for Geoff Crouch, the son of Ron, and indeed for the workers who are in that company. But look at other companies that went to the wall. Newnham Trucking in Queensland, Aava Logistics, Truck Repair Group in Queensland and BDS Group in Victoria all collapsed last year. And the common denominator is this: it's a Labor government that has not acknowledged that the trucking sector is in crisis. It's a Labor government that has brought about a cost-of-living crisis. It's a Labor government that does not care about small business. And this is one of the reasons why our trucking sector is in such a perilous state.

Here are some facts about trucking. Forty-seven per cent of drivers in Australia in 2024 were 55 years or older, and only 5.4 per cent of those drivers are under 25 years of age. Projections by the International Road Transport Union predict 21 per cent of Australian drivers are due to retire by 2029. That cliff is not far away. In 2024 we had 28,000 unfilled truck driving positions in Australia. It's no wonder Ron Finemore advertises so extensively. It's no wonder Peter Rodney, who has his own group, is despairing and often calls me about the number of trucks he has backed up to the fence in his yard. Allowing for the projected retirement of more than 50,000 drivers, the shortage will grow to more than 78,000 unfilled positions by 2029. The mainstream media has just cottoned on to the fact—even though I have been banging on about this for some time—that the sham contracting arrangements are doing a great disservice to our trucking industry. Under a sham contracting arrangement, you'll get an ABN. That'll be paid, but the drivers miss out on all the add-ons. Of course, that company saves the additional expense. I'm told it's reasonably widespread and that that is how some operations are able to offer cheaper prices to haul freight than other companies. There's not a level playing field, and that is a problem.

It requires, I believe, the transport minister to have a summit. We had a summit last year about productivity, and, if there's one thing we talk about when we talk about productivity, it should be trucking, because trucking enables productivity. Trucking enables goods to be transported all around Australia. And without trucking, as I said, all of that stops. The nation grinds to a halt. But what is this government doing about it? Zip. Nothing. Absolutely nothing. We should be having a summit—a major gathering, a come-to-Jesus moment, if you like—for our trucking sector. And, yes, call in the unions. Let them have their say too. I'm not against that. I think what we saw when we had the productivity summit was a union talkfest—a gabfest. But I wouldn't be against the unions coming in, because they're part and parcel of this, and they might have some interesting input. I'm sure they would. But get the drivers in, young and old—mainly they'll be old, as I said before. Get a group together where the likes of Tom, Ron Finemore and Peter Rodney are all able to have their say and lay it bare on the table so that we know what the problems are, because they do know. But they will also have solutions, and I think it's incumbent upon the government to adopt those solutions because, if we don't, then all the goods that are being ferried around the nation are going to grind to a halt.

Deputy Speaker, you know who will suffer the most? It'll be the mums and dads trying to pack their kids' school lunches, trying to get the kids off to school, because out there we talk a lot about all sorts of things—the inner machinations of the parliament and whether the coalition is together and this, that and everything else. Out there in voter land, they just want to get on with their lives. They want to open the doors of their small businesses. They want to make sure their kids get to school. They want to make sure their kids get to sport. They want to make sure that they live a good existence, but they can't do it if they don't have food on the table, they can't do it if the supermarket shelves aren't filled, and they can't do it without trucking companies. Regional Australia will suffer because many of these trucking companies emanated from regional Australia, and they're all over regional Australia. They're in Albury, they're in Wagga Wagga, they're in smaller towns as well, and they're doing it hard. They're doing it tough, no thanks to this government, which has made it so very tough.

State governments have a role to play, too. I think they should be in the summit as well, because some of the regulations that they put on trucking companies need to be looked at. Maybe they're right; maybe they could be improved. But, whatever the case, we do need to look into this sham contracting. We need to get to the bottom of this sham contracting. If we don't, then those trucks that you see going up and down the highways and those trucks that you see on the byways and little country roads are going to disappear because nobody will be able to afford to run them. If Geoff Crouch can't run a successful operation, then I don't know who can. They love their companies, they love their workers and they love to see their trucks out on the road—the big rigs, the big heavy haulers, the freight movers, the people who keep this nation running. It's the Geoff Crouches and the Ron Finemores and the Peter Rodneys of the world. They love their industry and they're desperately worried about how it's going to be fixed. Looking for solutions—they've got solutions; they just need a forum through which to put their cards on the table.

Is the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government listening? I doubt it. I do. Is the government caring? I doubt it. I haven't heard anybody from the government side talking about trucking or talking about what we can do to help the transport industry. I'll stand corrected, but I would love to see somebody get up in question time and talk about the trucking industry and thank the trucking industry for what they do for our nation. I don't think anybody really knows. I think a lot of city people think that their milk juts comes from the fridge in the supermarket. It comes from a cow; it's milked. It gets put into cartons, it gets put on a truck and it gets taken to the cities. That process is all under threat. Those drivers are all at risk, and they're at risk because of sham contracting. They're at risk because the margins are too small for the trucking companies that have served this nation for decades and have done it so well and deserve the applause and the gratitude of the government—a government that, at the moment, is very unfeeling and uncaring about an industry that keeps this nation moving.

There's rightly been a lot of focus in this parliament on the events of 14 December, and there should continue to be. We witnessed 15 of our fellow Australians killed—Jewish Australians targeted because of their faith—a depravity carried out by ISIS inspired terrorists. Their act has written an incredibly dark chapter into our nation's history. The grieving will continue for some time, and, while this occurs, we have another task to pursue. We need to have a clear understanding of how this occurred. What are the lessons we can learn to avoid a repeat of this on Australian soil? This is why I never hesitated in expressing my belief—supporting the member for Macarthur—that a royal commission into this awful, horrific event be undertaken. Besides getting answers and clarity, it can also play an important role in healing and bringing us together. The growth of extremism needs to be confronted regardless of what corner it emerges from.

I've been concerned about this for sometime, but it crystallised further in 2019—the year an Australian white supremacist travelled to Christchurch, New Zealand, and killed 51 people on the basis of their religion. That terrorist's acts against people of the Islamic faith was livestreamed over social media. His 74-page manifesto was later used to inspire attacks on a synagogue in Poway, California; a supermarket in El Paso, Texas; a mosque in Baerum, Norway; and another synagogue in Halle, Germany. This was a hateful cancer that spread.

When I recently stood on that footbridge at Bondi and looked at the park where Jewish Australians had been celebrating Hanukkah and were targeted for attack, I felt the exact chill I experienced visiting those two mosques in Christchurch. In both cases innocent people were hemmed in, and, with little room for them to escape, tragedy ensued.

Again, I supported a royal commission into the events of Bondi because, as I have said before and restate now, whether it's an Islamist or a far-right extremist, anyone that poses a threat to the safety of our fellow Australians must be dealt with head-on using every resource we can muster. We must stand up to terrorism, but tough should join with calm—resisting threats while unifying.

Post Christchurch, then New Zealand prime minister Jacinda Ardern was praised for doing whatever she could to comfort and rally New Zealanders. At a time of grief and mourning, she consoled while also being prepared to respond strongly to terror, including setting up a royal commission into the horrors of Christchurch. Notably, she did not beam herself in via Australian media to blame our nation for the terror that occurred on New Zealand soil. Prime Minister Ardern worked with then prime minister Morrison to set in place laws to prevent social media giants from live-streaming terrorist acts. The response to Christchurch is a salutary example of how societies traumatised by terror can and should rally, comfort and unite.

But, since the terrible events of Bondi, I've often reflected on the contrast between 2025 and 2019. I think it's important we reflect and contrast because, during the last parliamentary sitting, we heard a number of times from the coalition of the need to confront hard truths. In fact, the opposition leader made it a feature of her condolence motion, stating:

To do so, we must face uncomfortable truths. Radical Islamist extremism caused this. I repeat: radical Islamist extremism caused this.

After that, during condolence contributions and debates and via questions on notice, parliamentarians referred to 'radical Islamists', 'radical Islamist extremism', 'radical Islamist extremists', 'radical Islamist ideology' and even 'radical Islam' nearly 90 times. They didn't even blink associating 'radicalism' with an entire faith. Let's reflect and contrast. Let's, as the opposition leader invites us to do, 'face uncomfortable truths'.

One person that has to do this on a daily basis is the person who heads ASIO, Mike Burgess. In February 2020, nearly a year after Christchurch, Mr Burgess highlighted the growth of right-wing extremism and the threat it poses to Australia. He warned how small cells of right-wing extremists were meeting across the country and saluting Nazi flags in homes nestled in our suburbs, where they hid weapons caches and trained in combat. A month later, one year after Christchurch, he appeared before Senate estimates, and what happened was instructive. He was grilled by coalition government senators who were not asking about what ASIO was doing about the threat but, rather, objecting to the label of 'right-wing extremist'. Let me quote then coalition senator Connie Fierravanti-Wells to Mr Burgess at Senate estimates. She said:

'Right' is associated with conservatism in this country, and there are many people of conservative background who take exception to being tarred with the same brush.

She went on to tell the director-general:

So I think the time has come, Director-General, especially from you, to ensure that you are very careful with the terminology that you use …

Labels sting, huh? Do we think we should be a bit more careful about how we throw labels around, or should we just 'face uncomfortable truths'?

What happened after this was also instructive because, 12 months after that exchange, under a coalition government, ASIO determined it would no longer refer to right-wing extremism or Islamist terrorism. From that time forth, the terms 'religiously motivated' or 'ideologically motivated' terrorism would be used. That was under a coalition government, a move overseen by then minister for home affairs Peter Dutton, and former ministers of that government are now telling us to confront uncomfortable truths—members like the member for Canning, who previously declared it was 'time for the Australian Muslim leadership to systematically and clearly make the case that Islam is a religion of peace'. So let's be clear then: when some coalition MPs advise us to face uncomfortable truths, are the only truths we confront the ones conservatives find comfortable to confront?

Not to be outdone, we had but last week coalition senator Andrew Bragg muse:

… the Australian Muslim community has to take some responsibility for the behaviours we've seen exhibited over the last couple of decades.

He opined:

The West has probably been too nice for its own good …

Perhaps he should have a chat about whether a Victorian imam and his wife thought it was nice that they were run off the road in Melbourne and attacked and had racist abuse and rubbish hurled at them. Or is it nice for Muslim Australian women to have their hijab torn off or be labelled, with an expletive, 'terrorists' or be spat at? Is it nice to see pigs' heads in Muslim sections of cemeteries or impaled on the fences of places of worship? Maybe we should refer to any of the work undertaken by Action Against Islamophobia or the Islamophobia Register that tracks examples of what 'nice' looks like to many Muslim Australians on a near daily basis. Antisemitism, Islamophobia, racism across the board—all these behaviours should not be tolerated, full stop. We should be appalled by all of these acts, not selectively concerned or occasionally responsive. Let me go to words expressed in this parliament to underscore that point. In April 2019, then prime minister Scott Morrison said:

We must strive to see the 'us' in our national life and to celebrate it, an Australian 'us' of different faiths, of different ethnicities, of different ages, genders and sexualities, an Australian 'us' that rejects the hate, the blame and contempt that grip too much of modern debate.

Those words are those I can stand by.

Disappointingly, those words are a far cry from the Scott Morrison of today, who wants to have practitioners of just one faith be singled out for registration and accreditation and for them to somehow prove their fidelity to our nation because the starting-point assumption is, 'Until you do this, you might be suspect, deficient, not to be trusted.' So much for the 2019 call for an Australian us that rejects the 'blame and contempt'. What's the end game here? Once imams are accredited and their loyalty proven, do we get them to wear armbands? Are we more relaxed with that—replicating a more abominable chapter of world history? Once we start down the path of uncomfortable truths, we need to know exactly where we're headed.

It's worth noting that not one Australian was required to prove their fidelity to the nation post Christchurch, when a white supremacist Australian slaughtered 51 New Zealanders. No practitioner of the Christian faith was asked to do likewise after the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. And here's the thing: nor should they. It's a ridiculous and divisive notion, because we do not sheet home blame and responsibility to entire communities for the acts of extremist individuals. Surely we can agree. Surely we can rally around that compelling logic, because dividing people and shoving them into dark corners to nurse fear and grievance is not the way we build and sustain a strong nation.

This is the crux of my call to parliament. In a time of fear and grief and anger, we all as parliamentarians have a critical role to play. Scapegoating, wielding a broad brush to tar—that stuff's easy to do. That's the political equivalent of instant gratification—Red Bull politicking: quick hit then a slump. I come back to the words delivered by a rabbi to me post Bondi: 'We choose our hard.' Jacinda Ardern chose her hard and showed the world how to build a better, cohesive, stronger nation in the aftermath of unimaginable grief. That's the task before us all—the hard and patient and vital work to bring people together at a time when Australians want and deserve calm, determined leadership from us all.

Today it is the grievance debate, and it occurs to me that I rose here exactly 12 months ago and took some creative licence with the inherent grief in the word 'grievance'. I spoke of the loss of my mum, Ann Shanahan, who had passed that summer, a few weeks before we returned. Today I rise for a similar contribution—not for my actual mum but for my House mum, Ljupco Jonceski, or as all of us know him here in this place our beloved Luch. Luch was this place. With each turn of the cheek and each turn of the head and every time I look up in the chamber, I'll be looking for Luch, as I know so many of us do. I also know that in this place tomorrow there will be a structured moment for all of us to make our reflections about him. But I am gluttonous for my Luch. After all, he was gluttonous for me. Every day he would leave a small envelope of chocolates in my desk wrapped with my name on the outside. And so it is with Luch's gorgeous gluttony as my guiding spirit that I will use this longer opportunity to talk about my friend. Thank you.

Luch came to this place more than 40 years ago. He was one of many who helped actually build this building with his bare hands. He worked in new Parliament House as a labourer and then he became an attendant. But he wasn't just any attendant; he was the attendant—the attendant of all attendants, the big cheese, the man who got to meet Barack Obama, the Speaker's right hand. But, to me, he was my chamber mum.

When I first got elected, I arrived here somewhat short of breath, even though so much of it was already so very familiar to me. After all, I had roamed these corridors as a 25-year-old working for the Attorney-General on all things constitutional law, criminal law reform, marriage law and even the republic referendum. It was so long ago, and Luch was already here doing his thing. And then I came back as a 40-year-old, as the trade minister's right hand, doing trade deals with China, Japan, South Korea, the Trans-Pacific Partnership, Indonesia, India, the EU. And Luch was here doing his thing. When I came back as an elected representative four years ago, Luch was still here doing his thing, together with Barry in Security and little Dom at Aussie's. They were the first people I spotted, and their presence settled my soul. My closest friends from the parliamentary ranks had long left this building by the time I was elected, off to London, New York and Paris to serve the global good, but Luch was still here with a big bear hug and a hearty welcome back as though I'd never left.

Luch cared for the parliament and parliamentarians like we were his family. Each day, somehow, he would find a way to come across my path in the chamber. But I would often duck into the attendants' room, where Luch had a small fridge filled with chocolates, which apparently no-one but him was ever allowed to touch. Sometimes, in the lobbies or in the members' lounge, I would find Luch washing glasses or organising the assortment of teabags. There was no rushing past Luch. I'm so very glad that, each and every time I saw him, I'd stop for a bit of a natter. In the last term of parliament, he would always ask me about my mum's health and how she was going with her chemotherapy and her immunotherapy. Luch somehow knew mum was all I had. And I would ask him about his morale, about his family, about his Christmas, about his kids, about his fishing, about his adventures. There would often be a giggle. There would always be a photo. Luch loved a photo. He would say, 'Let's get a photo!'

Jess, his daughter, is also part of this building's fabric. Jess worked here too. She was on the secretariat for the Parliamentary Joint Committee for Intelligence and Security when I served on it, and Luch was so proud of her. But, for me, the story about Luch and Jess was indeed the story of Australia—that Luch could come here as a child and spend a life of service, first building and then tending to democracy at its fulcrum, while his daughter contributes to our defence and security at the highest possible level. Some time ago I asked the Speaker if we could tell the stories of the multigenerational families who form the bricks and mortar of the Australian democracy and spirit in the parliament—a small documentary to go in the theatrette upstairs. I now wish I had been so much more insistent.

All of us here know what Luch means to this place. I have been bowled over by the number of people here, not just Luch's fellow attendants but the clerks, the team from the Serjeant-at-Arms' office, the security guards, the committee secretariats, fellow MPs and their staff, former MPs and their staff and former speakers who have come up to me reading the words I had written about Luch on Facebook when I learned of his passing and who all want to express their love for him. It even happened earlier today. What I could not have expected was the impact Luch had on the outside world.

When I put up that post on Facebook on 2 January, I thought just my friends and colleagues—the people who know me—would read it, remember him and send a note to his family. What I didn't see was that Luch's final gift to democracy would be going viral on the internet. You see, Luch broke Facebook— 278,000 people read my post about him, 2,500 loved it and 200 people made comments on it. But that wasn't the best bit. The best bit was that people just understood Luch. People like Carolyn Sheetz and Ant Lewis, who had worked with Luch in the eighties, made a comment. Jo Ward, who went to high school with Luch, made a comment. People who had noticed him while watching the House on telly, just during question time, like Ray Cook, Jo Dewhirst and John Bourke, all chimed in. Former parliamentarians like Bob Baldwin remembered his love of fishing, and my constituent Gerard Weibrecht compared Luch to Andre the Giant in The Princess Bride. I literally have no idea what that means, but it sounds about right.

Then there were those people who Luch had never met. Jim Catchpole wrote:

People like that are what makes Australia awesome. He obviously felt connected to something important and made doing it well a key part of his life.

Mary-Anne Rapkin wrote:

Everyone needs a Luch in their workplace.

And Christine Kendrick wrote:

What a lovely post for a special person who none of us regular punters knew, but how nice to know there really are people of kindness employed in the Houses of Parliament and who actually keep the wheels turning without egos, Rest in peace to this very special man.

Vicki Jones said:

What a beautiful soul Luch must have been, Canberra was lucky to have him, and his daughter.

Nick Woo wrote:

Thank you for acknowledging his contribution to the Australian community at large through his quiet dedication, presence and love for the country. In a world that is full of uncertainty, it is clear we need more people like him. Condolences to his family and yourself for the loss of Luch. May he rest gently and his memory serve as a reminder that kindness is the greatest gift for humanity.

And here was a nice one from Andrew Jacobs:

This personalises parliament, which often enough comes across like a bunch of overtired toddlers.

Fair enough. And then there's my favourite, from someone who didn't know him. Ciaran Crehan wrote of Luch's extensive service, grace and humanity, and concluded:

The human spirit lives on and thrives. Be like, Luch.

A few weeks ago, a number of us joined Luch's family and local community at the Macedonian Church in Queanbeyan. It was there that Luch saved the best for last. I didn't understand a word of it, of course, because it was all in Macedonian, but I didn't need to. It was there that I saw the magic of Luch writ large; love was central, the core of everything he did. The church was filled to the rafters—literally. There were people in the gallery under the ceiling, and tens more spilled out onto the street.

As I headed out there, my Comcar driver, Robert, asked why I was going to Queanbeyan. 'I'm off to Luch's funeral,' I said, and Robert was crestfallen. He hadn't heard, and he knew Luch well. 'He used to come to the airport on Sunday nights,' Robert told me. 'He was the only one who actually knew who you all were, and he'd spot you all as soon as you got off the plane. He was the best—the best we've ever had at that job.' Robert called Comcar and asked if they wouldn't mind if he didn't actually do his job for the next two hours, because Robert wanted to stay for Luch's funeral too. And so we stayed together—together with so many people who make up the patchwork of this amazing building and this amazing democracy and who wanted to be there to say their thanks and farewell to the great man, our friend Luch.

We are all better in this place because of our friend Luch. I am better in this place because of our friend Luch. I'm more grateful for life because of our friend Luch. My thoughts are with his wife, Mary, and his beautiful children, Jess, Rebecca and Joshua. Your dad lives on through you. His memory will live on long through this place. Whenever you see me look up in the chamber, open my drawer, walk through the members' lounge or lift a glass of water, please know your father is with me. Vale, Luch. You were one of the best.

I want to acknowledge those beautiful words from the honourable member opposite. Those on this side of the House are also missing Luch, and I want to acknowledge the beautiful sentiment brought by the honourable member.

I also want to talk about the M5 around Moorebank. Anyone who uses the M5 around Moorebank knows exactly the problem that occurs in that place. Every afternoon peak, traffic is banked up as cars and trucks enter westbound at Moorebank Avenue and try to merge with traffic already on the motorway that's attempting to exit at the Hume Highway. It's slow, it's frustrating, it can be dangerous and it's not a new issue. It's an infamous choke point in Sydney's south-west, and it's why the Albanese and Minns governments are getting on with delivering the critical infrastructure Western Sydney needs.

The NSW government has now signed a contract to upgrade this interchange, and it's a genuinely significant step forward for my community. The project includes a new three-lane toll-free bridge over the Georges River and the train lines at Liverpool, dramatically improving the connection between the M5 Motorway, Moorebank Avenue and the Hume Highway. It also removes the dangerous weave on the M5 between Moorebank Avenue and the Hume Highway, improving safety and traffic flows for drivers entering and exiting the motorway. A new underpass at Moorebank Avenue will directly connect the M5 westbound to the Hume Highway, and the intersection between the M5 and Moorebank Avenue will be fully upgraded. This matters because the existing bridge currently sees more than 2,500 trucks a day moving from the Moorebank Intermodal Precinct terminal onto the Sydney motorway network, with truck numbers only set to increase as new sections come online.

Last week I visited the M5 south-west control centre, at Hammondville, and spoke with controllers who manage this stretch of the road every day, and I asked them what this upgrade would mean for them on a day-to-day basis. The term they used was 'game changer', because they see the crashes, the breakdowns and the daily pressure points that drivers experience during peak times. This project gives them the tools to keep traffic moving safely, and it gives motorists the confidence that the road network is finally catching up with demand. This upgrade is being delivered through a strong partnership between the Albanese and Minns Labor governments, each committing $190 million as part of the broader Western Sydney infrastructure blitz.

I know the member for Riverina was in here earlier talking about trucks and the trucking industry and the people who work in that industry, and I note that those opposite claim to represent people in industries who move around on our motorways. I recall Tony Abbott, whose contempt for public transport is well documented. He famously said that every man in his car is a 'king'—as if that was an excuse for not investing in public transport across Australia and in Western Sydney especially. I note that, in the nine years that those opposite were in power, they did not invest in fixing this obvious choke point in our orbital network. It is such an obvious choke point. When you look across the network, from the M7 to the M5, WestConnex and M4, this is such an obvious choke point for such a growing region of Sydney. For those opposite to have overlooked this for so long shows their absolute contempt for those who live in south-west Sydney.

South-west Sydney is the gateway to Sydney. It is the engine room of the economy. We've got the Moorebank Intermodal Precinct and we've got the new airport coming in, and the idea that we would be avoiding investing in this key infrastructure is beyond belief. The fact is that we've got trucks that can't get off the road safely, and this is something that those opposite knew about when they were in power. Obviously, they didn't want to invest in building a railway line from south-west Sydney to the new airport, but to not even invest in roads just goes against all sensibility and logic. So I'm very proud that this government is delivering this. I'm very proud that we're investing $190 million in this piece of infrastructure for south-western Sydney.

But major infrastructure is only a part of the story. Local road upgrades, delivered through programs such as the Black Spot Program, are equally important. In Engadine, the intersection of Anzac Avenue and Banksia Avenue has long been recognised as a safety concern by both the local council and the local community. As someone who grew up in the Engadine area, I know this intersection quite well. I used to walk home from school across this intersection and I drive over this intersection quite regularly. Funding of more than $290,000 has been secured through the federal government's Black Spot Program to install a new single-lane roundabout, improving traffic flow and reducing the risk of serious crashes at this location.

For those of you who don't live in the area, which is most people in the room I would think, this is a location where it is very difficult to see through the intersection. Anzac Avenue is, essentially, one of the major roads in Engadine—it's the main thoroughfare off the Princes Highway—so you have cars going in there quite rapidly. People have to move in front of parked cars to try and see around this intersection. It is a very dangerous intersection, and it is one that people have been highlighting for a long time, so I'm very proud of this $290,000 that we are going to be allocating towards fixing this serious safety risk.

In Ingleburn, increased industrial activity has led to higher volumes of heavy vehicles along Lancaster Road, making the intersection of Memorial Avenue increasingly difficult and unsafe to navigate. More than $200,000 has been secured to deliver a single-lane roundabout at the intersection, improving visibility, slowing traffic and making access safer for all road users, including those travelling to local community facilities such as the bowling club at Ingleburn.

For families, the safety of children travelling to and from school is always a priority. Around our current public school, a number of local streets were identified as safety concerns through the Black Spot Program. More than $280,000 was secured to upgrade sections of Eucalyptus Drive and Melaleuca Drive with improved lighting, raised medians and safety islands, additional stop and give way controls, traffic-calming measures and a new pedestrian wombat crossing. Together, these upgrades will improve visibility, slow vehicle movements and create a safer environment for students, parents and residents.

This is what a coordinated approach to infrastructure looks like in my community of Hughes. It's a community that those opposite have overlooked for a long time, especially in south-west Sydney, but also in the shire and in Liverpool. Those opposite have overlooked this community. They have not invested in one of the most important growth regions in our country. Large-scale projects are addressing some of these longstanding congestion issues, alongside targeted local upgrades that improve safety where people live, work and travel every day. This is what implementation of a 21st-century infrastructure program looks like, and I commend these programs to the House.

Every day, the people of Lindsay, in my community, are feeling the very real, growing impact of the failure of the Albanese Labor government to get the cost of living under control. I hear from families, small businesses—sadly, too many small businesses are closing—and renters and mortgage holders across my electorate who tell me they don't know how much more they can take.

For the community of Lindsay, the cost-of-living crisis is no longer something that's temporary. It's not just a phase; it is relentless and it is entrenched. The latest inflation figures tell the story. Australia's annual CPI rose 3.8 per cent in the 12 months to December 2025, which is higher than expected. It's broad based and it's hitting the essentials people in Lindsay simply cannot do without.

We talk about how much things have increased—whether it's housing, electricity, rent, new dwellings, meat and seafood or fruit and vegetables—and, when we talk about food, the increase in food prices is something that really concerns me, particularly when it comes to food security. I think every community across the country has people lining up at food banks like they never have before. This is putting pressure on not only people experiencing homelessness but double-income families. They just can't afford the increases in food prices.

You can't skip eating, you can't skip paying your power bill, and you can't skip your mortgage repayments. This is exactly why inflation is hitting people in my community so hard, and, by the looks of it, if interest rates go up today, it's going to hit people even more. People are being forced to make decisions that they did not anticipate. The choice of whether to put food on the table or to put the lights or heating on is real. It's not just politicians saying these things, because that's what's happening in our communities.

My community was told by this Labor government that the increases would be temporary, and they're seeing it now. They were also promised many things, including that their electricity bills would go down. The hard work of my community to manage their budgets has successfully been undone by a Labor government that has consistently overspent.

Around one in three households in the electorate of Lindsay are mortgage holders. The prospect of another interest rate rise—we're merely hours away now—will fall hardest on working families who are already dedicating a significant share of their income to keeping a roof over their heads. They are not reckless borrowers; they are everyday Australians. They're teachers, they're health workers, they're tradies, and they're small-business owners. They are people who are contributing to our economy and to our community.

Renters are also facing this grim reality. Rents have increased, vacancy rates remain extremely low, and families are being pushed further from their workplaces, schools and home towns. Young Australians are losing confidence that homeownership will be within reach. For many, the great Australian aspiration, that great Australian dream, of owning a home feels increasingly out of reach and out of step with the harsh reality that is facing them.

Small businesses are under extraordinary pressure. Rising energy costs, higher rents, increased insurance premiums and reduced consumer spending are forcing business owners to make difficult choices, and this goes right across the spectrum. You can walk down High Street in Penrith and speak to a cafe owner, and they say the same thing as a manufacturer in heavy industry manufacturing: whether it's high power prices, the cost of having staff or higher rents, it is putting so many good long-term businesses out of business. They're shutting their doors. These pressures demand disciplined economic management.

Economists across the country—people with decades of experience, formal qualifications and real-world economic expertise—have been absolutely clear that the government must rein in spending to bring inflation under control. But what has been the Albanese Labor government's response? It's been to ignore the advice, the good advice, that would get this country back on track. According to the Albanese Labor government, every qualified economist who has worked in the field for years and years is wrong and the only person to listen to is the Treasurer, Jim Chalmers, who has no formal qualifications in finance and has never worked a day in the field. This is the type of arrogance that is costing Australians deeply.

Nearly four years on, after this Labor government was elected on a broken promise to ease the cost of living—you can't deny that—inflation has remained high; interest rates have continued to rise, which I'm sure we're going to see again this afternoon; and household budgets are under greater strain, leaving less money in Australian pockets. Australians are losing confidence, and they are most definitely losing patience. They're getting angry at this government. The Treasurer has sought to deflect responsibility, continually pointing to global conditions and inherited challenges, but all that Australians want is real action. They want to be able to afford their bills. They want to be able to put food on the table. They want to be able to send their kids to afternoon sport and have a bit of leftover money for the weekend. This is not reality right now.

Australians, as I said, were promised that their power bills would be cut by $275. Instead, they've received higher bills and a price increase of 21½ per cent. Some people in my community are paying over $1,000 more for their power bills than what was promised by the government. They were promised that interest rates would be lower and would stabilise. Instead, families are bracing, as I said, for another rate rise. For everyday Australians, a rate rise is deeply personal. After today I'll be hearing from my community about whether families can remain in their homes, whether small businesses can survive, and whether young Australians can plan for their future. And yet, as these pressures rise, you will not hear a plan of action from the government; you'll hear more excuses, more spin and more deflection—it's something they're very good at.

The pattern of failure does not stop at their lack of action to address the cost of living. It extends to the government's approach to all sorts of issues, including in my portfolio area and online safety—most notably, its much-publicised social media ban for children under 16. This policy was announced with significant fanfare. It was presented as a decisive, world-leading reform designed to protect young Australians from online harm. Parents were told that it would provide reassurance and safety for our youngest Australians, but it's no surprise to anyone that the Albanese Labor government has failed in its execution. In fact, the Prime Minister said, 'Success is a national conversation.' Well, that is not keeping young people safe online. We know that the age verification systems underpinning this ban are deeply flawed. The technology being relied on does not adequately verify age nor identity. It can be easily bypassed. In some cases, facial scans are not meaningfully checked against the user details at all, and, as recently reported, fathers have even been using their own faces for their daughter's accounts and they're not marrying up. Kids are just getting through. The government is saying 4.7 million accounts have been deactivated, but there's no transparency about these figures, how they are calculated or whether kids are in fact offline. This is just another example of the government spinning a story that is not the reality. Whether it is in regard to the cost of living and telling Australians they've never had it better or whether it's saying that kids are now safer online, the PR exercise is very different to the reality that Australian families are facing.

I think we all want to keep families safe. We all want to keep kids safe online, and we all want Australians and their families to have a better life. But the headline policy that looks strong in theory is collapsing for this government. The people of Lindsay—and, I think, all across the country—are not asking for miracles; they're just asking for competence in their government, and they're asking for honesty. The Albanese Labor government campaigned on transparency and people are getting anything but from this government. They're asking for a government that understands the pressures they face and acts and gets on the ground and can see what's happening. They want leadership that is focused on outcomes, not announcements. They deserve a government that recognises the toll that these failures are taking on Australian households, and they're just not getting it from this government.

The people of Lindsay won't be ignored. They've got pretty loud voices, and they elected me to be their representative in this place. I'll keep fighting for them because they deserve better from their government. I'll ensure that this parliament is aware of the government's failings and what they're not doing for the community of Lindsay.

I rise today to talk about the issues that really matter to the people of McEwen. We are a community of working families, young people trying to get ahead, older Australians who have given so much for our community and local businesses and towns that keep our suburbs thriving. McEwen is a proud growth electorate. From the new estates in Donnybrook, Beveridge and Wallan, through to the established communities of Doreen and Diamond Creek, right through to the Macedon Ranges up to Woodend, people are drawn to our area because it is very special and because of the opportunities, the lifestyle and the community that we have. But with growth comes pressure—pressure on health services, housing, roads, schools and household budgets. For far too long, people in growth areas like ours were ignored. For nine long years, under the coalition, all our community ever got was empty promises and a pack of media releases. Infrastructure lagged behind population growth, costs kept rising, and essential services became harder to access. But 22 May 2025 changed that. The Albanese Labor government is delivering practical, tangible reforms and delivering on its promises, which are making life easier for people in our communities. And there is more to come.

Health care is consistently raised as one of the biggest concerns for families. People want to be able to see a doctor when they need to, and they want to be able to afford their medicines and get mental-health support close to home. That's why we've got this historic investment in Medicare—and why it's so important—tripling the bulk-billing incentive. As a result, bulk-billing rates have done a dramatic U-turn locally. That means more families in our communities can now visit a GP without having to choose between health care and groceries. In fact, the latest figures now show 23 fully bulk-billing practices in McEwen, which is double what there was prior to this reform.

Cheaper medicines are making a real difference to families. Under Labor people are now paying no more than $25 a PBS script, saving families hundreds of dollars a year. It's not an abstract policy. This is money back into the pockets of people managing chronic illness, raising children and supporting ageing parents. The reduction in price and the introduction of 60-day prescriptions have made a big difference. In fact, the recent figures show over $10 million has been saved through our policy changes. And the savings are only set to grow in 2026, the year of delivery.

Last week, the health and hospitals agreement provided $25 billion towards Australia's public hospital system. It's a landmark reform. It ensures that services that we are boosting stay sustainable long into the future. Telehealth has been strengthened, with 1800MEDICARE, ensuring that, no matter where you are or what time it is, you can access free health advice. This is a great new service that's ensuring people in fast-growing semiregional parts of McEwen can access care without long travel times. Importantly, we're rebuilding the mental-health services, with programs like Medicare Mental Health Check In. Mental-health care should be accessible, affordable and treated with the same seriousness as physical health, and the service requires no referral, charges no fees and provides access to trained professionals by phone or video.

Housing affordability, of course, is one of the defining challenges for our electorate. Young people across McEwen want the same opportunity to buy that their parents had, to raise a family and put down roots in their community. This Labor government has listened and responded, with essential programs like the five per cent deposit and First Home Guarantee. Thousands of young people have been able to purchase their first home without paying expensive lender mortgage insurance. The scheme is already helping people in our community get into the housing market sooner, with just on 2,000 properties purchased with this assistance.

At the same time, we're delivering the single biggest investment in social and affordable housing in Australia's history, through the Housing Australia Future Fund. It means more social and affordable homes will be built where they are needed most, including in our area. In fact, in McEwen we've already had $7.1 million invested in Mernda, with the Johnsons Road estate, through the housing support fund, to help the City of Whittlesea meet the growing residential demand. For renters, we have delivered the first back-to-back increases to Commonwealth rent assistance in 30 years—a real help, at a time when rents have risen sharply. Through the Help to Buy Scheme, Labor is giving Australians another pathway to homeownership while lowering the upfront cost of buying a home, and, with a $10,000 incentive for building apprentices to boost the workforce, and 100,000 homes to be exclusively for first home buyers, young Australians can now start believing again that they can afford their own home. It's about dignity, stability and opportunity.

Cost-of-living pressures are real, and families in McEwen have them every day. That's why our government has focused on targeted, responsible cost-of-living relief.

We all know how important energy bill relief has been over the past few years. But we haven't stopped there. We've also invested in home batteries—and I'm looking forward to mine getting fitted this week, actually—and cheaper, more reliable, renewable energy, which will help drive down power prices in the long term. The latest figures show over 200,000 cheaper home batteries are being installed by Australians and over 1,300 across McEwen.

We're ensuring that education is available and affordable, with a further 20 per cent cut in student debt. We're raising the income threshold and capping the indexation rate, ensuring HECS debts cannot grow faster than wages. This has assisted over 1,500 people in our area. The point about this and the Better and Fairer Schools Agreement rollout is that this is about investment in public schools by the Australian government. In fact, our investment is the biggest investment ever. In McEwen, it's easier for students who need additional learning support to catch up, keep up and finish school, making sure that we have things like year 1 phonics checks and numeracy checks, evidence based teaching practices and more individualised assistance such as small group tutoring. We are cracking down on the supermarkets to ensure Australians are not being ripped off at the checkout. We're standing up for consumers and farmers by strengthening competition and transparency in the grocery sector. Governments should be on the side of households, not big corporations. We're passing telecommunications legislation to ensure companies act with due care and responsibility. And this year we're developing codes that set out the detail of what responsible businesses look like. We know there's more to do, but, to be sure, this government has an unwavering commitment to easing the cost-of-living pressures for Australian families.

Anyone who lives in McEwen knows that the roads matter for safety, productivity, reliability and quality of life. People want to get to and from home to be with their families, get to schools and get to their jobs safer and quicker. That's why the Albanese Labor government is investing over a billion dollars in local roads and infrastructure in our community. That includes key projects such as the stage 2 of the Yan Yean Road Upgrade and the Camerons Lane Interchange at Beveridge. In Walland, the intersection of Watson Street and the Northern Highway has received a major investment of $40 million from the Commonwealth, with additional turning lanes built on both sides, which will help provide smoother journeys. And, of course, there are the Watson Street ramps.

These are things the former government always talked about but never delivered. In fact, the Liberal Party never went to an election promising to build this much-needed traffic-busting infrastructure. We got into government. We're building it. The state government joined in, and now we're seeing actual work being done. That's something that's been talked about but neglected by the former government. This targeted spending is better for our community. Through our increased local road funding, Labor is making dangerous intersections and roads safer. Through direct shire funding, we're empowering local governments to fix roads like Sutherlands Road in Clarkefield, Three Chain Road in Lancefield and, Fersfield Road in Gisborne have already benefited from this. And let's not forget Wellington Street and Darraweit Road in Wallan and Breadalbane Avenue in Mernda, which have all benefitted from the upgrades and improvements that our government has invested in our communities.

These investments are more than just concrete and asphalt. They are about reducing congestion, preventing accidents and supporting economic growth in one of Victoria's fastest growing areas. The people of McEwen are hardworking, optimistic and community minded. They deserve a government that listens and delivers. Now they have one. In housing, health care, cost-of-living relief, roads and education, our government, the Albanese Labor government, is delivering better outcomes for local communities. We're about delivery, not division. This is a government that is focused on fairness, opportunity and building a stronger future for Australians, and I'm proud to be here standing up and advocating for our community.

Debate adjourned.

Sitting suspended from 13:32 to 16:00

I know we have a housing affordability crisis, and I know this as acutely as anyone. Despite our relatively strong position on socioeconomic scales, my electorate is one of Australia's most unaffordable. Out doorknocking, at pop-up offices or attending local events, I hear how hard it is for people to live close by where they work, in residential aged care, in our hospitals and our schools, and how hard it is for small businesses to find people to work in the cafes, on worksites or in GP practices. So my team and I have, in earnest, been researching the availability of affordable housing options. Surely there must be some in our area of Sydney—but apparently not.

Then this happened last week. The Australian Council of Social Service, or ACOSS, laid bare a remarkable statistic: the federal government is spending more on tax breaks for property investors than on social housing, homelessness services and rental assistance combined.

As everyone knows, one of the biggest crises facing this country, and one of the most significant causes of growing intergenerational inequity, is the unaffordability of housing. In my own electorate of Bradfield, a mere 0.9 per cent of a total 67,000 private homes are social housing, either state housing authority or community housing provider homes. This is compared to a national average of 3.8 per cent during that same period.

Over a third of renters are in housing stress—in other words, they're paying more than 30 per cent of their household income on rent. Nationwide, that position is also dire. Last week the Productivity Commission released its report on government services which showed that social housing makes up only 3.6 per cent of all dwellings, down from 5.7 per cent in the 1980s; 41 per cent of public housing waitlists is made up of households that are homeless or at risk of homelessness, up from 26 per cent in 2015; and 18.3 per cent of Commonwealth rent assistance households are in severe rental stress—that means they're paying more than 50 per cent of their income on rent—and that's up from 8.1 per cent in 2004.

Housing insecurity brings with it a raft of other social and economic problems, including a higher risk of mental illness, chronic ill health and difficulty finding and holding down a job. If we want people to have the opportunity to lead fruitful, productive lives, and if we want to genuinely help people to lift themselves out of difficult circumstances and contribute to a harmonious society and a productive economy, we must address housing insecurity.

This government would say that it has done more than any other government before to address the housing crisis. It would reel off a list, including the social housing accelerator program, the Housing Australia Future Fund, the increase to Commonwealth rent assistance, the build to rent scheme and the first home supply program, but the fact remains: it is not increasing the supply of social housing fast enough. Last year, the National Housing Supply and Affordability Council, in its State of the Housing System report, recommended boosting social housing to six per cent, with a long-term target of all homes to be 10 per cent.

I call the Attorney-General.

I rise today to remember the life of Anita Cobby, who was cruelly taken from us 40 years ago at the hands of monsters. For my community of Blacktown, which prides itself on connection and neighbourliness, the loss of a young woman with her whole life ahead of her sent shockwaves that are still felt today. Anita was a beloved daughter, sister and friend. Her life mattered, and her death forever changed our community and the nation.

I rise today not to dwell on the horrific violence that took Anita's life and how the manner of her death, after being snatched by an evil gang of animals on her way home one night from Blacktown Station, was an abomination; rather, let us remember who she was and the legacy that emerged from profound tragedy, and, most importantly, make clear that this government is working every day to ensure these horrific acts of violence can be prevented. Anita's murder was a painful reminder of the very real dangers Australian women face, not just in moments of vulnerability but in everyday life. It has challenged our justice system to do better and to place the safety of all Australians at its core.

The impact of Anita's death extended far beyond Blacktown. It contributed to national conversations about violence against women and the role of the law in protecting those at risk. Out of unimaginable grief, Anita's family chose compassion and action to ensure her memory would become a force for good. That legacy lives on through initiatives such as Grace's Place, a refuge that offers safety, dignity and healing to women and children escaping violence.

Anita's parents, Grace and Garry Lynch, also fought for truth and sentencing reforms, and Anita's legacy continues to drive the Homicide Victims Support Group Australia, which supports innocent families of homicide victims. The contributions of Grace and Garry Lynch have resulted in measurable change for victims and their families. However, there's so much more to do. That's why our government has made women's safety a national priority, recognising that preventing violence and holding perpetrators to account requires sustained effort and strong laws. Through the National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children, reforms to strengthen sexual assault laws and record investment in frontline services, including in the National Access to Justice Partnership, this government is working to ensure women are safer at home, at work and in their communities.

As an Attorney-General born and bred in Blacktown, I am also working every day to ensure that the safety of all Australians remains central to the development of Commonwealth laws. May Anita Cobby's light continue to shine. May her legacies four decades on remind us why this work matters. May she never be forgotten. Rest in peace, Anita Cobby.

Honourable members: Hear, hear!

I acknowledge the words of the Attorney-General.

The Longwood fire in the south and the Walwa fire in the Upper Murray have burned through hundreds of thousands of hectares of farmland, national park, private property and small rural towns. Earlier fires in December destroyed homes and agricultural land in places like Goomalibee and Markwood. The bushfire season is far from over. As I speak, emergency services personnel are still on the ground protecting lives and communities. On behalf of the people of Indi, I say thank you to each and every one of you.

Bushfire disaster is something the people of Indi sadly know all too well. As I've travelled through affected towns in recent weeks, I've seen the same thing I always do: communities showing up for each other, town halls turned into relief centres, neighbours helping neighbours, people giving all that they can. But our resilience is not limitless. For many communities, this is the second or third catastrophic disaster in just a few years. What were once-in-a-century events are now happening once-in-a-decade, or even more often. This is the lived reality of my electorate. In Strathbogie Shire, 455 properties have been affected, with 115 homes destroyed or made uninhabitable; more than 13,500 hectares of pasture burned; 2,400 kilometres of fencing lost; and thousands of livestock killed. In Murrindindi Shire, a community still living with the trauma of Black Saturday, more than 190 homes have been lost—the highest number in the state.

At the Yarck Town Hall, I met Sandy Keath. Her husband, Andrew—known as Spud—has worked relentlessly since the fire, facing the heartbreaking task of disposing of 300 sheep. Sandy told me that farmers like them are exhausted—but they keep going. They need mental health support that meets them where they are in ways that work for their lives. In the Towong Shire, farmers like David and Tara Brewer lost nearly a million dollars in fodder and infrastructure, along with years of regenerative Landcare work. And beyond the fire front, entire towns were cut off for days without power, roads or telecommunications.

I want to thank Minister Kristy McBain for coming to Indi and for her engagement. These communities need substantial, ongoing, huge Commonwealth and state support to recover, more support to build the infrastructure that can withstand the next disaster, more protection for power and telecommunications—sustained assistance for people who have lost almost everything.

The scale of loss in these communities is substantial, and the government's support absolutely has to reflect this and must be there for the long haul. Recovery certainly doesn't end when the flames die down.

I acknowledge the words of the member for Indi. From fires to floods, the Surf Coast region has experienced an extremely challenging few weeks. We have seen cars swept into the ocean and communities threatened by deadly fires. For me, it was the watch-and-act alert on Australia Day. The threat of fire is real, as it was in Aireys Inlet, my town, during Ash Wednesday.

I'd like to take the opportunity to acknowledge the incredible work of the responders, volunteers and community members who rallied to support the emergency relief effort. To the football clubs, surf lifesaving clubs, schools, op shops, food banks and many local householders and accommodation providers who stepped up to lend a hand: thank you. Most of you are volunteers, and, without you, meals would not have been provided to those in need, families would not have been looked after and would have had nowhere to take shelter and local businesses would still have their doors closed. You offered beds, a warm cup of coffee, caravans for families, help with pets and stock, smiles and so much more. We owe you our gratitude.

Sadly, many flood impacted holiday-makers report they have suffered emotionally, having lost property that holds significant sentimental value and valuable possessions. It is important to recognise that events such as fires and floods can have profound impacts on communities. It can take businesses and families a long time to get back on their feet, and that's why the Albanese government has introduced the Australian government disaster recovery payment for eligible people who have directly been impacted by bushfires, including through major damage to their homes, serious injury or loss of a loved one as a result of the bushfires. We have a one-off payment of $1,000 per eligible adult and $400 per child.

I want to remind our communities that the threat of fire is real. We must continue to take it seriously. We must heed the bushfire warnings and prepare to act. We are urging the community to have their bushfire plan ready and to pack emergency and evacuation kits. Our local fire and emergency agencies are the perfect places to find out exactly how to stay safe this season. While these events can be inevitable, how we plan, prepare and support each other is vital to building resilience and improving our recovery outcomes.

Homelessness is a growing issue across our region, and for many it's all too easy to look the other way. On any given night there are hundreds of people sleeping rough and homeless across central-western New South Wales. We need to care for our fellow human beings, particularly in a world full of conflict and strife.

An incredible group of Bathurst locals came together just before Christmas and launched a new initiative: gratitude packs for men experiencing homelessness. This inspirational project was spearheaded by Nichole Day from Joblink Plus, who distributes Share the Dignity bags to local women. Nichole saw a great need for similar support for men and acted fast.

In just one week, Nichole rallied support from Simon Ross from the Black Crow Cafe, Greg Sly from Loan Market Access and Dave Shawcross from the charity Men's Walk and Talk. Local businesses donated backpacks, clothing, caps, toiletries, first-aid kits, vouchers and other essentials. They made up 50 gratitude packs and distributed them in time for Christmas. I give a huge thankyou to everyone who worked with such enthusiasm and generosity to put the packs together, including Sam Forbutt from Forbutt's Pharmacy and Natalie Nixon from fifty8george.

I also acknowledge the team from Men's Walk and Talk, a great community group who enthusiastically helped to drive the project, including Paul Forbes, Daryl Grant, Paul Griffin, Chris Hagney, Kevin Hines, Chris McKay, David Shawcross, Greg Sly and Brett Taylor. As word spread, more organisations and companies are joining in, and they hope to roll this initiative out across the Central West, with the aim of distributing 300 gratitude packs next time. We need to be looking after each other, and that's why groups like Bathurst Men's Walk and Talk and the great work they do are so vital. Their motto is 'No man walks alone', and this is what humanity and kindness look like.

I'd also like to honour some more legends from Bathurst who do such great work caring for those who are experiencing disadvantage. Sarah Duffey from Dynasty's Rockabilly cafe is making our region a better place by regularly cooking up a storm for local charity StreetHeart. I give a huge shout-out as well to Kayla Beedon and the team at StreetHeart—they're also in Kandos—who do so much to help those experiencing disadvantage and homelessness, including Nancy Child, Lisa Churches, Chris, Bill Barling, Joseph Zhang, Louise Haworth-britt, Scott Nash, Jessica Holt, Samantha Edwards, Dean Whiting, Tracey Denton Seymour and Emily Baker.

I would also like to thank and acknowledge all of the community groups and volunteers who work so hard to feed and clothe those in need. I can't name them all here, as time does not permit, but I would like to convey the deep appreciation of our region to them. They all work hard to make the Central West and our country a better place.

Last week I was pleased to drop into the Nowra Museum and meet with the enthusiastic and dedicated members of the Shoalhaven Historical Society. The local historians work really hard to look after and showcase the history of our region. As a proud defence town, it's really important to ensure our military history is preserved. That's why I was delighted to announce that a very special Red Ensign flag will be restored, thanks to a federal government Saluting Their Service commemorative grant. The flag was presented to World War I volunteer recruits as they departed Nowra as part of the 1915 Waratahs march.

The flag represents a significant day in our town's history, so I was happy to support the Shoalhaven Historical Society's application for $2,420 to preserve it. The Waratahs march Red Ensign is such an important piece of local military history. It represents the sacrifice that so many young men from right across the Shoalhaven made in World War I. The grant will ensure the restoration of the fragile flag so that it can be safely stored and displayed on special occasions at the Nowra Museum.

The Nowra Red Cross president, Mrs Rodway, presented the Red Ensign to Captain Blow when the Waratahs march left Nowra on 30 November 1915 bound for Sydney's Centennial Park. According to the Shoalhaven News at the time, an enthusiastic demonstration was held outside the Nowra post office in Junction Street—which is just outside my electorate office—as the 70-strong group heeded the call of the Empire. The Waratahs recruited men as they marched north along the coast through Bomaderry, Berry, Gerringong, Kiama and Jamberoo, and 120 volunteers had enlisted by the time they arrived in Sydney on 18 December 1915.

Most of the Waratahs served as 1st Battalion reinforcements on the Western Front and, sadly, 28 of those young men never returned home. It's so important that stories of military service are commemorated and shared in a defence town like Nowra. The Saluting Their Service Commemorative Grants program has funded thousands of projects nationwide, shining a light on the veteran community and the sacrifices they have made. Today I want to say a huge thank you to the Shoalhaven Historical Society members, including President Lyn Allen and Secretary Tim Rigney, for ensuring the survival of our Waratahs Red Ensign. Its preservation means people can learn about significant military events in our town's history for generations to come.

I rise today to pay tribute to the life and legacy of Sir Graham McCamley, a leader in Australia's beef industry and a proud Central Queenslander. Sir Graham stands alongside tennis great and Rockhampton legend Rod Laver as a national treasure. In fact, the two used to play tennis together at the Rockhampton tennis centre.

Born in 1932 near Dululu, west of Rockhampton, Sir Graham's life was shaped by the land and by the values of hard work, integrity and community that define regional Queensland. From humble beginnings on his family's cattle property, he became one of Australia's most respected cattle producers. From a young age, Sir Graham's talent was evident. At 16, he won the Queensland Country Life Young Judges competition at the Rockhampton Show, displaying an eye for quality and an understanding beyond his years. A study tour of the United States marked the beginning of a journey that would see him help establish the Brahman breed in Australia and build a cattle enterprise across Central Queensland, including Tartrus, Royles, Glen Prairie, Oakleigh, Stoodleigh and Tanderra.

In 1975, Sir Graham became a founder and president of the Cattlemen's Union of Australia and a tireless advocate for producers. He believed in innovation, research and collaboration, working with the CSIRO and the University of Queensland to strengthen the future of Australian beef production. Sir Graham was the force behind the growth of the beef industry into the multibillion-dollar sector it is today. His service to agriculture was recognised with the award of an MBE in 1981 and his knighthood in 1986.

Sir Graham loved the stunning natural beauty of Central Queensland and the warmth of its people. In later years, he chose to retire to Yeppoon, where he remained connected to the community. It was in this time that Sir Graham released his book Roads in the Sky: The Life of Cattleman Sir Graham McCamley, which was more than three years in the making and reflects on his life in the cattle industry.

Above all, Sir Graham was a devoted husband to Shirley and father to Jennifer, Jacqueline and Russell and their respective families. He was a generous mentor to many, including me. His legacy lives on not only in the cattle industry but in the lives of those he supported, encouraged and inspired. Central Queensland and our nation are better for the contribution of Sir Graham McCamley. May he rest in peace.

As students, families and teachers return to school for the new school year, I want to recognise the hard work that's happening in every classroom and every staff room around Australia, from Bourke Street Public School in my electorate all the way over to Grovelands in Perth. Education is deeply personal to me. My parents came here as refugees after the Second World War. They didn't have anything. They didn't even have much English language. Every opportunity I and my brothers have had was because of the excellent education that we received through the public education system here and the opportunities that opened up to us, and I want every single child to have those same opportunities.

That's why, when the Abbott, Turnbull and Morrison governments cut public school funding, we voted against it and we promised to fix it, and indeed I'm proud that we have. Our government is continuing the historic work of ensuring that every public school is fully funded, with investment tied to evidence based reforms. The Better and Fairer Schools Agreement will deliver substantial Commonwealth investment over the coming decade, lifting student outcomes and closing the equity gaps that hold too many children back. That means literacy and numeracy checks in year 1, targeted interventions like small-group and catch-up tutoring, stronger mental health programs, and support for teacher development and retention.

We've taken world-leading action to tackle online harms via our social media ban for children under the age of 16 and introduced restrictions on predatory technologies like nudify apps and undetectable stalking tools. These reforms put children's safety first, and they follow bans on phones in schools during school hours, which teachers and parents—and kids—will tell you mean that more kids are playing and talking to each other in the playground and fewer of them are scrolling at lunchtime.

We know that too many parents are worried about bullying and too many children are still being harmed by bullying, and that's why we've asked schools to act faster. The Anti-Bullying Rapid Review will push schools to respond within two days to a complaint or an incident of bullying. Teachers and parents have also told us that they need the right tools and training, so we're investing $10 million into antibullying resources.

This year also marks extraordinary progress in early childhood education, backed by a $5 billion investment. Australian children are now eligible for three days of subsidised early education and care—an extra 100,000 families in which parents will be returning to work and supporting those children. There are also pay increases of up to 15 per cent for early education workers. We've got free TAFE and university debt relief as well.

So, in every area of education, we're making sure that Australians have the opportunities to get a great start in life.

I have a good news story for the town of Childers in the heart of my electorate: the Isis RSL sub-branch is now the proud custodian of a HMAS Childers shield or crest, as it's known. The shield was originally presented to HMAS Childers upon commissioning way back in July 2007. In December, the Navy formally farewelled the Armidale-class patrol boats, including HMAS Childers, in a solemn decommissioning ceremony at HMAS Coonawarra in Darwin. Since the middle of last year, I've been working alongside the Childers Chamber of Commerce and the Isis RSL sub-branch in a bid to acquire items from the ship and bring some history home to the red soils of Childers.

During decommissioning, a crew member from HMAS Childers obtained the shield, and, off his own bat, he had it restored, painted and personally delivered to the Isis RSL sub-branch. I'm very keen to see more items of memorabilia be considered for long-term loan to the Isis RSL subbranch. It would be fitting for our Childers community to honour the connection and legacy of HMAS Childers. Late last year, during a visit to Larrakeyah defence precinct and HMAS Coonawarra in Darwin as a member of the Defence subcommittee of the Joint Standing Committee of Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, I saw the HMAS Childers in dock. I had the fortune to speak with the commanding officer of HMAS Coonawarra about the boat's link to the electorate of Hinkler. It's wonderful to see the shield find a home in Childers, and I hope more items from the ship make their way to the town.

I want to acknowledge the 35th birthday of the Zonta Club of Hervey Bay. It was great to attend the celebrations—along with the member for Hervey Bay, David Lee; the Fraser Coast mayor, George Seymour; and three councillors—and to hear about the history of Zonta Club, which was chartered in December 1990. In the 3½ decades since then, hard-working members, past and present, have been helping to build a better world for women and girls. Our community is richer and our future is brighter thanks to the organisations like the Zonta Club of Hervey Bay. Congratulations and happy birthday, ladies!

Many children have a dream of wearing a baggy green cap. And for Bundaberg cricketer Lucy Hamilton the dream is one step closer. She has recently been named in the Australian test squad at just 19 years of age. At such a young age, Lucy has already had success with Brisbane Heat, Queensland and more recently the Delhi Capitals at the prestigious WPL in India. The Aussies take on India in Perth next month. I can only imagine how proud Lucy's parents, Stephen and Claire, and all the members of the Hamilton and Melville clans are, as well as her many friends. Congratulations, Lucy. From all of Hinkler: we wish you well for the upcoming series and indeed a long cricket career ahead.

I recently had the pleasure of visiting the dedicated team at Melton Medical and Dental Centre to mark their transition to 100 per cent bulk-billing for every patient. This is a direct result of the Albanese Labor government's Medicare reforms, which are delivering on our commitment to making it free to see the GP again, with more clinics across Hawke moving to fully bulk-billed care so our community can access the local services that they need without worrying about the cost. This is a major step forward for families in my community, and it builds on the work we've been doing to ensure that people in Hawke can access affordable local health care that they can rely on. This includes the fantastic Medicare urgent care clinics in both Sunbury and Melton. These clinics provide free walk-in care for injuries and illnesses that would otherwise end up in hospital emergency departments and have made a world of difference in our community. They're taking pressure off our hospitals while ensuring that locals can get timely, high-quality care close to home.

I recently had the privilege of joining the Hume Men's Shed in Sunbury for their 15-year anniversary—a remarkable community organisation that has grown from a small volunteer effort into one of the country's leading men's sheds. Through dedication and countless volunteer hours, the shed has become a place of connection, wellbeing and purpose in Sunbury, supporting men's mental and physical health while strengthening our local community. Thank you to President Ian Phillips and Secretary Albert Achterberg for all that you do.

I want to acknowledge the tireless and courageous efforts of our local CFA brigades throughout another difficult bushfire season. CFA brigades from across Hawke, including Ballan, Bacchus Marsh, Blackwood, Melton, Toolern Vale, Myrniong, Greendale, Coimadai, Diggers Rest, Parwan, Rowsley, Eynesbury, Wildwood, Bulla, Balliang, Mount Wallace and Sunbury left their families, many over the holiday period, to defend lives, homes and livelihoods in extreme and dangerous conditions. They worked around the clock, often in searing heat and unpredictable winds, showing extraordinary bravery and an unwavering commitment to protecting their communities and others across Victoria. Their sacrifice, resilience and dedication reflect the very best of the spirit of service that defines our volunteer firefighters. I particularly acknowledge Toolern Vale CFA, who marked 100 years of service last year—a century of courage and service to community safety.

Australia Day is a day that reflects who we are as a nation: resilient, generous, hardworking and community minded. Like many Australians, I spent the day with local families, volunteers and community leaders, all celebrating what makes our part of Queensland very special. I began Australia Day at the Kalbar community breakfast awards, a wonderful local tradition that brings people together—local families, farmers, business owners, young people and volunteers. I acknowledge Wilson Neuendorf for his leadership in those awards.

It was an honour to recognise some of our outstanding locals. The Young Achiever went to Gabriella Stokes, a wonderful example of leadership and service. The Young Farmer went to Ben Neuendorf, representing the future of Australian agriculture. Farm Innovation went to Rieck Farming, showing how tradition and innovation now walk hand in hand. The Best Business went to Emporium, supporting local jobs in our main street. The Community Leader award went to Phil Ortlipp, a dedicated police officer and a community champion. And a very special award went to Ray Parker from Aratula, recognised for a lifetime of service and community spirit. These are the people who quietly keep our region strong.

Later in the day I attended a citizenship ceremony and Scenic Rim Australia Day Awards in Beaudesert. We welcomed 71 new citizens. It's always a powerful reminder how fortunate we are to live in this country. I congratulate this year's Scenic Rim awards recipients. Citizen of the Year 16-30 went to Izzabella Lower. Citizen of the Year 31-65 went to Jenny Jenner and Kane Lutter. Citizen of the Year 65+ went to Phil Rankin. The Community Event of the Year went to Boonah State High School's paddock-to-plate function. And the Community Spirit award went to Beaudesert Hospital Auxiliary. The Mayor's Award went to Kay Tommerup. Each of these awardees represent service, generosity and commitment to others.

I also wish to acknowledge members of our electorate recognised on the Australia Day 2026 Honours List: Mr Wen Yao Ko OAM, Ms Susan Neale ASM, Mrs Dannielle Bull ESM and Flight Sergeant Anthony Ahchow CSM. These honours reflect extraordinary service to our nation and community. Australia Day in my region is not about speeches and ceremonies alone; it's about acknowledging the amazing people, whether they're volunteers, emergency workers, teachers, farmers, business owners or community leaders, who make our region such a great place for us to call home.

Whether it's infrastructure, health care or investing in the arts, the Albanese Labor government is investing in communities right around the country, including mine in the southern suburbs of Adelaide. There's no better example than investing in the infrastructure we need through the recent delivery of the Majors Road interchange. Southern residents are now enjoying safer, shorter journeys via the Southern Expressway both north and south. Delivering this project took a Labor state government and a Labor federal government. It complements and is part of the amazing, nonstop North South Corridor, which will provide 78 kilometres of traffic-light-free motorway, and it is now starting construction. This piece of infrastructure, jointly funded by state and federal governments, delivers the much-needed infrastructure that our community needs and brings our community closer to the CBD.

Our government has made the biggest ever investment to strengthen Medicare, meaning more people in the southern suburbs of Adelaide can see a GP for free. Since the new Bulk Billing Practice Incentive Program was introduced, 10 medical practices in the southern suburbs have become fully bulk billed, helping ease the cost of living pressure for patients. John from Christies Downs messaged me to say that he was so pleased to find out his local clinic had started bulk billing again, taking his $80 consult fee down to zero. Our government has also delivered additional funding to the incredibly popular Morphett Vale Urgent Care Clinic, allowing it to stay open longer on weekends and public holidays and boosting capacity in peak periods. This means that families in my electorate have a place to go to when there's urgent care required without having to go to an emergency department.

I'm pleased that the Albanese government is investing in the cultural life of the southern suburbs, as well. Nice Day To Go To The Club is a one-day garage and punk rock music festival held at Port Noarlunga Football Club and has received funding through Revive Live. Attracting over 2,500 attendees, it supports local jobs and businesses and provides an opportunity for people to enjoy a vibrant, inclusive live music event close to home. A big thank you to Jack and Tom from Daybed Records and, of course, the number one supporter of this event, Fitzy from Port Noarlunga Football Club. The Nice Day To Go To The Club is in the south for the fourth year running. This is a government investing in communities.

No-one should have to choose between putting food on their table and being able to afford insurance. This is the unfortunate reality for the people that call Townsville home. Reports show that one in five Australians are considering ditching their home insurance in response to surging costs. Townsville is a region that has had its fair share of severe weather—we are resilient people—but recent polling highlights the fear many locals have of their insurance becoming unaffordable. The research states that 46 per cent of people believe that extreme weather events had already caused an increase in their insurance costs, even if their property wasn't affected.

I have received many phone calls and emails from families struggling with cost-of-living pressures and deciding what costs to cut so that they can afford insurance. People like David and Anita have tracked their premium renewals since 2023 and have noted that their base premiums have jumped nearly 42 per cent year on year, with their 2025-26 premium jumping to $6,000. Kate, who has lived in her Heatley property for more than 18 years and has not made a claim, has found herself paying over $700 per month for home insurance.

Another real-life example was from Robyn, who lives in Kelso. Her recent insurance premium renewal for her house and contents premium increased from $3,036 to $13,690, which is a 350 per cent increase. This is highway robbery. These cost increases aren't just restricted to private insurance. They also affect strata insurance, with the increased challenge that unit owners have getting insurance. One constituent wrote to me saying that they approached 13 insurers this year and only one actually offered them a policy to cover their ground-level unit complex.

All this when the government's own Australian Reinsurance Pool Corporation has failed to come to Townsville to meet with the community. Despite its promise, the cyclone reinsurance pool has not reduced insurance premiums for North Queensland. Although repeatedly invited, the ARPC has not held any community forums in Townsville. We are calling for legislated, mandatory cost savings passed on by insurers, a real-time public dashboard showing insurer savings, and accessible consumer information—not a 94-page ACCC report. Residents want solutions—not advertisements. People can't afford insurance. Townsville deserves better from this Labor government.

I rise today to talk about what Labor is doing to strengthen access to local health care. In recent months, I visited GP clinics across the electorate of Lalor to see firsthand what our bulk-billing reform means for our community. In raw numbers, of the 44 GP clinics across the electorate of Lalor, 31 are now bulk-billing every patient who walks through their door. On my journey to meet them, I met with doctors, practice managers and staff, and they all told me the same thing: patients are coming back. People who delayed care are now walking through the door again, and that is what this reform is all about. It's about making sure Australians see a doctor when they need to, not when they can afford to.

From Lancaster Medical Centre to Mandalay Family Clinic to Riverdale Healthplus and more, Labor's reforms to bulk-billing were welcomed. In fact, what I heard from a lot of GPs and practice managers was that they felt valued again by this government, and I can't imagine how good that feels after a decade of neglect from the former government. For the first time, enhanced bulk-billing incentives will be available for every Australian, with additional support for practices that bulk-bill all patients. This gives clinics certainty and allows them to plan, invest and grow, and, in fast-growing communities like Lalor, that matters.

You'd be amazed how many of the GPs operating in my community were overseas doctors or people who came here to train in medicine. They have put down roots and made our community their home. It is fabulous to see this, to meet them and to be in a position to thank them for their work. The reform reduces cost-of-living pressures for families, it obviously strengthens primary health care and it ensures that your postcode does not determine your access to health care. Only Labor strengthens Medicare when families need it most, and it was great to be out in the community to see that happening firsthand.

In those 31 bulk-billing clinics, now, all you really do need is your Medicare card to get your primary health. Doctors felt appreciated. It was also an honour for me to meet two young people, a son and a daughter of people who run clinics in my community, who had completed their medicine studies at the end of last year. It's absolutely fabulous—a second generation of doctors in my community. I also met another GP who has two sons currently studying medicine in Melbourne. It was fantastic. This adds to Gidget House opening in Point Cook and to the new endo and pelvic pain clinic that opened in Werribee this week at the Werribee Medical & Dental Centre.

Interest rates are up. There was a decision today from the RBA to raise interest rates after inflation had been going up. Today, headline inflation is sitting at 3.8 per cent. Today, our treasurer told us that the prime driver for inflation was from the private sector, but I want to challenge that—as have many economists—and provide some facts about it. I think it's important that we challenge these numbers.

Growth from federal government spending, today, accounts for 32 per cent of GDP growth. The only time that figure has ever been higher was in the midst of COVID. To provide some context for how much federal government spending now accounts for GDP growth, I'll compare it to previous administrations. Under Hawke and Keating, that growth was less than 10 per cent, it was about 10 per cent under Howard, and, throughout the term of the last coalition, it sat at about 20 per cent—excluding the COVID period. So, at 32 per cent, this is as high as we can get outside of an extraordinary period.

If we look at the breakdown of what has been driving inflation, we see really clearly that the largest area, the biggest increase, has been in energy prices. There has been 21 per cent growth in energy prices across Australia. This growth is because we've now seen the removal of the bandaid subsidies that were put in place to try and artificially lower these inflationary numbers. Now that they've come off, inflation is back up to what it would've looked like more naturally, unfortunately. When you take that subsidy removal out of those numbers, the growth is still at 4.6 per cent, and the only other sector that beats that is housing. So we have these two areas, both of which the government has an ability to impact, and we are still seeing incredible growth in these areas. Housing demand is not being addressed, particularly when it comes to the role immigration plays in that.

If we were to further interrogate energy prices and what the intent of this government is—we heard today in question time the Minister for Climate Change and Energy refer multiple times to the home battery program and how well it has been taken up. It is being taken up well, but, unfortunately, we've learnt that it has blown out from its original planned budget of $2.3 billion to over $11.6 billion. That is an incredibly large increase in the cost of this program, and it has to be paid for somewhere. It has to be paid for by someone, and that someone is taxpayers and Australians suffering under this inflation crisis. But, worse, this is just a part of the largest ever budget blow-out in MYEFO history that was reported over the summer, a $48 billion blow-out, the largest we have ever seen, and our Treasurer today told us he takes responsibility for it. I would like to see him take responsibility for it, and more—act on it and actually take accountability for where this money comes from.

In Griffith, going back to school can bring a sense of routine back to the house. I know it has for my household. But for some families it also brings a quiet stress, because the book list is long, the uniforms need replacing, the shoes have been outgrown and the basics can add up fast. That's why I want to speak today about a small idea from a young person in my Griffith community that has made a real difference. That amazing young person is seven-year-old Zoe. Zoe noticed that some children start the school year without the things many of us take for granted—a pencil case with pencils, a new notebook, glue sticks, rulers; the everyday tools that help kids feel ready to learn. And that gave Zoe an idea. She rolled into her kitchen with roller skates on, and she told her mummy that she wanted to collect supplies for kids who might not have everything they need. With that, Zoe started Sharing for Kids, a little idea from a big heart. Zoe went to different places in our community. She set up donation boxes and asked people to give what they could, and our community responded overwhelmingly. We received so many donations at our office. It absolutely filled our office with boxes of pencil cases, lunchboxes and school supplies. We had families collect these from our Stones Corner office, and we also dropped these off to many of our local schools, including the Seville Road State School, where Zara and Mia, the school leaders there, gratefully accepted these on behalf of students in their community.

Sometimes the biggest ideas come from the smallest people, and that is exactly what our community knows, thanks to people like little Zoe. It's exactly stories like these that make me so proud and so honoured to represent the Griffith community. When a seven-year-old takes the lead on helping our neighbours, it tells us something important about the values being lived out in our suburbs and in our streets, of compassion, of empathy and of connectedness. It shows that our kids are growing up with a sense of responsibility for one another, and that is something worth celebrating. That's what I see again and again in Griffith, in our school P&Cs, our local volunteers, our neighbourhood and community groups and the simple way people look after one another when times get tough. In my role, I get to hear so many stories, but the ones that stay with me are the ones that show the heart of our electorate. Zoe's story and Sharing for Kids is one of them. To everyone in Griffith who donated, who shared and who backed this idea, thank you. You have helped children start the year with confidence, and you have shown, in the most practical way, what it means to be a part of our wonderful community in Griffith.

Every Australia Day, we celebrate our great country, our democratic values, our freedoms and our beautiful landscape, as well as our national character of strength and resilience, forged over many years. Significantly, this Australia Day, we also came together in Mandurah to recognise and welcome our new Australians taking the pledge of allegiance to our great nation. I had the pleasure of welcoming 80 new citizens from a wide range of backgrounds and nationalities, and it was a delight to sing, all of us together, our national anthem. The ceremony also gave me and many others the opportunity to renew our pledge to Australia. It was a reminder for all of us, whether born here or naturalised after birth, that Australian citizenship is both a privilege and a responsibility. We all share in the hard-fought freedoms, rights and opportunities that come with being Australian.

This Australia Day I was also honoured to help recognise and celebrate the achievements of members of my local community. Among the long list of Australians honoured in the 2026 Australia Day Honours, I was delighted to see Peel residents Chief Petty Officer Erol Williams and Commander Wesley North Ran awarded the Medal of the Order of Australia in the Military Division. Chief Petty Officer Bradley Smith was awarded the Conspicuous Service Cross and Lauren D'Arcy was awarded the Ambulance Service Medal. Each of these Peel locals reflect the very best of what it means to be an Australian.

I was very proud to also present the city of Mandurah's Active Citizenship Award to the Backpack Buddies program. This remarkable program is driven by young local volunteers who work hard to make sure that children who might otherwise go hungry have access to daily nutritious meals. Today, Backpack Buddies supports more than 220 kids across Mandurah, Peel and Rockingham, working in partnership with 17 local schools. Their extraordinary fundraising efforts are impressive, but even more inspiring is the compassion, initiative and leadership shown by these young volunteers. Active citizenship starts in our own communities, and the next generation in the Peel region is leading by example.

Also recognised on Australia Day were Community Citizen of the Year, Emeritus Professor Lyn Beazley AO, Young Community Citizen of the Year Millie Penman, and Senior Community Citizen of the Year John Stone. Again, I extend my most sincere congratulations to all those recognised within our community. Your service and dedication does not go unnoticed, and you are all well-deserving of the accolades that you received. To our new Australians, I hope you are as proud and grateful to live in this great country as I am. Citizenship of our great nation comes with rights and responsibilities, and together we are all collaborators and stewards of this great democratic project here in Australia. I hope that we all work together as a community to keep building our future.

I understand 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 2025.

() (): The incorporated speech read as follows—

Thank you Deputy Speaker

Today I would like to celebrate some truly exciting steps forward for health services in the northern suburbs in my electorate of Pearce. Our community continues to grow at an incredible pace, and with that growth comes a clear and urgent need for more accessible, local health care.

For years—including during my time as Mayor of the City of Wanneroo—I have been advocating for more local health services for our fast-growing suburbs. The communities of Two Rocks, Yanchep, Eglinton, Alkimos, Jindalee, and Butler make up one of the largest and fastest-growing regions in Australia.

This enormous growth continues to place pressure on the Joondalup Health Campus, and with the large, expanding, east Wanneroo development now taking shape, that pressure will only increase.

Since becoming the federal member for Pearce, I have secured the government's support for urgent care clinics in Clarkson and Yanchep, and have worked closely and diligently with Edith Cowan University and Professor Cobie Rudd to help bring new medical facilities to Yanchep east and west. These projects are not just announcements—they are real, tangible commitments to meeting the growing needs of our community.

As a longstanding member of the Joondalup Health Campus Community Board of Advice, I have seen firsthand the increasing demand on services.

Even back in 2019, Premier Roger Cook—then Minister for Health—acknowledged that additional facilities were needed in the northern suburbs, particularly around Yanchep. The demand we see today confirms that urgency more than ever.

We live in a beautiful and thriving part of Western Australia, but when local children are turned away from sports clubs because there are simply too many players, it's a sign that our infrastructure—including health facilities—must keep up.

Since my own diagnosis with multiple system atrophy, a rare neurological condition, I have become even more determined to fight for improved health access for every person in our electorate. I know what it means to rely on care that's close, comprehensive, and compassionate. That's why I will continue to fight tooth and nail to deliver the health services Pearce deserves.

During my time as mayor, our 'connect Wanneroo' advocacy helped bring forward essential projects—the Yanchep Rail Extension, the Mitchell Freeway Extension, the dualling of Marmion Avenue, and now, as your federal member, the Alkimos Aquatic and Recreation Centre. I fully understand that the same level of urgency and determination is to be applied to health facilities across Pearce.

So today, as we celebrate the new radiology service in Alkimos, the endometriosis clinic in Joondalup, the new health buildings at ECU, and the upcoming urgent care clinic in Yanchep—let's be proud, as these are fantastic additions on our journey towards a future hospital in Yanchep.

This Australia Day weekend in the Sutherland Shire, we had a weekend of festivities. It was glorious, but one of the top events was the 2026 Sutherland Shire Citizens of the Year Awards, for individuals and groups whose contribution, service and leadership make our local community stronger. The Citizen of the Year award went to Shanon Bates. Shanon is a powerful motivational speaker and disability advocate. He draws on his own experience with disability. Shanon works across schools, workplaces and the community to change attitudes, challenge stereotypes, promote resilience and demonstrate that people with a disability are just as capable, valued and respected as all other members in our society. Shanon, your commitment to education, wellbeing and social justice has a lasting impact across our community. You're a ripper bloke, and thank you for what you do.

The Young Citizen of the Year award went to Stephanie Duric. Stephanie had shown outstanding dedication to the wellbeing of young people across the Sutherland Shire. Through her longstanding volunteer work with headspace Miranda, Stephanie helped support youth mental health and amplify young voices. Stephanie also contributes to the arts and education. Her leadership and compassion are remarkable.

The Community Group of the Year award went to the Sutherland Shire Relay for Life Committee. That committee has raised—and raises each year—more money than any other relay for life in the country. It is amazing the work they do for cancer. It's amazing the community spirit they bring out. Their annual event brings together thousands of people—cancer survivors honouring loved ones, running around Don Lucas Reserve for 24 hours. It is proudly run by volunteers, and millions of dollars have been raised over the last two decades.

The Environmental Citizen of the Year was Colin Storey. Colin has dedicated decades to protecting and restoring the local environment around the Sutherland Shire. Through bush care, wetland restoration, wildlife habitat projects and environmental monitoring, Colin's hands-on work and leadership have left a lasting legacy for Sutherland Shire and for our children. Thank you Colin.

Sports Citizen of the Year went to Zoe Newman. Zoe is an elite hockey player and inspiring role model. From a local junior in the sport to representing Australia internationally, Zoe has combined excellence with humility and continues to give back by mentoring young athletes and supporting grassroots hockey.

Finally, Young Sports Citizen of the Year went to Izobelle Louison-Roe. She's an exceptional athlete whose achievements on the world stage are matched by her commitment to her local community. As a coach and mentor, she inspires young athletes to strive and do their best.

I congratulate all our fabulous award winners.

I rise today to recognise some truly outstanding Aussies from the Cessnock and Singleton local government areas whose service, generosity and leadership remind us what community spirit really looks like in the Hunter.

In the Cessnock LGA, the 2026 Citizen of the Year award has been presented to Tracey Skene, and it is richly deserved too. Through her tireless work with not-for-profit organisation Kiray Putjung, Tracey has created safe, welcoming and culturally strong spaces for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples across the region. Her leadership in organising cultural and healing camps, workshops and support programs has provided guidance, connection and opportunity for personal growth for many in our community. Tracey has also played a central role in developing Cessnock's annual NAIDOC celebrations, helping to build understanding, pride and respect for Aboriginal culture across the broader community. Her strengths and connections preserve cultural heritage and ensure people feel seen, heard and supported.

Cessnock award recipients reflect the breadth of the community and the spirit of our region. Senior Citizen of the Year Janece Harrison continues to give back with quiet determination. Thank you for what you do. Young Citizen of the Year Taylee Short has made a remarkable contribution through her volunteering and community involvement, giving her time to local events, youth activities and community support initiatives. Taylee's willingness to step up, help others and lead by example shows that community service has a strong future in Cessnock.

I also want to acknowledge the team at Nulkaba Parkrun, the Community Event of the Year. I duck in there occasionally. I don't do so well, but I do get there. I acknowledge Castiel Martin for the Environment Award; Valerie Randall for the Heritage Award; and the many Community Award recipients, including Cessnock Women's Connect, Pastor Amanda Francis, Happy Paws Happy Hearts Hunter, Patricia Maybury, Charlie McLennan, Colleen Payne and Vicki Steep.

I turn to the Singleton Citizen of the Year. Tim Merrick embodies service in the truest sense. For 16 years, Tim has volunteered with the New South Wales State Emergency Service while working full time as a teacher at Singleton High. His leadership during the floods and emergencies across New South Wales, his courage in life-saving rescues and his commitment to mentoring others have made a lasting impact on the community and community safety and resilience.

Singleton's Young Achiever of the Year, Layla Korff, represents the next generation of leaders. Through her longstanding involvement with the Girl Guides, community events and youth mentoring. Layla has created inclusive spaces where young people can build confidence, skills and a sense of belonging.

These award recipients remind us that strong communities are built by people who show up, look out for one another and give time without exception. Cessnock and Singleton should be incredibly proud of all of you that are involved in this. Thank you very much, and thank you for what you do for our communities.

by leave—I've been very blessed to be a father to two beautiful daughters: Astin, who's seven, and Emery, who's five. Coming into the new parliament, we were talking about different positions and jobs people wanted, and I asked to help out with the NDIS. I did that because my five-year-old, Emery, has level 3 autism and she needs the supports from the NDIS to be able to thrive. That early intervention has helped her so much.

As I've travelled around the country, I have now seen what the NDIS has done and where we could be going but also the really bad, negative language that can be associated with the NDIS. People say, 'We need to make sure it's sustainable,' thinking of a dollar figure. But we need to make it sustainable for the people that need the therapies and the support. We need to make sure that we're targeting the people that are doing the wrong thing and not punishing those that need that extra little hand-up to just kick arse at life. When I see my daughter, who went from saying no words to now being able to say, 'Love you, Dad,' I know how important the NDIS is to my family but also to other families around the country.

I want to work closely with the minister to make sure that we are not cutting in the wrong areas or cutting people's funding. We want to make sure that we're bringing them up, getting them the support that they and their families need, by pointing at those that have done the wrong thing and making sure they can't continue to do it.

The NDIS is so important. It's life-saving; it's life-changing. We need to make sure that we, in this place, have much better language when we talk about the future of the NDIS.

There being no further constituency statements by honourable members, the next item of business will be called on.

In Griffith, we are lucky to live in a place that tells stories everywhere you turn. Along the Brisbane River, through the backstreets of West End, at the school crossings at Coorparoo and Camp Hill, at the weekend sports fields and in the cafes that hold a thousand conversations every day, our community is made up of people sharing knowledge, memory, culture and connection. Sometimes it's big and public, sometimes it's quiet and personal, but it is how we make sense of who we are and how we pass that on. And that brings me to copyright.

Deputy Speaker, 'You wouldn't steal a car, you wouldn't steal a handbag,' and, I confidently say, 'you wouldn't steal a television.' For many Australians, that old piracy ad from 2004 is still our most vivid introduction to copyright; it has become somewhat of a cultural joke, but the point behind it still matters.

Australians want to do the right thing. We want rules to be fair. We want to know what is allowed and what is not, and how to respect the people who make the work we all rely on: writers, musicians, educators, film-makers, photographers, publishers, artists and so many more. When the rules are clear and practical, people follow them—not just because they have to, but because we understand that copyright is one of the ways we recognise labour, reward creativity and keep Australian stories being made. That is the balance that this bill is working hard to strike.

The Copyright Amendment Bill 2025 makes two important improvements. First, it creates a sensible way to deal with 'orphan works'—material that is still in copyright but where no-one can identify or locate the owner. Second, it makes sure the laws apply consistently in classrooms, whether teaching is happening face to face, online or in a hybrid model, including when parents or community members are supporting students.

These reforms are not coming out of nowhere. They are the product of the copyright roundtables held across 2023, where stakeholders across the creative sector, education, libraries, archives and institutions came together to name the practical problems and work through sensible solutions. I would like to take a moment to acknowledge the member for Isaacs for the diligent work he undertook during his time as Attorney-General and for the expertise and persistence he brought to progressing this reform.

If we step outside the formal language for a moment, the problem this bill is trying to solve is simple. We have valuable material in this country—photographs, recordings, documents, newsletters, teaching resources—that people want to share responsibly for the public good. But they cannot, because the law makes it too risky, even when the owner cannot be found. So the safest option is to do nothing, and that means history sits in boxes. It means culture sits on hard drives. It means material that could be educating students or enriching exhibitions stays locked away from the very communities that it belongs to.

In Griffith, in particular, that matters, because we are home to some of Queensland's most important collecting and archival institutions: the Queensland Museum, the Queensland Maritime Museum, the State Library of Queensland and the Queensland State Archives. In those places there are shelves and strongrooms that hold the texture of our state: maps, letters, photographs, government records, film reels and the kind of everyday documents that later become a record of who we were. And there are people in reading rooms: students, researchers and family historians carefully piecing together stories of country, community and public life.

When the law supports responsible access, staff can bring more of that material into the light, into exhibitions, into classrooms and into online collections, so it is used, learned from and valued rather than kept out of reach. That is what the orphan works scheme does. It creates a clear pathway for a library, an archive, a museum, a community organisation or an educator to use material when the owner cannot be found, provided they have done the right thing first. They must make a responsibly diligent search for the owner, they must keep a record of that search, and they must clearly note when they are relying on the scheme. This is not a free-for-all. It's not about ignoring copyright; it's about recognising that if someone has genuinely tried to do the right thing, they should not face the same legal risk as someone who never cared about the rules in the first place. Importantly, it remains fair to rights holders. If a copyright owner later comes forward, they can seek reasonable payment for that past use, and they can negotiate terms for ongoing use. If they cannot agree, a court can set the terms and an owner can seek to stop future use. In other words, the scheme unlocks public benefit while still respecting the people whose work sits behind these materials.

It also has another important effect. It can help reunite owners with works that have unintentionally become orphaned, which may open up new revenue streams and new audiences for their work. The government amendments also make something clear for education users. In some circumstances, a teacher or a school might choose to rely on the orphan works scheme rather than the education statutory licence for a particular use. That choice is available, but it does come with a responsibility. If they use the orphan works scheme, they have to meet the scheme's conditions, and, if an owner later comes forward, they cannot then fall back on the statutory licence for that same use. That is a fair balance: choice for education users and clear protection for rights holders.

The second main measure is about the reality of modern teaching. When I graduated with my teaching qualifications in 2008, I could not have imagined the changes we are now seeing in education. Many schools now teach in ways that move between classrooms and screens, particularly when students are unwell, when families are juggling work and care or when schools need flexibility. But the laws have not always kept up with that reality. This bill clarifies that the same copyright rules apply in a live class whether it is happening online or in person or is a mix of both.

It also makes clear that parents and carers can be involved and that other people can assist in teaching or supporting students, including members of the community, as long as the instruction is not for profit. That matters because when learning works best it is not only teachers carrying it alone. It's families. It's carers. It's community mentors. It's the people who step up to help a child keep going. And the bill is careful about its limits. This does not change licensing arrangements that support creators and publishers. It is still about live instruction. It does not cover streaming recordings for students to watch later. It does not extend to private tutoring. It does not turn school concerts into something unlicensed. It simply gives schools and educators the certainty to teach effectively in the world that we actually live in.

The bill also includes a small set of technical amendments—practical updates to keep the system running smoothly, including tribunal appointments, modernising notification processes, updating references to archives, and clarifying rules around Crown copyright so that ownership changes do not accidentally distort the length of the protection. These are the kinds of changes that do not make headlines, but they do make the law work better.

This bill is a good example of practical reform. It backs our creative and media sectors by keeping rights clear and enforceable. It supports education by making sure teaching can happen confidently, whether students are in the classroom or learning from home and whether parents or community members are helping. And it supports public access to culture and history by unlocking orphan works in a responsible way so that our communities can see more of their own stories and our institutions can share more of what they hold in trust for all of us, and, as I've said, that's particularly important in my community of Griffith. This is balanced, proportionate reform. It is grounded in consultation and will deliver real benefits in Griffith and right across Australia.

Whilst the Copyright Amendment Bill 2025 is largely a technical bill, it is, as the member for Griffith quite correctly points out, an important one. It's not going to grab headlines, but headlines are what it's all about because we live in a digital media age. We live in the information age.

When I was a newspaper journalist, indeed a newspaper editor for more than a decade, I was fortunate to have some of the experience imparted upon me by Bruce Burke. Bruce Burke is a very good defamation lawyer, particularly specialising in the media. He won the Australian Press Council Press Freedom Award in 2022 for his work. He was very good at the traditional print media, and the media landscape has changed vastly. I refer to the book, More or Less: Democracy and New Media, edited by Helen Sykes. Far be it from me to start quoting Labor members of parliament or former members of parliament, but I note that in the chapter titled 'Free Speech, Responsible Media, Law and Liberal Democracy', by former Attorney-General from 1993 to 1996, Michael Lavarch, he writes—and quite correctly too—about the role of media in a democracy. He notes: 'The media plays a central role in our lives, even more so now that we can access a range of media sources through the gadgets we all carry around. I do not just mean social media but also more traditional forms, such as television, radio and newspapers. We have an abundance of information and opinion at our fingertips, all jostling for our attention.' He says: 'In order for democracy to flourish, it is vital that the citizen has various sources of information and access to proper forums for open and fair debate. The media plays a critical role in stimulating debate about important issues, presenting facts and reporting news, uncovering corruption and misconduct, and providing a vehicle for diverse perspectives.' And he's very right. I would recommend this book to anyone interested in this subject.

Further on in the book there is a chapter by no less than former prime minister Malcolm Turnbull, a journalist of some note—and I think once a journalist always a journalist. He writes about what he calls 'at least two big questions':

Will enough readers pay enough money to view online news to offset the loss of advertising revenues from the printed medium? What is the best paywall model that will hit the sweet spot of subscription revenue and at the same time ensure there are enough readers to maintain advertising yields?

He says that the jury is out on both—and, indeed, it is. Our media is under pressure like never before. We need to help and support it, and encourage any moves of the government. I know that the government has done something in this regard, and I encourage that.

This bill is important because it puts some framework around copyright, and, while it's a complicated matter, it's a very important matter. I know that the—I won't say the coalition's position; I'll just say that the Liberals' and the Nationals' position is to support the legislation. I appreciate that it has gone before the Senate Standing Committees on Legal and Constitutional Affairs and inquiry thereof, but it is important and noteworthy. There are several schedules to the bill, which I'll refer to in a moment or two.

I also want to acknowledge the work that the previous coalition government did in relation to supporting publishers against the big meta companies. Yesterday's edition of the Daily Advertiser, which I once edited, was just 16 pages. I cannot recall in all my time as the editor of that publication it being so thin. Their advertising has fallen off the cliff. It is so hard for them to make a buck, but they're still investing in journalism; they're still investing in writing and photography and local news. Whilstever they're prepared to do that, we should protect them and help them by way of government advertising, but certainly with legislation that does protect their copyright—legislation that protects the work that they create and the work that the people they invest in create.

I know that former treasurer Josh Frydenberg—may he come back soon—in 2021 did a lot of good to strengthen the companies in Australia that do invest in Australian content and Australian journalism. At the time, he flexed his muscle and bent the arm of these big companies that, if you let them ride roughshod, will just take the content and plonk it in their own publications with no copyright paid. There's no dues paid or compensation paid for the work that has been created here in Australia—here in regional Australia.

We do need to protect the ACMs of the world, because what we don't want to see is a landscape where there are no printed editions being lobbed on front driveways and lawns. Yes, everybody has one of these—a mobile phone—and a lot of people use them for their news, and that's great, but there are still people, particularly in regional Australia, who love their little local newspaper—the Tumut and Adelong Times, the Temora Independentand they're really successful newspapers because they're doing the parish-pump stuff. That parish-pump stuff is copyrighted to those people producing it, and so it should be.

I had a conversation earlier this afternoon with Michelle Grattan, somebody who I've got the utmost respect for. She runs the Conversation. We all know the fine journalism work that she has done for decades, and long may that continue. The Conversation, which I recommend people read, has really investigated this copyright angle—particularly, as the member for Griffith pointed out, in this changing and emerging world of ChatGPT and the information age in which we live. In one article, author Wellett Potter, lecturer in law at University of New England, writes, 'If ChatGPT wrote it, who owns the copyright?'—it's a good question—'It depends on where you live, but in Australia it's complicated.' That's why we're here today. That's why we're discussing this.

It's a shame there's not more speakers on the bill. I note the member for Nicholls holding up the lines for the Nationals. We're in there; we're fighting the good fight for and on behalf of those people who understand and appreciate what copyright means in this changing world. The Conversation also had a very good article by Agata Mrva-Montoya: 'An AI startup has agreed to a $2.2 billion copyright settlement. But will Australian writers benefit?' It's a very good question, because all too often the courts are determining and deciding on matters pertaining to copyright, but are the penalties or the resolutions of these cases—the money—filtering down to the people who actually created the items or the photographs or the art pieces or whatever in the first place? The author wrote:

If the settlement is approved by the presiding judge, the company will pay authors about US$3,000 for each of the estimated 500,000 books included in the agreement. It will destroy illegally downloaded books and refrain from using pirated books to train chatbots in the future.

Another article in the Conversation, the author of which was Alice Grundy, a visiting fellow at the School of Literature, Language and Linguistics at ANU, was 'The Productivity Commission is floating AI copyright exemptions—with worrying implications for Australian authors and publishers'. That's why we do need to act. That's why we do need to be on top of this.

Whilst it is a complicated subject, I appreciate the member for Griffith mentioning the former attorney-general and his work in this regard, and I would very much encourage the new attorney-general, the member for Greenway, who is a former minister for communications, to have her department and her staff look at this because it is an important topic and we do need to protect Australian authors and Australian writers. We particularly need to do so to help Australian media companies that are investing in Australians and investing in Australian journalism. I'll stand up here and cheer them on every step of the way.

In this article by Ms Grundy, it's written:

This would make it legal to train artificial intelligence large language models, such as ChatGPT, on copyrighted Australian work. AI training would be added to the list of "fair dealing" exceptions already existing in the Copyright Act.

Why? The Productivity Commission estimates—

wait for this—

a potential A$116 billion over ten years flowing into the Australian economy, thanks to AI.

So it's upon us, and we have to act.

All too often, in areas such as this, governments of all political persuasions are too slow to act. I commend the bill and I commend what it brings. We do need to put, as the member for Griffith said, careful guardrails around it because it is too important. We have to get it right. We can't muck this up and get it wrong.

I'll go to the various schedules of the bill. Schedule 1 establishes an orphan-works scheme to facilitate the use of orphan works by limiting the remedies that are available for infringing uses of these works. It sounds all rather complicated, but 'orphan works' refer to copyrighted material where an owner is unknown or unlocatable. You can understand that, with people changing jobs and going here, there and everywhere in this day and age, it is sometimes difficult to find out who, in fact, actually wrote the piece in the first place, and sometimes articles in newspapers are unbylined. Sometimes pictures and other works do not carry the author's name—the taker's name, in the case of a photograph. Currently, anyone using unauthorised reproductions or adaptations of existing works may face significant financial consequences, even where genuine attempts have been made to identify the original creator.

You will get some people who think it's just their right and their privilege to cut and paste and to pinch anything to use as memes and all those sorts of things. But somebody has generated that image or that article in the first place, and there is a duty upon the person who's lifting it to at least try to find out who the original content author was. The legislation will require users to conduct a reasonably diligent search, and people should do that. They absolutely should.

Schedule 2 clarifies that a copyright exception related to the performance and communication of works in the course of giving educational instruction applies to online and hybrid educational environments. I have a daughter who's a teacher; in fact, she's an English teacher and a drama teacher. It is important for not only students accessing their education online but also younger students who may require assistance from a parent or other person, but it also comes back to teachers, and the onus is on teachers. I tell you what: when you are a teacher these days, you're not just a teacher; you're a parent, you're a caregiver, you're a parish priest, you're a sports coach, you're a therapist—you are everything. You have to make the meals for the kids! You wouldn't be a teacher for quids, quite frankly. We owe it to our teachers to do everything we can to help them in their absolutely fine work. And I'll tell you what: if you are a teacher, thank you. Thank you for the work you do for and on behalf of Australian families everywhere but for our future as well.

Independent and Catholic sectors are calling for broader reforms as part of this bill. I do hope that the government has put this out to discussion enough. Sometimes I do fear that the government doesn't do that and doesn't take on the stakeholders, but this is an important aspect of it. Those organisations, the independent and Catholic sectors, wanted to see a public interest fair-dealing exception so teachers can safely use digital and AI tools without risking copyright breaches. As I say, teachers are very good at what they do, but they can't be bush lawyers as well and try and take in everything. So fair's fair.

Schools have largely welcomed the change. They say it's only a first step—and they're right—as the law fails to meet the needs of modern schools, particularly as AI creeps into our schools, creeps into our computers, creeps into our lives. We need to be on top of that, absolutely.

Schedule 3 makes other minor and technical changes, including reallocating powers to appoint certain members of the Copyright Tribunal of Australia. We hope that these people are diligent and across everything. I'm sure they would be. But the bill, in what it is attempting to do, is an important piece of legislation. I commend the government for doing what they're doing in this important area, which is not everybody's cup of tea, but it is mine. Well done to the government for that.

I rise to speak about what I agree to be an incredibly important topic. We are, at the end of the day, talking about individual rights—the right of an individual to benefit from the product of their own labour, their original expression of an idea. Copyright has an important role, but there is just so much material that copyright technically covers now. We're producing images, expressing our thoughts and sharing our ideas at a pace unbelievable to those who were alive even only 30 years ago. The world we live in, in this space, has completely changed, and the laws have to adapt with them. We have images that are shared, cropped, shared again and moved between accounts. There is no way we can possibly source the original author. Sometimes, as we now see overseas, the original author wishes to express an idea—share an image that captures a moment in time—but it's not safe for them to share who they are because of the situation in which they find themselves. Nevertheless, they do so not to create a piece of intellectual property or to assert any kind of legal right but as part of communication and to share that idea—to share what's happening to their fellow human being. But copyright does cover all of those original expressions. Therefore, the scope of these laws is very, very real.

We've got to make sure that the individual property rights of those who come up with ideas are appropriately protected at the same time as we as a community are able to benefit from what are sometimes really important expressions of ideas. Those of us who learned history, whether at school or at university, will think back to specific moments in time like the Great Depression and the Vietnam War, and many of us will have the same images in our head that encapsulate those times. Important pieces of copyright material really aid and assist a full understanding of what's gone on in that period of time. But it's not always possible to find out who wrote it. This requires and clearly defines what constitutes reasonable efforts to find out who the owners are and seek their permission to use their original property, whether it's in a textbook or other endeavours. It's important that we balance those two rights together.

This bill really does get it right. There have been consultations going on since 2023. The idea of an orphan-work scheme has been floated since the 1990s, so this is nothing new. It really does not cross party lines in our country's politics or any other like country. This is simply updating what is a very complicated legal regime made only more complicated by the changes in technology that we've seen and the way we use that technology. There's also the free trade agreement with the United States, for example, which also means that copyright subsists for a very, very long time—70 years after the person has died. We are now living a very, very long time. Members of my family might have written something when they were 30, and they're still going 70 years later. These intellectual property rights can exist for a very long period. We've got to make sure that the regime that sits around it is very, very clear.

But we know that, even if we were to confine this to copyright material from the last two years, we're talking about millions and millions of images and ideas. It's not always possible to trace their origin. We're also in a world where, if it's not simple enough to use a genuine image, it's all too easy just to use AI to make a replica. And we don't really want to be doing that. We don't want textbooks full of AI images or impressions of what our source material should be. The trustworthiness and integrity of those materials, whether it's a school textbook or newspaper, sometimes does require the use of primary source material or reliable secondary source material. Sometimes only an image or an expression of an idea will do. It's all too easy to say, 'Well, if you don't know who the author is, just don't use the copyright material.' In some cases that's appropriate, but sometimes there is something so unique—a bit of vision that captures corrupt behaviour, or something that captures a very specific moment in time, which it is uniquely capable of encapsulating—that it is legitimate and reasonable to use it. We need to make sure that that opportunity is available in circumstances generally when there is not an assertive intention to exercise those copyright protections. But we also want to make sure the owners have those legal rights—and it is a suite of rights that come with owning copyright. In most cases the person who's come up with the idea owns the copyright, and it's up to them whether they give others permission to use it, to spread it around and to incorporate it in their own work. Some will say, 'Go ahead,' do it for free and feel quite privileged that that's happened; others will request a fee. It often depends on the kind of work involved. Is it a really cool hit song, or is it just a photo taken at an event, or is it just a tweet shared at a particular moment? All of these can be covered by copyright and are covered similarly by the legislative provisions, but, obviously, all have their very different contexts.

So this clearly defines what we ought to do—what we have to do—in order to enjoy the additional protections of this scheme, and that is to conduct reasonably diligent searches for the owner and then to seek to contact them to get their permission to use the rights. But sometimes that is impossible, either because time has passed or because it's just passed through so many hands, and even the best of searches can't yield a result. And sometimes the original author may have passed away or simply doesn't want to be found. These all happen. These are all real-life examples. We need to have a system that enables these important works to be utilised at the same time as having protections in place for the proper owners.

And sometimes, even if you do cover the author, it's not always possible to track the chain of ownership of an idea. Sometimes, if you come up with an idea, it might actually end up being the property of your employer, for example, because you might have done it in an employment context, and that company might have ceased existing—it might have gone into liquidation; it might have been sold. Sometimes it can be a nightmare to find the true owner of a copyrighted work. So this is a wonderful import of common sense into intellectual property law. It's a wonderful thing to be able to come into the House and say, 'This is uncontroversial. It makes sense. We're all just going to do it because it is the right thing to do and it just makes sense here and now.'

There are challenges, obviously, in terms of copyright. AI presents a new challenge that we haven't seen before, where small adaptations of existing works or recreations of existing works can sometimes be mistaken for the real thing. But I think that, if we want to maintain truth in the way we do media, we have to make sure that proper, original material is there and that we are diligently looking for the sources of those materials. So this will be good discipline, no matter what kind of work you do, because you'll be maintaining that discipline of finding out what the origin is, getting the story behind the work and making sure that you're putting things on air that do have integrity.

We've seen plenty of examples of news coverage that is pulled—AI videos and other things where things have been mistaken. There is no substitute for putting the work into finding out exactly where an image, a video or a clip has come from, because misinformation and disinformation are a very real problem in our society right now. To maintain trust, we need to make sure that we know what images we are using and that there are incentives in place to do the diligent thing and to properly source the material that we have. The orphan works scheme is an incredibly important addition to intellectual property law.

Another key aspect of this bill is the additional protections for educators. Even in the time I was teaching, the nature of classroom work changed significantly. I taught history for a long time. We were using images a lot. But as students became ill, it became normal practice to record our lessons and to share them. There were times when I had to edit what I'd delivered in the classroom to make sure that what I was transmitting by video and through our online learning spaces wasn't inadvertently breaching copyright, so I'd have to edit out bits of the presentations and the like. It meant that it diminished the experience that those other students were having, because they weren't able to see the full presentation.

This also made the job harder for teachers. I think anyone who's worked in our profession knows that we should be doing everything possible to make that job easier, not harder. So this is a reasonable and decent thing to do. It reflects the realities of modern education. Students who aren't in the classroom will often be learning from home and, more often than not, will need the support of a parent or carer in that environment. No-one's harmed by the fact that a parent sees an image that their kid sees while learning history or something. There is no mischief created by that scenario. This, again, is applying common sense that reflects the realities of modern life in a society where we are often not only teachers, there to entertain and to parent; we're also TV presenters a lot of the time. Not only are we teaching a classroom full of young people; we're also creating engaging audiovisual learning materials for those who aren't in the classroom at the time to learn from—and to do so in an enriching way. It is important that we give them every support, including this regime, so they are able to do that in an effective way.

There are technical amendments in this bill as well that go to public ownership of certain works—things created by the ABC and the like. Those do have different dates. We're making it clear that, if it is a piece of copyrighted material just purchased in the ordinary open marketplace, that doesn't change. If the origin is a work done for public purposes, then it is subject to that shorter time limit. That also reflects the public interest by making sure that, in the long term, we, the taxpayers, get to enjoy the benefits of those things that we have paid for and that, after a period of time, we then just collectively own that material and can use it as we see fit. Once copyright ceases to exist, it then becomes public domain and can be used however you wish. Fifty years is not a very long time. Some of my favourite shows are over 50 years old. Copyright is very important, but when it's gone, it's gone.

An honourable member: Get Smart!

Yes, exactly—Get Smart, and other things as well. The passage of time does cause difficulties in sourcing things. While many archivists have, in decades gone by, done a very, very thorough job in cataloguing their works, it is more and more difficult to be able to precisely source some historical images that have just been uploaded with mass uploads of old materials. Sometimes even the best endeavours just cannot find the origins of these things, and sometimes copyright works can be incorporated in other copyright works. There are various complications that can exist in that environment.

This is a very, very welcome piece of reform, and there are some amendments around this that clarify its role in the education space for when there is overlap between the statutory licence and this orphan works regime. It certainly removes any scope for doubt as to the intended application of this regime in the educational environment, which is an incredibly good thing. The reality is many of us are using copyright materials every day. I've seen many colleagues retweeting or reposting images. It's in good faith. It's not to make money, and no-one's losing anything. But that's the world we're in. It is all copyright. It is someone's original expression of an original idea. It is their property. Part of respecting that is a discipline that we all do need to get better at in an environment where things are just moving about so quickly.

We write all the time. We take photos all the time. It's not just the photographer at the local newspaper anymore; it's every single citizen in the community who's carrying a wonderful camera device which can take 4K images, in some cases. They're producing stuff that we all rely on. Those individuals also deserve those rights, just like the hardworking professionals that produce copyright work for a living. This is for everyone who wishes to express their idea in their own way. But, as I said, copyright, in most cases, is just an incidental legal outcome of communication now. We know there's a little less talking in person and going over to people's houses. There's more writing things and posting them online.

Copyright is here, there and everywhere in this era, for better or worse. We can all lament it. But, instead of being a grouchy old man who says that it was better in the old days, we just have to deal with the reality we've got. That is that copyright is everywhere, and, therefore, the legal protections need to reflect that we are talking about individual property rights, which are important in any free society, and we do need to respect those. This balances those. You can—even if you are unable to be found at that moment—within the limitation period go and assert those rights. You are able to recover reasonable compensation, which is absolutely appropriate.

We don't want disproportionate things. We don't want ambit claims for hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars for simply reposting someone's tweet. There is, again, room for common sense. I can trust our authorities to do that appropriately. But we are in an environment now where it is about time that we update these laws. The world is very different to what it was in 1968. The world has changed fundamentally. I commend this bill to the House. I'm so glad it's supported across the chamber, and I look forward to seeing this become law.

I, too, rise to speak on the Copyright Amendment Bill 2025. By its nature, it's a rather uncontroversial bill. As the member for Deakin said, it's supported across the chamber. It makes a lot of technical changes. These reforms are the result of several years of consultation, roundtables and review work commissioned by the government in 2023. I just want to say that I and a lot of us are strong supporters of copyright. Creators—whether they're artists, musicians, writers or photographers—should be paid for the reproduction or use of their works and should be acknowledged for those things.

Copyright has become very topical in the last 10 to 15 years. My own artistic endeavour is music, and when I was a wannabe rock star, back in the day, I was in a band called The Hunted and I co-wrote a song called 'The Ballad of the Aimless Artist'. I always want to make sure that the ideas that I put forward are protected in some way. It's interesting to see the way the music industry has evolved, particularly with a number of claims. One famous one was by the American guitarist Joe Satriani, who had a piece of music called 'If I Could Fly'. The melody is remarkably similar to Coldplay's 'Viva La Vida', and, when that was challenged, it was settled out of court. Of course, there's also the famous Australian example of the Men at Work song 'Down Under' and 'Kookaburra' about the Kookaburra who sits in an old gum tree.

It's become something that courts and, indeed, legislatures across the world and in our own country have had to grapple with. What is an original idea? When has someone else used it, even if they didn't mean to breach the copyright? If the idea existed and then someone else gains from it, there does need to be some clarification and restitution for that artistic idea.

I've also had a keen interest in looking at this bill through a regional lens, particularly as there are a lot of implications for distance learning. The Copyright Amendment Bill 2025 amends the Copyright Act 1968. Have a think. That's a long time ago for a law to be updated. The bill introduces an Australian orphan works scheme, and I support this. It clarifies the scope of section 28 of the Copyright Act, relating to the performance and communication of copyright material in the course of educational instruction. This is an important change for regional, rural and remote education, from early childhood through to tertiary, as I'll explain.

An orphan work is basically copyright material for which the owner cannot be identified or located to seek their permission to legally reutilise it. Permission is ordinarily sought from the copyright owner before using copyright material in a way that engages the rights of the owner of that material under the act. But, if the copyright owner is not known or cannot be located after reasonable effort, the orphan works scheme would facilitate the use of these works as long as reasonable efforts have been made and notice is given in a clear and prominent manner that the work is being used for the purpose of the orphan works scheme. The intended outcome of this is a very good outcome, particularly in the realm of education. It means that a larger collection of cultural, historical and educational works held by our cultural and educational institutions will be available for the benefit of researchers, educators, students, family historians, creators and the wider Australian community.

The bill also amends section 28 of the act. Section 28 offers an exemption where a literary, dramatic or musical work is performed in a class for the purpose of education. It's not deemed a public performance, which would enliven the copyright, if the audience is limited to persons who are taking part in the instruction or are otherwise directly connected with the place where the instruction is given. The bill modernises the act to take account of the modern methods of learning, and that's really important. Music should be something that people can make a living out of, and that's getting harder and harder with the proliferation of music-streaming programs. It's been made harder after COVID, which had a really significant effect on the live music scene. But, having said that, I note that music is a really important part of education, and we want to make sure it's there for young people to use, to be inspired and to learn not only about music but about the art of creation and the release of endorphins and, as a former prime minister said, the chemical reaction that happens in a brain when they hear a certain piece of music, I'm referring, of course, to Mr Keating, who was a big fan of the works of Mahler and Debussy and other classical works from that period.

This also clarifies the education exemptions that apply to instruction delivered in person, in online or hybrid classes, or via real-time digital technologies. It reflects the modern and connected world we live in and, importantly, acknowledges the reality of delivering remote learning and distance education. Remote learning has been happening in Australia for a long time. I think back to the School of the Air and what that meant to so many remote families, with the way that children could get an education through the School of the Air. That's obviously become more of a reality in the age of the internet and the web. It's enabled better educational facilities and facilitation for people who live in those rural and remote areas. An example of that is my own experience where I was able to complete an MBA at the Shepparton campus of La Trobe University. A lot of the time, there were five of us with a facilitator in the front room of the La Trobe University Shepparton campus at night, receiving the lecture that was coming from Melbourne. That was broadcast to us, and we were able to get, in real time, the lecture that the students at the business school in Collins Street, Melbourne were getting. That will be further enhanced by this legislation, because there won't be the copyright problems that existed with broadcasting some of that material.

There have been some sticking points. I've been informed ahead of this debate that a clarification will be made to ensure that the remote learning exception works even when the technical equipment being used to deliver a remote lesson is being operated by someone other than the teacher, such as an IT support person. That's just common sense. The bill as drafted had an unintended consequence: that teachers could not use the orphan works scheme for works and broadcasts. But I'm assured that that will be addressed.

That brings me to one last sticking point, and I hope that there's a way through this and that common sense can prevail. The exemption applies to live instruction but not on-demand or catch-up learning. So, for remote educators, that's going to be difficult and limiting, because they'll give a lecture—they'll use this material—to students and broadcast it live, in real time. But there will be students, of course, who can't get to that lecture or can't get to that class—they may be sick; they may need to catch up—and, if they can't watch a recording of that, it's going to limit the teacher's or the educator's ability to deal with that situation. I think it's just one little piece that the government could look at to try and see if there's a commonsense solution to that, moving forward, so that, without breaching copyright or keeping something indefinitely recorded, there is a way that, within a certain period of time, there could be a catch-up lesson used without breaching those copyright requirements. A sensible approach would be to allow for that on-demand or catch-up—as long as it meets the dominant purpose test in section 28, and that is educational instruction.

So I support the modern, practical copyright laws that balance the user access with creator protection. Those wonderful artists, musicians and people who are creating all sorts of things need our protection and need to continue what they're doing. But I think the change to the law, which I commend the government for, that allows educators to be able to use some of this material, and the orphan program, are positive steps. I just would urge the government to see if there's a workaround where we could get the educators to be able to record that, hold it for a very short period of time and only use it for the students that missed the class and can watch it within the week or something like that and get the benefit of that education. But otherwise I commend the bill to the House.

I rise today to speak in support of the Copyright Amendment Bill 2025. Like the member for Nicholls, I, too, was in a band in high school, but I'm confident that no-one would have been trying to breach our copyright! This bill operates to amend the Copyright Act 1968 to introduce an Australian orphan works scheme; to clarify the scope of section 28, relating to the performance and communication of copyright material in the course of educational instruction; and to make other minor technical amendments. The two main measures in this bill arose from a series of ministerial copyright roundtables held in 2023 which brought together stakeholders from a range of sectors to identify and discuss copyright priorities and other emerging issues, and this was done with a view to developing practical and achievable copyright reform proposals for consideration by government.

On 4 December 2023, the then attorney-general, the Hon. Mark Dreyfus KC, chaired the fourth and final of the series of roundtables on copyright, where 44 participating organisations from a wide range of sectors with an interest in copyright attended. The purpose of this roundtable was for the then attorney-general to hear from participants on the outcomes of discussions that had been held to date and to discuss potential next steps on five reform issues that had been considered in detail throughout the year. Those related to a scheme for the use of orphan works, quotations from copyright material, the use of copyright material in remote learning environments, the implications of AI for copyright law and the definition of 'broadcast' for the purposes of copyright law. So the reforms we're now being offered by this bill are intended to implement what was agreed as part of the roundtable process in relation to orphan works and section 28.

We start with section 28, which covers the performance and communication of works or other subject matter in the course of educational instruction. This section provides that, where a literary, dramatic or musical work is performed in class or otherwise in the presence of an audience and is being performed by a teacher in the course of giving educational instruction not being instruction given for profit—which does not capture a teacher earning remuneration for his or her teaching work—or by a student in the course of receiving such instruction, then the performance shall, for the purpose of the act, be deemed not to be a performance in public if the audience is limited to persons who are taking part in the instruction or are otherwise directly connected with the place where the instruction is given, like a parent or guardian of a student who is receiving instruction at that place. It covers everyone involved in the educational chain.

The amendments that are being proposed put to rest any suggestion that this section does not apply equally to copyright material regardless of whether the educational instruction is conducted online or in the physical classroom. The amendments also make clear that parents and other persons can assist students in these lessons and that persons other than a teacher, like a member of the local community, a parent or a guardian, can provide educational instruction under that provision without affecting how the relevant use of the material is treated under the act. Any ambiguity as to whether section 28 applies to online or hybrid classroom settings is removed by the proposed amendments, which are not intended to impact existing licensing arrangements that facilitate the provision of support and contribution by the creative and media sector to education.

As to the mechanics required to facilitate this important measure, they are simple. In section 28, subsection 1 (a), the words 'in the presence of' will be substituted by the word 'to' in order to address the potential limitation of the current section 28, which could be read as requiring the physical presence of an audience and to ensure section 28 covers online or hybrid classes. This may mean that the audience to which a performance may be given in the course of educational instruction may include a wholly or partially virtual audience in which some or all audience members are not physically co-located with the teacher or other person or student giving the performance. Section 28 currently applies in a live class context only, and the proposed amendments made by this schedule are not intended to change that position. The amendments are simply intended to clarify that section 28 applies where the educational instruction is given via a videoconference or livestream, which is incredibly important given the prevalence of online learning that has arisen in our educational institutions since the COVID-19 pandemic.

Other amendments to section 28 include a new section 28 subsection 9 to put beyond doubt that, for the purposes of that section, it does not matter whether the educational instruction which meets the other relevant requirements of that section is conducted in person or using technology that allows a person to take part in the educational instruction remotely or a combination of both. The underlying policy intention of this subclause is to put beyond doubt that section 28 covers online or hybrid class settings in the same way that it covers physical class settings, including where the teacher or other person giving instruction and some or all of the students are not physically co-located.

The bill also proposes a new section 28 subsection 10, which operates to clarify that, if a person is taking part in educational instruction using technology of the kind referred to in the previous subclause, for section 28 to apply, that participation must occur at the same or substantially the same time as the educational instruction is given. This means section 28 is intended to cover educational instruction given via a videoconference or live stream and is not intended to apply to a person taking part in educational instruction given via a delayed streaming of a previously recorded session. For clarity, the reference to 'the same or substantially the same time' is intended to capture instantaneous or near instantaneous participation in the educational instruction. It's necessary to include this reference to reflect that there might be a slight technical delay in the transmission of the lesson between technology of the kind referred to in the subsection.

Next—orphan works. Copyright generally requires someone to seek the permission of a copyright owner before using copyright material in a way that engages the copyright owner's rights under the act. This, plainly, cannot occur if the copyright owner cannot be identified or located. If the copyright owner cannot be identified or located in order to seek their permission to legally reutilise the work, the work is an orphan work. So the bill proposes a scheme that guides the use of these orphan works.

Where a reasonably diligent search has been undertaken for the copyright owner within a reasonable time before use of the material and a record of the search is maintained for a reasonable period, the copyright owner cannot be identified or located to obtain permission to reutilise the work and notice is given in a clear and prominent manner that the work is being used for the purposes of the orphan works scheme, then the orphan works scheme will apply. So this is a comprehensive reform that protects the right of the orphan works owner and protects the right of the person wishing to reutilise the work. It strikes the right balance.

The bill also contemplates the rare but possible scenario that the copyright owner of a work that is considered an orphan work for the purposes of the scheme does eventually come forward. Protections are provided for copyright owners under this scenario in that the scheme will allow them to seek reasonable payment for past use and for negotiations to occur in the event continued use is desired. If agreement can't be reached, then a court may set reasonable terms for continued use or provide injunctive relief.

The proposed orphan works scheme will provide prospective users with greater legal certainty and is intended to open up access to a larger collection of cultural, historical and educational works held by our cultural and educational institutions for the benefit of researchers, educators, students, family historians, creators and the wider Australian community. It will also provide copyright owners with the potential to earn new income from their works that may have unintentionally or unknowingly become orphaned—as they should ideally be identified through the requirement for a reasonably diligent search—and protections for them in the event that they are later identified or located. In this way, the scheme is intended to be balanced, proportionate and fair to users and rights holders and deliver benefits for all.

Importantly, the bill contains clarity about how it is to be determined that a reasonably diligent search has been undertaken given the background facts relevant to a work that may fall within the orphan work scheme will be different every time. The bill proposes that the competent court consider whether a reasonably diligent search was conducted for the owner of the copyright material.

Under this requirement, it is intended that the court would consider whether the search that was conducted was sufficiently diligent while having regard to the particular circumstances of use. Higher standards of search would, for example, be reasonably expected for types of material and uses that present a higher level of risk to the interests of rights holders, such as commercial uses, more vulnerable materials—including photographs and images—and culturally sensitive materials. Higher standards of search may also be required if the work is a foreign work and the copyright owner is likely to reside overseas.

The court is also required to consider whether the search was conducted within a reasonable period of time before the copyright material was used. The search should be conducted as close to the time of use as possible to make the most of available up-to-date technologies and the latest information as to the potential identity or location of the copyright owner. In this way, it's intended to lessen any risk that a copyright owner may become identifiable or locatable in the time between the search being conducted and the work being used.

The bill also contains assistance by providing a non-exhaustive list of matters the court may take into account in considering whether a search has been conducted in a reasonably diligent manner and within a reasonable period. These matters include the nature of the copyright material, with higher standards possibly applying to material that contains Indigenous Cultural and Intellectual Property, which reflects the government's commitment as outlined in Revive, to introduce standalone legislation to protect First Nations peoples knowledge and cultural experiences. The matters also include the nature, purpose and character of the infringing use, whether the owner or owners of the copyright are likely to be located in a foreign country, the actual or likely impact of the infringing use on the copyright owner or owners, any relevant industry guidelines and the way and timeframe over which the search was conducted. In essence, was it done quickly in an afternoon or was it done over an appropriate period of time using all reasonably available technological methods so there's clear guidance for those seeking to rely on this section of the act?

This bill quite rightly strengthens and modernises the Copyright Act. I commend the work of both the former attorney-general and the current Attorney-General, the Hon. Michelle Rowland, in bringing this before the parliament. I commend this bill to the House.

I rise to speak in support of the Copyright Amendment Bill 2025. This is a measured, practical and overdue reform to Australia's copyright framework. It modernises the Copyright Act 1968 to reflect how Australians learn, create, preserve culture and share knowledge in the 21st century. It does so without undermining the legitimate rights and interests of creators, authors and rights holders who rely on copyright protection for their livelihoods. At its core, this bill responds to a simple reality: the way Australians access information, participate in education and engage with cultural materials has changed profoundly, yet key elements of our copyright law have not kept pace. This bill closes that gap carefully and responsibly.

The bill does three principal things. First, it introduces Australia's first statutory orphan work scheme. Second, it clarifies that copyright exemptions for educational instruction apply consistently across physical, online and hybrid learning environments. Third, it makes a small number of technical and administrative amendments to improve the operation of the Copyright Act, including in relation to the Copyright Tribunal and the duration of Crown copyright. Each of these reforms has been developed following extensive consultation. They reflect years of policy work, including multiple ministerial roundtables convened in 2023 with stakeholders from the creative industries, the education sector, collecting institutions and rights holder organisations. The result is legislation that is balanced, proportionate and grounded in evidence. Copyright reform is rarely straightforward. It sits at the intersection of competing but legitimate interests: creators seeking fair reward for their work, educators and students seeking access to knowledge, cultural institutions seeking to preserve and share our collective memory and governments seeking to ensure the law keeps pace with technological and social change.

The ministerial copyright roundtables, held in 2023, represented a different approach. They brought together representatives from across the creative, cultural, educational and research sectors, as well as industry representatives, collecting institutions and other interested organisations. The objective was not to reopen the entirety of copyright law, but to identify discrete, achievable reforms where there was genuine alignment and evidence of need. By addressing orphan works and clarifying educational use without undermining core rights or licensing frameworks, this bill strengthens that legitimacy.

I'll turn to each of the key measures in this bill. I'll begin with schedule 1, which establishes an Australian orphan works scheme. As someone who was a longstanding supporter of the arts and a regular attendee of live music and performance and as co-chair of the Parliamentary Friends of Australian Music, I am acutely aware of how central copyright is to the sustainability of Australia's creative industries. That is precisely why it is so important that reform in this area is careful, balanced and grounded in respect for creators. An orphan work is a copyright material for which the copyright owner cannot be identified or located after reasonable efforts. These works are not rare. They are held in large number of libraries, archives, museums, educational institutions and community organisations. They include historical photographs, personal letters, diaries, unpublished manuscripts, audio-visual recordings and other collectables that document our social, cultural and civic life.

Under current law, the inability to identify or locate a copyright owner often means these materials cannot be used at all, even for socially valuable purposes such as education, research, preservation or public exhibition. Institutions face legal uncertainty and risk, and the public is denied access to material that forms part of our shared heritage. The orphan works scheme in this bill addresses that problem directly. It does not abolish copyright. It does not create a blanket exception. Instead, it introduces a carefully calibrated limitation on remedies where a user has acted in good faith and met the strict statutory conditions.

Under the scheme, a person may rely on the limitation on remedies only if they have conducted a reasonably diligent search for the copyright owner, kept a record of that search, could not identify or locate the owner at the time of use and provided clear and prominent notice of reliance on the scheme. If, and only if, those conditions are satisfied, the court is prevented from awarding damages, additional damages or an account of profits for the infringing use. However, the court may still issue reasonable payment to the copyright owner if they later come forward, reflecting what would have been a reasonable licence fee. Importantly, copyright owners retain the ability to assert their rights if they are later identified. They may negotiate terms for ongoing use or seek court ordered terms or injunctive relief in relation to future use. Moral rights are unaffected. Constitutional safeguards are preserved through an express just terms compensation provision. This is not a free-for-all. The burden of proof rests squarely on the user to demonstrate compliance with the scheme. Higher standards of diligence are expected for commercial uses, for sensitive or vulnerable materials and for works involving Indigenous cultural and intellectual property.

The scheme is deliberately designed to encourage caution, transparency and respect. For creators whose works have become orphaned unintentionally through lost records, defunct publishers or the passage of time, the scheme may in fact create new opportunities. Where a copyright owner later emerges, they are entitled to reasonable payment and may negotiate terms for ongoing use. In that sense, the scheme can reconnect creators with works that might otherwise remain unused and invisible.

What this reform does is provide legal certainty where uncertainty has prevailed for decades. It unlocks access to material of cultural, historical and educational value while preserving fairness for rights holders. For researchers, educators, students and community organisations, this reform matters. It allows institutions to preserve, digitise and share material that would otherwise remain inaccessible. It supports the diffusion of knowledge and culture, which is a core objective of copyright law itself.

I now turn to schedule 2, which addresses copyright and remote learning. Section 28 of the Copyright Act permits the performance or communication of copyright material in the course of educational instruction without that use being treated as public performance or communication to the public. That exception has long been understood as applying in physical classrooms. However, the rapid expansion of online and hybrid learning, accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic, has created uncertainty about how those rules apply to remote teaching and learning. This bill removes that uncertainty.

The amendments to section 28 make it explicit that the provision applies equally to educational instruction conducted in person, online or through a combination of both. It clarifies that parents and guardians who assist students with their lessons are taken to be participating in the instruction. It also confirms that educational instruction may be delivered by persons other than a teacher, such as community members or external presenters, without altering the copyright treatment of the material used. These clarifications do not expand the scope of the exception. They do not disturb existing licensing arrangements, which remain vital to supporting Australian creators and publishers. What they do is ensure that teachers, schools and families are not left guessing about compliance when delivering education in modern formats. This matters for equity. Online and hybrid learning models are not a luxury; they are a necessity for many students, including students in regional and remote areas, students with disabilities, students managing illness and students balancing education with caring responsibilities or work.

Educators are not copyright lawyers, yet they are expected to navigate complex legal obligations while delivering lessons supporting diverse learners and adapting to rapidly changing modes of instruction. Uncertainty in the law does not promote compliance; it promotes hesitation, inconsistency and, in some cases, unnecessary self-censorship. The clarification regarding parental and community involvement is equally important. Parents and carers often play a vital role in supporting students, particularly younger children and students with additional needs. Community members, including local professionals and service workers, frequently contribute to educational programs in ways that enrich learning and connect it to real-world experience. Copyright law should not inadvertently discourage that engagement.

I now turn to schedule 3, which contains a number of minor but important technical amendments. These include simplifying the process for appointing an acting president and registrar of the Copyright Tribunal, updating outdated references to Commonwealth and state archives, modernising notification requirements by replacing gazette publication with notifiable instruments and clarifying the scope of Crown copyright. In particular, the bill makes clear that the provision governing the duration of Crown copyright applies only to material made or first published by or under the control of the Commonwealth or a state. It does not apply to material later acquired by government from third parties. This clarification ensures that government acquisition does not inadvertently extend copyright duration and provides certainty to rights holders and users alike. While these amendments are technical in nature, they improve the clarity, coherence and administration of the act. Good law reform is not only about major policy shifts; it is also about ensuring that statutes operate efficiently and transparently.

Before concluding, I want to address an issue that has understandably attracted attention: the interaction between copyright reform and emerging technologies, including artificial intelligence. This bill does not create a general exemption for the use of copyright material in training AI systems, nor does the orphan works scheme provide a practical pathway for bulk use of works for that purpose. The scheme's requirements, particularly the obligation to conduct a reasonably diligent search and provide notice in relation to each use, are deliberately structured to prevent inappropriate reliance for large-scale automated uses. AI raises complex questions for creators, educators, industry and society, and those questions deserve a dedicated consideration. This bill does not pre-empt that debate; instead, it focuses on targeted, consensus based reforms that address clear and longstanding problems.

Finally, I want to acknowledge the broader human rights context of this legislation. The orphan works scheme and remote learning amendments positively engage the right to education, the right to participate in cultural life and the right to enjoy the benefits of scientific progress. They promote accessibility, inclusion and non-discrimination. Where the bill places limits on rights, those limits are reasonable, proportionate and necessary to achieve legitimate public objectives.

In conclusion, this bill strengthens Australia's copyright system by making it more responsive to contemporary realities while preserving the fundamental balance at its heart. It supports creators by maintaining strong rights and remedies; it supports creators and students by providing clarity and certainty; it supports cultural institutions by unlocking access to orphan materials; and it supports the Australian community by promoting the diffusion of knowledge, culture and learning. This is thoughtful reform. It is careful reform. It is reform whose time has come. I commend the bill to the House.

I thank honourable members for their contributions to the debate on the Copyright Amendment Bill 2025. This bill implements two priority legislative reforms. Firstly, there's the establishment of an orphan-works scheme, which will facilitate publicly beneficial use of genuinely orphaned materials by reducing legal risks for good-faith users without unreasonably prejudicing the interests of copyright owners. Secondly, the proposed amendments to section 28 of the Copyright Act will ensure copyright material is treated consistently regardless of whether it is used in a physical, online or hybrid classroom so long as the other conditions of that section are met. They will also promote collaborative learning involving parents and members of the community without impacting existing licensing arrangements. The bill will also strengthen and modernise the Copyright Act through various minor and technical amendments to simplify, update and clarify certain provisions.

I also acknowledge the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, expertly chaired by Senator Jana Stewart, for its inquiry into the bill over recent months. The government agrees with the committee's sole recommendation that the bill be passed. The bill will implement important reforms that update and clarify the Copyright Act, reducing legal risk and promoting modern, collaborative learning without unreasonably prejudicing the interests of copyright owners, for the benefit of the Australian community. I commend the bill to the House.

Bill read a second time.

I present a supplementary explanatory memorandum to the Copyright Amendment Bill 2025. I ask leave of the Federation Chamber to move government amendments (1) to (3), as circulated, together.

Leave granted.

I move government amendments (1) to (3), as circulated, together:

(1) Schedule 1, page 3 (after line 3), before item 1, insert:

1A Subsection 10(1) (definition of licensed copying or communicating )

Omit "subsection 113Q(2)", substitute "subsections 113Q(2) and (2A)".

1B After subsection 113Q(2)

Insert:

Copying and communicating works when owner cannot be found

(2A) However, copying or communicating mentioned in subsection 113P(1) or (2) is not licensed copying or communicating if it is covered by a notice under subsection 116AAE(6) given in relation to, or in connection with, the educational institution.

Note: Under Division 2AAA of Part V, remedies available for infringement of copyright may be limited where the owner of works could not be found before use. Section 116AAE sets out conditions that must be satisfied for this to occur.

(2B) If the copying or communicating is covered by a notice under subsection 116AAE(6), a copy of that notice must be given:

(a) in the circumstances (if any) specified in a determination under subsection (2C); and

(b) to a person or body (if any) specified in a determination under subsection (2C); and

(c) in accordance with the requirements (if any) specified in a determination under subsection (2C).

(2C) The Minister may, by legislative instrument, specify:

(a) circumstances for the purposes of paragraph (2B)(a); and

(b) one or more persons or bodies for the purposes of paragraph (2B)(b); and

(c) requirements for the purposes of paragraph (2B)(c).

(2D) To avoid doubt, a failure to comply with subsection (2B) does not affect subsection (2A).

When remuneration notice applies

(2) Schedule 1, item 1, page 5 (after line 15), at the end of subsection 116AAE(6), add:

Note: A notice under this subsection also has effect for the purposes of subsection 113Q(2A) (which is about when copying or communicating by educational institutions is not licensed).

(3) Schedule 1, item 1, page 6 (line 7), omit "maybe", substitute "may be".

The Copyright Amendment Bill amends the Copyright Act 1968 to establish an Australian orphan-works scheme. The scheme in the bill facilitates the use of orphan-works—copyright material for which the owner is unknown or cannot be found—by limiting the remedies available for copyright infringement if the steps in the scheme are followed. The intent of the amendment proposed to the orphan-works scheme is to provide choice to people who could otherwise rely on the education statutory licence, like teachers. The proposed amendments give these people a choice to instead rely on the orphan-works scheme if this better suits their needs. Providing choice was part of the original policy intent of the bill, and this amendment ensures the bill achieves this intent.

Question agreed to.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.

Ordered that this bill be reported to the House with amendments.

I rise today to speak in support of the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures No. 2) Bill 2025, which continues the government's response to the recommendations arising from the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide. This bill, which is further designed to simplify the veterans entitlement system, goes hand in glove with the amendments made in the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures No. 1) Bill 2025, which was introduced into the parliament last year.

Also a feature of last year was the passage of the Veterans' Entitlements, Treatment and Support (Simplification and Harmonisation) Act 2024, or the VETS act, which operates to streamline and simplify legislation relating to veterans from 1 July 2026 by removing the complex tri-act system. Under current arrangements, veteran entitlements are provided under three separate compensation acts—the MRCA, the Veterans' Entitlements Act and the DRCA—and eligibility under one of these acts depends on when the veteran served and which periods of service caused or contributed to the condition being claimed. The simplification act modifies these arrangements by providing that, from 1 July 2026, all claims for compensation and rehabilitation will be determined under an improved MRCA.

Significant consultation was undertaken between 2022 and 2024 to ensure the simplification act reflected the lived experience of veterans and their families. The amendments made in this bill will implement certain aspects of the policy intention that was developed under that consultation. Pursuant to the VETS act, from 1 July 2026, all veterans' rehabilitation and compensation claims will be dealt with under a single piece of legislation—not three—which is known as the MRCA or the recrafted Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004. To ensure that that date can be met, a number of technical amendments to the VETS act are required, and that is what the bill before us does. In essence, it supports effective implementation and effective governance. What it doesn't do is change the intended operational effect of the VETS act.

In terms of the other operational effects of this bill, it also amends recovery provisions so that amounts already paid under the Veterans' Entitlements Act from any Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act arrears payable to a dependant for the equivalent benefits for the same period can be subtracted. In addition, it clarifies the circumstances under which a partner may receive additional lump sum compensation for service related death claimed on or after 1 July 2026, and it ensures that this amount is available in respect of all service related deaths on or after this date.

Further, with respect to funeral compensation amounts already payable under the MRCA, the bill sets out that the higher rate is available to anyone who meets the eligibility criteria, even if they also fall within the criteria for a lower amount. Veterans who meet the criteria for additional disablement amounts or special-rate disability pension do not need to meet additional criteria to enable their eligible children to access education assistance through the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act education and training scheme. Equally, the bill clarifies that gold cards are provided to eligible veterans without requiring them to meet additional criteria, and it amends the service pension criteria so that, after the date of 1 July 2026, the partners of eligible veterans are eligible for the partner service pension from the age of 50, to harmonise with current eligibility and age requirements that are available to partners of extreme disablement amount veterans under the current veterans entitlement framework.

Importantly, the bill will also make amendments to continue to exclude the Victoria Cross allowance and decoration allowance from income test arrangements and clarify that there is coverage for conditions resulting from the unintended consequences of treatment provided or paid for by Defence during service, or later by the DVA. Lastly, the bill makes amendments to ensure existing access to non-liability healthcare arrangements for serving members are maintained through the transfer from the Veterans' Entitlements Act to the MRCA.

These technical amendments that have been outlined are being implemented to ensure that all of the legislative requirements are in place so that the shift from the tri-act system to just the one act can be done smoothly. It is so important to get this right. So, although the amendments are minor and seem technical in nature, they are critical to facilitating an understanding of entitlements by veterans and their families and critical to facilitating faster claim processing times. The simplification and harmonisation of the veteran compensation system form some of the most significant reform in a century to how veterans are supported in this country. The changes will enable veterans and their families to get the support they need and deserve when they need it. That is why this bill deals with so many matters—the review pathway, compensation for dependants of deceased veterans, funeral compensation, access to the MRCA education scheme, additional disablement amounts, Victoria Cross allowance and decoration allowance, service injuries, diseases and death arising from treatment and treatment for serving members. It is so broad reaching because we respect and are deeply grateful for the service, courage and dedication shown by active service personnel and veterans, all for the people of this great country.

Often when people finish service, they do require care and support, but they also have a lot of life left to live, a lot of diverse contributions to make to their community. So we need a system that is fair, accessible and easy to use so that veterans can live life and contribute to the community and so that active service personnel can access the support they need to enable them to do their critical work effectively. And we know that there are thousands of active service personnel and veterans making incredible contributions to society. One such champion lives in my electorate of Sturt and was recently awarded the Citizen of the Year Award at the Campbelltown City Council Australia Day Awards. I first met Jordan Box, a corporal in the Australian Air Force Cadets, and his beautiful OPK9 dog Sally in 2025. Jordan has lived a life of service, and every day he exemplifies the highest ideals of citizenship through his extraordinary multidecade commitment to this country and to community service. His contribution spans emergency responses, youth development and cultural preservation. Jordan's selfless dedication transcends ordinary volunteerism, representing a lifetime philosophy of 'service before self'. What really sets Jordan apart is the remarkable breadth and depth of his contributions, which are sustained and meaningful and impact diverse sectors in our community, from life-saving emergency medical services to nurturing future leaders through youth organisations. Few individuals demonstrate such sustained excellence across diverse sectors. Jordan's ability to mentor young people while simultaneously serving as a frontline first responder showcases exceptional character and time management skills that benefit the entire community. Through his extensive volunteering with the Campbelltown St John Ambulance cadet division and the Stradbroke scouts, Jordan mentors young people, instilling essential life skills, leadership qualities and strong civic values that shape those young people into responsible, community minded citizens who may be minded to serve their country in the way that Jordan did.

There is only one Jordan, but there are thousands of active service personnel and veterans just like him, making huge contributions across society. This bill is part of the Albanese Labor government's drive to provide them and their families with simple and accessible care and support when they need it. I am proud to be part of a government with this motivation, and I stand with the Prime Minister and Minister Keogh in support of this commendable purpose. I commend this bill to the House.

To all those that continue to wear the uniform and to our veterans and their families: the freedoms that we enjoy today are on the back of hard-fought battles, wars and sacrifices that you have made. On Anzac Day we say, 'Lest we forget.' We reaffirm our commitment to always remember those that have been killed in action, have died in training or have succumbed to their war within back here on home soil. On Remembrance Day we say the guns fell silent, but the guns haven't fallen silent since. In natural disasters—fires, floods and cyclones—our brave men and women are there. In peacekeeping missions—East Timor, Fiji and Solomon Islands—our brave men and women are there. In combat operations—Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Korea and many more—our brave men and women were there. It's our job in this parliament to make sure that we pass legislation that supports our current serving and our veterans—those that stand up for us, those that are there when they're called.

As a whole, the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures No. 2) Bill 2025 looks fine from the outset, but there are parts of this bill that I personally don't agree with. I don't believe that, if someone has put a claim in and it gets reviewed by the Veterans' Review Board, there needs to be a notice sent to the Chief of the Defence Force. There are already mechanisms in place for reportables. For example, if someone is a truckie and they have a drug problem and have spoken to a professional—they have gone through their process and put a claim in—that is their reportable, which would then go through to the unit and subsequently other people to make sure that that they are now not in the position where they could put someone's life at risk. We want to encourage people to see a mental health professional through non-liability health care. We want to encourage those who are doing it tough to be able to speak to someone without fear of their career being halted or of not being able to continue to serve.

For example, if someone has had a marriage breakdown—let's say a platoon sergeant in an infantry unit has had a marriage breakdown and it was decided through the advocate that it was to do with their service—they would then go through the claims process. If they found themselves at the Veterans' Review Board, I don't think it's an appropriate measure to then go to the Chief of the Defence Force with a notification that a platoon sergeant has sought professional help, has got that help and has gone to the VRB. If that now sits with the CDF, I think that's a gross overreach, because I would hate for that then to go back down the chain and lead to a situation where now that platoon sergeant can't become a warrant officer class 2 or can't be on deployment or receive promotion. We've seen it happen in real life where someone may not be travelling well. They're okay—they're functioning and ready to do their job—but, because of a kneejerk reaction because of bad policy, they get put on a no-weapons chit and can't go out in the field and can't deploy—all these things as an unintended consequence because we haven't properly gone through the legislation and policy that we do here. I don't want to slow down the passage of this, because it is part of the recommendations from the royal commission, but there are unintended consequences of not doing it right. I think having the VRB as the crux to notify the Chief of the Defence Force becomes quite challenging.

I also don't believe that this has been taken out to the veteran or ADF community to ask what they think. Let's look at who this will affect the most. This will affect the private soldier. This will affect the sailor and the aviator. This is not going to affect the senior officers. These unintended consequences will sit with the enlisted. As a former private soldier—never promoted—and now sitting here, I can feel the anxiety that they will have about something like this. Now, I've heard that there are other parts of provisions and bills that have a recommendation—or a kneejerk—that go to the CDF. I've heard people talk about that. Well, that's probably still a problem too. I don't know that saying it happens in other places means we should let it go through here. I do think that Darren Chester and his office have done some great work going through this. I spent some time last night working and talking through it with Angus Taylor, who has taken up that part of the portfolio at the moment.

Whilst I believe this is well intentioned, and whilst we don't want to stop these miscellaneous measures going through, I do think that that we must take heed and ask: what is the unintended consequence here? If someone has a drug problem or an alcohol problem, or if someone has any sort of reportable that's already in legislation now, when they get that help—whether it goes through the VRB, DVA or anything—it is mandatory for the healthcare professional to report it into the chain of command, because there's a safety issue. You can't drive your truck in the morning if you're drinking in the morning. You can't handle weapons if you're addicted to ice. There will be supports and help for those people that have these addictions and problems. But, if you've had a marriage breakdown or if you've returned from a deployment and you're going through a bit of a tough time, but you can still operate and do your job and there isn't a mandatory reportable, I don't think the CDF needs to open his email—or her email—and see that Private Such-and-such has gone through the VRB for a mental health concern or gone through the non-liability healthcare system. If that gets reported back to the chief, I just think it's an overreach. I think it's more red tape, and I want to make sure that our brave men and women feel comfortable and confident to be able to continue to serve and do their job with whatever it may be. The coalition has our position on this, and the shadow minister read it out last night.

In closing, I just want to say that we serve here on the back of our brave men and women who've served this nation. We have the privilege and the freedoms to be able to pass laws and legislation and live freely in this country because of our brave men and women. I want to make sure we're keeping warfighters warfighting. I want to make sure we're keeping our service personnel fit and happy to be able to continue to do their job. I don't want this to hang over their heads so people question whether they should get help or not. It's one fear that I do have. I think if this were taken out to the public, to those currently serving—not to the veteran community, because it's not for them; it's for our still-serving Defence Force personnel—then we would get similar feedback. We do plan on working with the government and with the minister. I know this has already been raised with him. I do note the other member in the House and her service as well. This isn't from a place of anger or fight. This is just from a place of thinking, and we need to find our place where we can land to make sure that we're not fighting and we're here to serve the people that send us here and our Australian Defence Force personnel.

Before I begin, I would like to thank the member for Herbert for his speech, for his words and sincerity and for looking to ensure our veterans are fully supported. I also thank him for his act of service.

I too rise to speak on the matter that indeed goes to the heart of our national character: how we honour, support and stand beside those who have served Australia in uniform and how we support their families as well, who serve alongside them. We heard just before from the member for Herbert about the different kinds of service that I think are all very familiar to people who head off to different missions around the world in conflicts. But there are also peacekeeping missions. There's the seemingly never-ending requirement to support our affected communities domestically on the back of bushfires, floods and cyclones. We lean on and call on our Defence service personnel for a lot more than they ever thought that they were signing up for. The enormous work that they do in communities around the world in building beautiful relationships and trust, in order to avoid conflict in the first place, is something I think is quite immeasurable.

I want to acknowledge that the work of Albanese Labor government is very much going to ensuring that we all take the work of our veterans as well as our Defence personnel seriously. This is being led by the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, the Hon. Matt Keogh, and has been done with absolute seriousness of purpose. He has full respect for the lived experience of people like the member for Herbert as well as the current serving personnel and really understands what is needed and what the commitment to reform should look like.

In my electorate of Hasluck, veteran issues are not abstract; they are personal, they're local and they're enduring. Across Hasluck, we have a number of RSL sub-branches, including those that serve communities from Ellenbrook to Bassendean, as well as the surrounding suburbs. They play a vital role not just in commemoration but in the day-to-day support of veterans and also of those who continue to serve. They are places where veterans find camaraderie, advocacy and a sense of belonging long after their formal service has ended. I want to place on the record my sincere thanks to and gratitude for the volunteers, the advocates and the committee members of those RSLs. Their work often goes unseen, and it's essential. They are helping veterans navigate complex systems, supporting families in distress and ensuring that no-one is forgotten. I know, from my meetings with them, that the toll of being able to maintain records, the systems and obligations that come with any committee—be it a sporting club, a not-for-profit or an RSL sub-branch—is increasingly felt by people who don't feel necessarily fully equipped with the computer skills required. That bit of stress, even on that level, is something that we're working to take away because their focus, rightly, is on supporting veterans to navigate more complex issues than doing the paperwork.

They have been clear to me about what matters most, which is the veterans that they support. They want a system that listens. They want decisions made in reasonable timeframes, and they want dignity, clarity and fairness. That was what was lacking when we came to office, and it's precisely what this government has set out to deliver and, frankly, is now delivering.

One of the most important differences under the Albanese government has been a willingness to confront uncomfortable truths, particularly in relation to veteran mental health and suicide. The Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide existed because families, advocates and veterans demanded honesty and accountability. Minister Keogh made clear that this government is committed to responding fully and meaningfully to the findings of the royal commission. Indeed, we did not wait for its final report to begin making those changes, because, for too long, veterans experienced the Department of Veterans' Affairs not as a support system but as an obstacle course. Long delays, repeated reassessments and complex legislative frameworks left many feeling disbelieved and worn down.

But, under Minister Keogh's leadership, I'm happy to say that we've seen really systemic and cultural changes in veterans' affairs. The government has invested in hundreds of additional staff at DVA. They've improved the training, modernised systems to reduce the claims backlogs and improved the decision-making timeframes. They're not cosmetic changes; they're practical reforms that mean veterans can receive support when they need it and not years later and maybe never. Local RSL advocates in Hasluck have told me that, while challenges do still remain, they are actually seeing progress. They're seeing their claims move more quickly, they're seeing better communication, and they're seeing a minister who is prepared to engage with them and with the sector directly. And that matters.

Another area of genuine reform has been the expansion of the Veterans' and Families' Hubs. The hubs recognised something veterans have always known: that wellbeing is not just about compensation but about connection, purpose and access to the right help at the right time. By providing a single entry point for mental health services, employment assistance, advocacy and social support, these hubs reduce fragmentation. They remove barriers. They also acknowledge that families are central to veteran wellbeing, not an afterthought.

I had the real privilege of being able to participate in a roundtable last year with the families of veterans. To be fair, I know that it's not in all cases, but in many cases they are women who are there supporting the serving defence person. The stories that they shared were really quite something. They were very impressive in being able to give really succinct stories that covered quite different spectrums. There were situations where their own career was stymied as a consequence of the nature of the defence personnel's role, as they need to move around the country and sometimes internationally. Some were not necessarily getting the support that they needed, where perhaps their partner had their employment within Defence severed on health grounds and suddenly it was on them to be able to provide that full wraparound service for issues they may not have a full line of sight to. That was quite concerning. I've been continuing to work with the minister to ensure that area is prioritised for support as part of family wellbeing.

If I might—and I'm running down the clock—I have just one other example from our discussions at that roundtable. It's providing support to serving defence service personnel and then veterans on their return to home. Often when they're away for extended periods of time—this could be six months or a year—and they come back, it's that adjustment back to being within a family, where discussions are not about direction. It's about collaboration; it's about consensus. Suddenly having teenagers say 'no' is a challenge. It's a challenge in any house, but it's a challenge when you're in a workplace where it's about following orders, and then suddenly you're in an environment where you might get some pushback. Even just something like how to make sure the family network is solid and resilient is so critical too.

The Albanese government's expanding hubs nationally reflects that simple truth: that early, local and holistic support really does save lives. And, further, the Veteran Affairs Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures No. 2) Bill is part of the government's ongoing effort to ensure that veterans legislation is clearer and fairer and is better aligned. The amendments encompassed by the bill include measures dealing with compensation for dependants of deceased veterans, funeral compensation, injuries arising from treatment, access to education and appropriate notice, as well as other matters. I really do want to acknowledge the cultural change that is being driven through the veterans system.

But we know policy reform is not enough. Veterans have told us that how they are treated, whether they are believed, whether they are listened to and whether they are treated with dignity matters just as much as the outcome of any claim. Minister Keogh has made it clear that empathy, accountability and transparency are not optional extras; they are core expectations. And that message is filtering through. While there is more work to do, it represents a meaningful shift—one that veterans and their families deserve.

Another initiative that underscores the collaborative nature of the government's approach is the decision by Minister Keogh to form a Veterans' Affairs Ministerial Advisory Council. There are currently notices across media calling for expressions of interest to serve on this council which will inform the minister in relation to the operation of the sector and particularly in relation to the compensation framework. The notice calls for applications from persons with expertise in one of the areas of health, including mental health; rehabilitation; aged care; financial supports and compensation; and, importantly, lived experience.

No government, obviously, can undo decades of systemic issues overnight, but what we are doing is changing the direction. We've moved from denial to acknowledgement, from delay to action and from mere defensiveness to engagement.

Many of us here attended the last post ceremony at the War Memorial this week. Veterans and their families deserve more than gratitude expressed once or twice a year at formal ceremonies. They deserve a system that works, every day, quietly, competently and with respect. In Minister Keogh they have a minister who understands the weight of that responsibility, and in the Albanese government they have a government committed to doing the work, legislatively, administratively and culturally.

To the veterans and RSL communities of Hasluck, I say this: your service is valued; your voices are heard; and here, with this legislation and the other reforms that have already commenced, we are delivering. For my part, in Hasluck, I will continue to advocate strongly for the interests of those who have served. In the north of my electorate, I will look for ways to support the Ellenbrook RSL in finding their own permanent space—a safe space for local veterans to meet and seek support. I will continue to support the Eastern Regional RSL in Bassendean as they plan for their future. Regardless of the nature of service and missions, I will ensure that, wherever people have served, they are appropriately acknowledged for that service.

I served in the Army Reserve. Obviously—relative to the experience of the majority of defence service personnel—it was a limited prism through which I looked at the defence forces. But, through that experience, and also through my parliamentary participation on the defence programs, I'm determined to ensure I stay connected to the issues that matter to our current serving personnel but to those of our veterans as well, because 'lest we forget' applies to the living as well as the fallen. I commend the government's work and the ongoing reform of veteran affairs to this House.

It's a privilege to follow the member for Hasluck, and I thank her for her service to our nation. In commencing my remarks on the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures No. 2) Bill 2025, I follow the member for Herbert in his contribution. In my short time in this place, I've been inspired by his veteran story. He served in East Timor and Afghanistan, and he talks about his 'alive day', where he was very badly injured by an improvised explosive device, and about his journey to recovery and also his lifelong dedication to helping and supporting veterans in his community. In fact, he's the recipient of an Order of Australia medal for that service. So I think we could have no finer speakers than the two members that I follow in making my remarks.

It is an absolute privilege to represent the veteran community in the Monash electorate. I've worked very closely with a number of RSLs and ex-service organisations, and I just want to acknowledge the outstanding contribution that they make, like Ben Vahland and Lynn Mizen at the Warragul RSL. I had the great privilege of attending the West Gippsland Veterans Welfare Centre opening just a couple of months ago, where Ben Vahland, particularly, has really dedicated a huge amount of time to getting that up and running. In my work with veterans across the region, there have been Christine Thompson, Lindsay Guerin and Kevin Walsh from the Inverloch and Wonthaggi RSLs; Steve Mayes from Moe RSL; and Richie Cunningham and Rod McNabb from Drouin RSL. I acknowledge their service and look forward to continuing to work very closely with them in the pursuit of improving veteran welfare.

I've got my colleague the member for New England, who, of course, is a former veterans affairs shadow minister, and I just want to acknowledge two points he drove very strongly in that time. He made the point that veterans affairs should be a cabinet portfolio. It shouldn't be subsumed into the broader Defence portfolio. Veterans have a unique set of needs and they deserve to have a strong voice around the cabinet table. I also acknowledge his work in putting pressure on the government to progress the implementation of the veterans royal commission's findings and recommendations.

I represent a large number of constituents in Monash who have previously served—in fact, it's 3,560 constituents. As of September last year, we had 1,761 DVA clients in my electorate, 1,294 veterans and 474 family members or dependents. Every one of them relies on the system to work properly. I go to great lengths to assist constituents—whether it's with a Services Australia, Centrelink, issue or any other issue—but one of the greatest privileges is being able to pick up the phone and assist a veteran who has been waiting 18 months for assistance. While it's a great privilege to be able to get something to happen quickly, it really shouldn't take that long. For the remainder of my time in this place, I want to make sure that, as a parliament, we do a better job to recognise the needs and expediate the support that veterans deserve for the sacrifice and the work that they've done in serving our country.

I've met with members of nearly every RSL organisation across the Monash electorate and the message that I consistently hear is that it's never been harder to access services through the Department of Veterans' Affairs. In the short time of about nine months now, I've had over 20 veterans come to my electorate office in Warragul seeking assistance and seeking support because they cannot get the answers that they need or the support that they are seeking through the department. In that context, I want to touch on a couple of things in this bill which should be considered.

The coalition supports the passage of this legislation because it is necessary to progress from the VETS reform framework and ensure the transition to a single, simplified rehabilitation system from 1 July 2026. We supported the royal commission's recommendation to simplify veterans compensation arrangements because having multiple different acts of parliament is complicated enough for bureaucrats, lawyers and politicians. It is so much more confusing and difficult for veterans and their families to try and navigate that, so we support the simplification of narrowing it and making it more user friendly.

The Liberal Party—and the National Party as well—support the objective of a single framework under the MRCA that reduces duplication, improves consistency and makes entitlements easier to understand and access. I've had particular feedback from the West Gippsland veterans welfare group and other veterans, like Rod McNabb, who does an absolutely amazing job. Many of them are volunteers. The Drouin veterans welfare centre was operating for 30 years and had a very small but dedicated army of volunteers that would painstakingly go through veterans claims. But it is incredibly difficult to navigate, and I think anywhere that we can reduce duplication, improve consistency and make entitlements easier to understand and access is a good thing.

This bill contains largely technical and consequential amendments, but they do matter, and my colleague the member for Herbert has made a number of observations. While, at a broad level, the Liberal Party are supportive of this passage, I do think the observations that he's made matter and should be on the record. The technical amendments relate to the ability to clarify and review appeal rights, protect dependent compensation, ensure funeral benefits and education assistance continue seamlessly, preserve non-liability health care and establish clear transitional rules so that veterans are not caught in a legislative limbo, as is too often the case. However, this is now the second miscellaneous measures bill that's been required to fix or complete the government's original reform package, which has taken way too long. They're not new policies; they're operational details that should have been resolved far earlier. I say to veterans in the Monash electorate that you deserve far better.

The Liberal Party will also move an amendment to remove the mandatory notification of the Chief of the Defence Force when a serving member accesses non-liability health care or lodges a Veterans' Review Board application. Care seeking should never feel like a career risk. My colleague the member for Herbert spoke eloquently and empathetically about the balance in making sure that, if there is a serious issue, such as a drug or alcohol dependency issue, the Defence Force is notified for safety and other deployment reasons, but not to the extent that that would act as a deterrent for members of our Defence Force seeking help and mental health assistance. I think there are also some very sound privacy concerns that have been raised in this context. If we're serious about wellbeing and suicide prevention, we've got to be able to reduce those barriers.

We will support this bill because veterans across Australia, particularly those in Monash, who I want to do my very best job for in this role, cannot afford delay. I support the bill but also associate myself with the remarks of the member for Herbert and my other Liberal colleagues. I thank the chamber.

I acknowledge that obviously you, Deputy Speaker Wilkie, served. Obviously it runs in families a bit. Both my grandfathers served; my father served, and I served in the reserves. Veterans affairs was such a fundamental part of the iconography of the family—a bizarre anger sometimes and an attachment to their service.

My father was repatriated during the Second World War; he was smashed up. He became a very successful person in business, but I remember he would spend an inordinate amount of time arguing about his pension. At the time he'd become a little bit serious. He wasn't easy going, but things never fussed him. But he would get a little bit angry when he was arguing about his pension. I can't remember the exact form of the conversation, but it was something like: 'Dad, you've done so well in life. You're turning over places worth millions of dollars. Why would you worry about whether it's $40 or $60?' And I remember him abruptly saying, 'You give me back my leg, and I'll give you back your 20 bucks.' It was something that he'd held on to. When he passed away, we found an account that had all his pension money in it; he'd never spent a cent of it and had just put it in an account. I don't know why. It was something he argued about but never actually used.

What it shows is the depth of feeling—you've got to understand that—that veterans have about their service. They get a sense that, in many instances, they were just sort of kicked out the door. You sign on the dotted line to offer your life for your nation, and then, at the end, it's, 'See you later.' Dad always said, 'When I got out of hospital'—after his fifth or sixth or 10th operation—'they literally just parked my wheelchair on the side and said, "Well, if your family can come and pick you up, that would be great."'

With the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures No. 2) Bill 2025, you've got to understand that this is seminal. Veterans' Affairs is something that most people know nothing about, but, for the people who are involved with it, it's absolutely core, because it's a reflection of gratitude by the nation for the service they have offered. If you don't have service men or women, you don't have a defence force, and if you don't have a defence force, you don't have a nation. You will lose it. The world has not changed. Reference point 1 is Vladimir Putin and what's happened in Ukraine. Reference point 2 is the growth of totalitarianism, as exhibited quite clearly by communist China. Reference point 3 is the Middle East. Reference point 4—and on you go. Human nature has not changed. You're always going to need a strong defence force, and, if you want a strong defence force, you've got to put all the promises out there at the start to exhibit a sense of, 'Show your patriotism; sign up.' There's a quid pro quo to that, which is, on the way out, gratitude for your service. We look after you. It is not beyond the pale. It's not that everybody has to bow and scrape and you get everything for free. No, I don't think any returned service men or women or ex-service men or women want that. They accept that, if you're back on civvy street, you're back on civvy street. But, if there are afflictions and things that need to be dealt with, they want it dealt with respectfully and promptly. That is what this bill is about: dealing with things respectfully and promptly.

There were a range of recommendations when I was shadow veterans' affairs minister, and I, on behalf of the coalition, was doing my very best to work hand in glove with the minister, because we wanted this to be non-contro. We wanted this through. But we're still talking about it. This has been going on now for years, and it should already be done. It should be finished. It should be complete. What are we in? 2026. So this is something that's got to be prosecuted. I don't know who the shadow minister is now, but it has to be prosecuted in a form that says we've got to expedite this thing and bring it to a conclusion.

Just in passing, I'd like to apologise. I did not attend the last post ceremony last night, because I was still in my electorate. I just want to put an apology in for that. I most definitely would have been there if I had not been tied up somewhere else.

What we also have to acknowledge in this bill is: What is the timeline now for finishing this off? When does this actually come to a conclusion? We have concerns about the processing of claims and the mechanism whereby they process them, where they say, 'Oh, we're getting through the claims,' but then we found that what they're actually doing is duck-shoving things sideways. If a claim's rejected, it goes back to the start, but it's noted as being processed, even though it's really just amended and it's back in the pile again. We need clarity on exactly where this is and where this processing attachment is at. I acknowledge that it has certainly picked up a lot of the slack that was there—100 per cent. But I don't think it's reached the high notes that we needed it to.

As to the streamlining of DRCA, MRCA and VEA, I think that in the end we ended up not with three acts but with four, because DRCA, MRCA and VEA still continue on, and then you've got basically MRCA 2.0, which everybody's going to be part of. Now you've got four. You've got the residue of the previous acts and now the new one that's encompassing them.

I hope that we can understand that our nation, unfortunately, lives in a time when we are going to have stresses placed on us that we've never experienced in our lives, and I don't believe our nation is prepared for them. Obviously, with an assertive China pressuring you into a sort of vassal state relationship, it's going to need resilience for you to stand up against that and push back. You have two approaches to doing that. You can rely totally on the United States of America and believe that your defence policy is them sending their sons and daughters over to our hemisphere to die on our behalf because we weren't ready for it. I'd be very, very worried about that defence policy. That is not a very secure defence policy; that is a very foolish defence policy. The other approach is that you become resilient in your own nature in such a form that you'll never be as strong as the totalitarian power that wishes to put you into a vassal state but strong enough that they wouldn't bother trying. There's too much concern if they try.

We are not there. We are not even close to there. We are a thousand miles from there. It's in so many forms that we are weak. For instance, our Collins-class submarines are basically—well, at times, we can't get one into the water. That's your whole platform, and you're not able to basically get one of your ships into the water. Spare parts—we don't make them. So, if you lose a spare part from one of your platforms, it basically becomes defunct. There are fuel supplies and things you don't even think about. We do not have the storage of fuels to maintain a conflict over a sustained period. If the supply lines are cut—people just have to cut your supply lines and wait for you to run out. That will happen pretty quickly.

The big thing is that we seem to have lost the culture of people going into the services. I'll give you a classic example. In the past, high schools had cadet units. They were everywhere; now they're not. There's only a handful of places with cadet units. Sometimes people think, 'Oh, well, you know, we don't have to worry about that.' You do. To go into the Defence Force, as you would understand clearly, Deputy Speaker Wilkie, is quite an experience, especially when you first walk through the gate. You hear people just screaming at you and throwing your stuff around everywhere and making a noise which is apparently 'left, right, left, right' and marching people here, there and everywhere. How do you break the ice into that? For a lot of people, it's just in your family. There's a family culture. There's an awareness of it because your family has all done it. Unfortunately we had deaths in the family of people that served in wars. But a lot of people just have no connection to the Defence Force whatsoever. Maybe movies would be as close as they get.

If we're going to reinvigorate our nation's capacity, it's this holistic view of getting cadet units going again. Cadet units break the ice for people to go into reserve units. We used to have reserve units in regional towns. They're not there, depots. That's how I got into it, going to my local. I used to drive 200 kilometres to parade at Roma—200 at night and 200 kilometres back home, so a 400-kilometre round trip to parade on a Tuesday night—and then go away to do the things you've got to do. But in the end they moved the depot out of Roma. The depot was going to be on Queen Street, Toowoomba. That's 450 kilometres away. That's basically where it all stopped. I was still enlisted, but I couldn't parade. We've got to move those depots back into regional towns. Places like Parkes or Forbes should have a reserve depot. It should be culturally applicable that people who've been to high school continue on and say, 'You know, I'll just continue on with my service at a reserve depot.'

Also it's very important, as I used to say for Veterans' Affairs, that, when you get out of the services, you should step down not out. 'Stepping down' means still having a connection to the culture of the Defence Force, which reserve units gave you. It's also so good for people coming through to be mixing with regs—to be mixing with people who have been in regular service in the Defence Force. That was done by depots. When I was there, there was Sergeant Brett Field; he'd been in Somalia. I had the great honour of being trained by people such as Warrant Officer Perry, who had been a forward scout in Vietnam and was an Aboriginal gentleman. You wouldn't meet these people unless you had a reserve unit. They still utilise that as their connection. I think that gives people a great sense of psychological attachment to, strength in and resilience for the job they've got to do.

Finally, of course, if you've got reserve units, you get regs because people can make the switch over. I just had a gentleman up the other day who was a very distinguished returned servicemen with his son. They were going shooting on our place. I got into discussions with him, as he was camped on our place: 'How'd you get in?' It was via reserves. Then he did a number of tours of Afghanistan. He'd been in East Timor. He's still in the services now, actually, but he got in via the reserves, and that is something we've got to reinvigorate.

I might just say in closing—I know this is tangential, but it's important—that the firearm legislation that was passed the other day is an infringement on this person's rights. These people are good people, and I don't have one; I have a number who come onto our property to go shooting. That's what they do. They bring their families with them—their sons predominantly. We've brought in laws that are going to start putting caveats on their capacity to stand on the land they love and have served and have offered their lives for, and I think that's wrong. I don't agree with the firearms legislation at all, but there should at least have been an amendment in there for ex-service men and women who don't own properties—they're not wealthy people—but go shooting on properties. These are people who have shouldered arms in defence of our nation and have taken on the terrorists in Afghanistan. We shouldn't be querying why they need firearms. They do it because it's their recreation. They're showing their kids. I was looking at this gentleman's kids and I was saying, 'If there was ever a person who's trained to be in the Defence Force, it's that man's son, who no doubt will follow his dad and do an incredibly good job.'

Obviously, we need the bill. I'm not certainly not going to hold this up. My whole issue with this bill is that it should have been expedited and already completed by now.

I remind members that we adjourn at 7.30. That's a hard deadline.

Last night, at the Australian War Memorial, the shrine of remembrance, that remarkable Australian place where the memory of 103,000 fallen is sacrosanct and they are honoured, immortalised and memorialised, we had a service, a last post ceremony, for Major Cyril Herbert Dodson Lane. He was killed at Gallipoli, aged just 27. He was killed at Hill 60 on 29 August in that fateful year 1915.

He was born at Bondi and, whether by design or by chance, it was rather interesting, given what happened there on 14 December last year, that somebody with such a connection to that eastern suburbs beach—that eastern suburb in Sydney—should be honoured at the Australian War Memorial at the last post ceremony commemorating the start of the parliamentary year. I think it's nice, and it's appropriate, that, at the start of each parliamentary year, MPs and senators go across the lake from the front doors of parliament and up that straight line to the Australian War Memorial to honour those who gave us the unique, rare and great privilege of being able to serve a free and fair democracy, because it is the service and sacrifice of those men and women that enables us to do our jobs for and on behalf of Australian people. Whether it be Major Lane or any one of the other 103,000 men and women on the Roll of Honour—bronzed Aussies all, heroes all; any of them—we are able to do our jobs because of them.

I'm very proud that I come from Wagga Wagga, a garrison city, a military town, a defence town. There are 1,576 people, or 2.9 per cent of the population, aged 15 and over who have past Australian Defence Force service. There are 1,489 people, or 2.7 per cent of the population, aged 15 and over who are currently serving in the Australian Defence Force. The proportion of veterans in Wagga Wagga, 2.9 per cent, is higher than the average for regional New South Wales. We've had the Air Force there since 29 July 1940. The 1 Recruit Training Unit is one of the primary defence strategic establishments at RAAF Wagga, where air power in Australia begins. It says so on one of the hangars. In Kapooka is the 'home of the soldier', Blamey Barracks, honouring Sir Thomas Blamey, General Blamey—

An honourable member: Field Marshal.

Field Marshal, indeed. He ensured that we are not speaking a different language, with the work that he did in the Pacific theatre of war in World War II. He was born at Lake Albert. Kapooka has been there since 1951. Since 1993, we've had a very strong naval presence. Personnel from the Royal Australian Navy have undertaken aviation technical training at the RAAF School of Technical Training at the Forest Hill base. So we are very much indebted and wedded to our military.

Veterans are important. Not only do we have an obligation as parliamentarians to ensure that we have the right parameters, the right equipment and everything else for our current serving defence personnel but, when they leave the uniform, when they finish their military careers, we have to be there for them. Many of them are broken; many of them are not. It annoys me constantly that there is this perception that anybody who has served is broken; they are not. Yes, some of them suffer from the wears and tears of their service, and we have to be there for them. That's why the royal commission was so important. If we break them, we must fix them. We must mend them. We must provide the wraparound services, the support, the love and the care to ensure that they can live full and wholesome lives after their service has ended. Many of them are doing some fine things, in small business, private enterprise and many other endeavours. I will give a shout-out here to former prime minister Turnbull for the role that he played in ensuring that many of them are job-ready and the emphasis he placed on ensuring that that there is a pathway there to civilian employment for our ex-service personnel—fine men and women. I commend him for that.

The Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures No. 2) Bill 2025 is important legislation, as any veterans legislation is. I remember, when I was for a brief moment the veterans affairs minister in late 2017, early 2018, we put through the parliament at that time veteran-centric legislation such that it provided avenues and supports for veterans that weren't there previously. It was good legislation. Every piece of legislation should have a veterans lens placed over it, just like every piece of legislation should have a regional focus on it as well.

I know that the Liberals and Nationals are supportive of this bill, while noting from the Chief of the Defence Force notifications that they want to ensure that veterans are able to access treatment, particularly mental health care, providing and prioritising safe access to care. I know the CDF places this as one of the most important obligations of their duty as well. It's not just the current serving personnel under their care; it's also those who have finished their time. Noting importantly, too, that—and this is a bipartisan thing—these days, if you spend one hour in uniform, one hour with the various tri services, you are eligible and entitled to receive proper and adequate mental health care for the rest of your life, and that is entirely appropriate.

The Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures No. 2) Bill 2025 makes a series of amendments to veterans legislation to support the implementation of the government's harmonisation and simplification reforms. To that end, I say to the government thank you, because simplifying and harmonising very complicated legislation in the veteran space is so vital. The bill primarily makes technical, clarifying and consequential changes to facilitate the transition to a single ongoing compensation and rehabilitation framework under the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act of 2004, the MRCA, from 1 July this year, when the Veterans' Entitlements Act of 1986 and the provisions of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation (Defence-related Claims) Act 1988, the DRCA, are closed to new claims.

I've spoken a number of times to a great friend of mine, former deputy commandant at Kapooka, Bert Hoebee, in relation to ensuring that veterans are looked after. I also note the work that is done in my electorate by a number of organisations. There's Pro Patria at Ashmont. The RSL sub-branch has a very good facility on Bayliss Street, the main street in Wagga Wagga. It's a drop-in centre for veterans. I want to commend the work of the Baks at Bethungra for the work that they do for veterans. I also want to acknowledge the work being done in Cootamundra. On Parker Street, in the main street of Cootamundra, is a drop-in centre that is proving so very worthwhile. On Saturday, Cootamundra's Jacqui Vincent OAM was acknowledged for her 37 years of service with the sub-branch and with veterans. Her legacy will be that drop-in centre. Jacqui has done a power of work. She's unwell at the moment. This luncheon drew veterans and sub-branches from right throughout the Riverina region and was so well attended. They were there to honour the work that she has done. It's people like Jacqui Vincent in Cootamundra, Jason Frost in Wagga Wagga, and Gordon Saggers and Alan Lane at Pro Patria and the work that they're doing through the RSL sub-branch and the drop-in centre at Bayliss Street. It makes such a difference.

The coalition supported the royal commission interim report recommendations to simplify and harmonise veterans' compensation arrangements because the current multi-act system is difficult. It's complicated, it's hard to navigate and it's often very confusing for veterans and their families. We shouldn't make things hard for those veterans who've made life easier for us, which they have, by their very service, made life better for us. We should ensure that—and the coalition does support this; the Liberals and the Nationals support this—the primary reform legislation continues in the objective of a single ongoing framework under the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act, the MRCA. This will hopefully reduce duplication. It will provide better consistency in administration. It will make entitlements, claims and reviews easier for veterans and families to understand, navigate and access. Surely that is something that we all should very much applaud.

Why hasn't this been done in the past? I appreciate the complexities of it. I appreciate that the royal commission had to come first. I know the harrowing evidence so bravely and courageously given by so many at those hearings, including Wagga Wagga. It must have been difficult for them to speak from the heart about the wrongdoing that was done to them and the need for us as a parliament to stand up and acknowledge and recognise the hurt and the healing that now must take place. So that was obviously a priority. I thank the government for now making this a priority, as well as working on those important recommendations and reforms that must come as a result of the royal commission. That's an absolute must. We do have some reservations about—

Debate adjourned.

Federation Chamber adjourned at 19:30