2026-03-03 3 1 0 House of Reps 0 1

Tuesday, 3 March 2026

The SPEAKER ( Hon. Milton Dick ) took the chair at 12:00, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.

BUSINESS 1 BUSINESS Rearrangement 1 12:01 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I move: That: (1) the House invite The Right Honourable Mark Carney, Prime Minister of Canada, to attend and address the House on Thursday, 5 March 2026; (2) unless otherwise ordered, at the sitting on 5 March: (a) the House shall meet, at the ringing of the bells, at no earlier than 10.30 am and the proceedings shall be welcoming remarks by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition and an address by the Prime Minister of Canada; (b) at the conclusion of the address by the Prime Minister of Canada the House shall suspend until the ringing of the bells, when business shall proceed in accordance with standing order 34; (c) the provisions of standing order 257(c) relating to good order shall apply to the areas of Members' seats as well as the galleries for the period set out at (3); and (d) the Federation Chamber shall not meet; (3) a message be sent to the Senate inviting Senators to attend the House as guests for the welcoming remarks by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition and address by the Prime Minister of Canada; and (4) any variation to the arrangement be made only by an action by the Speaker or by a motion moved by a Minister. People are aware that the Prime Minister will be here to address us on Thursday. For the information of members, it means that on Thursday morning the bells will ring at 10.30, not before; the front of the chamber will have been reconfigured to allow for the speech, and the senators will be invited to join us. Question agreed to. BILLS 1 BILLS Criminalising Re-entry Assistance for Terrorist Sympathisers The Criminal Code Amendment (Keeping Australia Safe) Bill 2026 1 First Reading 1 12:02 Mr TAYLOR 231027 Hume I move: That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the following from occurring immediately: (1) the Member for Hume presenting a Bill for an Act to amend the Criminal Code Act 1995, and for related purposes; (2) debate on the second reading of the bill proceeding immediately for a period of no longer than one hour; (3) any questions required to complete passage of the bill then being put without delay; and (4) any variation to this arrangement being made only on a motion moved by the Manager of Opposition Business. The standing orders must be suspended to allow me to introduce a bill today, without delay, because this issue is urgent and must be resolved today. We must be clear-eyed about threats to this nation. Consider what we've seen in recent years. The day after Hamas gleefully tortured, raped, mutilated and murdered 1,200 citizens in Israel, a rally was held at Lakemba in Sydney. There, a crowd cheered a radical Islamic cleric, and he described the terrorist attack on Israel as a day of pride and a day of victory. The following night, a seething mob gathered on the steps of Sydney Opera House. They chanted: 'Where's the Jews? Eff the Jews!' They sought to strike fear into our Jewish community. It was one of the most odious events in our nation's history, an event where we didn't even recognise our own country. But it was an event where we did realise that something sinister had taken root in Australia. In the aftermath of that sordid evening, there was an opportunity—an opportunity for strong political leadership grounded in moral clarity, an opportunity to stop the spread of antisemitism and an opportunity to come down hard on extremism. Instead, there was weak political leadership engulfed in a moral fog. What followed was the tolerance of even more intolerable antisemitic incidents: marches where genocidal slogans were chanted; encampments on university campuses; homes, cars and memorials graffitied and vandalised; extremist preachers spreading hate with impunity; synagogues firebombed. And then came the bloodshed on Bondi Beach. Fifteen innocent people were gunned down by radical Islamists. It was the worst terrorist attack on our soil in our history. I say again: we must be clear-eyed about the threats to our nation. Our borders have been open to people who hate our way of life, people who don't want to change for Australia but who want Australia to change for them. Of course, those who seek to change Australia exist on a spectrum. There are some who would use violence and terrorism, as we saw on Bondi Beach. There are those who seek to incite violence, as we've seen with radical clerics. There are those who seek to import foreign hatreds, as we've seen in rallies where protesters chant 'globalise the intifada'. And there are those who, while rejecting violence, still reject Australian values. There are people who don't believe in equal rights for men and women, people who don't believe in the rule of law and want to establish parallel legal systems, people who don't believe in freedom of speech, association and religion. We have to be clear: Islamist extremism has no place in this country, nor do other extremist ideologies that are weaponised for harm. The vast majority of Muslims in this country, be they migrants, confirmed citizens or Australian born, embrace our values and our way of life. They are not peddlers of political Islam, and that's all the more reason our nation must confront radical Islamism and political Islam, which are threats to us all—threats both imported and home grown, threats that will be amplified with the repatriation of the 34-strong ISIS bride cohort. Let's be clear about these ISIS sympathisers or the ISIS brides, a label which conceals all manner of sins. These people chose to abandon Australia. They chose to travel to terrorist hot spots. They chose to support one of the world's most evil and barbaric death cults. They chose to steep their children in a monstrous ideology. They don't deserve compassion, they deserve condemnation, and they pose an unacceptable risk to Australia because of their terrorist sympathies. Their children, likewise, pose a risk to Australia because of the hate which has undoubtedly filled their minds. The 34-strong cohort, if they are allowed into Australia, would import hate and be incubators of hate. Their repatriation fails the values test, fails the security test, fails the fairness test and fails the pub test, yet repatriation appears to be proceeding. The government has tried to shroud this process in secrecy, but we know a few things. We know DNA testing has been conducted. We know passports have been granted and citizenship applications have been processed. We know that just one temporary exclusion order has been issued, raising more questions than answers. The Home Affairs minister has power to issue more. He does not need to hide behind advice. He has chosen not to. This is a crucial part of the way this legislation is put together—he can issue temporary exclusion orders independent of intelligence advice. We know the Home Affairs minister has discussed repatriation with Save the Children and with his mate and political backer Dr Jamal Rifi, and we know the premiers of Victoria and New South Wales have been engaging with the Commonwealth for months on return and reintegration issues. The Albanese government is not being upfront with Australians when it pretends to be at arm's length from these repatriations, but what is absolutely clear is that, under Labor, non-government third parties have been empowered to facilitate the re-entry of terrorist sympathisers. In other words, the government is outsourcing decisions that affect the security of all Australians. That loophole must be closed, and the coalition seeks to close this loophole with a Criminal Code Amendment (Keeping Australia Safe) Bill 2026. The proposed legislation that we bring before the parliament today has three clear objectives. First, it will end the freelancing of non-government third parties who seek to bring dangerous individuals into the country. It amends the Criminal Code Act 1995 and creates a new offence that would make it a crime to assist the entry into Australia of an individual who has been in a terrorist hot spot, who has links to a terrorist organisation or who has committed terror related offences. They are crucial pre-conditions. In this, the bill seeks to achieve a second objective, which is restoring ministerial accountability. Through our proposed legislation, any non-governmental third party that seeks to provide repatriation assistance must obtain written prior permission, and both the Minister for Home Affairs and the Minister for Foreign Affairs must approve any non-government third-party repatriation assistance for individuals affiliated with a terrorist organisation. In other words, they must be accountable for the decision. That's how ministerial accountability should work. Such authorisations will ensure that ministers are responsible for significant national security decisions. We want the government to take back control over who comes into our country, instead of outsourcing control to third parties and turning a blind eye. The third objective is technical. Under section 1192 of the existing Criminal Code, it's a criminal offence to enter or remain in a declared terrorist area. This bill seeks to extend the sunset date of this provision from 7 September 2027 through to 7 September 2030. Australians have had a gutful. They can see the country they love changing for the worse. The coalition's goal is clear: we want to shut the door on returning ISIS sympathisers. We want to shut the door on Islamist extremism. We want to shut the door on those who don't subscribe to Australian values and our core beliefs. The bill that the coalition has brought before the parliament is a test for the Prime Minister. Will he keep the door shut to protect our way of life? Will he shut the door to protect our way of life, or will he keep the door wide open because he cares so little for our way of life? 12:12 Mr TED O'BRIEN 138932 Fairfax I second the motion. A means by which we protect the way of life of everyday Australians is to seek greater national unity. Under this government, Australians' way of life has been under attack, not protected. Under this government, Australians themselves have been divided and not united. The more that Australia diversifies as a country, the more important a common set of values is to ensure that we have unity. We know that Australians come from every part of the world. They bring with them their own histories, their own ethnicities, their own food, their own way of talking, their own way of walking and whatever else. The one thing that unites the Australian people today, and even more importantly moving forward, is a common set of values. Those values are values of freedom, of equality, of a fair go—Liberal values, which are Australian values. These are the values which have been under attack under the Albanese government. In many ways, people have suggested that values are embedded in a people's culture. There's only one thing that can shift the dial on culture. It's not a strategy. It's not kind words. It's leadership. History has proven such. Only leadership has the capacity to move the dial on culture. What we have seen sorely lacking over the last almost four years now has been moral clarity in the leadership of this country. This is why we have seen, through the bill the coalition is putting forward, the coalition stepping up where the government has stepped back. It is why you hear from the Leader of the Opposition the importance of protecting Australians' way of life—because the Prime Minister is leaving Australians vulnerable and their way of life under attack. This bill that we are proposing is also a direct response to the ISIS brides. This cohort of people, the adults of which, made a decision already. They chose violence over peace. They chose ISIS over Australia. They chose an extreme ideology over a common set of values which unite our country. And because this government claims to know nothing, do nothing, yet again, it's the opposition who takes the lead. What you see in this proposed legislation is the leadership that should be provided by this government. As the Leader of the Opposition has already made crystal clear, the example of the ISIS brides sees the government outsource decision-making and actions. That is not leadership; it's an abdication of responsibility. It is a sad indication of the direction this country is going, as everyday Australians see their way of life eroded. It is a lack of leadership. The responsible minister has said, on public record, that he has been actively doing nothing. Doing nothing is no excuse. That is not an example of leadership; it is an example of cowardice. It is why this bill deserves the support of the entire house—both chambers. Why? Because Australia is worth fighting for and because Australian values are worth fighting for. We need leadership in this country, not cowardice. There is nothing more important in this country than not only lifting people's standard of living but protecting their way of life. That is what the opposition is prioritising. 12:17 Mr BURKE DYW Watson Fortunately, the bill is not very long, so I've had a chance to be able to have a look at it. But I really hope, for his own sake, that the Leader of the Opposition hasn't read what he's tried to introduce. You'll see why if you go through what this bill is that he's now wanting us to interrupt the business of the day to be able to focus on. Point 1 is the description of the people involved doesn't necessarily capture the cohort that has been debated publicly. Read the definition. Read what's there. It doesn't actually capture that cohort. What it does capture is this: the fighters, for example, who came in under their watch—fighters who were clearly guilty of a terrorism offence. We know that fighters did come in under their watch. Who are the people that this bill would criminalise? Because they were people who came back with Australian passports under the previous government after having gone off—not women and children, but people who went off—to hold guns on behalf of ISIS. They're the ones who came in under the Abbott government, under the Turnbull government and under the Morrison government—fighters. This would criminalise the pilots of the commercial plane that flew them back. This would criminalise the baggage handlers. Importantly, the main group wanting people to leave those camps has been our American allies. When they've made public requests to Australia—I know it's a long bow, so why is it in the act? Why is it in the bill? If you think it's ridiculous, why are you trying to legislate for it? The Leader of the Opposition right now is wanting parliament to debate legislation that will not deal with the cohort that we've been talking about. If you look at what happened under their watch when he was a member of the cabinet of Australia, he was very quiet when fighters came back. Did you ever complain about the fighters returning? The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The Leader of the Opposition is just going to pause. Mr BURKE DYW The people who came back, having gone there to fight—did you oppose any of that? Mr BURKE DYW Then why didn't you apply? He says that's why the legislation was put in place. If that's the case, why were fighters still returning under the Morrison government? Senator Paterson might say they weren't, but I can tell you that fighters returned under the Morrison government as well. In fact, one of the fighters who returned under the Morrison government— Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The minister will pause. There are far too many interjections. People are interjecting outside of their seat. If you wish—hopefully, you don't wish—to interject, please return to your seat. It's highly disorderly. The people who aren't sitting in their seat, trust me: do not interject. That includes the Chief Opposition Whip. We've got to have a debate here, not a yelling match. The Leader of the Opposition was heard in silence, and he was given that courtesy. We're just going to moderate this a little bit more, okay? Mr BURKE DYW Senator Paterson made the claim that no fighters returned under the Morrison government. Two fighters returned under the Morrison government. One of them returned after Scott Morrison had sworn himself in as Minister for Home Affairs. During that time we had two home affairs ministers, and apparently neither of them knew that the fighters were returning. Neither of them knew. That's what happened under their watch. But, at that time, there was not a peep from any of them—not a complaint, when fighters were returning under their watch. But, if this law had been in place while they were being quiet about it, it would have criminalised anyone who, in the ordinary course of their work, did something that was viewed as 'assisting'. This would have criminalised anyone involved, such as our allies involved in trying to get people out of the camps, because it excuses someone if they're a Commonwealth officer but not if they're working as an ally for the United States. They're not excluded. So our allies would be criminalised by this. Anyone working at an airport who in any way facilitated would be criminalised through this. Anybody who worked on the flights themselves—because there is nothing more direct in assisting someone's passage than in fact flying them back—would be criminalised under what would have to be one of the shoddiest pieces of legislation that anyone has tried to introduce to the parliament. If anyone wondered what a silver foot in your mouth looks like, it looks like the legislation that the Leader of the Opposition is trying to introduce to the parliament right now. My suggestion for stage 1, when you decide to do a private member's bill when you're a leader of the opposition, is to pick something that you're passionate about. Secondly, pick something that you've read. I'm not sure what is more frightening on this one, when the Leader of the Opposition is wanting to introduce legislation that does none of the things that he's publicly said he wants to do and all of the things he's claiming he doesn't want to do. I'm not sure it's a bigger problem if he's done that inadvertently or if he knew and he did it anyway. But, by the bewildered look on his face, I think it's a fair bet—and we can probably always err on this side—that the Leader of the Opposition didn't have a clue. I think that's possibly where we're going to find the pattern of what we've already got: the person who came to office and knocked off their first woman leader on the basis that he could unify their party. On day one, two of his members crossed the floor in the Senate. That's the sort of unity he delivers on day one. Then he comes in here on day two and introduces legislation that does none of the things that he says it would do—absolutely none of it—and instead criminalises a whole lot of people who I don't think anyone in their right mind would say should be falling foul of the criminal law. I don't think that people who work in the aviation industry, doing their ordinary jobs, should somehow find— Opposition members interjecting— Mr BURKE DYW If you scoff at it, why did you put it in there? Clearly, those opposite don't think this should be in the bill, yet they have introduced that legislation. I still want one of them, at some point, to explain why they have the view they have now. When it comes to someone exercising rights which you can't cancel, in terms of the automatic rights of an Australian citizen, why is it that they are furious about it now but were so silent when fighters were returning? Why is it that, somehow, men who went there to kill don't trouble them? Why is it that, somehow, they have no problem with men coming back to Australia who went to join one of the most bloodthirsty organisations we've ever seen? What sort of compass is that? It's to the point that they want to pretend it didn't happen. It's to the point that Senator Paterson denies that anyone came under the Morrison government. It's to the point that Scott Morrison denies that anyone came under his watch. They didn't just come under his watch as Prime Minister; one of them came during the time that he had also sworn himself in as Minister for Home Affairs. What is in front of us here does not match the actual impact that any of them have said they want to have. What is in front of us here does not do any of the things that they have said they want to do. What is in front of us here is clumsy legislation that doesn't do anything to stop people who you would not want in Australia but that does criminalise people who, from the reaction I hear, nobody thinks should be criminalised. Quite simply, there is a way to deal with it. If we all agree that the people I've described should not be criminalised—if we all agree that the aid workers shouldn't be criminalised, that the aviation workers shouldn't be criminalised and that our allies shouldn't be criminalised—there's a simple way to deal with it, and that's to vote no on this suspension motion. The SPEAKER 53517 The question before the House is that the motion be agreed to.  

The House divided. [12:31]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

39 AYES Aldred, M. R. (Teller) Batt, D. J. Bell, A. M. Birrell, S. J. Boyce, C. E. Buchholz, S. Caldwell, C. M. Chaffey, J. L. Chester, D. J. Conaghan, P. J. Gee, A. R. Hamilton, G. R. Hastie, A. W. Hawke, A. G. Hogan, K. J. Joyce, B. T. G. Kennedy, S. P. Landry, M. L. (Teller) McCormack, M. F. McIntosh, M. I. McKenzie, Z. A. O'Brien, E. L. O'Brien, L. S. Pasin, A. Penfold, A. L. Pike, H. J. Price, M. L. Rebello, L. S. Sharkie, R. C. C. Taylor, A. J. Tehan, D. T. Thompson, P. Violi, A. A. Webster, A. E. Willcox, A. J. Wilson, R. J. Wilson, T. R. Wood, J. P. Young, T. J. 93 NOES Abdo, B. J. Albanese, A. N. Aly, A. Ambihaipahar, A. Belyea, J. A. Berry, C. G. Boele, N. Bowen, C. E. Briskey, J. L. Burke, A. S. Burnell, M. P. Butler, M. C. Byrnes, A. J. Campbell, J. P. Chalmers, J. E. Chaney, K. E. Charlton, A. H. G. Chesters, L. M. Clare, J. D. Claydon, S. C. Clutterham, C. L. Coffey, R. K. Coker, E. A. Collins, J. M. Comer, E. L. Conroy, P. M. Cook, K. M. G. Cook, P. A. Doyle, M. J. J. Dreyfus, M. A. Elliot, M. J. Fernando, C. J. France, A. A. French, T. A. Garland, C. M. L. Georganas, S. Giles, A. J. Gorman, P. P. Gosling, L. J. Gregg, M. J. Hill, J. C. Holzberger, R. A. V. Husic, E. N. Jarrett, M. L. Jordan-Baird, M. A. M. Kearney, G. M. Keogh, M. J. King, C. F. King, M. M. H. Lawrence, T. N. Laxale, J. A. A. Le, D. T. Leigh, A. K. Lim, S. B. C. Marles, R. D. Mascarenhas, Z. F. A. McBain, K. L. McBride, E. M. Miller-Frost, L. J. Mitchell, R. G. Moncrieff, D. S. Mulino, D. Neumann, S. K. Ng, G. J. O'Neil, C. E. Phillips, F. E. Plibersek, T. J. Rae, S. T. Repacholi, D. P. Rishworth, A. L. Roberts, T. G. Rowland, M. A. Ryan, J. C. Scrymgour, M. R. Sitou, S. Smith, D. P. B. (Teller) Smith, M. J. H. Soon, X. Spender, A. M. Stanley, A. M. (Teller) Steggall, Z. Swanson, M. J. Teesdale, J. A. Templeman, S. R. Thwaites, K. L. Urquhart, A. E. Watson-Brown, E. Watts, T. G. White, R. P. Wilkie, A. D. Wilson, J. H. Witty, S. J. Zappia, A. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2025-2026, Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2025-2026, Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 2025-2026, Commonwealth Entities Legislation Amendment Bill 2026, Treasury Laws Amendment (Financial Reporting System Reform) Bill 2026 6

Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2025-2026

Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2025-2026

Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 2025-2026

Commonwealth Entities Legislation Amendment Bill 2026

Treasury Laws Amendment (Financial Reporting System Reform) Bill 2026

Reference to Federation Chamber 6 12:37 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I declare that, unless otherwise ordered, the following bills stand referred to the Federation Chamber for further consideration: (1) Appropriation Bill (No.3) 2025-2026, Appropriation Bill (No.4) 2025-2026 and Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No.2) 2025-2026 immediately; and (2) Commonwealth Entities Legislation Amendment Bill 2026 and Treasury Laws Amendment (Financial Reporting System Reform) Bill 2026 at the adjournment of the debate on the motion for the second reading of each bill. Law and Justice Legislation Amendment (New South Wales Local Court) Bill 2026 6

Law and Justice Legislation Amendment (New South Wales Local Court) Bill 2026

Returned from Senate 6 Commonwealth Entities Legislation Amendment Bill 2026 6

Commonwealth Entities Legislation Amendment Bill 2026

Second Reading 6 12:38 Mr LEESER 109556 Berowra I rise to speak on the Commonwealth Entities Legislation Amendment Bill 2026. I want to start by putting this bill in context, because Australians are living under the most secretive and least transparent federal government that we've seen in a generation. Time and again, this government's instinct is to control information, avoid scrutiny and shift key decisions out of the parliament's line of sight. Instead of lifting standards, Labor's pattern has been to make accountability harder. That includes more decisions made by ministerial discretion, fewer documents proactively disclosed and more 'trust us' governance where parliament is asked to sign off on frameworks while the real power sits with ministers behind closed doors. That matters here, because this bill is not being proposed in a vacuum. It sits squarely within that same culture where the instinct is to reduce transparency, to centralise control and to weaken parliamentary oversight, especially when it comes to statutory offices that parliament created precisely to operate with independence. That's the core issue here. If you combine greater ministerial power with weaker visibility, you don't get modernisation; you get a structural tilt away from parliamentary accountability and towards executive control. That's why the coalition will not oppose its second reading in the House but will seek Senate committee scrutiny—because sunlight is exactly what this government keeps trying to avoid. That brings us to the details of the Commonwealth Entities Legislation Amendment Bill. This bill is presented as a governance modernisation measure, aligning certain statutory office holders with contemporary accountability standards. It applies to four entities: the Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research, or ACIAR; Austrade; the Australian Safeguards and Non-Proliferation Office, or ASNO; and the Office of Parliamentary Counsel. It does this by changing some maximum terms to five years; by expanding termination grounds to include serious misconduct and, for most roles, unsatisfactory performance; by allowing ministers to set written performance standards that can be used when assessing unsatisfactory performance; by introducing express suspension powers; and by giving the minister a new power to issue general written directions to the Office of Parliamentary Counsel. Individually, many of these elements are not unprecedented. The concern is the combined effect and what it does to the balance of power. Taken together, this bill creates a clearer executive pathway: the minister can set the standards, assess performance, suspend and ultimately terminate. In other words, the powers are transferred from being clearly set out by the parliament to being set by the relevant minister, all without strong parliamentary oversight. A critical point is that several of these levers were deliberately placed outside strong parliamentary oversight. For example, the performance standards are not legislative instruments, they're not disallowable and they're not required to be published or tabled, and suspension decisions for most entities are not required to be tabled. So, while parliament passes the framework, the executive gains greater practical control over how key accountability thresholds are set and applied. This shifts the power away from this parliament and towards the ministers. That's a problem in principle because these are statutory offices created by this parliament, often, to operate with a degree of independence, particularly the Office of Parliamentary Counsel and ASNO. We're not opposing accountability, but the questions we need to ask are: What problem is this bill actually solving? Why only these four agencies—why them, and why now? Why are the new performance standards not subject to tabling, publication or disallowance? Are the suspension and termination safeguards strong enough to protect procedural fairness and independence? Does this architecture preserve the right balance between executive control and parliamentary oversight? That's why we're not opposing the bill's second reading but we are seeking committee scrutiny before finalising our position. If this bill is about restoring public trust and modernising accountability, consistency is important. It is reasonable to ask why these reforms apply to only the four entities listed and not other major statutory office holders, such as the ACCC, ASIC, APRA, the Information Commissioner, or the Australian Human Rights Commission and their commissioners. Why should the Race Discrimination Commissioner, who has lost the confidence of so many of our ethnic communities, including the Australian Jewish community and the Australian Hindu community, be exempt from ministerial performance standards and potential termination? It is also reasonable to ask whether similar changes are planned more broadly or whether these entities have been selected for specific reasons. The introduction of the ministerial performance standard is the most significant new feature of the bill. The bill gives ministers the power to set written performance standards for certain statutory office holders. Those standards can then be relied upon in determining unsatisfactory performance, which is a ground for termination. Traditionally, parliament creates statutory offices and defines the removal grounds in the act. Here, while parliament sets 'unsatisfactory performance' as a ground, the minister may effectively define what performance looks like without parliamentary scrutiny of those standards. That's novel and highly unusual. It raises three important questions. First, transparency. Should standards that may ground termination be publicly available? Second, oversight. Why aren't they subjected to disallowance or tabling? Third, independence, particularly where these roles involve regulatory or drafting functions. We support accountability, but accountability mechanisms must themselves be transparent and subject to scrutiny. There are also two changes that matter because they increase ministerial control over senior statutory office holders with limited built-in transparency. First, the bill lets a minister write performance standards for some agency heads. Those standards can be used to say that someone has unsatisfactory performance, which becomes a reason to terminate them. In other words, ministers can write the rules and then use them to sack people. Again, the problem isn't that the standards exist; the problem is how they're done. The standards don't have to be tabled in the parliament. They can't be disallowed. They don't have to be published. So the minister can set the benchmark that might later be used to remove someone, without the parliament seeing it. Second, ministers get a stronger power to sideline an executive through suspending them. Suspension isn't neutral. It's a serious step. It can strip someone of their powers, damage their reputation, disrupt an agency and, in effect, push them out before anything is finally proven. And the transparency requirements are different across the board. For ASNO suspensions, they must be gazetted and made public. However, for ACIAR, Austrade and OPC, there's no clear requirement to publish or table suspensions. So some suspensions must be public and others must not be. This is inconsistent and weak oversight, and it's worth spending a minute or two reflecting on how this plays out in specific circumstances. Take ASNO, for example. ASNO is Australia's nuclear safeguards regulator. It's the body that checks and reports that Australia is meeting its international nuclear obligations. Because of that, it has to be seen to be independent. If it looks like a government can lean on the regulator, it risks damaging Australia's credibility with our international partners. The government seems to recognise this. Unlike the other agencies in the bill, it doesn't add 'unsatisfactory performance' as a new reason that the minister could sack the Director of Safeguards. In plain terms, for the nuclear watchdog they're not giving the minister quite the same performance based sacking lever as they are for other agencies. But the bill still gives the minister new intervention tools, including an express power to suspend the director and expand misconduct related mechanisms. As I said a moment ago, suspension matters. Even if it's temporary, it can strip the director of their powers, sideline the regulator's leadership at a critical time and create the perception internationally that the regulator can be controlled. The point is this: if independence is so important that you want to introduce a performance based termination ground, we need to check that the new suspension or intervention powers don't achieve the same outcome in practice, just by another route. Let's now consider the case of the Office of Parliamentary Counsel, or the OPC. This bill gives the minister a new express power to issue written directions to the OPC about how it performs its functions. The bill says that directions must be general and not about a specific drafting matter, but it's still a structural change. The OPC is the body that drafts the Commonwealth's laws for parliament. Its credibility depends on technical neutrality and independence. Even general directions can influence priorities. They can influence resourcing and internal processes, which in turn can shape how legislation is developed. The concern is also about transparency. The directions are not legislative instruments, and the bill doesn't clearly require them to be tabled or published. The explanatory memorandum also doesn't clearly explain why this new power is needed now. So, again, it's a power that warrants committee scrutiny because it's in all of our interests to ensure the safeguards and visibility are right for an institution as central as the Office of Parliamentary Counsel. Let me come back to the net effect of these changes, because the net effect is to establish a clear chain of control for the minister. The minister sets the standards, the minister then says performance is unsatisfactory according to those standards, the minister suspends and, ultimately, the minister terminates. That's a degree of executive government leverage over statutory office holders that is far larger than we would usually expect, at least in the absence of strong safeguards. Since the Act of Settlement in the United Kingdom in 1701, we've accepted that safeguards against removal by the executive government were an essential component of any guarantee of independence. And so, when this sort of bill comes before the House, proposing to remove exactly that guarantee, it's appropriate to ask why. Why these four agencies specifically? Why only these agencies? Why now? And why don't the powers set standards and have stronger transparency obligations for suspending office holders? In conclusion, the coalition position is clear. We support accountability. But, if ministers are going to get new powers to sideline and sack statutory office holders, parliament should check the guardrails. That's why we want a Senate committee referral to scrutinise the design. I thank the House. Debate adjourned. Treasury Laws Amendment (Financial Reporting System Reform) Bill 2026 8

Treasury Laws Amendment (Financial Reporting System Reform) Bill 2026

Second Reading 8 12:50 Mr CONAGHAN 279991 Cowper The Treasury Laws Amendment (Financial Reporting System Reform) Bill 2026 proposes a significant restructuring of Australia's accounting and auditing standard setting system. This bill would abolish the longstanding audit and accounting standard setting bodies that have served Australia for decades and implement a new centralised bureaucracy. Fundamentally, the bill proposes to reform a system that is not broken. It is a system that has been operating for a long time and is serving Australians well. Our audit and accounting standard setting bodies are respected and internationally aligned, and they function well. For decades, these bodies have underpinned our financial credibility. There has been no collapse. There have been no international credibility issues. There has been no demonstrated governance failure, and the government has not produced evidence of a systemic breakdown. So why, we have to ask, are extensive structural reforms of a system that already work necessary? The coalition can't support this bill in its form at this time. We are not convinced that the changes will improve the current system or deliver better outcomes. Stakeholders have raised significant concerns about independence, governance and concentration of power under this bill, and those concerns deserve proper scrutiny. That is why we will seek examination of this legislation through the Senate Economics Legislation Committee. Any changes to institutions that underpin our financial system must be made carefully and only when the case is clear. That brings me to this government's priorities. There is plenty of work for the government to do in financial services instead of trying to fix an institution that isn't broken. Take insurance, for example. Over the past five years, home insurance premiums have risen about 51 per cent. Families in disaster-prone and regional areas, such as mine in Cowper, are being priced out of insurance coverage altogether. Small businesses are facing enormous premium hikes and are asking whether or not they can afford to keep operating. These are the immediate and real pressures affecting household businesses and employers today. This is not to mention that at least eight parliamentary inquiry reports on financial services have been tabled since 2024 that the government still hasn't found time to address. They include insurance affordability, regional banking access, financial abuse and consumer protections. The government have not responded to them, because they say there's not enough time and they don't have the capacity. But Labor have time for a structural overhaul of our accounting standards bodies that are working perfectly fine. You have to ask why is this the government's priority? More than a year ago, the government promised to reform education standards for financial advisers. That reform has not been delivered. We were told that there aren't enough legislative drafting resources. That means young finance graduates today are deciding whether to take on additional study—and additional debt, might I add—or keep waiting on the government to see them as a priority. They deserve better. To add to that, the Delivering Better Financial Outcomes reforms have stagnated for months. The reforms were designed to make financial advice more affordable for everyday Australians. Those reforms were supported across the sector by superannuation funds, by advice professionals and by the banking industry, and yet they remain on hold. We're again told there are not enough drafting resources. This excuse is repeated far too regularly, but somehow there are sufficient resources for this reform, which fixes institutions no-one has demonstrated are broken. This bill abolishes three longstanding statutory bodies—the Financial Reporting Council, the Australian Accounting Standards Board and the Auditing and Assurance Standards Board—and it replaces them with a new consolidated body called External Reporting Australia. Under the current framework, there is a deliberate structural separation: the AASB sets accounting standards; the AUASB sets auditing standards; the FRC provides oversight. Each has an independent role. The oversight body does not write technical standards, and that separation is very intentional. It creates internal checks and balances, provides institutional distance and protects the independence of technical experts. This bill seeks to remove that structural separation. Instead of three independent statutory bodies, there will be one consolidated entity governed by a single board. Whilst technical boards will sit beneath it, they will not be independent statutory bodies in their own right. It is a fundamental redesign, and, without demonstrated failure, it demands careful scrutiny. Accounting and auditing standards may not always attract public attention, but they matter enormously. They determine how companies report profits and losses, how assets and liabilities are recognised and how risks are disclosed. They give investors confidence in the reported financials of companies, so, when investors decide to invest, they rely on the credibility of those standards. Australia's reputation as a stable, rules based economy has been built over decades. That reputation rests on strong, independent, standard-setting institutions. One of the central concerns by stakeholders with this bill is the concentration of power. Currently, authority is distributed across three bodies. That distribution acts as a safeguard and as a separation of powers. It creates institutional distance between oversight and technical decision-making. This bill will consolidate authority into a single entity, and that is extremely concerning. Stakeholders have also raised concerns about reduced separation between oversight and technical standard-setting, risk to the independence of technical experts and expanded governing-board influence. Appointments to the governing council will continue to be made by the minister, as is currently the case for the FRC and heads of the technical boards. But, under this new model, the governing council will have greater potential influence over technical standard-setting functions. The coalition cannot support a governance framework that increases the risk or even the perception of politicisation of accounting and auditing standards, because, once confidence is weakened, it is very difficult to restore. This bill also enables the minister to confirm additional reporting functions by legislative instrument. Under the existing framework, expanding core standard-setting responsibility would typically require the primary legislation and full parliamentary scrutiny. This Labor government seems to take the opportunity whenever it can to reduce parliament scrutiny and oversight. That should concern every member of this parliament. It is important to note that these accounting standards do not only apply to private companies; they also affect the public sector accounting for Commonwealth entities. The standards governing transparency in public reporting must themselves be insulated from undue influence, particularly in areas that have become politically sensitive. We have seen in recent years, as the government has added sustainability and climate related issues to financial disclosures, which have now become increasingly contested, how climate risks are recognised, how supply chain emissions are disclosed and how international sustainability standards are interpreted. These are technical matters, but they will sit within a politically charged environment. Precisely for that reason, technical decision makers must be structurally protected from political pressure. The current system has ensured protection from political pressure for decades, and this bill weakens those protections. But let us return again to the central question: what failure justifies abolishing three longstanding institutions? What systemic breakdown has occurred? In the January 2025 consultation process, stakeholders were told that views were not being sought on the merits of abolishing the three bodies and establishing a single entity. That is not only remarkable; it is extremely concerning. If the case for reform is strong, it should withstand scrutiny. If the benefits are clear, stakeholders should be invited to test them. At present, this appears to be institutional reform without institutional failure, and that should give parliament concern. This bill is not time critical. There are no urgent regulatory emergencies. There is no immediate crisis requiring structural overhaul. The Senate Economic Legislation Committee should examine governance safeguards, independent protections, appointment processes and limits on ministerial intervention. The government should demonstrate examples of failure under the current structure that demand reform. It should make clear the case for reform and invite stakeholders to provide their views on the merits. The government should welcome that scrutiny. Australians expect this parliament to focus on the pressures they are feeling now. In financial services, that means insurance affordability, access to banking in regional communities, protection from financial abuse and scams, and affordable financial advice. Instead, this government has prioritised restructuring institutions that have operated effectively for decades. Before dismantling this proven system, the government must answer three simple questions: What has failed? What will materially improve? Why is this urgent? Those answers have not been clearly provided. For those reasons, the coalition cannot support this bill at this time. We will seek proper scrutiny through the Senate Economics Legislation Committee, because the coalition protects our longstanding institutions. We believe in good governance and transparency, and the government simply has not made the case for reform. Debate adjourned. Royal Commissions Legislation Amendment (Protections for Providing Information) Bill 2026 10

Royal Commissions Legislation Amendment (Protections for Providing Information) Bill 2026

Second Reading 10 13:04 Mr LEESER 109556 Berowra I rise to speak on the Royal Commissions Legislation Amendment (Protections for Providing Information) Bill 2026. This legislation proposes significant changes to the Royal Commissions Act. It aims to ensure that the Royal Commission on Antisemitism and Social Cohesion and future royal commissions can access intelligence and operationally sensitive information. From the outset, the coalition believes that it is critical that the Royal Commission on Antisemitism and Social Cohesion is given every opportunity to succeed. The Bondi massacre on 14 December last year was the worst terrorist attack on Australian soil, an attack which directly targeted Jewish Australians celebrating Hanukkah. This attack was devastating to all Australians but particularly to the Jewish community. The terrorist attack didn't happen in isolation. Since 7 October 2023 Australia has witnessed a disturbing and sustained rise in antisemitism. Jewish Australians have reported intimidation, harassment, vandalism, threats and social exclusion. Synagogues have been attacked and have required heightened security. Jewish students have described feeling unsafe on university campuses. Families have removed religious symbols in public out of fear. For many in Australia's Jewish community, the past two years have not simply been uncomfortable; they've been frightening. During that period, community leaders repeatedly warned that antisemitism was escalating. They called for decisive national action. The Prime Minister and his government ignored these warnings every step of the way. After the horrific massacre at Bondi, the Jewish community called for a royal commission. Victims' families wanted a royal commission. Yet when that call was first made, Prime Minister Albanese shamefully opposed it. Instead of committing immediately to a royal commission, the Prime Minister proposed a narrow departmental review. He questioned whether a royal commission was necessary. He raised concerns about timeframes. He suggested it might provide a platform for extremist views. He suggested that so-called actual experts opposed it. To many Jewish Australians, that hesitation was an insult. It hurt deeply. A royal commission's not just another inquiry. It compels evidence, it overrides secrecy barriers, and it signals that this is an issue of national significance. Let me pause there to make a couple of observations about the royal commission in a more personal capacity. The royal commission has been given a timetable which has been set by the federal government. As I said, it is a government that didn't want to have the royal commission in the first place, and it didn't want to ensure that the commission has adequate time to do their job. Let me say something first about the inquiry into the security arrangements at Bondi, because the commission held its first hearings last week. It's now March, and the government has given them a timetable to report on the security elements by the end of April. This is not a fair timeframe. The commission has only been recently stood up. It will be nearly impossible for it to look at these matters with any thoroughness. The security matters before the royal commission deserve to be investigated thoroughly. If the commission needs to take more time to do it, it should be encouraged to take more time and take the time to do it right. There are 15 people dead, murdered in cold blood on our streets. My message to the government and to the royal commission is: do not rush this process. The second matter relates to those things that the commission has been charged to investigate with respect to institutional and institutionalised antisemitism. The royal commission has made something of the need to report by the first anniversary of the Bondi massacre on 14 December. There were media reports last week suggesting that, in private meetings between the royal commissioner and the families of the victims and the survivors of the massacre that those survivors and families have told the royal commissioner to take more time if she needs to. As a Jewish Australian, I echo those calls to the royal commissioner. Take the time to get this right. There's nothing sacrosanct about the government's timetable. It's been set by the Albanese government, a government that did not want to hold a royal commission and had to be dragged kicking and screaming to call it. As a Jewish Australian, I say that there will be only one opportunity to investigate the depth and depravity of antisemitism in our country. We will never get this opportunity again. It is really important to take this opportunity to get under the hood of the institutions in our society, especially the universities, the arts bodies and the school organisations. Antisemitism in education and arts organisations are mentioned in the recitals to the royal commission, and the commission will have failed if it does not look at those matters adequately. If the commission needs more time than the Albanese government has granted it, then it should be given additional time, and it should take advantage of actually asking for extra time. As somebody who, for the last 2½ years, has been calling for a judicial inquiry into antisemitism, this is absolutely vital. It is vital that the commission has a very good look at both those sectors—the arts and education—because they are the areas where antisemitism has become, to quote the words of the special envoy, 'engrained and normalised.' I particularly want to say something about the university sector. The commission will have failed in its job if it doesn't call the vice-chancellors and chancellors and put them on the stand. The fact that a group of university chancellors could issue a statement on antisemitism that didn't even mention the word 'Jew' or 'antisemitism' is a disgraceful abrogation of their leadership—absolutely disgraceful! The commission must put vice-chancellors and former vice-chancellors on the stand, particularly in those institutions, and especially in the Group of Eight, where antisemitism has been rife. They must put the chancellors on the stand as well. It must put student representative council presidents on the stand. It's their job to represent the views of all students and not make a select group of students feel ostracised. It must put the NTEU leadership on the stand. There have been many Jewish academics who have resigned their membership of the NTEU simply because it failed to stand up for Jewish academics during this time. It must root out antisemitism among the administrators of universities and among those bodies that purport to represent the universities. It must go deeper and examine what's taught about Jews in the classroom. It's disturbed me that, ever since I became the shadow minister for education, when I've talked to vice chancellors, many simply believe that the encampments are gone, they stood up with complaints and procedures, and that's enough. In some institutions, they believe that, because they don't know that they've got a population of any Jewish staff or students, they don't need to worry about this issue. The truth is that this issue is broader than whether you've got Jewish students or staff and it's broader than the Jewish community. It's about what's actually being taught in the classrooms about Jews, because what's being taught in the classrooms about Jews determines what the future of our society looks like. If we don't get this right, then we are setting our society up on a course for a future based on conspiracy, not on fact; on othering, not on personal responsibility; on social discord, not social harmony. What happens today on campus sets the tone for the Australia of tomorrow. That's why addressing antisemitism on campus is so vital. That's why the royal commission must look at these issues. That's why their task is so important. That's why the commission must be given the time that it needs to do this job thoroughly. If the commission fails in this opportunity to properly look at these matters, it will be failing the Jewish community and all Australians. The Jewish community has been calling for this government to take action for two and a half years. The government will disrespect the memory of those 15 people who were murdered on Bondi Beach if it doesn't look at these issues properly. With that context in place, let me turn back to the Royal Commissions Legislation Amendment (Protections for Providing Information) Bill 2026. This bill amends three key laws: the Royal Commissions Act 1902, the Royal Commissions Regulations 2019 and the Criminal Code Act 1995. Its purpose is to ensure that the royal commission can access intelligence and operationally sensitive information, even where Commonwealth secrecy provisions would otherwise prevent disclosure. On its face, this is a practical reform. The bill inserts a new part 4A into the Royal Commissions Act. It makes clear that secrecy provisions cannot be relied upon as a reasonable excuse to refuse compliance with the royal commission's requirements. In other words, intelligence agencies and law enforcement bodies cannot withhold relevant material solely because another law contains a secrecy clause. The bill also creates formal intelligence information arrangements and operationally sensitive information arrangements, which are structured agreements between the commission and the relevant agency heads governing how sensitive material is obtained, stored, accessed, used, disclosed and returned. It provides legal protections for individuals who provide such information in accordance with those arrangements. It ensures they are shielded from criminal or civil liability under secrecy provisions. It also amends the Criminal Code to create a defence for individuals who deal with classified information for the primary purpose of communicating it to a royal commission. On their face, these changes strengthen the royal commission's hand. I want to turn to why this bill requires scrutiny. These are serious legal changes that the bill proposes. As Royal Commissioner Virginia Bell has noted, her inquiry is the first royal commission in nearly 50 years to investigate aspects of the work of the Australian intelligence community. We have a duty to ensure that she has all the powers required to conduct her investigations properly. It's precisely because of the gravity of Commissioner Bell's royal commission that the bill requires careful parliamentary scrutiny. It's precisely because of the seriousness of the changes proposed that this warrants closer examination. These changes should be the subject of an inquiry by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. It's common sense, it's good governance, it's in Australia's interests and it's the coalition's position. We need to hear from security experts, legal experts, our security agencies and law enforcement agencies, the royal commission itself and other stakeholders about how these laws will work, because this legislation overrides secrecy provisions across Commonwealth law. It's not a minor adjustment; it reshapes the interaction between national security frameworks and public inquiries. Parliament must examine whether the scope of the override is appropriate. It must ensure the definitions of 'intelligence', 'information' and 'operationally sensitive information' are precise and appropriate. It must ensure the arrangements governing the handling of classified information are sufficiently robust. We must ask: Are the safeguards adequate? Are the oversight mechanisms strong enough? Is transparency balanced appropriately with the security? The bill requires the secretary to publish intelligence information arrangements as notifiable instruments. It's appropriate that the parliament scrutinise what level of detail is made public and how variation of those arrangements will be monitored. We must also examine the evidentiary protections. The bill provides that information given in accordance with the arrangements is not admissible in evidence against the person in secrecy related proceedings. That is an important protection, but it must be carefully calibrated so that it doesn't unintentionally shield misconduct unrelated to lawful cooperation with the commission. Similarly, the Criminal Code amendment creates a new defence to certain secrecy offences where information is dealt with for the purpose of communicating it to a royal commission. Parliament must ensure that this defence is fit for purpose. If there are failings of intelligence practice or national security policy relevant to this royal commission, we need informed insiders to come forward. It is appropriate that the parliament satisfy itself that the bill allows intelligence officials to safely, securely and lawfully disclose information to the royal commission on a voluntary basis and that any underlying arrangements are properly designed and fit for purpose. Let me be clear. We do not oppose the bill's objective; on the contrary, we want to ensure that this gets it right. The coalition wants this royal commission to be effective. We need it to be effective. It is recognition that legislation touching intelligence, national security and criminal liability demands rigorous examination, because the integrity of both national security frameworks and royal commissions depends on clarity and balance. As I said, the Jewish community deserves a royal commission that is powerful, effective and legally sound. They deserve a framework that cannot later be challenged as rushed or poorly constructed. They deserve a bill where all parties have confidence in that drafting and where there are no unintended consequences. Parliamentary scrutiny is responsible. It helps ensure that legislative architecture supporting the commission is sound. The royal commission must have access to the information it needs, but, in granting that access, we must preserve the integrity of secrecy law, the rights of individuals and the balance between transparency and security. That balance is parliament's responsibility. As I said, on its face, this bill strengthens the commission. It removes barriers to evidence and it protects those who cooperate. But, because it overrides secrecy provision and amends the Criminal Code, it must be examined thoroughly, it must be debated openly and it must be refined where necessary. A PJCIS inquiry will not delay the commission. I want to take a moment to say this. The commission has operated effectively for seven weeks so far, and the Attorney-General's Department has confirmed that it will be able to continue its work uninhibited while the parliament scrutinises this bill. A PJCIS inquiry does not delay the commission. Indeed, it serves a more important purpose: it shores up confidence that we have the arrangements right and that the commission can receive the evidence it ought to hear. That does not occur, though, if the parliament passes permanent changes to the national security legislation improperly or in a rush. So let us use the scrutiny provisions of this parliament to support and strengthen the commission. I thank the House. 13:19 Ms SPENDER 286042 Wentworth I rise to speak on the Royal Commissions Legislation Amendment (Protections for Providing Information) Bill 2026. On 14 December, my community experienced a loss and trauma that will stay with us for, I think, as long as we live. The antisemitic terrorist attack that day was not only an act of violence; it was an attack on social cohesion, on trust and on the sense of safety that every Australian should feel in their own country, and it was an attack on the Jewish community. In the days that followed, I called for a royal commission. We must understand what led to the attack. We must examine the broader rise of antisemitism and erosion of social cohesion, and any institutional and systemic failures that have contributed to the awful act of hatred that we saw. I am glad that the royal commission is now underway, and I'm especially glad that the government is acting to strengthen protections so it can do its work effectively. This reform does not arise in isolation. There have been multiple reviews highlighting shortcomings in protections for participants in royal commissions, including the 2023 Review of secrecy provisions conducted by the Attorney-General's Department, which examined protections for individuals providing information to royal commissions. That review recommended that the Royal Commissions Act be amended to 'clarify the application of secrecy offences to individuals providing information to royal commissions'. Importantly, the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide also identified serious concerns in this area. It highlighted that secrecy provisions across Commonwealth legislation were complex, fragmented and potentially inhibiting participation. The commission noted that uncertainty around secrecy offences could deter individuals from coming forward, even where protections technically existed. The Attorney-General's Department discussion paper following the royal commission acknowledged that, while prosecutions for secrecy breaches in this context may not have occurred, the perceived risk alone could have a chilling effect. It also recognised that civil remedies and workplace protections for those cooperating with royal commissions may warrant further consideration. Even where legal protections technically exist, the lived reality is different. If individuals believe that they may be exposed to sanctioned prosecution, career damage or retaliation, they may remain silent, and that risk is unacceptable. If we are asking intelligence officials, law enforcement officers, public servants and others to assist at a royal commission—particularly one examining national security, social cohesion and, potentially, institutional failings—then we must ensure they are properly protected while sharing relevant information. This is not only important for the protection of these individuals; it is fundamental to the effectiveness of the royal commission itself. The commission can only make sound findings and recommendations if it has access to complete and candid evidence. Given the seriousness of the issues at stake, including the terrorist attack on 14 December, we must remove barriers that could prevent critical information from being disclosed. After hearing these concerns from experts and stakeholders, and after reviewing the findings of the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide and the 2023 secrecy review, I raised these matters directly with the Attorney-General. I am grateful for her engagement and responsiveness to these issues, and I know she engaged with others as well. This bill amends the Royal Commission Act 1902 and related legislation to strengthen protections for individuals who provide information to royal commissions. It clarifies the interaction between secrecy provisions and disclosures made to the royal commission. In particular, it enables arrangements to be entered into between a royal commission and intelligence or law enforcement agencies so that protected information can be disclosed without breaching secrecy offences. The bill also introduces a new defence within the criminal code framework for disclosures made in accordance with such arrangements. This is intended to provide greater certainty that individuals cooperating in good faith with the royal commission will not commit an offence under general secrecy provisions. These changes are important and welcome. While I support the intention of the bill, there are several matters that warrant attention. I recognise the need for expedition, given the royal commission is already underway and an interim report is due shortly. I do not want to stand in the way of reforms that are necessary to ensure that this commission can operate effectively. However, we should also recognise that this may not and should not be the final word on secrecy reform. The government is undertaking broader work in reviewing secrecy provisions, and I encourage it to consider whether additional reforms may be required for future royal commissions. The new protections rely on a royal commission entering into arrangements with intelligence or law enforcement agencies. I do not expect this to present difficulties with the royal commission that is currently underway. However, legislation must be future proofed. We must ensure that intelligence agencies are not, even inadvertently, equipped with a veto power to choose not to provide information to a royal commission. We do not know what future royal commissions may examine or what future circumstances may arise. Our intelligence agencies perform extraordinary work protecting Australians, but legislation should be robust enough to operate effectively in all scenarios, including in instances where the agency's own actions or performance may be under scrutiny. Access to relevant information should not depend on discretionary cooperation. It should be guaranteed by law. Secondly, in terms of the focus on intelligence and law enforcement information, this bill primarily addresses intelligence and law enforcement information. There are protections for individuals who are compelled to provide information, but many who provide crucial evidence do so voluntarily. For example, officials in the Department of Education or the Attorney-General's Department may wish to come forward with information about institutional responses to rising antisemitism or broader social cohesion challenges. Many who choose to speak up will do so voluntarily, not because they have been formally compelled. Those who are compelled benefit from clearer protections. Those who come forward voluntarily may not. The new Criminal Code defence is helpful, but it applies only to a limited number of general secrecy offences. There are more than 850 secrecy provisions across Commonwealth legislation. The defence does not provide blanket immunity and does not resolve uncertainty across that broader landscape. If we want voluntary candour, we must ensure voluntary disclosures are adequately protected, and I think this is a really important point. We do want people to come forward in royal commissions. I think that's really, really critical. It is absolutely critical that these people have the same protections as those who are compelled to come forward. Finally, on workplace and civil consequences, I understand that this bill provides protections against criminal and certain civil liability. However, this does not fully address the position of individuals who come forward voluntarily and may face workplace repercussions such as bullying, demotion or other forms of retaliation. Their only avenue may be to pursue employment claims through the Fair Work Commission or other general processes. That does not specifically address the royal commission context, and it remains largely untested. A criminal case for mistreatment following voluntary evidence provision would require an AFP investigation, as the Attorney-General's Department discussion paper following the veterans' royal commission noted, 'There is no evidence that such prosecutions have occurred, but the absence of prosecutions does not eliminate fear.' If someone provides important evidence to assist our country in uncovering the truth, we should not leave them exposed. We should not punish those who want to help. I hope that these issues will be addressed in the broader reform package that the government is progressing. I also want to acknowledge that, to be honest, there is much more work to be done in relation to whistleblower protections more broadly across the parliament. This is something the government has acknowledge they do want to tack action on but which we do not have clear timelines on yet. Having spoken and engaged with those who support whistleblowers, what is very clear to me is that becoming a whistleblower and standing up for what you see as public good really comes from, in so many cases, a deep desire for our country to work as well as possible. It comes from a real sense of civic duty, but being able to be protected is complex. Individuals, people who do not have a high degree of understanding in these areas, can relatively easily make mistakes which make them open to criminal prosecution. We have recent examples such as David McBride and Richard Boyle, two people who have fallen foul of whistleblower protection laws. I think it is really critical that these are improved and the Commonwealth considers what it is trying to do when it takes on people such as Richard Boyle and the chilling effect that will have on any whistleblowing in the ATO in the future. I do want to finally say that I thank the Attorney-General for her engagement on these issues, and I acknowledge that this bill is really needed and timely. I think it strengthens protection at a critical moment and helps ensure that the royal commission examining the offence of 14 December can operate smoothly and effectively. I note that the member for Berowra had some concerns in relation to the timing of the bill and opportunities for it to be reviewed. I think those have to be balanced against the needs of the royal commission to act really swiftly. I look forward to engaging with both the member for Berowra and the Attorney-General on this because the goal really is to enable the royal commission to do its incredibly important work and, at the same time, ensure that these protections are appropriate and will last through both this royal commission and subsequent royal commissions as well. 13:29 Ms ROWLAND 159771 Greenway This bill creates a clear, lawful pathway for people to provide intelligence and operationally sensitive information to a royal commission, including the current Royal Commission on Antisemitism and Social Cohesion. I thank all my parliamentary colleagues for their contributions to this debate, and I present the revised explanatory memorandum to the House. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. The member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed. STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS 14 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Kandos-Rylstone Volunteer Rescue Association 14 13:30 Mr GEE 261393 Calare The Kandos-Rylstone Volunteer Rescue Association recently celebrated 50 years of service to the local community. From dealing with horrific car crashes to assisting hikers stranded in the bush, rescue squad members save lives and personify service above self. It was an honour to attend the celebration dinner, and I wish to thank and congratulate all squad members, including office bearers President and New South Wales VRA Regional Operations Manager Glenn Hinton ESM; Vice-President, Deputy Captain and Equipment Officer Sean Hinton; Treasurer and Deputy Captain Jake Norbat; Secretary Lorna Anderson; Captain Wayne Norris; Senior Deputy Captain and Training Officer John Yates; and Assistant Training Officer Adam Newton. At the celebration, we also honoured highly deserving longstanding members of the VRA, who received long-service awards: Wayne Norris, Adam Newton, Felicity Creswell and Craig Martin. Also recognised and acknowledged were John Yates, who received life membership; patron and founding member Craig Martin; and new trainee member Janelle Hinton. The rescue squad started 50 years ago, with an old wooden trailer with some tools in the back, because there was no frontline rescue presence in the area. For half a century, Rylstone and Kandos Rescue Squad members have saved lives and changed lives, and we thank all members for their extraordinary dedication and the sacrifices they and their families make for our communities and our country. Middle East, Social Cohesion 15 13:32 Ms RYAN 249224 Lalor I rise to address reports of an event that mourned the death of Ayatollah Khamenei that was held in a centre in my electorate. I reiterate the sentiments of the Prime Minister: Australia stands with the brave people of Iran, who endured decades of oppression under his regime. His death should not be mourned. Like the Minister for Home Affairs, I fail to understand how that dictatorship, a perversion of the peace that Muslims in my community practise, could be mourned on Australian soil, particularly when so recently it was confirmed that the regime was behind terrorist acts on our shores, designed to sow division and discord. I send my thoughts to our local Iranian community, my neighbours for whom this death brings some closure to a period of oppression and loss. But I want to be clear. This must not be conflated with our broader Muslim community. Just last month I stood with our Muslim community on the open mosque day. That community—peaceful, proud and contributing—must not bear the burden of the actions of a minority. Social cohesion depends on our many communities coming together with mutual respect. I am proud of the incredibly diverse community I represent, and I will always be their advocate in this parliament. Red & Yellow Day, Bundaberg Christian College 15 13:33 Mr BATT 315478 Hinkler Tomorrow is Red & Yellow Day, a new nationwide celebration to recognise surf-lifesaving volunteers. Sun, sand and salt air is at the heart of Hinkler. Surf lifesaving attracts almost a thousand members in my electorate, with more than 200 patrolling between three clubs: Hervey Bay, Bundaberg and Elliott Heads. You can support the cause by simply wearing the colours, by donating, by fundraising or by signing up and flying the flags we were taught to swim between. On Friday I joined Surf Life Saving Queensland's Darren Everard and Andrea Berthelsen at Bargara to raise awareness for the cause. The latest Summer coastal drowning report shows a 14 per cent decrease nationally. With almost 4,000 rescues in the past 12 months saving nearly 700 lives, those in the red and yellow are truly life savers. Yesterday I had the privilege of welcoming students from Bundaberg Christian College to Parliament House. This was the first opportunity I've had to host students from Hinkler as the federal member. It was wonderful to catch up with the school's new principal, Brendan Hosking, and teacher Karin Benham, who were accompanied by school leaders Rachel, Mackenzie, Isabelle, Suraya, Caleb, Ethan, Emma and Helene. I'm committed to promoting civics in our schools, and it was a pleasure to discuss politics with these engaged students. I take the opportunity to wish all senior students from Hinkler the very best for 2026. Henderson, Ms Tori 15 13:34 Ms BERRY 23497 Whitlam I rise today to recognise Tori Henderson, who recently completed her one-year term as Shellharbour City Council's 2025 Young Citizen of the Year. Tori received this award for her extraordinary work as a volunteer across a number of areas in her community. While completing year 12 as captain of Lake Illawarra High School, Tori spent many hours volunteering with the Roo Theatre Company and also the New South Wales State Emergency Service. The Roo Theatre Company is a community based, not-for-profit organisation that is based in Shellharbour. It produces professionally staged theatre, including musicals, comedies and dramas. Tori's contribution to Roo Theatre Company has included performing on stage, participating as stage crew and running the canteen. In 2023, Tori was part of the New South Wales SES Shellharbour unit's inaugural internship program, which involves students working alongside SES mentors and volunteers. She received the commander's commendation award at the completion of her internship for her outstanding contribution to the program and subsequently decided to join the SES as soon as she could when she turned 16. Tori has been an active member of the New South Wales SES Shellharbour unit ever since, regularly attending meetings and call-outs. I thank Tori for her significant and ongoing contribution to her community and for being an outstanding role model, and I wish her all the very best for her future. Social Cohesion 15 13:36 Ms SPENDER 286042 Wentworth One of the initiatives I'm proudest to support in Wentworth, and am proud to have instigated, is our student led social cohesion roundtables. Building on roundtables we did with principals across our school sector, the first student led program was held in November, and we brought students back for a second session just last week, with even more schools taking part. I think that growth reflects how seriously our community values strengthening belonging. Run by Together for Humanity as well as the New South Wales Jewish Board of Deputies and me, these roundtables are led by students themselves. They provide a structured space for young people to engage honestly, disagree respectfully and develop practical solutions. In light of the horrific antisemitic terrorist attack in Bondi and the fear it caused, continuing this work is more important than ever. We had 12 schools participate last week at Cranbrook School. The schools that participated were across the independent, government, non-government and religious sectors, including WAYS, Cranbrook, Ascham, Kincoppal, Reddam, Scots, Waverley, St Clare's, Rose Bay, Moriah, Emanuel and Kambala. So there was an amazing range of schools. As one student said, 'It is so important to build connections across our different cultures and groups.' I'm so proud of how the students behaved, I'm so proud of how they are leading in these difficult times, and I'm really excited to be turning their ideas with them into real action across our community. Ramadan 16 13:37 Ms FERNANDO 299964 Holt The Dandenong Ramadan night market is back, and it is bigger and better than last year. It was fantastic to be there on the opening night with the member for Bruce in his electorate, and it was wonderful to have the Prime Minister join us as Thomas Street came alive, with thousands of families, friends and neighbours from different faiths and backgrounds. Moments like these are a powerful reminder of what social cohesion looks like in action. I'm also proud that, this year, the market expanded into my local council area, the City of Casey. Having a cultural celebration of this scale come to Casey is a huge win for our community. Events like this bring people together, showcase culture and highlight the incredible food, music and small businesses that make our south-east so vibrant. That's why the Albanese Labor government is backing this great community with $75,000 this year, as part of a $225,000 commitment over three years, providing ongoing support to help the market grow and become a permanent fixture on our local calendars. I thank the Bright Community Organisation, especially Ahmad Ghowsi and Ibrahim Hassan, along with the volunteers, stallholders and sponsors who make it possible. (Time expired) Business 16 13:39 Mr YOUNG 201906 Longman As a former The Good Guys store owner, it's not often I would agree with our old adversary Gerry Harvey. But I do agree with Mr Harvey about the unfair playing field that currently exists for Australian owned retailers who are up against companies such as Temu and Shein. The fashion industry has probably been hit hardest, as the products are light and easy to transport. We've seen the closure of Rivers, Noni B, Millers and Rockmans, and let's not forget the thousands of small locally owned businesses that have had to close as well. As a Liberal, I believe in a free market, but I also believe in fairness. These companies already have the advantage of extremely low wages, low energy costs, very little red tape and lower government fees and charges. We may not like these advantages that countries like China have, but that is where we have landed for various reasons. After spending over 30 years in retail, I know more than most that Australians love a bargain when they shop—but at what cost? The practice of these companies not paying their fair share of tax on profits they have made from sales in this country has to stop. The implications of local businesses closing are far reaching. Local businesses employ locals and sponsor and support community and sporting clubs. They contribute to the communities that they serve. When was the last time you saw an underage footy team sponsored by Temu? Quick, Mr Tommy 16 13:40 Ms BRISKEY 263427 Maribyrnong I am proud to introduce a true Maribyrnong legend to this House, Tommy Quick, who's up there in the gallery. At just 12 years old, Tommy's life changed in an instant when he suffered a stroke. Whilst most kids his age were focused on school and sport, Tommy was relearning how to walk, how to speak, how to simply exist in his own body. Childhood stroke is rare, but it is real, and for Tommy its impacts are lifelong. But what defines Tommy is not his stroke; it is his determination, and that is what we are celebrating today. In 2017, Tommy climbed onto a recumbent trike. That moment lit a fire. Over nearly a decade, he has ridden an extraordinary 156,000 kilometres across our country—not for glory but to demand answers to one simple question: why does childhood stroke happen? His determination carried him to the four extreme points of Australia, almost 10,000 kilometres over three years, and earlier this year he conquered Taking on Tassie, riding 894 kilometres in just 28 days. Across more than 210 days in the saddle, Tommy has transformed personal adversity into national advocacy. This morning, it was a privilege to ride alongside Tommy and his crew to reach the final stretch up to Parliament House. Watching him crest the hill surrounded by his supporters, including his proud parents, was a powerful reminder of what persistence, courage and community can achieve. I want to thank the Stroke Foundation for their expertise and vital work supporting families and advancing research. Tommy, you're an inspiration to us all. Well done, mate. National Security 17 13:42 Mr WOOD E0F La Trobe All Australians need to be made aware of the facts behind how the home affairs minister and the Prime Minister somehow allowed 11 women and 23 children linked to ISIS to be issued with passports. My previous role, as the assistant minister for customs, meant I also looked after the Australian Border Force. Can I make it very clear to every Australian that the Australian government very much overlooks who actually gets Australian passports, especially when they're overseas and passports are being lost. The minister must come clean on why they have these Australian passports. Let's make no mistake at all. These ISIS brides left Australia to support ISIS terrorists who were killing Australian allies and also Australian soldiers. You saw the most barbaric scenes of these men holding up human heads. There's no way these women should be allowed in Australia. There's no way the government can give a guarantee that these women will come to Australia and not in any way try to seduce others to follow their cause, because when it comes to deradicalisation—again, my background in counterterrorism—it is so difficult to achieve. We are taking a huge risk in Australia under this Labor Albanese government, and it shouldn't be taken. We need to make sure Australians are protected. Raineri, Mr Pietro (Peter) 17 13:44 Ms SITOU 298121 Reid I want to pay tribute to the life of Peter Raineri, who passed away last week at the age of 90. For more than 40 years, he and his wife, Rosaria, turned their Five Dock deli, Raineri's Continental Delicatessen, into a local institution, a place loved not just for their focaccia and deli staples but for the warmth and friendship behind the counter. A few years ago, Raineri's paninis went viral on social media. Their paninis became known as the best in Australia—all for just $15. Despite their fame and long lines of customers, the Raineris always found time for a chat and a good laugh. Peter, Rosaria and their family didn't just run a shop; they built a community in that little deli, and we are forever grateful. A couple of years ago, during the Ferragosto festival in Five Dock, I had the pleasure of bringing the Prime Minister to Raineri's. This week I presented the Prime Minister with his very own Raineri's T-shirt, which I'm sure he will wear with pride. The shop remains open, just as Peter would have wanted, only closing for his funeral. Rosaria and her sons will keep Raineri's going. If you get a chance, head to the shop and honour the great man by having a panini for Peter. Tobacco Control 17 13:45 Ms ALDRED 11788 Monash While hardworking mum-and-dad small businesses are struggling to keep their heads above water under state and federal Labor governments, there's one sector that's booming, and that's the illegal tobacco trade. And, if business as usual for the crooks and cartels running the illicit trade isn't strong enough, today the tobacco excise increases yet again—this time to $1.52 per cigarette. That's more than $30 for a standard pack. That is up to an estimated $10 billion we are losing that could be spent on roads, schools and hospitals. Small businesses are continuing to get ramraided, and retail staff are worried about being assaulted. This is yet another example of state and federal Labor's record on law and order. They are putting everyday Australians at risk. From illegal tobacco to ISIS brides to the CFMEU chaos in Victoria, state and federal Labor governments have their heads in the sand. We urgently need resourcing and investment in law enforcement across a range of areas. Illegal tobacco is hurting small business. It's endangering our community. There are no consequences for actions under state and federal Labor governments, and the illegal tobacco trade is a prime example of that, particularly today, where we see the excise tax increasing yet again. Australians deserve better. Renewable Energy 17 13:47 Mr REPACHOLI 298840 Hunter The news that Elgin has decided not to proceed with the proposed Mitchells Flat solar farm is a really welcome outcome for the local community in Singleton and right across the Hunter. Many locals I've spoken to over recent months had genuine concern about what this project would have meant for prime agricultural land, environmental impacts and the long-term future of the regional landscape. It was a great project in the wrong location. In communities like Mitchells Flat, land isn't just dirt on a map; it's family farms, it's local jobs, it's our food security and it's part of the character that makes the Hunter what it is. So I think it's fair to say that there's a real sense of relief across the community that Elgin has listened and made the decision to focus their development elsewhere. That's great. This outcome didn't happen by accident. This is a result of the passionate locals speaking up, farmers standing their ground and community groups like Singleton Solar Standoff making sure their voices were heard loud and clear. When it comes to major developments in our region, the people who live and work on the land deserve a real say in what happens to it. The Hunter should always have a strong voice in decisions that shape our future. I'll continue to stand up for communities to make sure that local voices are not just listened to but respected. We have many areas of mining land in our Hunter area. We need to make sure that we're putting solar farms on that. We need to reuse that land for things that we can do with. We can put many solar farms on that land now. National Security 18 13:48 Mr RICK WILSON 198084 O'Connor My home town of Katanning is one of the most harmonious multicultural towns in Western Australia, where migrants have been welcomed for decades, contributing much to the town's economic, social and cultural fabric. The first Malay Christmas Islanders migrated there in the 1970s, taking up jobs in the local abattoir, and were followed by waves of migrants fleeing conflict in their homelands of Afghanistan, Burundi and Burma. All were keen to integrate into a tolerant community made more vibrant through their contributions. Australia is a great country thanks to generations of migrants and their commitment and allegiance to their adopted home. So I stand here today to challenge Labor on their secrecy when it comes to the ISIS brides and our national security. Labor claims these individuals aren't welcome, yet officials issue passports while the home affairs minister says his hands are tied. Labor is allowing 'self-managed' returns of Islamic State sympathisers, outsourcing our nation's security to NGOs and third parties. Passports are being hand-delivered into conflict zones while public servants are ushered out of meetings. Labor won't use existing passport and exclusion laws to protect our borders, which is why the coalition has introduced the Criminal Code Amendment (Keeping Australia Safe) Bill. This bill requires express ministerial approval before anyone assists a returnee. If a minister wants these people back, they must sign their name to it—no more hiding behind bureaucracy and no more outsourcing security. Gender Equality 18 13:50 Ms FRANCE 270198 Dickson Last week I visited Goodstart Early Learning Albany Creek in my electorate of Dickson. Before I could even talk about our three-day childcare guarantee, educators were gushing over Labor's delivery of a 15 per cent pay rise. Advocating for wage rises in female dominated industries, strengthening laws around flexible work arrangements and the expansion of paid parental leave to six months are reducing gender pay gap. Today marks the third release of employer gender pay gap reporting, and the data shows progress, a reduction of 0.9 per cent in the past year. Obviously, there is more work to do, but on this side of the House we are clear eyed and focused on reducing the gender pay gap. This is in stark contrast to the coalition, which went to the last election with a policy to end work-from-home arrangements. I know this might trigger some of you, but today is the actual anniversary of the announcement of that tone-deaf archaic policy. We know that there are many of you over there that still ideologically oppose work-from-home arrangements, including the shadow Treasurer. The gender pay gap is shrinking three times faster under our government. That is what you get when you have a majority female caucus as opposed to the blue-suit brigade over there. National Security 18 13:51 Mr BOYCE 299498 Flynn I ask the question: what is the government hiding? Labor claims it does not want ISIS sympathisers and their children to return to Australia, yet considerable assistance has clearly been given, including the issuing of passports. We are told the government is not assisting, yet federal and state agencies have reportedly been meeting for months to manage their return. These people chose to enter and remain in ISIS declared areas. Islamic State is not a social movement; it was a brutal terrorist regime. Security experts warn that radicalisation does not simply disappear. ASIO already has 18,000 individuals on its watchlist, and every additional high-risk returnee increases the pressure on already stretched agencies. Labor says it is powerless, yet the Australian Passports Act allows refusal on security grounds. Temporary exclusion orders also exist for precisely these circumstances. If Labor truly opposed these returns, it could use existing powers robustly and work with the coalition to strengthen the laws if necessary. Instead, we see secrecy, officials excluded from meetings and third parties organising returns. Australians deserve clarity not contradictions. Labor needs to answer the following questions: When was this self-managed returns policy adopted? Was it approved by the National Security Committee or cabinet? Were ASIO's full powers explored? Were temporary exclusion orders considered for the entire cohort? Prophet Elias 19 13:53 Ms CLUTTERHAM 316101 Sturt The Greek Orthodox parish of the Prophet Elias in my electorate of Sturt is home to a group of dedicated volunteers who have recognised and responded to the need in the community to support individuals and families doing it tough. Under the leadership of Father John and program coordinator Mary Bambacas, the Five Loaves program is an opportunity for volunteers to come together to connect and provide support to the community. Five Loaves was officially launched in Australia in July 2023 by His Eminence Archbishop Makarios, and the parish of the Prophet Elias commenced its activities in April 2024, making it the first church in South Australia to adopt the program, and it hasn't stopped. This program provides support to the Lutheran Care's homelessness project, and every fortnight 600 ham and cheese sandwiches and rolls are prepared by a wonderful group of ladies and then delivered to families residing in emergency housing. I've volunteered several times with the ladies at the church and can confirm that the program is executed with military precision. The ham is folded in a particular way, and the cheese is cut just so. That means that every sandwich and roll is prepared with love, care and consideration. Each session takes only about an hour, but that's because there are so many volunteers eager to give up their time to contribute to the community. The ladies of the parish of the Prophet Elias know that small steps can make a big difference, and I congratulate them on their dedication and commitment to helping others. National Security 19 13:54 Ms BELL 282981 Moncrieff The first job of any government is to keep its people safe. But over the past week, Australians have watched this minister for home affairs dodge serious and legitimate questions—questions about what assistance the Albanese government has provided to individuals linked to ISIS. This is not a political game; this is a matter of national security. Has the government directly or indirectly facilitated the return of people who chose to travel to a declared terrorist hotspot, like Syria, to support a death cult? Australians deserve clear answers. Were Commonwealth resources used? What security assessments have been undertaken, and are there any additional ISIS linked individuals preparing to return? National security should never be outsourced to NGOs. The government has claimed it had no role in the repatriation and could do nothing to stop it—that is simply not good enough. It should not be lawful for anyone to facilitate the re-entry of individuals connected to terrorist organisations without explicit approval from the Australian government. The coalition's message is simple: we must shut the door to those who abandon Australia to align themselves with Islamist extremists. Repatriation should only occur when the Commonwealth determines it is safe, not when third parties decide. We on this side of the House will always put national security first, 100 per cent. Those who reject those values in favour of— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 The member for Solomon has the call. Apprenticeships 19 13:56 Mr GOSLING 245392 Solomon The Leader of the Opposition's hand picked shadow minister for skills and training, Jacinta Nampijinpa Price, has let slip the opposition's plan to axe training opportunities for apprentices. Senator Price believes that the government's modest $10,000 incentive payments to housing-apprentice tradies increases inflation and has vowed to scrap the Key Apprenticeship Program. Why does a Country Liberal Party representative not want Territory kids, like those at Nightcliff High School, to get a hand with the cost of living whilst they're on an apprentice wage? Australia can't build more homes without more tradies to build them. Last month I celebrated the partnership of Intract, McMahon Services, the Housing Industry Association and SEDA to deliver the construction and trade program to receive a Certificate II in Construction Pathways. The program helps students discover the trade that best suits their skills and interests. We all know there are fantastic opportunities in construction. We need more young kids going into these key apprenticeship programs. It's about opportunities for our children, but it's also about building more supply—more houses for Australians. I don't know why the Country Liberal Party, those opposite, don't want to support our apprentices in the construction trades. National Security 19 13:57 Mr THOMPSON 281826 Herbert 'Kill the kafir—the non-believer—in alleyways. Stab them and poison them. Poison your teachers. Go to haram restaurants and poison the food in large quantities. Our husbands die on the front lines; that doesn't stop women in the West from sending their husbands to kill the kafir. Attack the UK, Australia and US.' It wasn't me who wrote this. This is a quote from an Australian 'ISIS bride'. There is no such thing as an ISIS bride; these are ISIS members, ISIS sympathisers. This ISIS member also stated: 'All you have to know is that the next time I will step into Australia is when we come and make it a part of the Islamic State. Oh, I do miss my family. Well, I think you'll miss yours soon.' In 2019 this ISIS member had her citizenship stripped off her—rightly so. Unfortunately, under this government—under this Labor prime minister—in 2023 her citizenship was reinstated. This ISIS member now lives in Melbourne. Allowing ISIS members to return and roam free puts Australians at risk. ISIS behead people, light them on fire, kill innocent women and children and inspire terrorist attacks. Why won't this Labor government stand with the coalition and shut the door on these ISIS members? Workplace Relations 20 13:59 Ms MASCARENHAS 298800 Swan Those opposite might want to hide their campaign review, but I won't hide the important anniversary that it is today. Exactly one year ago today, the Liberals launched their attack on working from home. People in my community could not believe it. Dutton, Senator Hume and the now Leader of the Opposition attacked it. It was like they had not lived through the pandemic. Australia had modernised. We had modernised the way that we work. They didn't know what families wanted. They didn't know what women wanted. I remember doorknocking in Langford and speaking to a woman with an amazing 15-year career. The way that she felt was that Peter Dutton had reached into her lounge room and told her that she could not be both a professional and a fabulous mother. Absolutely outrageous! Meanwhile, what is it that the Labor Party does? We protect workers' rights—the right to disconnect. We delivered same job, same pay, and we are decreasing the gender pay equity gap. Australians deserve a government that respects and protects their rights, not what is happening with those opposite, and that is exactly what the Albanese Labor government is delivering. The SPEAKER 53517 In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded. CONDOLENCES 20 CONDOLENCES Boswell, Hon. Ronald Leslie Doyle, AO 20 14:00 The SPEAKER 53517 I inform the House of the death on 6 January 2026 of the Hon. Ronald Leslie Doyle Boswell AO. A former senator, Ron Boswell represented the state of Queensland from 1983 to 2014. As a mark of respect to the memory of the Hon. Ron Boswell, I invite all present to rise in their places. Honourable members having stood in their places— The SPEAKER 53517 I thank the House. I'd also like to recognise members of the Boswell family who are in the gallery joining us today. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 20 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE National Security 20 14:01 Mr TAYLOR 231027 Hume My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the Prime Minister's refusal to answer my question to him yesterday. I again ask the Prime Minister: can he confirm that none of his ministers nor any member of staff made representations or requests to any relevant departments or agencies to support or expedite the issuing of Australian passports to ISIS sympathisers in Syria? 14:02 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I do thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question and for his obsession with this issue. If only he was as obsessed when ISIS fighters were coming home on those opposite's watch! If only, when there were 40 people coming home, he was as obsessed! I again refer to people who have actually engaged with this issue in real time. Peter Dutton, the then minister for home affairs— The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Calwell will leave the chamber under 94(a). That's highly disorderly. The member for Calwell then left the chamber. The SPEAKER 53517 The Manager of Opposition Business is entitled to raise his point of order, and he is not to be interrupted when he is on his feet. Mr Tehan 210911 It goes to 104(a), which is about direct relevance, not about a quote from someone in the past. This is about your ministers. It's not directly relevant. This is about your ministers and agencies and what they knew. It's not about the past. The SPEAKER 53517 The question was about the issuing of passports for ISIS sympathisers. The Prime Minister was asked a question regarding that. Under the standing orders—and we can keep saying this over and over again—I can't compel the Prime Minister to give a 'yes' or 'no' answer. I can compel him to be directly relevant. He is reading quotes regarding this topic— The SPEAKER 53517 Member for Fisher, to assist the House, when I'm dealing with a point of order, do not interject. I'll make sure he's being directly relevant. If he were talking about another topic, he wouldn't be being directly relevant, but I want to listen to what he has to say about this topic. Mr ALBANESE R36 I'm going directly to the issuing of passports and why it happens in a normal way, no matter who the government is. Australian citizens have rights, and the Constitution has not changed. It hasn't changed from the time that former prime minister Morrison said that 'normal assessments' would have to be done, including formal identification and checking citizenship. Mr Morrison said: Where those issues are able to be addressed, we would follow the normal processes for issuing of travel documents. It goes as well to what people on your frontbench, appointed by you, have had to say. Opposition members interjecting— Mr ALBANESE R36 They have said: Although many of these people are of counterterrorism interest, under article 12.4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, it is their right, as Australian citizens, to return to Australia. That's what they have had to say. On my watch, while I've been Prime Minister, this is what the member for Riverina has had to say: All the shock jocks and so many people who call themselves patriots will say they shouldn't be allowed back into Australia, but they're Australian citizens, so you can't leave them stateless. They are entitled to come back here. That's what the member for Riverina said just in October last year. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 I'm not happy with this yelling that has enveloped the parliament this week. We're not going to have people just having a free-for-all. No-one would accept this as acceptable behaviour. I'm giving everyone a chance to reset. This constant yelling is not acceptable. No-one watching this thinks that's acceptable behaviour. I will take action if required, and don't forget we can exclude people for three hours. I'd like everyone to stay here for question time so we can all listen to the questions and answers. Women's Economic Security 21 14:07 Ms JARRETT 298574 Brisbane My question is to the Prime Minister. How is the Albanese Labor government delivering for working Australians, especially women? Has anything threatened this progress, and what is the importance of transparency in this policy area? 14:07 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for Brisbane for her question. She's playing such an important role as the member for Brisbane, and it's a pleasure to once again be welcomed back into the electorate of Brisbane, it must be said. The gender pay gap in Australia is now at a record low, something welcomed by this side of the House. It hasn't happened by accident. It's happened because this side of the House has put in place laws to make a difference, whether it be making gender pay equity one of the objectives of the Fair Work Act, whether it be targeting feminised industries such as child care and aged care to make sure that people get a fair go or whether it be the measures that we've put in place to protect penalty rates. All of those measures are about people earning more. When it comes to keeping more of what they earn, our tax cuts have particularly benefited women, who, compared with men, have historically been more low- and middle-income earners. We've also, of course, had a policy of supporting working from home. All of these policies have something else in common as well. They've all been supported by this side of the House, and they've all been opposed by that side of the House. Indeed, it was just one year ago that the opposition leader and Senator Hume told the Australian people they wanted to ban working from home. That was one year ago today. And what were the consequences of that? They've made them the leader and the deputy leader of the Liberal Party. So bereft were they, they had to find a deputy leader in the other chamber. I don't know what that says about the others who sit on the frontbench over there. Their view, of course, hasn't changed. The opposition leader has appointed Senator Hume as the shadow minister for workplace relations. What could go wrong? She told the Sydney Morning Herald that banning working from home was a good policy that hadn't found its appropriate time. So it's still on the agenda. I'm asked about transparency. There was a little report, the review of the 2025 federal election by those opposite, that says this: At least one regional candidate considered the Working from Home policy was the turning point which cost her the seat. I'm asked about transparency. They don't get to read their reports, so I'll table it for them so that they can read the report about the diabolical campaign that they ran, why their working-from-home policy was wrong and why all their policies were wrong. Government members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order, members on my right! The SPEAKER 53517 Order, the member for Groom I won't be counselling again! You've been interjecting continuously throughout question time. You've had a really good go. You're warned. I'm asking you to assist the House by showing respect to the House by not interjecting anymore. National Security 22 14:11 Mr HASTIE 260805 Canning My question is to the Minister for Home Affairs. It follows the Prime Minister's earlier refusal to answer the question. Can the minister confirm that none of his staff or departmental officials made representations to any relevant departments or agencies to support or expedite the issuing of Australian passports to ISIS sympathisers in Syria? 14:12 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I notice they're not asking questions about the private member's bill that they tried to introduce. 'Jail the baggage handlers' seems to have gone away! Mr Albanese R36 And the Americans! Mr BURKE DYW Oh, that's right—and the allies! Criminalising the allies is what they tried to introduce to the parliament earlier. The SPEAKER 53517 Order, Leader of the Opposition! I want to hear from the Leader of the House, but the Leader of the House will also return to the question. Mr BURKE DYW The cohort concerned asked to be repatriated. They were told no. They took us to court to try to force a repatriation. We fought that case and we won. Then they asked again for repatriation, and we said no. Public servants have done what they are legally obliged to do and no more. That does not constitute assistance. We've made clear that this group will not be assisted by the government, and they have not been. Superannuation 22 14:13 Mr LAXALE 299174 Bennelong My question is to the Treasurer. How will the Albanese Labor government's superannuation reforms help workers, and how does this fit into the government's broader economic plan? How does this compare to other approaches? 14:13 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin The member for Bennelong plays a very influential role in our economic policy and our team. I appreciate it, and our team appreciates it as well. The economic plan that we advanced in the government's fifth budget is focused on three key challenges: the near-term pressures on inflation, the longstanding challenge we've got with productivity and also this global economic uncertainty that we are dealing with. The global economy was already volatile before the dramatic escalation of hostilities in the Middle East, and inflation was already higher than we would have liked. But the conflict will exacerbate both of those challenges and could weigh on global growth. We're monitoring developments very closely in oil and gas markets and fertiliser markets and in transport and insurance as well. Tomorrow, we'll get a good sense of how our economy finished the year when the December national accounts are released. We know from partial data already to expect the recovery in GDP growth to continue. We expect the data will confirm the story of 2025 was a handover from public- to private-led growth, and we expect that to continue even with the strong defence spending we saw in today's public demand figures. All of this will inform our plan, which is all about making sure that more Australians can earn more and keep more of what they earn, and retire with more as well. Our tax cuts are important there, as are our changes to superannuation. Our reforms to super will make the super system fairer from top to bottom. It means more super for people with the lowest balances and more sustainable tax concessions for people with the biggest balances. It means 1.3 million Australians will get a super boost—mostly women and mostly young people. This is opposed by the same old Liberal Party who will vote for less super for people on low incomes and bigger tax breaks for people with tens of millions of dollars in superannuation. The shadow Treasurer wants to go even further—he wants to completely dismantle compulsory superannuation in this country. That's what he told Andrew Bolt on the Bolt Report. They hate superannuation over there, and he hates super the most. Workers would pay the price for their extreme ideology. This is what happens when you bring together the worst minister in the Morrison government and the most extreme shadow Treasurer in memory—working people would be worse off while they work and also when they retire. This side of the House is delivering tax cuts, more super and fairer tax breaks to help deal with intergenerational issues in the tax system. Those over there are the same old Liberals who haven't changed a bit and haven't learned a thing. The SPEAKER 53517 Before I call the member for Kennedy, I'll deal with a couple of items quickly. The member for Groom didn't hear me well enough, and he interjected right throughout that answer, so he'll leave the chamber owing to the causes of his actions. The member for Groom then left the chamber . DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 23 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS Acknowledgement 23 14:17 The SPEAKER 53517 I'm pleased to inform the House that present in the gallery today are Mr Tommy Quick and members of the Stroke Foundation, as guests of the member for Maribyrnong. At age 12, Tommy's life changed dramatically when he suffered a stroke. He was forced to relearn everything, including his speech, and continues to live with the ongoing impacts of childhood stroke. Through resilience and determination, Tommy found renewed purpose in 2017 when he trialled a recumbent trike. Tommy has ridden an extraordinary 156,000 kilometres across Australia in support of childhood stroke awareness and has spent the last eight days riding from Howlong to Parliament House, arriving in time for Childhood Stroke Awareness Week and question time today. On behalf of the House, well done Tommy, and welcome to parliament. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 23 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Fuel Security 23 14:17 Mr KATTER HX4 Kennedy Australia is 30 per cent self-sufficient in oil, yet only three per cent in petrol. As a big five in grain and sugar—ethanol feedstocks—we're uniquely placed for self-sufficiency, yet we live at the mercy of the Middle East. Prime Minister, will you, like China, India, Europe, America, Indonesia and Brazil, mandate ethanol, providing $12,000 a year to every Australian family and, quoting Morris Iemma, saving over a thousand lives a year? Most importantly, my horse has died and it'll save me four kilometres a walk to buy food. 14:18 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I begin by expressing my condolences to the member for Kennedy on the loss of his beloved horse. We all love our animals, and I know that people particularly love their horses. That relationship is important. My government knows that fuel security is really important, and that it's essential as well that we make more things here. I'll take on board the comments of and the suggestions from the member for Kennedy, and have those discussions with my minister and members of my government. I must say, the principle that the member for Kennedy is putting forward, which is that we need to be more resilient and more self-reliant here, is something that not only do I support in theory but we are putting in place in practice. That's what a future made in Australia is about. That is why we are establishing a strategic fleet so that we bring back Australian shipping, because that is important. That's why we've created an Australian domestic fuel reserve, that's why we're finalising a gas reservation to provide more affordable gas for Australian users and manufacturers, and that's why we're investing in making low-carbon liquid fuels here, building our energy independence and our economic resilience. It's opposed by those opposite but something that the minister is—the two ministers together, really, are—making such an enormous effort in. When the Leader of the Opposition was energy minister, of course, he had a different plan. That was the plan for fuel reserves in Texas. That's where Australia's reserves were going to be. Now, if you think about the challenges that the world has thrown at Australia over the last few years—the global pandemic; the biggest international energy crisis since the seventies; the sharpest rise in global inflation since the 1980s; and the aftershocks of the conflict, particularly the Russian invasion of Ukraine—what that shows us is that, if Australia is always the last link in the supply chain, we will be vulnerable. So I want to work with the member for Kennedy and other members across the board to ensure that our economy is more resilient and that we're less reliant on these international shocks that can occur. It's because they are important. It's why we had to intervene, for example, to put caps on gas and coal prices as a result of that global spike that occurred as well. My government will always stand up for Australian manufacturing as well. We'll stand up for the good, secure jobs that it creates around Australia but particularly in our regions, such as that represented by the member for Kennedy. Health Care 23 14:21 Ms BERRY 23497 Whitlam My question is to the Minister for Health and Ageing. How is the Albanese Labor government making it easier for all Australians to see a doctor when they need urgent care? Why does government investment in health, including in urgent care, make sense after a decade of cuts and neglect? Have any alternative approaches been proposed? 14:22 Mr BUTLER HWK Hindmarsh Thank you to the member for Whitlam who brings a wealth of experience to this parliament, including her time leading one of Australia's biggest disability providers. She completely gets the importance of strong health and social care systems that are supported by government. Last week I was delighted to join her at the official opening of the Shellharbour Medicare urgent care clinic. That clinic was promised by the member for Whitlam, and the only reason we were able to open it was that we won the election, because the Leader of the Opposition at least was upfront in telling the people of Shellharbour that, if the Liberal Party won, there'd be no Shellharbour Medicare urgent care clinic. But it is there and it's already delivering high-quality urgent care completely free of charge. It's just one example of the member for Whitlam's promise to deliver a stronger Medicare. But her question also implies that there has always been, as there has been, a fundamental difference between the two major parties when it comes to Medicare. The now leader of the opposition is no different in this respect from all of his predecessors. He supported Peter Dutton's GP tax. He cheered Sussan Ley when she extended the Medicare rebate freeze for four long years, and he said it should be extended to the whole healthcare system. Last term, when he was the shadow Treasurer, he described our urgent-care-clinic funding as wasteful spending. But not even the Leader of the Opposition has said the quiet bits out loud quite like the shadow Treasurer, a man who seems completely devoid of an inside voice. He's not going to be bothered with freezing the Medicare rebate; he wants to tear the whole system down. This is what he's written. He wants to see 'the transfer of health financing shifted from government to individuals'. Put simply, every Australian would have an individual health account that they'd contribute to on a periodic basis from their income, and that savings account would be used to pay for healthcare services as required through their lifetime. It's hard to see how a bulk-billed urgent care clinic survives in the shadow Treasurer's world. But, still, the Leader of the Opposition thought that this man was the right man to steer the Liberal Party's alternative budget strategy—a bloke who wants to privatise Medicare; a bloke who wants to foist American-style healthcare on the Australian people. Government members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! Members on my right. Minister for workplace relations. Treasurer. The manager is entitled to raise his point of order, and I'd like to hear it. Mr Tehan 210911 I would like the minister to refer to the Leader of the Opposition under his correct title, please. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! No. The manager raises a valid point of order. We need to address everyone by their correct titles. But, in that answer, I think he was referring to previous roles. The Leader of the Opposition was the shadow Treasurer, and there is a current shadow treasurer, so if he could be clearer on which shadow treasurer he is— Mr BUTLER HWK It was the shadow treasurer who wanted to privatise Medicare. Maybe the member is right, and the Leader of the Opposition also wants to privatise Medicare, but they shouldn't complain to me. All they needed to do was Google this bloke, because he makes John Hewson look cautious and moderate. They're just the same old Liberals. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 I can remind the minister— The SPEAKER 53517 No, I haven't called you yet. Resume your seat for a moment. I'll call you; don't worry. I'll just remind the minister to direct all his comments through the chair. Now, the member for Goldstein with his question. Middle East, Fiscal Policy 24 14:26 Mr TIM WILSON IMW Goldstein My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer rule out a single taxpayer dollar being spent on extremist Islamic prayer groups and places of worship who have been mourning the death of Iran's brutal dictator, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei? 14:27 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin They waited till 2.30 on day 2 before they unleashed a question from the shadow Treasurer, and it's a bad one, because, as the shadow— Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The Treasurer has just started his answer. He deserves to be heard in respect, as the member for Goldstein was. Dr CHALMERS 37998 I think it says everything that the first question from the shadow Treasurer is not a question about inflation. It's not a question about productivity. It's not a question about global economic uncertainty. It's not a question about superannuation. It's not a question about the government's tax cuts. The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The Treasurer is about 40 seconds into his answer. The manager has one point of order on relevance. Mr Tehan 210911 It's 104A: direct relevance. The question was very straightforward. Will you rule out a single taxpayer dollar going to one of these groups? The SPEAKER 53517 As I said, the Treasurer is—as are all treasurers and ministers—entitled to a preamble. He's 40 seconds in, so, whatever he says now, we won't be able to take another point of order on relevance and/or direct relevance. I'll just make sure, now that he's had his preamble, he can return to the question. I thank the manager for raising that point. Dr CHALMERS 37998 Like with all public expenditure, we do the best that we can to make sure that public money is going where it's appropriate. Where we discover that that funding is not appropriate, if it's possible, we take the relevant steps at the relevant time. That's been the approach of governments of both political persuasions to try and make sure that public spending, public money, is going where it's appropriate. The broader point that I would make about this is that, at a time when this country faces very serious economic challenges here and abroad—challenges that this side of the House is very focused on—what they have shown over there is that they are more focused on issues which are not the central concern of people around the kitchen tables of this country. Having got to 2.30 on day 2 without a question from the shadow Treasurer, despite the best efforts of Dennis Shanahan and others who have pointed out that those opposite have completely vacated the field on the economy, the shadow Treasurer, in his usual way, has got up and proven that to be true. If they want to ask me questions, ask me questions about the big economic challenges. I'd be happy to answer them. Honourable members interjecting— An honourable member: Withdraw that. Mr Tim Wilson IMW That was pretty clear. The SPEAKER 53517 I didn't hear any exchange. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order. We will deal with this— The SPEAKER 53517 the member for Forrest—in an orderly and respectful way. An opposition member interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 If everyone on both sides would cease interjecting, we would be able to keep moving through the questions, but that's not happening at the moment. I'll listen to the Manager of Opposition Business. Mr Tehan 210911 Thanks, Speaker. This line of questioning is obviously getting under the Prime Minister's skin— Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Resume your seat. Do not abuse standing orders when I—do not get up, as we had, and simply say what you wish to say. That's completely disrespectful to me and to the chamber. We'll hear from the member for Newcastle. Work-Life Balance 25 14:31 Ms CLAYDON 248181 Newcastle My question is to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. How's the Albanese Labor government supporting Australians to balance their work and care responsibilities? How does this approach compare to other approaches? 14:31 Ms RISHWORTH HWA Kingston I'd like to thank the member for Newcastle for that question, and for her passion in helping Australians balance their work and family life over many years. The Albanese Labor government has made significant changes to ensure that Australians can balance their work and life. Our secure jobs, better pay laws strengthen access to flexible work, making it easier for workers to request flexible arrangements like working from home. Analysis by the Committee for Economic Development of Australia suggests working from home saves Australians, on average, $110 per week in transport costs. We know that greater workplace flexibility helps ease cost-of-living pressures and, of course, it improves workforce participation, especially for women. I am asked if there are any other approaches. Yes, there certainly is another approach. It was taken by those opposite exactly one year ago today. One year ago today, the now Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party made a big announcement in a keynote speech that the coalition, if elected, would ban working from home. This policy would have cost workers more than $5,000 a year, on average, in extra living expenses. And when the coalition was asked what would they do about workplace flexibility, remember what they said? They would force women into part-time job-sharing arrangements. That was their answer. You'd think the new Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party would have learnt her lesson. The Liberals' own election review slammed this proposal—and I thank the Prime Minister for tabling it, but we all had a copy. On page 34, when talking about their work from home policy, it says the Liberals were unsympathetic to the needs of women to better balance their work and family life. But not even the voter backlash could change Senator Hume's opinion. Mr Tim Wilson IMW Labor gave $15 billion to organised crime, to the CFMEU. Ms RISHWORTH HWA In November last year, she said that it was the policy backflip, not the policy itself that was the problem. As the Prime Minister has said, you would think that the leader of the opposition would be distancing himself from the policy failures, but instead he has promoted Senator Hume into a role where she is responsible for workplace relations. To be fair to Senator Hume, she wasn't the only one! Mr Tim Wilson IMW Table the CFMEU report! The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Goldstein is now warned. Ms RISHWORTH HWA And the shadow Treasurer over there penned another opinion piece—there are a lot of them out there—that said that work from home was 'professional apartheid'. The Liberals have not learnt anything. They may have changed their leaders, but they're still the same old Liberals. Taha Humanity Association of Victoria 26 14:34 Mr TEHAN 210911 Wannon My question is to the Treasurer. The Albanese Labor government promised last May, in the member for Bruce's electorate, $670,000 to the TAHA association, who have been mourning the death of Iran's brutal dictator, Ayatollah Khamenei. Will the Treasurer act to prevent this payment being made? 14:35 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin This government has made it clear, and the Prime Minister and other ministers have made it clear, as do I, that we don't consider it appropriate to mourn the death of the Ayatollah. We have made our views about his brutal and oppressive regime very clear, repeatedly, in recent days and before that as well. Mr Pike 300120 What are you going to do about it? The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Bowman is warned? Dr CHALMERS 37998 We take any breaches of the law very seriously. Our various agencies, the ATO, the charities commission and others, have the powers to revoke any of the concessional treatment that applies to organisations. When it comes to the specific case that you have raised, I know that my colleague Minister Aly has been working on this matter and is taking this matter very seriously. I don't want to front run her considerations, but I know that it's being taken seriously, and I suspect that the minister will have more to say about it in due course. Gender Equality 26 14:36 Ms CLUTTERHAM 316101 Sturt My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Women. How is the Albanese Labor government working to close the gender pay gap, and what impediments are there to this approach? 14:36 Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR Ballarat I particularly thank the member for Sturt for her question and for her work in shining a light on how this government is supporting Australian women. And just briefly, on indulgence, can I give a hi to Johnny, an 11-year-old who's come here from Ballarat with his parents because he loves parliament. Apologies, we're a bit rowdy today. I remind those opposite that women don't just make up over half of this government; they also make up half of the Australian population. You wouldn't quite know it from looking at that side of the House, though. The release of the latest employer gender pay gap figures from the Workplace Gender Equality Agency report this morning demonstrate that this work is well and truly bearing fruit. Fifty per cent of large employers have an average total remuneration gender pay gap of 11.2 per cent, down from 12.1 per cent last year; and 54.7 per cent of large employers have reduced their pay gap in the last year. Across the economy, the ABS gender pay gap has now been brought to a historic low, with the gap being reduced to 11.5 per cent. When we came to government in 2022, it was at 14.2 per cent. In addition to measuring progress on the gender pay gap, the Workplace Gender Equality Agency has identified key measures that can be taken to boost women's economic participation. They include strategies to ensure gender equality on governing boards within the organisation; paid parental leave and other supports for working parents; and, flexible working arrangements, like the ability to work from home. When workplaces genuinely support these measures, women are more likely to remain in the workplace, progress into senior roles and, of course, build their superannuation. These are all actions this government supports and has taken through policies like our three-day childcare guarantee and our decision to expand paid parental leave to six months, and we're paying super on it. I wish I could say the same for those opposite. Do you know how Senator Hume described some of these policies? The work-from-home policy was welfare and patronising. In fact, we should actually congratulate Senator Hume because today is the one-year anniversary of the disastrous working-from-home policy proposed by that crack economic team opposite, the Leader of the Opposition and Senator Hume. I'm sorry we didn't get you a cake for the anniversary. Perhaps those opposite could explain to me how the policy was going to make it easier for women to rejoin and remain in the workplace. I checked the party's election review that's tabled. I haven't had a chance to get a copy, but I understand lots have. What about the absolute cracker from the now shadow treasurer. When he was asked about whether the burden of child care falls on women, he said: 'I can't deny that. You know as well as I know that it's not my choice that women have children; it's genetic.' This is what those opposite think of policies that are actually there to support women—same old Liberals! Taha Humanity Association of Victoria 27 14:39 Mr TEHAN 210911 Wannon My question is to the Minister for Multicultural Affairs. The Albanese Labor government promised last May, in the member for Bruce's electorate, $670,000 to the TAHA association, who have been mourning the death of Iran's brutal dictator, Ayatollah Khamenei. Will the minister act to prevent this payment being made? 14:40 Dr ALY 13050 Cowan I thank the member opposite for his question. As the Treasurer said, we take very seriously issues where there is funding for activities or for communities. We take very seriously the use of taxpayer money to fund those activities in those communities. When we do that, we do that with an expectation—an expectation that those activities and those communities will abide by the law and within the expectations and the standards which Australian taxpayers expect in the use of their money. This case is no different. So I can assure those opposite that I am doing everything possible to look into this matter, and I will have more to say on it shortly. Trade 27 14:41 Ms CHESTERS 249710 Bendigo My question is to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. How is the Albanese Labor government ensuring our farmers and producers benefit from more trade and from rebuilding Australia's standing in the world? Are there any threats to this trade? The SPEAKER 53517 Order! Member for Barker, I could not hear that question because you were interjecting, so you'll leave the chamber under 94(a). The member for Barker then left the chamber. The SPEAKER 53517 We just want everyone to be able to hear the question in silence, and that goes for both sides. It's a consistency that I'm trying to improve standards in the House. It may not work during answers, but at least during the questions everyone's got to be heard in silence. The member for Bendigo will begin her question again. Ms CHESTERS 249710 My question is to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. How is the Albanese Labor government ensuring our farmers and producers benefit from more trade and from rebuilding Australia's standing in the world? Are there any threats to this trade? 14:42 Ms COLLINS HWM Franklin I want to thank the terrific member for Bendigo. I really appreciate her taking me around her electorate, where we met with some farmers who'd been devastated by the bushfires earlier this year and who had actually lost everything. I know she's been a real champion for our farmers and primary producers. It was terrific to stand alongside our assistant minister and, indeed, the National Farmers' Federation this morning, when we celebrated Australia's farm-gate production value being on track to exceed $100 billion this financial year. This forecast, released today by ABARES, shows our agriculture industry will reach this extraordinary result four years ahead of the National Farmers' Federation's ambitious target of 2030—four years ahead and $100 billion of this industry target. This is a testament to the hard work, resilience and skill of Australian farmers and the work done hand in hand with our government. As the president of the National Farmers' Federation, Hamish McIntyre, said today, this is a landmark moment that belongs to farmers but could not have been achieved without strong collaboration. It shows that agriculture is an industry worth backing. We agree with the National Farmers' Federation there. That's exactly what our government has been doing from day one: we are backing our farmers and our primary producers. We are backing them to succeed, despite the challenging weather conditions that I spoke about earlier and, of course, the floods and the drought that some farmers are experiencing in parts of the country—and, of course, the ongoing global uncertainty. When we came to government, the agriculture sector was worth $88 billion, but, under our government, its value has jumped 15 per cent. There's more demand than ever for our world-class fibre and our world-class food, with our ag, fisheries and forestry exports forecast to reach a record high of $85 billion this financial year. We recognise the significant benefits of free and fair trade for our farmers and our producers. Indeed, one in four jobs in Australia relies on this trade. That's why we've got on with the job. We're delivering more opportunities for our farmers, and our agriculture trade is now the most diversified it has ever been, with over 250 market improvements that we have made as a government. Of course, that wasn't what we inherited from those opposite. We had underfunded biosecurity. They mismanaged our international relations. We all remember what they did with our largest international relations in terms of $20 billion of trade. Instead of saying, 'Well done,' to our farmers, the coalition are jeopardising the success of our $100 billion agriculture industry. Mr Hastie 260805 A point of order. The SPEAKER 53517 I thought you were jumping up for the next question. What's your point of order? Mr Hastie 260805 The point of order is on direct relevance, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER 53517 The minister has concluded her answer. Mr Hastie 260805 The question was about farming and threats. There was no mention of other approaches. Can I clarify that? Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 My apologies to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives. I thought you were seeking the call for a question. There were only 10 seconds left to go. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! We'll follow the standing orders. The member for Fowler is now entitled to her question. Infrastructure 28 14:46 Ms LE 295676 Fowler Prime Minister, your government has found $660 million to develop the $93 billion fast rail to Newcastle, a 194-kilometre project promising a six-minute trip. Yet in Western Sydney, just 34 kays from the new airport to Liverpool, more than 1.2 million residents still have no East West Rail Link—a journey that takes six to seven minutes by bus. Why prioritise a high-risk fast rail over a critical link for Western Sydney, once again leaving people behind? How does that make sense? 14:46 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I really thank the member for Fowler. I love getting questions about infrastructure. I love it. I'll be very proud later this year to open the Western Sydney airport, something that I argued for way back in my first speech in 1996— Mr McCormack 219646 Thank you, coalition! Mr ALBANESE R36 something that was, of course, underway, before the Howard government ripped funding out of it in the 1997 budget. Something had begun. The first sod had been turned. Nothing happened for year after year after year under the Howard government. But then we had an aviation white paper that put forward the need for a second Sydney airport, and we found once again that Badgerys Creek was the ideal site. In addition to that, we're also funding the road and rail infrastructure that will help people have access to that airport, whether it be the east-west metro link, the Westmead to Western Sydney international metro or all of these projects. We are putting all of these projects forward. Indeed, we're investing over $13 billion in transport infrastructure across Western Sydney over the next 10 years. When you include Western Sydney airport and, of course, the wonderful Moorebank intermodal facility, our investment reaches $19 billion. Moorebank intermodal—something that was begun under the former Labor government; there was a bit of an interim period, nine years that they try to forget over there—was something we got to open as well. We got to start it, and we got to open it as we went through. The Moorebank intermodal will make such an enormous difference. In Western Sydney, we're delivering new rail for Sydney Metro via Western Sydney International Airport—$5.25 billion. We're delivering $1.63 billion to upgrade the M12 motorway, $500 million to upgrade the Mamre Road Stage 2 and $500 million to upgrade the Liverpool and airport transport corridor, Fifteenth Avenue. In addition to that, there's $100 million for the Western Sydney Rapid Bus Infrastructure Upgrade project. That's up and running between major population centres, like Liverpool and Bonnyrigg. In addition to that, we're delivering $95 million to upgrade the Horsley Drive. All of these projects are vital, including local infrastructure projects and the upgrade to Fairfield Hospital. I thank the member for her question, and I'll continue to work across the board with people in Western Sydney to make sure they get the infrastructure— (Time expired) Housing 29 14:50 Mr SOON 298618 Banks My question is to the Minister for Housing, Minister for Homelessness and Minister for Cities. How is the Albanese Labor government helping Australians into homeownership? What other options into housing is the government being asked to consider? 14:50 Ms O'NEIL 140590 Hotham I thank the member for Banks for this fantastic question, and I want to acknowledge the huge contribution that he is already making to the thinking going on in this parliament, even in just his first year in this chamber. We have housing challenges confronting our country that have been building for 40 years. Our government listens to the Australian people. That's why we have created the boldest and most ambitious housing agenda that a Commonwealth government has had since the postwar period. With $45 billion, we're building more homes, we're getting renters a better deal, and we're getting more Australians into homeownership. The honourable member asked me about homeownership. We have just ticked over helping 230,000 Australians into their first home. I don't care what your politics are; this is a massive number of people for our government to have assisted, and I want every single one of them to know that it is a Labor government that saw their aspiration and helped them realise it. I was asked about alternative approaches. Do you remember the terrible 'super for housing' policy that those opposite took to the last election? Because you're not going to believe this. If you've forgotten about super for housing, let me refresh your memory. This was a policy created by those opposite that would have smashed the retirement savings of younger generations around our country. It would have radically lifted house prices around the country and not built a single home. The SPEAKER 53517 Order! There are always consequences for actions; it doesn't matter what time of the day you're warned. The member for Goldstein knows he was warned. I was crystal clear. Don't look at me as if you're surprised. The whole House heard me say it. So you'll leave the chamber under 94A. You can't be on a warning because of disrespectful behaviour and then think you can just keep interjecting. It doesn't work that way. Take the hint. If you're warned, it's a good opportunity not to say anything. Everyone else gets it. The member for Goldstein then left the chamber. The SPEAKER 53517 The minister was asked a question in silence, and I'd like the respect to be shown to her as well. Ms O'NEIL 140590 Thank you so much, Speaker, for that strong action. I think we all feel we can breathe a little bit fresher air now that that shadow minister has gone. Now, let me come back to it. Super for housing was one of the most dud policies that anyone could have come up with. In fact, the economist Saul Eslake memorably said that, if this were implemented, it would be one of the worst public policy decisions of the 21st century. That's quite a feat. It looked like the shadow minister for housing and homelessness had read the overwhelming evidence about this. He told the ABC earlier this term they won't have that policy again, and, in a moment of uncharacteristic accuracy, said that he saw that it could make the problem worse. But here's something that will not surprise the House. There is dissent and disunity in the Liberal Party of Australia. The shadow Treasurer had been in his role for mere moments before he was bounced up into the ABC studio, and he undermined his own shadow housing minister. He said that the real problem with their super for housing policy was that it was 'too timid'. I want, Speaker, to understand that the shadow Treasurer not only wants to privatise Medicare but believes that work from home is apartheid, he does not believe in paid parental leave, because he says it's not his fault that women have children, and it looks like he now wants to jack up house prices and make younger generations poorer. The chaos in the coalition continues. They may have changed their leader, but they cannot change who they are, and that is a political party without a single sensible thing to say about housing, which is one of the biggest challenges facing our country. (Time expired) Taha Humanity Association of Victoria 29 14:54 Mr TEHAN 210911 Wannon My question is to the Minister for Multicultural Affairs. In her last answer, the minister said that she is looking into the matter of $670,000 being promised to the Taha association. When was she made aware of this issue and when did she start 'looking into it'? 14:54 Dr ALY 13050 Cowan I thank the member for his question. I refer to my previous answer, but I do want to reiterate something. I want to reiterate the fact that, like all governments, we do give grants to community organisations, whether they be religious organisations, mosques, temples or sporting groups. But we take very seriously our expectation that the activities of those organisations and the activities of those groups are conducted within the rule of law and within the expectations of taxpayers and the standards that taxpayers expect. In relation to the question and the specific issue that I know the member was standing up to interject on, I was made aware of this in the last 24 hours, I might say. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! Members on my left, the minister is answering the question directly. Dr ALY 13050 Having been made aware that there was an election commitment made to said group, I have now instigated with the department to halt any further actions on meeting the grant or continuing the funding process. Early Childhood Education and Care 30 14:56 Dr GARLAND 295588 Chisholm My question is to the Minister for Education. What progress has the Albanese Labor government made on implementing reforms to keep our children safe in early education and care? What other approaches to child care is the government being asked to consider? 14:56 Mr CLARE HWL Blaxland I thank the cheerful member for Chisholm for her question. I don't think anyone needs a reminder of the sickening allegations of abuse that we saw in centres last year. They shocked the whole country. I said at the time—I was pretty blunt—that not enough had been done by governments, whether they be state or federal, Labor or Liberal. Since then, a number of things have happened. Personal mobile phones are now banned in centres across the country. A trial of closed circuit television cameras is now rolling out across the country as well, and the Federal Police are involved in this trial. Sixty-three centres have now been put on notice, using the legislation that we passed through this place last year. That legislation gives us the power to cut off funding to centres if they don't meet safety standards. The deadline for 30 of these centres has now arrived. I can advise the House that 19 of those centres have now suddenly fixed the problems that they had failed to fix for as long as seven years. I think what that shows is that the laws that we passed here last year are working, that the threat of cutting off funding has forced these centres to act. And it's not an idle threat. The centres that have not met the standard will now be contacted by my department and asked to show cause as to why their funding should not be cut off. Last week, two other big reforms came into force. The first of those is the National Early Childhood Worker Register. The events of last year made it very clear how important a register like this is, so that we know who is working where and we're able to track people from centre to centre and from state to state. That register is now up and running. It's now mandatory to put worker information in it, and centres will now have one month to do that. The second big reform that's started is mandatory child safety training. That's mandatory for everyone who works in a centre, and for the CEO too and for the board of directors. Of all the things that we do here, it might be this that's the most important because it's the people who care for and educate our kids in centres who are our best assets to help keep our children safe. We've got to give them the skills that they need to identify somebody in their centre who might be up to no good, somebody who might be hiding in plain sight. This training will now happen over the next six months, and centres will be able to close early, at 5 pm, for a couple of days a year to do this training. As part of that, they're going to have to give parents plenty of notice. I know that this is going to be an inconvenience for some families, but we're doing this for a reason. There is nothing more important than keeping our children safe. I want this training done and I want it done properly. Lobbying of Parliamentarians 30 15:00 Dr RYAN 297660 Kooyong My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, Parliament House is the people's house. The public should have a say in what goes on within its walls. Every day that parliament sits, hundreds of lobbyists roam this place. Today it's reported that you've written to the Presiding Officers requesting yet another review into lobbying—a review which is closed to the public, according to reporting. Will you open this inquiry up to the people, and will you commit to enforcing a more transparent and robust lobbying code of conduct? 15:00 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for her question. Indeed, I can confirm that I have written to the people who are responsible for these issues, the Speaker and the President of the Senate. For the benefit of the House, I'll table that letter for transparency when I conclude my answer. In it, I say: It is my Government's view that the review— which is already being conducted; I'm not conducting a review— provides an opportunity to consider increased transparency and rigour in relation to sponsored passes for Parliament House on the basis of business requirements, particularly in relation to professional lobbyists. In that context, I also consider that the review provides an opportunity to examine the conditions and requirements for unescorted sponsored access to Parliament House, mindful as always of the importance of security. It's my view that this has expanded over the years and that the number of people wandering around unescorted through the ministerial wing and other wings should be cut back. That is my strong view. There are security issues in this place—and, as you might have noticed, in some other places as well—that have been dealt with and that members have to deal with in 2026. We need to tighten it up. There should be transparency about these issues. That's consistent with what my government has done in introducing the National Anti-Corruption Commission, strengthening the ministerial code of conduct, strengthening protections for whistleblowers, increasing funding to the Australian National Audit Office, restoring transparency to AAT appointments and establishing the ART, reinstating a standalone privacy and FOI commissioner, implementing the recommendations of the Bell inquiry into the multiple ministries of the former prime minister, establishing the Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission and working to tackle the influence of big money across our democracy, with the changes that passed— Opposition members interjecting— Mr ALBANESE R36 That was supported by you, by the way. They were across the board and went through the House of Reps and the Senate in the last term. Those changes come into effect on 1 July. Unescorted access to parliament is a privilege. The passes are a matter for the Presiding Officers, but I think there should be greater rigour around sponsored passes, particularly for professional lobbyists. I table the letter for the benefit of the House. Rural, Regional and Remote Australia 31 15:03 Mrs PHILLIPS 147140 Gilmore My question is to the Minister for Regional Development, Local Government and Territories. How is the Labor government delivering for regional Australians, and how does this compare to other approaches? 15:04 Ms McBAIN 281988 Eden-Monaro I thank the member for Gilmore for her question. At the last election, the people of Gilmore elected her because they wanted cheaper medicines, cheaper child care, free TAFE, reduced student debt, better roads and tax cuts, and that's exactly what this side of the House is delivering. We're investing billions in remote, rural and regional Australia. We're investing in health, in education and in infrastructure, making a real difference for communities across the country. Since coming to government, we have doubled the Roads to Recovery Program to $1 billion a year which is a significant increase to every local council across the country. We've substantially increased the Black Spot Program funding, now investing $150 million a year to fix dangerous roads and intersections. In 2024-25 alone, 102 projects in rural, regional and remote Australia shared in $64 million worth of funding under this program, and just last week I announced an investment of $3.8 million through our $200 million Safer Local Roads and Infrastructure program to support Thora, Gleniffer, Dorrigo and Bellingen communities in regional New South Wales through the replacement of two timber bridges. The communities have been asking for these upgrades for a long period of time. The Mayor of Bellingen Shire Council said the, 'council greatly values the Australian government's continued commitment to regional communities.' I'm proud to be part of a government that is delivering more money for regional roads because our communities deserve them. More projects under round 4 of the Safer Local Roads and Infrastructure program will be announced soon. We know how our Medicare urgent care clinics have been a game changer for Australia's healthcare system. There are now 126 urgent care clinics across the country, 40 of which are in regional, rural and remote Australia, and the new Nowra Medicare Urgent Care Clinic will open this week thanks to the advocacy of their local member. They are all getting rave reviews. Micah from Bega took her son to the new Bega Medicare Urgent Care Clinic recently. She said: 'It was lifechanging. It's a great service, especially when you're not sure when you need to go to the hospital emergency department.' Speaking of reviews, I read with great interest the review of the election campaign of the Liberal Party. Much to my surprise, there was not one mention of the regions in that review's recommendations. The Liberal Party did identify that they have even more problems with the female vote, but they promptly rolled their first female leader who's from regional Australia. The SPEAKER 53517 Has the minister finished her answer? Ms McBAIN 281988 No. The SPEAKER 53517 Okay. The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order. Mr Tehan 210911 The minister was asked about policy alternatives. How you can see that as a policy alternative is just ridiculous. I'd ask you to bring her back to the actual policies. The SPEAKER 53517 I'll hear from the Leader of the House. Mr Burke DYW The minister was asked, 'How does this compare to other approaches?' The approach she's referring to is exactly another approach that was taken by the opposition. Mr Tehan 210911 That should be, in practice, referring to policies, not a political review. You know that to be the case, and, if you look at Practice, it is the case. The SPEAKER 53517 Alright. Mr Tehan 210911 There have been decisions made on it. The SPEAKER 53517 The manager is entitled to raise his point of order, and he's doing his job. The minister is also entitled to do her job to answer the question that she was asked. If she's talking about reviews or policies, she needs to make it directly relevant, not simply about a political attack on another party. I'll give the call to the minister. Ms McBAIN 281988 As I said, their approach to the regions was that they didn't have one. But you do you, guys. On this side of the House, we'll keep delivering real infrastructure, real investment in education and real investment in health. National Security 32 15:08 Mrs McINTOSH 281513 Lindsay My question is to the Prime Minister. According to the New South Wales Premier Chris Minns, around one-third of the ISIS sympathisers Labor is returning home will settle in New South Wales. Will any of these ISIS sympathisers settle in the Prime Minister's electorate of Grayndler, or will they all settle in Western Sydney? 15:09 Mr BURKE DYW Watson The government is not resettling anyone. We're not settling anyone in the same way as the Morrison government, Turnbull government and Abbott government, when foreign fighters returned under your watch, didn't resettle them. They came on Australian passports and returned on the watch of the previous government. We are not involved in resettling any of these individuals. They asked to be repatriated. We refused. Paid Parental Leave 32 15:09 Ms TEMPLEMAN 181810 Macquarie My question is to the Minister for Social Services. How is the Albanese Labor government delivering on its commitment to strengthen paid parental leave, and what are the risks? 15:10 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney I want to thank the member for Macquarie. I know she's a big supporter of paid parental leave, and I know that, like me, she remembers that Australia was one of the few developed countries in the world that had no government funded paid parental leave before the Rudd and Gillard governments. We are so very proud, on this side, that we have not just established paid parental leave but are expanding it, and, from 1 July this year, we're going to expand it again. Families will get the full six months of paid parental leave. In fact, under this prime minister, we have almost doubled paid parental leave. Since Labor was elected, families are $12,000 better off when they have a child, and 180,000 families every year will benefit from this. These families will get more time, more weeks together, more money, higher payments and, of course, superannuation paid on paid parental leave. That means they will be about $4½ thousand better off in retirement, as well as while they're getting paid parental leave. There's more flexibility; more time parents can spend together; of course, more people are eligible; and, when mums and dads get back to work, they'll get cheaper child care as well. Of course, those opposite have been a shambles when it comes to paid parental leave. The now shadow Treasurer, the member for Goldstein, said, 'Paid parental leave, to me, is a very bad scheme.' He said this about the Liberals proposed paid parental leave scheme. He said: … it's not my choice that women have children. It's genetic! He said: I despise this attitude that is creeping into society, where we increasingly look at children as a burden and not a blessing … people have choices in their lives, and they have to live with the consequences of them, both positive and negative. We've got a shadow Treasurer that doesn't understand that children are not simply a private blessing; they are a public good. They are a blessing for all of us, and that's why, on this side, we want to help families when they're having children. Those opposite had a leader that went to the last election arguing for higher taxes and lower wages for working mums. They've got a deputy leader who said that she wanted to get rid of work from home. She still says that. She says, 'That's a policy whose time will come.' And we've got a shadow Treasurer who doesn't back paid parental leave. On this side, we're clear about what we support. We support paid parental leave. We support cheaper child care. We support higher wages and lower taxes for working mums. We support flexibility at work. We support lowering the gender pay gap. The biggest risk to all of that is those opposite. Discrimination 33 15:12 Ms SPENDER 286042 Wentworth My question is to the Prime Minister. Last weekend I marched in the Mardi Gras, and I recognise that you were the first prime minister to do so. But, in 2026, teachers can still be fired and students expelled because of who they love, because of getting a divorce or because of having a child out of marriage. This discrimination is permitted under federal law in schools that receive federal funding. When will your government follow through on your 2022 election commitment to protect our LGBTQ+ students and teachers? 15:13 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for Wentworth for her question and for her commitment to equality, regardless of who people are. One of the things that Mardi Gras represents is a celebration of our common humanity whilst respecting our diversity as a society, and it's something I've been proud to participate in for a very long time, since the early 1980s. It is just a fact that students should be respected and teachers should be respected for who they are. I remember, as a student, one of my friends coming to school who'd been the subject of a violent assault because of who they were, because of their sexuality. At that time, he didn't even report it because at that time—fortunately, society has moved forward, and we're far more open about respecting who we are, but we still have a long way to go. I note that, in New South Wales, there has been an outbreak—and the Attorney-General is working with the New South Wales government on a number of instances where there have been violent assaults on young people that were filmed and put on the internet in order to somehow boast. These cowards deserve to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. For young people coming to terms with their identity and who they are and coming to terms with expressing themselves, it can be really, really tough. I think that we as government want to play a role—and I'm sure it's one that the member would agree with—in promoting respect across the board as well. We've come a long way, but there's further to go, as the member has said. My government will continue to promote equality, to engage in a respectful way in which every person, whether they're a student or a teacher, are able to engage and be who they are as well. We don't support discrimination in any form on issues such as this. So I thank the member not just for her advocacy in this place but for her advocacy in her local community as well. On Saturday night, obviously, I was engaging in briefings and there were other things going on. But I do think that we should continue to work together as a society to make sure that every young person in particular feels safe, because they have an absolute right to do so. Energy 33 15:17 Ms KARA COOK 316537 Bonner My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. How is the Albanese Labor government helping households strengthen the grid, and why can't we afford to go back to policies of the past? 15:17 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon I thank my honourable friend for the question. Since 1 July, 256,630 Australian households have put in a cheaper home battery, and 1,941 of them have been in the electorate of Bonner. Only one of them's been visited by the Prime Minister and I and the member for Bonner, but 1,941 have put in a cheaper home battery, and that is 6.4 gigawatt hours. Now, interestingly, in terms of capacity, it took Australia 10 years to put in the first 6.4 gigawatt hours of home batteries and eight months to put in the second 6.4 gigawatt hours. That is a doubling of the capacity of home batteries under this government, and that is additional to the 9.4 gigawatt hours of large-scale energy that has been added since we came to office. The honourable member for Bonner asked me why we should avoid going back to the policies of the past. It's a very well crafted question, because the plural is important—because we had 22 failed energy policies in the decade of those opposite. We saw 24 out of 28 coal-fired power stations announce their closure, with no plan to replace them, and all this led to four gigawatts leaving the grid and only one gigawatt coming on. And that led— Honourable members interjecting— Mr BOWEN DZS They want to talk about prices. Let's talk about prices. Let's talk about the member for Hume changing the law to hide a 20 per cent price rise before the last election. I'll table the regulation, Mr Speaker. The now Leader of the Opposition hid a 20 per cent energy price rise. But just as concerning as the member for Hume's actions— Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The minister's got to pause for a moment. There's just far too much noise from both sides of the chamber. So the minister can just tone it down, and members on my left can please stop interjecting. We'll get through this. We shall conclude the question and answer. Mr BOWEN DZS The member for Hume changed the law to hide a 20 per cent price rise before the 2022 election. Just as concerning is the shifting alibi. First, he denied doing it. On 26 October he was asked about the regulation I just tabled, and he said, 'No, I didn't.' Then he later claimed it was the Australian Energy Regulator. On 26 October he said, 'The AER puts it out, not me. I didn't see it.' 'I didn't see it,' he said. Then, on 1 November, the story changed, and the member for Hume was asked, 'Does that mean you actually did sign a regulation of which the effect was to delay the release of pricing information?' And he finally fessed up. The SPEAKER 53517 The minister is referring to the member for Hume when he was the member for Hume. We're not going to get into this continual—he wasn't the Leader of the Opposition at the time. I'm listening carefully to what he's saying. He's referring to a previous capacity. Mr Hogan 218019 Standing order 64 is very important, Speaker. The SPEAKER 53517 Yes. Trust me, I'm well aware of that standing order and I'm enforcing it continuously. But let's just have a bit of common sense. If someone's referring to someone in a previous capacity, of course they can be referred to in that capacity. We'll deal with it in a commonsense way. The minister has 27 seconds to conclude his answer. Mr BOWEN DZS The now Leader of the Opposition fessed up and said, 'I did. It was recommended to me by the industry department and by the regulator as what they wanted. It was my department what made me do it, gov!' was his defence. This goes to the character of the now Leader of the Opposition. This goes to his character and his conduct. If the Leader of the Opposition is not prepared to trust the Australian people with information, whether it be an election review or an electricity price rise, he is not fit to be prime minister of this country. Mr Albanese R36 After 22 questions—none of them from those opposite on the economy or the cost of living—I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. QUESTIONS TO THE SPEAKER 34 QUESTIONS TO THE SPEAKER Government Responses to Committee Reports 34 15:22 Mr TEHAN 210911 Wannon I have a question for you, Speaker. I note you have, as other Speakers have in the past, allowed such questions to be asked of you, including by leaders of the House. As you would be aware, on 29 September 2010, the House adopted a resolution concerning government responses to committee reports. For the information of members, this resolution is at page 131 of the Standing and Sessional Orders. The resolution states: If a period of six months has elapsed from a report being presented and a response has not been presented, the relevant Minister (or Minister representing the Minister) shall: (a) present to the House at the next available opportunity a signed statement stating the reasons for the delay in presentation of the response … As you are probably aware, Mr Speaker, around 50 reports that have been delivered by Labor chaired committees remain unresponded to per the terms of this resolution. Some of these unanswered reports have inquired into financial abuse as a form of domestic violence, antisemitism on university campuses and the National Redress Scheme, which supports victims of child sexual abuse. In accordance with the resolution adopted by the House, relevant ministers who have not provided responses to committee reports within six months are required to 'present to the House at the next available opportunity a signed statement stating the reasons for the delay in presentation of the response'. In terms of the operation of the House, can you please tell members how this resolution is given effect? Administratively, is procedural advice provided by departmental staff to committee chairs advising them of overdue committee responses? And can I take this opportunity to also ask what action you, as Speaker, will make to ensure compliance with clause 1 of the resolution in the future? The clause states: Within a period of six months from the presentation in the House of a report by a House or Joint Committee, the Government shall present its response to the recommendations contained in the report to the House. 15:24 The SPEAKER 53517 I thank the Manager of Opposition Business for raising this important issue. He refers to the resolution adopted on 29 September 2010 on page 131 of standing orders. The first point I'll make is that questions to me are about administrative matters around the parliament. So the running of the House or the Department of Parliamentary Services does not fit into that category. You're asking me a question about the interpretation of a resolution and what actions or powers I have. You quoted the resolution, but you left out a very important part of the resolution, which, for members of the House, I will update. That says: (3) If a response has not been presented in the required time and an explanatory statement has not been presented and questions on the statement not answered to the satisfaction of the committee, the committee may bring the matter to the attention, if appropriate, of the Auditor-General for assistance in resolving matters referred to in the report or to the Speaker for assistance in resolving the response process. So the critical part of that resolution is 'the committee'. What you've done is not in line with the resolution. I'm not sure if you're aware of that or whether you just wanted to raise this and used this as an opportunity to raise that. That's certainly not allowed under the standing orders. But I have been generous to the manager to enable this issue to be ventilated. Just for moving forward, so all members know, if you're concerned about this, the first port of call would be the committee, by resolution, in writing. Then I may come into the course of action, but only after that. Mr Tehan 210911 Mr Speaker, can I just say thank you for that clarification. The SPEAKER 53517 You are welcome, Manager of Opposition Business; I enjoyed doing business with you. Gambling 35 15:26 Mr WILKIE C2T Clark Speaker, in light of the question raised by the Manager of Opposition Business relating to the House resolution on government responses to committee reports, I draw your attention to the fact that the report of the inquiry into online gambling and its impacts on those experiencing gambling harm, called You win some, you lose more—also known as the Murphy report—was handed down two years and five months ago. In fact, it was more than two years and five months ago now. This means it's more than two years past the time in which the Minister for Communications should have presented the government's response to this report under part (1) of the House resolution or a signed statement of reasons for the delay under part (2)(a) of the resolution. So, Speaker, I ask that you draw the minister's attention to this matter and remind the minister of the requirement to comply with all resolutions of the House. 15:27 The SPEAKER 53517 I refer to my earlier remarks. In light of the fact that the minister is sitting here in the chamber and you've raised that issue, that matter is now ceased. DOCUMENTS 35 DOCUMENTS Presentation 35 15:27 Mr BURKE DYW Watson 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. MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 35 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE National Security 35 15:27 The SPEAKER 53517 I have received a letter from the honourable member for Canning proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The Government's plan to bring home ISIS sympathisers endangering Australia's community safety and social cohesion. 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— 15:28 Mr HASTIE 260805 Canning As the Prime Minister ended question time just then, he made light of our line of questioning today, suggesting that we should be focused on the economy. But there is nothing more important than ensuring the national security of the Australian people and protecting our way of life. Our freedom, security and prosperity should be our top priority. The Liberal and National parties will always put the Australian people first. The government should too. But, under this Albanese Labor government, what we're actually seeing is the complete opposite. The Prime Minister is allowing self-managed returns to Australia for cohorts of ISIS sympathisers. These are women and children of men who went to the Middle East to fight for Islamic State, the world's most dangerous terrorist group this century. The coalition will not allow militant political Islam to grow in our communities. We care about our social cohesion, particularly after Bondi, and that's why we strongly oppose the return of ISIS sympathisers to Australia. We only have to look back at the events on 14 December to see what happens when militant political Islam is allowed to fester in our communities, and the result was the cold blooded murder of 15 people at Bondi Beach in an ISIS inspired attack. One of the shooters was actually Australian. He was born here, raised here, schooled here and radicalised here. Despite the horrific attack on Australian soil three months ago, the Albanese government is still allowing the return of ISIS sympathisers to our shores. Instead of using their powers and working with us—as we're willing to do; we tried to introduce a private member's bill today that would prevent these people from returning to our shores—Labor are providing assistance for individuals with links to ISIS to return to Australia, and it's extraordinary. Labor is allowing ISIS sympathisers back into the Australian community, even after Bondi. If the average Australian understands the threat that ISIS poses, why can't those opposite? It's very, very clear. You don't have to be a parliamentarian to see the threat that they pose. To remind the Australian public what ISIS were responsible for about 10 years ago, they were responsible for some of the worst atrocities committed in this century: rape, enslavement, torture and murder all across the Middle East and Africa. Religious and ethnic minorities all suffered under the yoke of ISIS, and ISIS stoned, beheaded and burnt alive their victims and put it on the internet—glorifying the murders of countless Assyrians, Chaldeans and Yazidis. We welcomed some Yazidis yesterday from the member for Riverina's community. Christians and Jews were also targeted by ISIS. In fact, there are some images that have stuck in our minds. In 2014, journalist James Foley was dragged into the desert and beheaded in broad daylight for all to see. In 2015, a Jordanian F-16 pilot was shot down. Muadh al-Kasasbeh was burnt alive. He was captured, put in a cage in an orange jumpsuit and doused in petrol, and then they lit him on fire in high definition and put it all over the internet. Why did they do this? ISIS wanted to recruit and intimidate. It wanted to provoke Western democracies like Australia. It wanted to outcompete al-Qaeda, and it wanted to win the hearts and minds of young men and women across the world. That's why we saw so many people from the UK, France, the Philippines and Australia head all the way to Iraq and Syria and join the caliphate. Who can forget Jihadi John—complete with a British accent—who symbolised the international outreach of the caliphate? It was a reach that extended all the way to our shores. Why on earth is this government allowing the repatriation of people who threw in their lot with ISIS? People like to call them ISIS brides, but these are people who are deeply sympathetic to a very systemic system of beliefs that put violence at the very centre of their world view, and we've seen no evidence that these people have repudiated these beliefs. In fact, for all we know, they still hold them. So why would we want to welcome them back into our community and have them celebrated by certain parts of the Australian community? They chose to travel to Iraq and Syria, they chose to remain there, and I think it's right and proper that we go through a very orderly process. But our starting position is that, if you betray this country, you're not welcome back. It's as simple as that. We are going to close the door on these people. I've made it very clear that we don't support the return of ISIS sympathisers to Australia. We know that radicalisation is still occurring, as we saw with the Bondi shooters. ASIO already has 18,000 people on its watchlist. That is very, very intensive work for an organisation that's already overstretched. Human surveillance and technical surveillance requires a lot of source development. It requires a lot of operational security. It requires a lot of people in the field keeping Australians safe, and that's just on the intelligence side. We've then got the law enforcement of our police, both federally and across our state jurisdictions. So why would we put additional pressure on already overstretched agencies? I think it's fair enough to ask questions about why the two Bondi shooters were able to slip the net of our police forces—New South Wales, the AFP and also ASIO—and I'm sure the royal commission will deal with that. But let's turn to Labor. The Albanese government denies any role in the return of ISIS sympathisers despite mounting evidence of its assistance. Its fingerprints are all over it, and Labor is trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the Australian people. There are only two options for those opposite. Either the government is incompetent and it can't actually deal with these people or the government is lying. They're the two choices: incompetence or lying. Both are bad, and neither position engenders confidence in the Commonwealth government, which is exactly what they should be doing, given that security is the first priority of any Australian government. The Minister for Home Affairs insists that the government is not helping ISIS sympathisers return to Australia. Yet, in September last year, Minister Burke secretly met with Save the Children before they brought six ISIS sympathisers back to Australia. If that wasn't enough, the home affairs minister's friend and political supporter Dr Jamal Rifi recently travelled to Syria with 35 passports for ISIS sympathisers seeking to return to Australia. This is a minister who couldn't come clean today in question time. We asked him directly, 'Have you or any of your officials assisted with the repatriation of these ISIS sympathisers with the issuing of passports?' and he said no. Well, I think Peter Jennings, a former public servant, put it best in the Australian newspaper some time ago. He said: Here are five conclusions about the repatriation of the so-called jihadi brides and their children to Australia. First, despite its denials the government is deeply involved. Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke leads the process, but several state and federal agencies must be involved. That's point 1. Point 2 is: … the Department of Home Affairs participated at senior levels in two meetings between … the minister— and Save the Children. Point 3 is: … reluctant or not, department officials are following the government's lead to deny the federal government's active engagement in repatriating the jihadis and their children. Point 4 is: … ministers and officials are failing in their obligation 'that there be the freest flow of information between the public sector and the parliament'. Finally, point 5 is: … this is another example of the Albanese government abusing public service processes to hide, control or limit information being made available to Australians. It's very clear. Don't take it from me; that is the prevailing view out there about what is going on right here. There are a couple of lies that Labor keep peddling. Labor have tried furiously to cover up and hide their tracks, but they're weaving their own web of lies. The first lie is the claim by the Prime Minister and the home affairs minister that Labor is forbidden under the law from preventing the return of ISIS sympathisers. But the truth is the minister, under a temporary exclusion order, can prevent the return of those people. It prevents a person over 14 from entering Australia for a specified period, which may be up to two years without security advice. That's lie No. 1. We issued eight temporary exclusion orders between 2019 and 2022. That's a pretty good record compared to the one on the other side. The minister can do it. It's within his grasp and it's within his power as the minister. We just need to see his will to act. But what we're learning is that the Albanese government is passive in the face of events. It's passive when it comes to national security problems, it's passive when empowered to make decisions to protect the Australian people and it's passive in the face of ISIS sympathisers. We're also seeing passivity elsewhere. Of course, we celebrated the death of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei over the weekend—a very evil person who has persecuted many, many people indeed. We were very troubled to discover in question time that last year $670,000 was committed to the TAHA Association in the member for Bruce's electorate. There was no press release. It was very hush-hush and very quiet. I'm not sure there was a lot of social media done about that one. Now we're discovering, in fact, that this same association is celebrating Ali Khamenei—not his death but the person and the regime and what he stood for. What he stood for is militant political Islam. That is what ISIS stands for, and that's why we are standing in here for the Australian people. We're closing the door on ISIS sympathisers, and we're calling on the Albanese government: do your duty and do the same. 15:38 Mr HILL 86256 Bruce I'll firstly associate myself with your remarks at the end. Ayatollah Khamenei was an evil dictator. I don't mourn his death. I made remarks about this in the Federation Chamber on Monday morning, which I put on social media. He was a terrorist in breach of the United Nations nuclear program sanctions and a person who has for 37 years or thereabouts—for decades—oppressed his own people and been responsible for the murder of countless—hundreds of thousands, most likely, of his own citizens. The Minister for Multicultural Affairs addressed the point you made regarding an election commitment in question time. She's put that on hold and is reviewing it. I can also share with the House that two days after we announced that commitment, there was a press release. The member for La Trobe's hand picked Liberal candidate turned up and announced double the money, but anyway we're reviewing it. I do actually feel sorry for the opposition. I do. Mr Rob Mitchell M3E Don't! Mr HILL 86256 No, I do. The party of Menzies and Howard, the alternative government, the party that has been the government of this country for the most number of years since World War II, has been reduced to this. They could pick any topic to debate for this hour. They could pick the cost of living or the economy—we got through a whole question time and didn't hear about the cost of living or the economy. They could pick tax cuts—well, the government's tax cuts. They oppose them. They could pick industry policy. That's actually the portfolio of the shadow minister at the table, the member for Flinders. They could pick the first anniversary of their policy to ban working from home—we could talk about that for an hour! Instead, they bring on a debate founded on a giant lie. They choose this, a giant, steaming untruth. During question time, as they just kept coming back to this well, up that end we were saying: 'Leave the poor dead horse alone. It's dead.' They are trying to convince Australians that there's some great conspiracy, that somehow the government plans to help repatriate people who chose to go to Syria with ISIS. It's simply not true. I will say it very slowly and clearly, so it might even get through to them. The government's position is clear and longstanding. The government is not providing assistance to these people to come back from Syria. The government is not repatriating these individuals from Syria. As you'd say to a child: 'Just because you say it, doesn't make it true. Just because you say it over and over again, doesn't make it true.' I'm not sure what's sillier, that the Leader of the Opposition chose to move a suspension of standing orders, disrupting the whole business of the parliament, to introduce a private member's bill that he clearly hadn't read, or that the shadow leader of the opposition over there is bringing on this debate founded on a mega falsehood. He has just been appointed—he's had a few appointments this term—I'm going to get the words right—the shadow minister for industry and sovereign capability. It may as well be 'sovereign citizens' as they might be the only people who believe this weird conspiracy theory. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 Is this on a point of order? Mr Hastie 260805 Yes, it is a point of order on relevance. Just come back to the debate. An honourable member: It's entirely relevant. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 That is not a point of order. I am ruling it not so. I have listened carefully, as I did with your speech, Member for Canning, to make sure that people are staying on the topic. I've heard a lot about the topic so far, so it can't be irrelevant. Mr HILL 86256 He's so focused on his portfolio that—and I never thought I'd say this—he should go back to making car fetish videos. At least it's relevant to your portfolio. But I will tell you—because you were looking this way, we were looking that way—clearly that was an audition, because you could see the calculation on the faces behind you. 'Is the current Leader of the Opposition going to last? Should we go with this bloke? Did we make a mistake? Should we go with this bloke? We'll see.' Again, I'll say it in very small sentences. The government doesn't want these people back. The government is not providing assistance. The government takes advice from security agencies and, difficult as I know it may be for them to understand, we follow the law. If any of these individuals find their way back to Australia, the agencies are prepared. The agencies will act in the interests of community safety and within the law. The agencies never stop watching and collecting intelligence, as I know the shadow minister well knows because we've both served on the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security and, in previous times, we have been briefed on these issues. As a matter of public record, but I will again say it here, the agencies assessed one of these people as meeting the threshold for temporary exclusion orders, and the Minister for Home Affairs acted immediately—the same approach that the former government took. These people should know that if they find their way back to Australia, they will face the full force of the law. If they've committed crimes, they will face the music. I feel very sorry for the children involved, deeply sorry, because their parents made dreadful choices, horrific choices. But the hypocrisy and the gaslighting from those opposite is staggering. It's exactly the same regime that operated under their government, the same laws, the same agencies. We trust the agencies to do their job. If they don't, they should just say so. And let's be clear: under their government numerous people, dozens and dozens and dozens of people, returned in exactly the same circumstances, they were issued passports, but the difference is they included fighters. Men who had picked up guns and fought with ISIS were allowed to come back under the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison regime. They were issued passports and they were allowed to come back—one of them after Scott Morrison was secretly sworn in as the minister for Home Affairs. They had two ministers for Home Affairs, but none of them seemed to know that these people were coming back. There were no complaints, no screaming, no shouting under their government. They asked to be repatriated; we said no. They took the government to court and lost and we still said no. On passports, as you know, public servants follow the law. Let's get a couple of facts on the record about the truly bizarre private member's bill that was introduced earlier today. We sat through an hour and 20 minutes of question time and we didn't hear a single thing about the most important thing that the Leader of the Opposition thought should stop the parliament, which was his own private member's bill. They didn't ask a single question about it. It wasn't raised. It's very telling that there were no questions on their big bill, because who would the bill criminalise? When you actually read the text of this genius bill that the Leader of the Opposition introduced, it would not have actually criminalised the people who fought for ISIS with the guns. It wouldn't have criminalised the cohort that they're now saying must be stopped from coming back—the cohort that the government doesn't want to come back, the cohort that was welcomed back on the watch of those opposite in exactly the same circumstances. No, it would have criminalised the pilots—the Qantas pilots. I mean, that's a clever move. It would have criminalised the flight attendants serving water and coffee on the plane, doing their job. It would have criminalised the baggage handlers. It would have created a really weird legal conflict for the poor old Customs officials—do they follow this law and stamp the passport of an Australian citizen and let them through, as is the law, or do they follow that law saying that, if they do so, they'd be committing a criminal offence? Perhaps the weirdest bit is it would have criminalised the entire US government and all of our American allies, who've been the main people calling for these camps to be emptied and for foreign governments to take these people home when they're citizens of other countries. It really was a genius move! The question then gets asked, and you have to reflect: was the Leader of the Opposition's introduction of the bill a mistake? Was he just a bit hasty? Or did he know and just didn't care? Incompetence or deliberate? It is a question for the opposition, a serious question. If someone exercises their rights as an Australian citizen—which those opposite well know can't be cancelled to some degree by the parliament or certainly by governments, and they know that because their own citizenship cancellation laws were struck down as unconstitutional by the High Court. They well know that the things that they've been out running around the community saying, and putting nonsense on social media for the last few weeks calling for, are unconstitutional. But if someone exercises their rights as Australian citizens—which can't be cancelled—why are they furious now but weren't when they were in government? That's what it boils down to. ISIS are a vile, bloodthirsty organisation. Every single one of the despicable acts that the shadow minister read into the Hansard before, the government condemns and every decent Australian condemns. But what's really going on here is the unedifying three-way that the nation is now enduring from the three far right parties. I'll conclude on this: you can't out-Pauline Pauline. 'One Nation light' won't work. We just had a minute's silence for Senator Ron Boswell, and if anyone could have taught you that, surely, it would have been him. 15:48 Mr SMALL 291406 Forrest Children aged between six and 10, standing with the severed heads of murdered humans, staring at a camera, smiling. When we talk about radicalisation occurring in terrorist hot spots under ISIS, that is the image that is seared into my mind, to say nothing of the atrocities that the member for Canning and deputy leader previously talked about, with the execution of journalists being livestreamed to the world. To see a human being locked in a cage and doused in fuel and set alight—these are the sorts of atrocities that occur under ISIS, and that is what these people who left Australia and went there knowingly signed up to support. It is a disgrace that they betrayed our country, our values and our way of life in that way. I don't want them back, the Liberal and National parties don't want them back, and we say the gate should be shut. The door should be slammed shut by this government, who, curiously, keep saying that this somehow has nothing to do with them and that issuing passports is just an automatic process. The minister, Tony Burke, said that this was just like getting a Medicare card. But, curiously, the passports act—which he is the responsible minister for—includes express provisions that allow the government of the day to intervene on security grounds. Temporary exclusion orders can be issued. Indeed, eight were issued under the Morrison government—which you guys seem very keen to talk about today all of a sudden. Eight temporary exclusion orders were issued under that government. How many has this government issued? Do you know? Government members interjecting— Mr SMALL 291406 You don't know. I'll take interjections from you guys all day. The reality is that the government runs the country. You can't hide from the scrutiny, because the Prime Minister himself declared to the Australian people at the last election that he would be the Prime Minister that turned up, that took responsibility. He wouldn't duck and weave and hide. Instead, what have we got? We've got obfuscation. We've got secret meetings occurring in Sydney where the Minister for Home Affairs booted out the departmental representatives. Why would you do that? Why would you kick the public servants out if they're the ones that are responsible for administering these processes, as you keep saying? Then we find, many months later through Senate scrutiny, that there are handwritten notes referring to a 'TB', and no-one in the Public Service can possibly think who 'TB' might have been! It just so happens, of course, that the Minister for Home Affairs was sitting in a meeting with Save the Children and Dr Jamal, who later went to Syria with some 35 passports stuffed in his pocket. No, there was nothing to see here. There was no reason, absolutely no reason, this guy had to be booted out of the meeting! This is gold-standard transparency from the Albanese government, isn't it? There are 18,000 individuals on the watchlist. We've got reports, after Bondi, that the AFP and security agencies are underresourced to deal with these sorts of radicalised individuals, but this lot want to allow more back into Australia. We say that the first job of government is to protect Australians and to keep them safe. We say that the gate should be shut. Every avenue should be pursued to keep Australians safe, and nothing should stand in the way of Australian national security. If there are deficiencies in the law in this country that leave our citizens unprotected or vulnerable, those loopholes should be closed. That is why, earlier today, just hours ago in this chamber, we sought to move a private member's bill to do exactly that—to shut the gate and keep these people out of our country. Instead, the government used its numbers to shut down any debate on the issue. 'Move on; nothing to see here.' It's typical. They talk a big game, but when the rubber hits the road they are completely missing in action. It's why Australians today have a lesser standard of living and are less protected than they were under conservative governments. The assistant minister was quite right. We have been rewarded with more years in government since World War II than any other political party because we do believe the first job of government is to keep Australians safe. 15:53 Mr GOSLING 245392 Solomon The first thing I want to say is that this is a really dishonest MPI. We heard first from the shadow minister and then from 'old mate', the member for Forrest—we'll be getting that one next time. The Albanese government's position on this issue is really clear and really longstanding, and it's disappointing that, as part of this political theatre, those opposite are pretending that no action has been taken by us—by the government—when the security agencies have provided clear advice. I'll flesh that out a bit for those listening to this debate. But, at the outset, I think it's important that we acknowledge that this is a point of debate that those opposite have put forward in the MPI that is quite dishonest and therefore unethical. It doesn't do justice to the faith in our security organisations that all members of this place should have, including the shadow minister, who, as Julian Hill, the member for Bruce, said, has been a member of the PJCIS. National security is not political theatre. We follow the advice of our security agencies and we follow the law. That's how we keep Australians safe. If any of these individuals find their own way to return to our shores, our agencies are prepared and will be able to act in the interests of community safety. It's important that members of the public who are listening have that assurance. As the Minister for Home Affairs has continuously, repeatedly said, our agencies have been monitoring these individuals for some time, and we have confidence, as the shadow minister should have confidence, as those opposite should have confidence, in our security agencies. Our law enforcement and national security agencies are following the exact same approach that they have for over a decade. That same approach was used by the former government. It was the approach that those opposite followed through their previous governments. So people in this cohort need to know that, if they have committed a crime and they return to Australia, they'll be met with the full force of the law. To those listening at home: have no fear; that will be the case. The full force of the law will be applied to anyone returning from overseas. A number of male foreign fighters, as the assistant minister pointed out, came back to Australia when the Liberal Party were last in government. The coalition built the legal framework that we are now operating under, and, at the time, they acknowledged that it goes as far as it can constitutionally. Maybe that's why we haven't seen anything of substance from them in their proposals. As Minister Burke has said, one individual in this cohort has been issued a temporary exclusion order, which was made on advice from security agencies. But, during his contribution, the shadow minister pretended that a temporary exclusion order isn't happening—that the government isn't putting a temporary exclusion order in place. That's one of the many reasons why I say that this is a dishonest and an unethical debate that they've put into the parliament. When there are so many other things that that we are happy to talk about, those opposite put up what we in the Northern Territory would call a gammon, a pretend piece of private member's legislation that was full of holes. It was either deliberately dishonest or incompetent. I'm not sure which of those—probably both. If our security agencies provide advice that additional people in the cohort meet the threshold, then temporary exclusion orders should be put in place, and of course we will do that because we follow their advice and we trust in them. And that's what those opposite should do, rather than this stupid political theatre that they're engaged in today. (Time expired) 15:58 Ms PENFOLD 248895 Lyne At a time when the country is still coming to terms with the murder of 15 innocents by terrorists inspired by ISIS, the news that the Albanese government has taken steps to assist the return of ISIS sympathisers into the country is frightening and it is infuriating. The Prime Minister and his Minister for Home Affairs say they have no choice; they cannot legally prevent Australian citizens from entering the country. But I cannot support that position. My electorate have overwhelmingly made clear to me that they do not support the government's position. They vehemently refute it and indeed consider that the Albanese government's surrender to these ISIS sympathisers constitutes a complete and utter betrayal. These women, these ISIS brides, are not unwilling participants. They are not helpless actors coerced or forced into the situation. They were already radicalised when they travelled to Syria and Iraq during the height of Islamic State's territorial expansion to marry and raise the children of fighters for the caliphate. They made a very conscious decision to do so. They also, sadly and cruelly, made a choice for their children—many unborn at the time. These women and children have been exposed to the very worst of Islamic extremism. They've been active participants and proponents of a doctrine that condones public beheadings, dismemberment and crucifixion, the stoning of women, the forced marriage of girls, the brutal murder of anyone that rejects their cruel and oppressive beliefs, the kidnapping and brainwashing of children to be child soldiers, the rape and sexual slavery of women and girls as weapons of war, torture—including burning and burying captives alive—and the organisation and orchestration of global terror against the West, including Australia. These people, these ideas, cannot be given residence in Australia. Australia already has a grave Islamic extremism problem. If we didn't already know this, the Bondi terrorist attacks sure brought that reality home. We have, in this country, pockets where Islamic fundamentalism and extremism is staunchly propagated which the return of these ISIS sympathisers will only serve to embolden and escalate. Over this last week we've seen indisputable evidence that Islamic extremism has an outward presence in Australia, with Sydney and Melbourne mosques holding public memorials and prayer sessions to mourn the death of Iran's Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, an evil tyrant whose deeds and decrees were completely antithetical to Australian values. These women and children are not going to come to Australia, make their home in a benign part of the country, deradicalise and miraculously reject their deeply ingrained illiberal ideology in favour of Australia's democratic values. They will settle in Australia's enclaves of Islamic extremism, be lauded as heroes and proclaimers of the caliphate, help radicalise an entire new generation and, no doubt, do all of this on the taxpayers' dime. This cannot be accepted. We are this country's legislators. We have the power. We, if nothing else, are responsible for ensuring these evil people do not return to Australia. Australians expect this from us. I urge the Albanese government to defend and protect our country and support our legislation. Fight against the return of these ISIS sympathisers, rescind their citizenship, issue temporary exclusion orders and end the policy of self-managed returns of ISIS linked cohorts. Be transparent with Australians and put our national interest, safety and security first. Australia is the greatest country in the world, but that greatness is dependent upon its people and the values we hold. The Albanese government, in enabling these ISIS sympathisers to return to Australia, threatens the very future of this country and its traditional standing as a beacon of hope, freedom and democracy and, instead, tilts it closer on a trajectory towards what we see on the streets of London and the rest of the UK. Australians are genuinely frightened about the future of this country—a country they love fiercely and loyally. If the Prime Minister shares even an ounce of that devotion for Australia's culture and people, he will not just talk but do—do everything in his power to ensure these ISIS sympathisers and their families are prevented from ever making their way into our home. 16:03 Ms CLUTTERHAM 316101 Sturt The premise of today's MPI is incorrect and can be addressed in a simple sentence: there is no plan in the terms suggested. The government has been repeatedly clear on this—repeatedly. There is no plan to bring home the cohort of people currently residing in the al-Roj camp in Syria, and whose recent attempt to leave Syria was blocked by Syrian authorities. There is no plan. The Albanese government's position on this issue has been consistent and longstanding and could not be clearer: no plan. The Prime Minister, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Home Affairs have repeatedly said: 'We are not providing assistance. We are not repatriating individuals from Syria.' The Albanese Labor government's priority is keeping Australians safe. It doesn't politicise something as critical as national security and the safety and security of Australian citizens. Instead, the priority of this government is to facilitate the safety of Australian citizens. It is to follow the advice of our security agencies and it is, at all times, to conduct ourselves in accordance with the laws in force in this country. In the ASIO annual threat assessment 2025, the Director-General of Security outlined ASIO's outlook to 2030, which assessed that, over the next five years, Australia's security environment will become more dynamic, more diverse and more degraded. We are facing multifaceted, merging, intersecting, concurrent, cascading threats. The ASIO annual threat assessment 2025 also outlined that now, more than ever, information is needed to allow ASIO to anticipate, to look forward and to identify trends, individuals and patterns of behaviour. Credible risk assessments and advice to government and other stakeholders can only be developed in respect of credible information from relevant sources. The role that ASIO plays in keeping Australia and Australians safe from national security threats cannot be underestimated, and there is a need for its powers to be adequate to support this function while, at the same time, responding to a changing security environment. That is why, under this government, ASIO is as well funded as it has ever been, with increased powers of surveillance and questioning, courtesy of legislation introduced into parliament by this government. Australia's security environment is becoming more complex. We've seen recent instances of foreign interference on our shores, which, along with security threats from espionage and politically motivated violence, remain our principal security concerns. So it's important that ASIO's powers continue to evolve to enable them to respond in an increasingly volatile threat environment. Thanks to our legislation, ASIO is empowered to collect the information and intelligence it needs to anticipate Australia's need in this environment. Doing this is illustrative of the government's view that these expanded and new compulsory questioning powers now form an essential part of ASIO's information and collection powers. As an Australian citizen living and working in this great country I want ASIO to be able to anticipate, to be able to properly advise government and other stakeholders and to be able to prepare accurate and thorough risk assessments so that dynamic and critical risks can be managed. I want to know that ASIO knows what's going on, what the threats to this country and its people might be and how best to counter them. And I want to know that, when this advice is received and provided to government, the government will act. That is why, when advice was received regarding a temporary exclusion order in connection with one of those citizens seeking to return to Australia, the advice was acted on and implemented. I trust that advice. The government trusts that advice because it has properly equipped our intelligence organisations with the tools that they need to provide that accurate, timely and strategic advice. Under the law, Australian citizens cannot be prevented from returning to Australia unless a temporary exclusion order is in place. These are serious powers that can only be used where the legal threshold is met, and now one citizen has been subject to a temporary exclusion order. We received the advice and we acted on it. If our national security agencies provide advice that additional people in the cohort meet that threshold, we will act. We want to talk about a plan. It's to continue to equip our intelligence agencies with the power they need to provide full and frank advice and to act on that advice for the betterment of Australians. 16:09 Mr PASIN 240756 Barker We've just heard from the member for Sturt, and in her contribution she indicated that, effectively, this government has no plan with respect to this cohort. If we're to take the opposition's position, or be as generous as we can for the opposition's position, it's one of indifference relative to this cohort. Government members: You are the opposition! Mr PASIN 240756 The government, I should say. Well, hope springs eternal that it won't be long! But the point about that is that, if we're to take the government's position at its highest, it's one of indifference. My friend opposite said, 'What we should be doing is empowering the security agencies.' No. What we should be doing is directing the security agencies to go and get the evidence we require to deal with this cohort, to ensure that all members of this cohort are subject to an exclusion order. Now, there's been a softening up of the Australian people regarding this cohort. There are references to brides and children, and— Government members interjecting— Mr PASIN 240756 No. I'm not softening them up. Those opposite need to appreciate that these are ISIS sympathisers, and I think there's an opportunity to remind those opposite of ISIS's record of terror. Let's start. This is a barbaric terrorist death cult. This is a regime that's built on genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes—the Yazidi genocide; mass killing of men; enslavement of women and girls; attempted eradication of the entire people; systematic sexual slavery; women and children treated as commodities, bought and sold under an organised slave market; public executions and beheadings used as propaganda to intimidate a population and recruit extremists; massacre of civilians in Iraq and Syria to consolidate control; the torture and killing of hostages, including foreign journalists and aid workers; and the indoctrination and weaponisation of children, training and arming and deploying minors for propaganda and violence. Who can forget the image of the young Australian boy holding the severed head of a victim or the other image of a child standing before a crucified body all as part of ISIS's campaign of propaganda? Let's not soften the Australian people up for their return. We don't want to reintroduce that level of hate into this country. We do not want to see that, and those opposite have an opportunity. What they are right now is indifferent to the return of these ISIS sympathisers. On one hand, the Prime Minister says: 'You make your bed. You lie in it.' On the other hand, he's quite happy to say, 'I have no power to stop third parties doing these things.' This story has a long way to go yet, and the truth will reveal itself. Those opposite have an opportunity—we're introducing legislation which will make it a criminal offence to assist people to return to this country. If you seek to support them, then you've committed a criminal offence. Join us. Let's agree to legislate that position because these individuals can never return to this country. If they do, Australians' safety and security will have been compromised. This is a 'whose side are you on' moment in this place. Honourable members interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 Enough yelling and shouting. Mr PASIN 240756 Whose side are you on? My question to you is: who side are you on— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 Order! Sit down. Ministers at the table, this is completely unacceptable. I have been screamed at for five minutes from the despatch box for trying to overpower the interjections on this side. It is completely undignified. This is already a heated debate, and you are adding fuel. Let's try and bring down the temperature. You can make your point without having to yell. Members opposite, you can and will have your opportunities to debate against the arguments being put. That's the whole point of an MPI. 16:14 Ms CAMPBELL 312823 Moreton I think that the member for Barker's speech proves one thing, and that's that there's been a softening up of the coalition's shadow frontbench. And, can I say, it's been softened up because national security is not a game. National security is not a space for political posturing. National security is not a space for political theatre. It's serious. And this is a government, on this side of the chamber, who takes it—as it should—seriously. When it comes to this cohort, and, indeed, when it comes to all circumstances, this is a government that follows the advice of the security agencies, because we have confidence in those agencies. This is a government that follows the law, as we are required to do. This is a government that, because of those two things, keeps Australia and Australians safe every day. And this place, this institution and this country deserve better than what we have seen from the opposition today, because, if the opposition cared about national security, they wouldn't have put forward the bill that they put forward earlier today, a bill that the member for Forrest said would shut the gate. What do we find when that bill comes through? What do we find when we look at the fine print? We find that the bill would only shut the gate on pilots getting into the cockpit to fly a commercial air flight. We find that the bill would shut the gate on, and criminalise the work of, flight attendants pushing a trolley down the aisle. We find that the bill would criminalise, and shut the gate on, the work of baggage handlers loading suitcases onto the conveyor belt. And we find that the bill would shut the gate on people working in humanitarian aid in regions where people need the most help. If the opposition cared about national security, they wouldn't be ignoring the legal framework that the coalition itself created. They wouldn't be ignoring the Constitution. They wouldn't be changing the position that they followed and the approach that they followed when they were in government. Certainly, if the opposition cared about national security, they wouldn't be asking questions in question time about intelligence advice that they know very well is not to be made public. I understand that the opposition has been in a shambles. I understand that they need to put on a show. I understand that this has been the fundamental reason behind their behaviour in this chamber and their fundamental lurch to the Right. But let's call this out for what it is. It is a desperate attempt to impersonate Pauline Hanson. It is a desperate grab for votes that they have lost because of their disunity, their dysfunction and the mess that's resulted from focusing only on themselves. When the now Leader of the Opposition stood up, in his first address to the public, he said this: We're in this position because we didn't stay true to our core values … Yet the Leader of the Opposition, in his first days in this place, has not driven a traditional Liberal values based agenda. He has driven the agenda of One Nation. Not only does that not support a focus on national security; not only does that not support a focus on the Australian people; not only does that not focus on the core things that people in our community are raising, day in, day out, like the cost of living, like housing and like health care—what that means is that social cohesion and community safety go out the window for more cheap politicking. 16:19 Mr REBELLO 316547 McPherson The Prime Minister once said, 'My word is my bond.' But, on national security, Australians are seeing the opposite. Labor claims that it does not want ISIS brides—ISIS criminals, ISIS terrorists—and their children to return to Australia. Yet considerable assistance has clearly been given, including the issuing of passports. We're told that this government is not assisting, but federal and state agencies have reportedly been meeting for months to manage their return. Australians deserve clarity when it comes to national security, and they're not getting that clarity from this government. They deserve honesty, and they deserve to know whether terrorists are going to be moving in next door to their families. Labor could not be more divided on this. The PM said that they're not welcome. The Minister for Foreign Affairs has issued passports. The Minister for Home Affairs says his hands are tied. Which is it? We know that the home affairs minister met with Save the Children before a previous cohort returned, and public servants were asked to leave the room. We know that a political supporter travelled to Syria carrying dozens of passports. No-one carries more than 30 passports into a conflict zone without significant coordination. And we now see footage emerge of the home affairs minister embracing that very individual leading third-party efforts to repatriate these terrorist sympathisers. Here lies the problem. These third parties are out there actively assisting in these individuals' repatriation to Australia, and the Prime Minister's doing absolutely nothing to stop them. Labor's policy of so-called 'self-managed returns' has created a very dangerous loophole. It allows these parties to organise, without direct Commonwealth authorisation, the return of individuals who entered a terrorist declared area, joined a listed organisation or committed a terrorist offence. That is reckless. We must protect our way of life. Labor have an array of tools at their disposal to do this, yet they choose not to use them. The Australian Passports Act allows refusals on security grounds. Temporary exclusion orders also exist for precisely these circumstances, and the coalition has used these well in the past. Every lawful avenue should be pursued to delay or prevent return when national security is at risk. Labor say that they're powerless, but, if they truly oppose these returns, they could use existing powers robustly and work with us—with the coalition—to strengthen the law if necessary. We have said time and time again that we will work constructively on this. In fact, the coalition's keeping Australia safe bill closes current loopholes that allow third parties to repatriate terrorists. Our bill requires the express permission of both the Minister for Home Affairs and the Minister for Foreign Affairs before any assistance can be provided. Now, if ministers want these returns, they should sign their name to them. Our bill makes it an offence to assist the return of people associated with terrorist organisations without ministerial authorisation, because national security should never be outsourced to NGOs. These women chose to enter and remain in an ISIS declared area. Islamic State was not a social movement; it was a brutal terrorist regime. Security experts warn that radicalisation does not simply disappear. ASIO already has 18,000 individuals on its watchlist. Every additional high-risk returnee increases pressure on an already stretched agency. Labor should not hide behind NGOs or bureaucratic ambiguity. Transparency strengthens democracy, and secrecy erodes it. Australians deserve to know who is making these decisions and why. Serious questions do remain about process and accountability. When was this self-managed returns policy adopted? Was it approved by the National Security Committee of cabinet? Were ASIO's full powers explored? Were temporary exclusion orders considered for the entire cohort? These are questions that we need answers for from this government. These are legitimate questions about national security governance, and the Australian people that we represent deserve answers, not even more evasions. 16:24 Mr DAVID SMITH 276714 Bean The Albanese government's position on this issue is clear and longstanding. We are not providing assistance and we are not repatriating individuals from Syria. National security is not political theatre. We follow the advice of our security agencies and we follow the law. That is how we keep Australians safe. That is responsible government. If any of these individuals find their own way to return to Australia, our agencies are prepared and will be able to act in the interests of community safety. Our agencies have been monitoring these individuals for some time, and we have confidence in our security agencies. Our law enforcement and national security agencies are following the same approach they have followed for over a decade—the same approach the former government followed. People in this cohort need to know that, if they have committed a crime and they return to Australia, they'll be met with the full force of the law. A number of male foreign fighters came back to Australia when the Liberal Party were last in government. The coalition built the legal framework we are now operating under and at the time acknowledged it goes as far as it constitutionally can. Maybe that's why we haven't seen anything of substance from them on their proposals, particularly today. As Minister Burke has said, one individual in this cohort has been issued a temporary exclusion order, which was made on advice from security agencies. If our national security agencies provide advice that additional people in the cohort meet the threshold and should also be issued temporary exclusion orders, then of course the government would act on that, just as the government would act on any advice from national security agencies that a passport should be refused or cancelled. As always, the Albanese government will act on the advice of our security agencies to ensure the safety of Australians. We know the safety situation in Syria remains extremely dangerous. DFAT warns of the continuing threat of armed conflict, air strikes, terrorism, arbitrary detention and kidnapping. Our travel advice to Australians remains the same today as it was in 2011: do not travel to Syria. That's advice that many of the individuals in this cohort unfortunately chose to ignore when they travelled to Syria. Of course, we have great sympathy for the children who are in this situation through no fault of their own. The decision made by their parents to go and support ISIS has had dreadful consequences for these children. The safety of Australians and the protection of Australia's national interests remain the Albanese government's overriding priority. The bill that the opposition put forward today would potentially criminalise a whole bunch of people that nobody in their right mind would think should fall foul of criminal law. It wouldn't criminalise the fighters who came in under their watch, under the Abbott government, under the Turnbull government and then under the Morrison government. This bill would not apply to the cohort currently in Syria. But it would criminalise the pilots of the commercial plane that flew them back, it would criminalise the baggage handlers and it would criminalise our allies and any aid workers trying to get people out of the camps. This is lazy, shoddy legislation that doesn't do anything to stop the current cohort of people in Syria but that does criminalise other people who nobody thinks should be criminalised. It's theatre, and this government doesn't engage in theatre. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 The time for this discussion has now concluded. STATEMENTS 45 STATEMENTS Personal Explanation 45 16:29 The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 The member for La Trobe has indicated that he's seeking to get the call to make a personal explanation. Does the member claim to have been misrepresented? 16:29 Mr WOOD E0F La Trobe That's correct. During the MPI today, the member for Bruce claimed that my hand-picked Liberal candidate for Bruce made an election commitment double that of the member for Bruce, which was $670,000, for the TAHA association. I was shadow minister in charge of multicultural affairs and grants, and neither the Liberal Party, nor I, nor the candidate made a commitment to the association. I've spoken to the Liberal candidate for Bruce, who advised that, during the election campaign, he made no such commitment and did not visit the TAHA association. So, if the member for Bruce has evidence, such as a video, media release or Facebook post, he needs to produce it. Otherwise, I request that he retract that statement. BILLS 45 BILLS Royal Commissions Legislation Amendment (Protections for Providing Information) Bill 2026 45

Royal Commissions Legislation Amendment (Protections for Providing Information) Bill 2026

Second Reading 45 16:30 The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 The debate on the second reading of the bill having been closed by the Attorney-General speaking in reply, the question is that this bill be now read a second time. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Third Reading 45 16:30 Ms ROWLAND 159771 Greenway by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. COMMITTEES 45 COMMITTEES Membership 45 16:31 The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 The Speaker has received a message from the Senate acquainting the House with the appointment of senators to certain joint committees. As the list of appointments is a lengthy one, I do not propose to read the list to the House, but details will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings. BILLS 45 BILLS Treasury Laws Amendment (Building a Stronger and Fairer Super System) Bill 2026 45

Treasury Laws Amendment (Building a Stronger and Fairer Super System) Bill 2026

Second Reading 45 16:31 The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 I understand it is the wish of the House to debate this order of the day concurrently with the Superannuation (Building a Stronger and Fairer Super System) Imposition Bill 2026. 16:32 Mr TIM WILSON IMW Goldstein The opposition does not agree to debate the bills in cognate. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 Given an objection has been raised by the shadow minister, we'll be proceeding with the original bill, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Building a Stronger and Fairer Super System) Bill 2026. Mr TIM WILSON IMW Australians are sick of the laws around superannuation constantly changing, with the Labor government fiddling every step of the way and undermining the retirement security of millions of Australians. Labor change the rules, they fiddle with the standards, they add new taxes and they even put forward insane new taxes, including those that are going to apply an income tax on unsold assets. It's an assault on families, their long-term financial security and their retirement. Too often, the benefit or the purpose of changing the rules is to benefit a select number of funds that the Labor Party, through the union cartel, control and therefore use at their whim to take cartel kickbacks and funnel money to themselves through marketing expenses, via the unions, to ensure that they can continue to manage the retirement savings of Australians. There's simply no basis on which any good minded Australian citizen can tolerate the continued corruption of the superannuation system under the Australian Labor Party. The Treasurer likes to carry on in question time and everywhere else about superannuation, as though they have some sort of wonderful legacy associated with it, but the practice is that this government, like Labor governments past, treat the Australian retirement savings system like it's their own plaything—a piggy bank designed to fund them, to finance their interests and, of course, to be corruptly used to the advantage of organisations like the CFMEU-Labor cartel. There is no limit to the extent to which they want to be able to eat into the retirement savings of Australians, and the group they hate the most is Australians who take responsibility for their retirement security through self-managed superannuation funds. Labor hates self-managed superannuation funds because, when people control their own superannuation, they can slap the hand of the Labor Party as it tries to stick it into their retirement savings—because they know that, when Labor tries to get its hand into this SMSF cookie jar, they have a way to close the lid and stop the Labor Party from stealing their money. So what's Labor's solution? They always come up with a new way of introducing a new tax that gives them an indirect pathway to apply a standard to SMSFs, but they don't apply it to industry funds because they stay compliant and they stay under their thumb. That's why we have to fight the agenda that Labor has to destroy the retirement security of millions of Australians who've taken agency over and ownership of their own future. That's why Labor wanted to introduce an unrealised capital gains tax, which would have applied an income tax to unsold assets held in super. They wanted to introduce an income tax on unsold assets to apply to SMSFs, but they weren't going to apply it to industry funds because they were compliant and stayed within the control of the Labor Party. It was very amusing to watch Labor's plan for an unrealised capital gains tax play out in what has now become a periodic and regular episode in this parliament. The Prime Minister goes off and announces one thing. He turns to his Treasurer and says, 'Your job is now to introduce and deliver it,' and then he goes through a process of ritual humiliation of his Treasurer by then, eventually—as he can't make the case in the public square—changing the rules and the regulations around him. The ritual humiliation of the Treasurer by the Prime Minister has to be one of the sickest performances that I've ever seen in this parliament, but it's definitely one that's now a regular feature of this Labor government, where the Prime Minister makes sure that he sets his own Treasurer up for failure. Every time he encourages him to float a new tax, he ends up overriding his Treasurer after the Treasurer has failed to do the hard work to build out the case. But the Prime Minister gets to do it, so he makes the Treasurer look ridiculous in front of his own colleagues. But there is no clearer example of the ritual humiliation of the Treasurer by the Prime Minister than by forcing him to close down his unrealised capital gains tax, which would apply an income tax to unsold assets in superannuation. But Labor now can't be trusted. Labor continue to introduce taxes they didn't take to the election. This bill, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Building a Stronger and Fairer Super System) Bill 2026, proposes a new tax that was not taken to the last election and was not voted on by the Australian people. We know that Labor have other taxes that they're now floating amongst the community that were not taken to the last election, like their new tax on housing, which would increase the cost of new house constructions in Australia, and like their plan to fiddle with tax laws—they're going to start to apply taxes where Australians lose money. That's what's been happening with their proposals. They're getting modelled in the budget. Whenever something moves, they tax it. And, of course, they want to make sure they take more control over and more ownership of the wealth of Australians. After the Prime Minister ritually humiliated the Treasurer on his unrealised capital gains tax proposal, they've come back with a different tax that they didn't take to the last election, which is to apply an additional 15 per cent tax on income above a threshold of $3 million. The Prime Minister has also humiliated the Treasurer by saying that that $3 million now needs to be indexed. Then, as a final form of humiliation, he has turned around and said, 'Let's have a 40 per cent tax on income above a threshold of $10 million.' We know full well that this was never the Treasurer's intent. He is consistently in a pattern of behaviour where he is overridden by the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister likes to keep him under his thumb to give a warning sign to the rest of his frontbench and all the members in the back bench as well who dare challenge him. He knows full well he's got dirt files ready to bring out on them at any time. This is a disturbing model of governance where you have a prime minister with so much control and timid and weak members of parliament afraid to stand up and challenge him. It is showing just how much the model of government we currently have in Australia allows things like public money to go to organised crime through the CFMEU-Labor cartel. Labor have a problem. They don't have enough revenue, and, as we trend towards $1 trillion of debt in the coming weeks, Labor have only one answer, which is how to go after more Australians' money. But let's not lose sight of why Labor is going after more Australians' money. They have $15 billion to $30 billion of taxpayers' money to give to organised crime through the CFMEU-Labor cartel. The smart thing would be not to give that $15 billion to $30 billion to organised crime through the CFMEU-Labor cartel. The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZY Order! I ask the member to be relevant to the bill. Mr TIM WILSON IMW Absolutely, Deputy Speaker. The smart thing would be for the Labor Party not to give $15 billion to $30 billion to organised crime through the CFMEU-Labor cartel, but because they have done so they are now introducing new taxes on the Australian people. They can't manage their money and they've given taxpayers' money over to organised crime through the CFMEU-Labor cartel. That is explicitly relevant to this bill because we're talking about how Labor is raising the revenue that they are giving to organised crime through the CFMEU-Labor cartel. The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZY Again, I'll ask the member not to go on outside the parameters of the bill. I ask you to be relevant to the bill. It is the Treasury Laws Amendment (Building a Stronger and Fairer Super System) Bill, so I ask that you be relevant and keep within the parameters. Mr TIM WILSON IMW Deputy Speaker, the bill is about a new tax that's being applied to Australians, and the reason that tax revenue is necessary is that the Labor government has been taking public money—the money they are raising from this legislation—and handing it to organised crime through the CFMEU-Labor cartel. It is explicitly relevant to this bill, and that is— The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZY The member will resume his seat. Ms McBain 281988 I raise a point of order on relevance. There are assumptions and directions and motives being impugned onto a party of this parliament which are incorrect, unproven and completely inappropriate. The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZY Before I call the member for Goldstein, I ask him to be relevant to the bill. The bill is about Treasury laws, not about other areas that you're paddling into. Stick to the bill and everything will be fine. We'll keep it flowing, other people can speak and you can have your say as well. Mr TIM WILSON IMW I will explain again, Deputy Speaker. The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZY I ask the member to resume his seat. The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZY I ask you to resume your seat for a moment. I've made it quite clear that you're not being relevant to the bill. I've made that point three times now. I don't want to take it any further. You can talk about the bill as it is within the parameters of the bill. You've made the point; we've heard you. You've made the point—you've made it—but you're continuing to raise issues completely outside of the parameters of the bill. I've allowed you to do so two or three times. So I ask that you now go back onto the bill. Mr TIM WILSON IMW Thank you, Deputy Speaker. How public money is raised under Treasury bills related to superannuation—this bill is introducing a new tax. It absolutely is relevant not just how the revenue is raised but also how the money is expended. What we know under this Labor government is they have a long history of not spending public money in the correct way. What we know is that they use public money— The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZY Order! The member for Goldstein will resume his seat. Ms McBain 281988 I raise a point of order on relevance. Again, you're impugning motive onto a party of this parliament which is completely incorrect. The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZY The member for Goldstein has the call, and I'm listening carefully. Mr TIM WILSON IMW The imputation is not being made by me. It is being made by independent corruption watchdog Geoffrey Watson SC in an independent inquiry being run through the Queensland parliament. But now we're going into matters that I broadly agree extend beyond the specific purpose of the bill. I am talking about how public money is raised and how public money is expended, including the basis in which this legislation is being put forward. Labor have a spending problem. They simply cannot contain how they are going to spend the amount of money they receive from the public. That is why they will continue on their trajectory of $1 trillion of debt in the coming weeks. The denial of that reality by this government is why they are going back and taxing Australians more. They are deliberately and maliciously targeting self-managed superannuation funds, as they consistently have done before. None of that has changed. None of that is different to the longstanding practice of this government. But what is very clear is that Labor are increasingly finding it difficult. They are feeling the heat and the pressure coming from the opposition because people are talking about it. People are being forthright about not just how the money is raised but how it is being expended as well. I understand that it is uncomfortable for members opposite when they raise revenue and they don't want attention on how it is being spent, but I can assure you that it is deeply relevant to this legislation, and some of us will not be backing down. What we are seeing under this legislation is a farce. Every step of the way the process of passing legislation related to this tax is a farce. They proposed an unrealised capital gains tax, and it was mocked and ridiculed by Paul Keating and by Bill Kelty. Even Sally McManus had a go. That's how out of touch our Treasurer truly is. He simply doesn't understand not just his portfolio, because he's a passenger in it, but the consequences of his actions. The challenge for the Australian community is that the government now seeks to pass new legislation that introduces a tax that Australians didn't vote for. And let's be clear about this—I'm sure there will be objections that this isn't relevant from the other side of the chamber—the Australian people did not vote for the tax that Labor is now seeking to introduce. And coming up to the 2026-27 budget, the Labor Party will put forward further taxes that they lacked the courage and the honesty to put forward to the Australian people at the last election. They have broken their promise once. They will repeat that a second time and a third time. We're now going to see a government that has no trust at the core of its economic agenda, and no tax will be off the table. When they change capital gains tax on one property, expect them to come after the family home next. When they seek to remove negative gearing selectively, expect it all to go. And why are they raising the revenue? Just like under this new tax introduced in the Treasury Laws Amendment (Building a Stronger and Fairer Super System) Bill 2026, they are doing it so they can spend that money on untoward activities. Make no mistake, part of it's because that money goes towards cartel-ish behaviour, which absolutely involves the CFMEU. According to independent corruption watchdog Geoffrey Watson SC, somewhere between $15 billion to $30 billion has been handed from Labor governments to organised crime. It is not my opinion; it is what is being said. I hear this often from members on the other side of the chamber when we debate other pieces of legislation—and they aren't always about taxation and revenue—which is, 'What is it that people want to cut from the federal budget?' It's abundantly clear that we absolutely want to cut out public money that goes towards organised crime through the CFMEU-Labor cartel. Ms Berry 23497 What else are you going to cut? Mr TIM WILSON IMW I'll take the interjection from the member opposite— The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZY You won't take the interjection from the member opposite. You will listen to me for a moment. Again, you are veering way off the parameters. You've made that point. I don't want to take it any further. If I hear it again, I will take it further. I want you to remain within the parameters of the debate. We've heard your point. We heard it earlier. You've made the point. I've asked you to pull back a bit and stay within the parameters. I've given you plenty of leeway. Please don't abuse my kind leeway that I have given you, Member for Kooyong, and stay within the parameters of the bill. Mr TIM WILSON IMW Goldstein. The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZY Goldstein, sorry. Mr TIM WILSON IMW I'll continue within the exclusive parameters of the bill of how money is raised and how money is spent, under the Treasury Laws Amendment (Building a Stronger and Fairer Super System) Bill 2026. There was an interjection during the question from the member opposite, because she asked a question in the context of it, which is that NDIS corruption is also how money that is being raised through this bill is spent. I don't want NDIS corruption. I don't want a tax that raises money and then is spent on corruption. I'm shocked that this is an issue for the members opposite, but I think it reveals how many times there have been interjections from the members opposite about why they find people holding a mirror up to the government about exactly what it is they're about. Precedent consistently shows that once you talk about changes to the superannuation system—which is Australians' money. Money in superannuation is actually income that is deferred into the future. It is given into a preferential tax treatment, but it is Australians' money. They own it, not us, not the members opposite. They own it and they own it whether it's in a self-managed superannuation fund or an industry fund or a retail fund. The tax treatment that applies is when the government comes along and says, we're going to take a chunk of that money and we're going to use it for a public purpose. And then the question then becomes, once we're introducing a new tax, how that money is spent. That money is spent on lots of different things, from federal defence—and I think we all accept that that's part of the relevance of this debate—to the NDIS. That is part of this debate, and so is NDIS corruption. That is part of this debate. Building public infrastructure is part of this debate. And if they spend money on other activities, including through the unions, that is also part of this debate. This is the part of the problem of why this law is so problematic, as well as all of the other tax measures that this Labor government is going to introduce. They start saying that they're not going to touch superannuation, like they did before the 2022 election. They then betrayed their trust with the Australian community and introduced a new tax after the 2022 election. It was called the family savings tax on unrealised capital gains. Then, after the 2025 election, the Prime Minister enjoyed ritual humiliation of the Treasurer and got him to abandon that tax. As a consequence, we now have a new bill before the parliament, which is called the Treasury Laws Amendment (Building a Stronger and Fairer Super System) Bill 2026. This a new tax on the on Australian self-managed superannuation funds. What does this new tax do? It takes money from people's private savings and it then uses it towards consolidated revenue to expend in different ways. We have a fundamental issue of trust under this legislation. We know that Labor has consistently broken its promise around tax at the 2022 election and the 2025 election, and we know in the lead-up to this budget they are now starting to put forward new ideas of new taxes that they can introduce and more trust that they can break. The clearest example of that is they say they're going to go after CGT today, but they're soon going to make sure that CGT is applied to Australia's private homes' principal places of residence. They say they're going to contain negative gearing over here, but we know full well that once they start doing that, they'll apply it to shares and every other type of asset class. The Labor Party has a long history of promising something in an election and then breaking their word once they've won. The scary thing is how many Labor Party members on the other side of this chamber are happy to go along with it. They have no concern about the consequences, and they have no concern about the impact it has on trust and integrity in public life. Even more than that, they use it as an excuse to justify spending that money in the most grossly hypocritical and damaging way, including making sure that money goes towards organised crime through the CFMEU Labor cartel. Ms Berry 23497 What else have you got? Mr TIM WILSON IMW Some of the interjections say, 'What else have you got?' The question for members opposition who want to interject by saying 'what else have you got'—what else have you got when you've got to the point where you're handing public money to organised crime through the CFMEU Labor cartel? I do concede there's virtually—if somebody has said to me 15 years ago that you're going to have a debate in the House of Representatives about why it's wrong to do that, I'd think they were mad. But that's the reality of where we are now under this government. It is a form of insanity that we are there. Even worse than that— The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZY The member should go back to speaking on the bill within the parameters, as I've asked. Mr TIM WILSON IMW I'm still talking about how we're expending public money, which is explicitly related to how we raise public money as well. But that is the situation we face. We are in bizarro world under this Labor government. We are in a bizarro world where we're watching the Prime Minister publicly ridiculing the Treasurer. We're in a bizarro world where we have had taxes introduced. They promised they wouldn't until after they got elected. They got away with it twice, but I can assure you that they aren't going to get away with it again. More importantly, we've ended up in a situation where we have public money being expended to the most extraordinary things, and the only response from Labor members opposite is to turn around and say, 'This is the most disgraceful, outrageous thing I've ever seen.' Their response is, 'On relevance'—how is handing money to organised crime not relevant? If it isn't relevant in this chamber, where is it relevant? Where is public trust? Where is public integrity, if you are literally having independent corruption watchdogs calling this out? I can't figure it out. Perhaps that's why there's a decline in the institutional settings of this country. But I'm hoping we're going to end it, and we are going to end it, because we're going to end it by making sure there's an election of a coalition government so that we can make sure we don't have these sorts of laws that betray public trust and seek to abuse public money again. In addition to that, I 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 notes that: (1) Opposition and community pressure forced the Government to abandon: (a) the taxation of unrealised gains; and (b) indexation of the $3 million threshold; (2) the Government cannot be trusted with tax reform; (3) the Government has a spending problem, not a revenue problem; (4) this is the first tax that Australia did not vote for that the Government has tried to ram through; (5) the Government's new tax introduces new risks, including removal of the death tax exemption, and impacts on surviving spouses and total and permanent disability benefit recipients; (6) increases to the Low-Income Superannuation Tax Offset (LISTO) are welcome, but modest, but do not address immediate cost of living pressures; and (7) this change is the beginning of the Government's high tax, high spending agenda to pour more debt petrol on the inflation fire". The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZY Is the amendment seconded? Mr Hamilton 291387 I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak. Mr Wallace 265967 Deputy Speaker, can I draw your attention to one thing? The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZY Order! I haven't given the call yet. We're right in the middle of an amendment. Mr Wallace 265967 On a point of order, the Chief Opposition Whip made multiple interjections not from her seat but on the way out through the parliament. That is entirely unparliamentary, and— The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZY I thank the member for Fisher—point taken. I did not hear her and I didn't see it, because I was concentrating on what was being said. I did hear some interjections earlier from her seat, but I thank you for making that point. The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Goldstein has moved an amendment. The question now is that the amendment be agreed to. 16:58 Mr FRENCH 316550 Moore I rise to speak in support of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Building a Stronger and Fairer Super System) Bill 2026 and the accompanying Superannuation (Building a Stronger and Fairer Super System) Imposition Bill 2026. These bills are about stewardship, but, if you had just witnessed that and listened to the member for Goldstein, I don't think you would know what the bill is about. They are about protecting one of the most important economic and social reforms in Australia's modern history and ensuring it remains aligned with its purpose for decades to come. Superannuation is not a theoretical construct. It is deferred wages. It is money earned by working Australians and preserved so that, when working life ends, they are not left dependent on chance, inheritance or bare subsistence. It was built on a simple but transformative idea that retirement dignity should be universal. Labor built this system, and Labor has continued to improve it. We introduced compulsory superannuation. We extended its reach across industries and employment types. We strengthened preservation. We resisted attempts to freeze or weaken it. In this term of government, we've increased the superannuation guarantee to 12 per cent. We've legislated the objective of superannuation, embedding in statute that the system exists to preserve savings and deliver income for a dignified retirement in an equitable and sustainable way. We've introduced payday super so workers receive their super at the same time as their wages rather than months later. We've ensured that super is paid on paid parental leave. We've strengthened the performance test to protect members from underperforming funds eroding their savings. Each of these reforms reinforces the same principle: superannuation must be universal, enforceable and fair. I remember very clearly what happens when those principles are absent. During the Work Choices era, I worked in hospitality. I was working behind a bar engaged in what was described as being a subcontractor. In practice, I was an employee in all but name. I turned up for rostered shifts and I took direction, but legally I was classified as running my own business. I was earning less than $10 an hour, and, because I was treated as a subcontractor, I was responsible for paying my own superannuation out of that already meagre wage. There were no employer contributions automatically set aside, and if I did not make contributions myself nothing accumulated. But when you're earning less than $10 an hour, the priority is paying rent and buying groceries, not making retirement contributions. For many young workers at the time, superannuation was not automatic, it was not secure and it was not guaranteed. It depended on contractual labels and whether you could afford to sacrifice the income in the present for something decades away. For many it simply did not materialise. That experience reinforces why super must be compulsory and it must also apply to all earnings. It must not depend on artificial classifications that shift responsibility onto workers—or come out of a fever dream from the member for Goldstein—and it must be paid as it is earned, which is precisely why payday super matters. The bills before the House today continue that work of strengthening and safeguarding the system. Superannuation tax concessions now cost the budget more than $60 billion each year. On current projections, they will exceed the cost of the age pension in the 2040s. Concessions are not a flaw. They are part of the architecture of compulsory saving, but their scale and distribution must reflect the system's purpose. Currently, around 38 per cent of super earnings concessions go to the top 10 per cent of earners. Around 54 per cent go to the top 20 per cent. A substantial portion of concessional treatment flows to individuals with very large balances—balances far in excess of what is required for a comfortable retirement. This standard addresses that imbalance in a measured way. From the 2026-27 income year, earnings on superannuation balances below $3 million will continue to be taxed at 15 per cent. Nothing changes for balances under that threshold. For more than 99.5 per cent of all Australians, the tax treatment of their super remains exactly the same. For the proportion of earnings attributable to balances between $3 million and $10 million, the effective headline rate will be up to 30 per cent. For the proportion attributable to balances above $10 million, the effective headline rate will be up to 40 per cent. It is important to emphasise the structure. This is not a cliff. It does not reclassify an entire balance once the threshold is crossed. The additional tax applies only to the proportion of earnings corresponding to the proportion of the balances above the relevant threshold. Both the $3 million and the $10 million thresholds are indexed to CPI. That indexation ensures that reform maintains its real value over time and does not gradually expand beyond its intent through inflation alone. The reform operates through the insertion of new division 296 into the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997, with the accompanying imposition bill imposing the relevant tax. Under division 296, the Commissioner of Taxation will calculate and assess each individual's division 296 tax liability annually. Superannuation funds will calculate division 296 fund earnings attributable to each in-scope member and report those amounts to the ATO. The mechanics are detailed but principled. First, an individual's total superannuation balance, their TSB, is identified. The greater of the TSB, at the end of the income year or just before the start of the year, is used to prevent avoidance through temporary balance reductions. Second, the proportion of TSB above the $3 million threshold is calculated. That proportion is applied to the individual's total superannuation earnings for the year to determine taxable superannuation earnings for division 296 purposes. If the TSB exceeds $10 million, an additional calculation identifies the very large superannuation balance earnings component so that the higher rate applies only to the portion above that second threshold. The division 296 tax is imposed directly on the individual. Individuals may pay from outside super or elect to release funds from their superannuation. Defined benefit increases are treated in a commensurate fashion. For defined benefit interests not in retirement phase, liabilities may be deferred until retirement—with interest. That recognises structural differences while preserving equity across the system. At the fund level, division 296 fund earnings are calculated by reference to the relevant taxable income or loss, adjusted for assessable contributions, net exempt current pension income, non-arms-length components and pooled superannuation trust components. The legislation contains specific rules addressing segregated current pension assets to ensure that capital gains supporting retirement-phase interests are appropriately included for division 296 purposes. It provides tailored rules for pooled superannuation trusts and retirement savings account providers, including life insurers, to ensure consistent treatment across different superannuation structures. The definition of 'total superannuation balance' has been refined so that all Australian superannuation interests are counted, with appropriate exclusions such as foreign superannuation funds. Regulation-making powers allow for valuation methods that reflect the diversity of superannuation products and schemes. These are sensible exclusions. Child recipients of superannuation income streams are excluded from division 296 tax. Individuals who have received structured settlement contributions for personal injury are excluded, recognising the purpose of these large contributions. This reform reflects more than two years of consultation and refinement. Practical changes announced in October 2025 have been incorporated. The design leverages existing reporting systems to minimise compliance burdens, while achieving the policy objective. The measure is expected to affect less than half of one per cent of Australians with superannuation accounts in 2026-27. The higher rate, above $10 million, applies to an even smaller subset. Schedules 1 to 3 are estimated to increase receipts by approximately $2.15 billion over five years. In a system where concessions are projected to grow substantially over time, this is a modest but meaningful recalibration that contributes to long-term sustainability. Superannuation exists to provide income for a dignified retirement. It does not exist to provide unlimited concessional treatment for very large balances functioning as tax-preferred wealth stores. Even after these changes, concessional treatment remains generous relative to many personal marginal tax rates. But this legislation is not solely about recalibrating concessions at the top; it is also about strengthening support at the bottom. Schedule 4 enhances the low-income superannuation tax offset, the LISTO. The eligibility threshold has remained at $37,000 since 2020-21, despite changes in income tax brackets. As a result, workers earning between $37,000 and $45,000 have received no LISTO payment. From 1 July 2027, the threshold increases to $45,000. The maximum payment increases to $810 to reflect the 12 per cent superannuation guarantee. Because of these changes, around 770,000 additional Australians become eligible for LISTO. Around 490,000 receive a higher payment. In total, around 1.3 million Australians benefit. Approximately 60 per cent of those are women. Workers who stand to benefit include over 100,000 sales assistants, over 50,000 administrative workers and over 50,000 carers for the aged and disabled. Over a working life, the boost could translate to around $15,000 in additional retirement savings. There are 14 times as many people who will benefit from the LISTO boost as there are people with super balances above $3 million. Schedule 4 is estimated to decrease the underlying cash balance by $435 million over the forward estimates. Some revenue gained from better targeting concessions at the top is directed towards strengthening retirement outcomes for low-income workers. Taken together, these measures reinforce the legislated objective of superannuation to preserve savings to deliver income for a dignified retirement, alongside government support, in an equitable and sustainable way. It preserves concessional treatment for the overwhelming majority of Australians. It modestly recalibrates concessions at the extreme upper end. It strengthens support for low-income workers and it continues Labor's long history of building and improving superannuation so that it works for working people. For those of us who remember insecure work under WorkChoices—earning less than $10 an hour and responsible for paying our own superannuation out of that wage—the importance of a strong, enforceable and universal superannuation system is not theoretical; it is lived experience. It should be paid as it is earned, it should be preserved for retirement, and the concessions that support it should be equitable and sustainable. This legislation advances that purpose. I commend the bills to the House. BUSINESS 52 BUSINESS Consideration of Legislation 52 17:12 Dr ALY 13050 Cowan I move: That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent: (1) government business order of the day No. 4, Treasury Laws Amendment (Building a Stronger and Fairer Super System) Bill 2026, being debated in cognate with government business order of the day No. 5, Superannuation (Building a Stronger and Fairer Super System) Imposition Bill 2026; and (2) any variation to this arrangement being made only on a motion moved by a Minister. 17:12 Mr CALDWELL 306489 Fadden This is a regrettable step by the government. We know that these are extremely consequential bills. The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZY Order. The member will resume his seat for a moment. The Chief Government Whip? 17:13 Ms RYAN 249224 Lalor I move: That the question be now put. The SPEAKER 53517 The question is that the question be now put.  

The House divided. [17:17]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

89 AYES Abdo, B. J. Albanese, A. N. Aly, A. Ambihaipahar, A. Belyea, J. A. Berry, C. G. Bowen, C. E. Briskey, J. L. Burke, A. S. Burnell, M. P. Butler, M. C. Byrnes, A. J. Campbell, J. P. Chalmers, J. E. Charlton, A. H. G. Chesters, L. M. Claydon, S. C. Clutterham, C. L. Coffey, R. K. Coker, E. A. Collins, J. M. Comer, E. L. Conroy, P. M. Cook, K. M. G. Cook, P. A. Doyle, M. J. J. Dreyfus, M. A. Elliot, M. J. Fernando, C. J. France, A. A. Freelander, M. R. French, T. A. Garland, C. M. L. Gee, A. R. Georganas, S. Giles, A. J. Gorman, P. P. Gregg, M. J. Hill, J. C. Holzberger, R. A. V. Husic, E. N. Jarrett, M. L. Jordan-Baird, M. A. M. Kearney, G. M. Keogh, M. J. King, C. F. King, M. M. H. Lawrence, T. N. Laxale, J. A. A. Le, D. T. Leigh, A. K. Lim, S. B. C. Marles, R. D. Mascarenhas, Z. F. A. McBain, K. L. McBride, E. M. Miller-Frost, L. J. Mitchell, R. G. Moncrieff, D. S. Mulino, D. Neumann, S. K. Ng, G. J. O'Neil, C. E. Phillips, F. E. Plibersek, T. J. Rae, S. T. Repacholi, D. P. Rishworth, A. L. Roberts, T. G. Rowland, M. A. Ryan, J. C. Scrymgour, M. R. Sitou, S. Smith, D. P. B. (Teller) Smith, M. J. H. Soon, X. Stanley, A. M. (Teller) Swanson, M. J. Teesdale, J. A. Templeman, S. R. Thistlethwaite, M. J. Thwaites, K. L. Urquhart, A. E. Watts, T. G. Wells, A. S. White, R. P. Wilson, J. H. Witty, S. J. Zappia, A. 42 NOES Aldred, M. R. (Teller) Batt, D. J. Bell, A. M. Birrell, S. J. Boele, N. Boyce, C. E. Buchholz, S. Caldwell, C. M. Chaffey, J. L. Chaney, K. E. Chester, D. J. Conaghan, P. J. Hamilton, G. R. Hawke, A. G. Hogan, K. J. Kennedy, S. P. Landry, M. L. (Teller) Leeser, J. McCormack, M. F. McIntosh, M. I. McKenzie, Z. A. O'Brien, E. L. Pasin, A. Penfold, A. L. Pike, H. J. Price, M. L. Rebello, L. S. Ryan, M. M. Small, B. J. Spender, A. M. Steggall, Z. Thompson, P. Venning, T. H. Violi, A. A. Wallace, A. B. Webster, A. E. Wilkie, A. D. Willcox, A. J. Wilson, R. J. Wilson, T. R. Wood, J. P. Young, T. J. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

17:26 The SPEAKER 53517 The question is that the suspension motion moved by the minister be agreed to.  

The House divided. [17:26]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

97 AYES Abdo, B. J. Albanese, A. N. Aly, A. Ambihaipahar, A. Belyea, J. A. Berry, C. G. Boele, N. Bowen, C. E. Briskey, J. L. Burke, A. S. Burnell, M. P. Butler, M. C. Byrnes, A. J. Campbell, J. P. Chalmers, J. E. Chaney, K. E. Charlton, A. H. G. Chesters, L. M. Claydon, S. C. Clutterham, C. L. Coffey, R. K. Coker, E. A. Collins, J. M. Comer, E. L. Conroy, P. M. Cook, K. M. G. Cook, P. A. Doyle, M. J. J. Dreyfus, M. A. Elliot, M. J. Fernando, C. J. France, A. A. Freelander, M. R. French, T. A. Garland, C. M. L. Gee, A. R. Georganas, S. Giles, A. J. Gorman, P. P. Gregg, M. J. Hill, J. C. Holzberger, R. A. V. Husic, E. N. Jarrett, M. L. Jordan-Baird, M. A. M. Kearney, G. M. Keogh, M. J. King, C. F. King, M. M. H. Lawrence, T. N. Laxale, J. A. A. Le, D. T. Leigh, A. K. Lim, S. B. C. Marles, R. D. Mascarenhas, Z. F. A. McBain, K. L. McBride, E. M. Miller-Frost, L. J. Mitchell, R. G. Moncrieff, D. S. Mulino, D. Neumann, S. K. Ng, G. J. O'Neil, C. E. Phillips, F. E. Plibersek, T. J. Rae, S. T. Repacholi, D. P. Rishworth, A. L. Roberts, T. G. Rowland, M. A. Ryan, J. C. Ryan, M. M. Scamps, S. A. Scrymgour, M. R. Sitou, S. Smith, D. P. B. (Teller) Smith, M. J. H. Soon, X. Spender, A. M. Stanley, A. M. (Teller) Steggall, Z. Swanson, M. J. Teesdale, J. A. Templeman, S. R. Thistlethwaite, M. J. Thwaites, K. L. Urquhart, A. E. Watson-Brown, E. Watts, T. G. Wells, A. S. White, R. P. Wilkie, A. D. Wilson, J. H. Witty, S. J. Zappia, A. 36 NOES Aldred, M. R. (Teller) Batt, D. J. Bell, A. M. Birrell, S. J. Boyce, C. E. Buchholz, S. Caldwell, C. M. Chaffey, J. L. Chester, D. J. Conaghan, P. J. Hamilton, G. R. Hawke, A. G. Hogan, K. J. Kennedy, S. P. Landry, M. L. (Teller) Leeser, J. McCormack, M. F. McIntosh, M. I. McKenzie, Z. A. O'Brien, E. L. Pasin, A. Penfold, A. L. Pike, H. J. Price, M. L. Rebello, L. S. Small, B. J. Thompson, P. Venning, T. H. Violi, A. A. Wallace, A. B. Webster, A. E. Willcox, A. J. Wilson, R. J. Wilson, T. R. Wood, J. P. Young, T. J. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to, with an absolute majority.

BILLS 54 BILLS Treasury Laws Amendment (Building a Stronger and Fairer Super System) Bill 2026, Superannuation (Building a Stronger and Fairer Super System) Imposition Bill 2026 54

Treasury Laws Amendment (Building a Stronger and Fairer Super System) Bill 2026

Superannuation (Building a Stronger and Fairer Super System) Imposition Bill 2026

Second Reading 54 17:28 Dr WEBSTER 281688 Mallee This bill, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Building a Stronger and Fairer Super System) Bill , is about realisation. The Treasurer came to the realisation, after a strong campaign by those of us on this side of the House, the Nationals and the Liberals, that taxing unrealised capital gains is wrong. The Treasurer had it in his head that it would be okay to tax people on income they hadn't yet earned. In regional electorates represented by the Nationals, this would have hurt family farms first. The Treasurer claimed the impact on family farms would be minimal, but the National Farmers' Federation, thanks to the University of Adelaide's modelling, estimated that 3,500 farms would be affected. But critically, had the $3 million threshold not changed, another 14,000 farms would have been affected. Further, some 13,000 small-business owners would have been potentially affected by the Treasurer's initial tax plans. On the farming front, let me put it in simple terms for those opposite. I am not sure that they want to understand. If your farm value goes up, your income doesn't necessarily go up. You don't get extra income as a farmer because land prices are going up. You are dependent on the weather, on commodity prices, on input costs which have risen, on logistical shocks, as we saw during the pandemic—and, indeed, might see shortly on fuel prices; in fact, today it's true—or on the vagaries of importing countries, such as, currently, Indonesia, with their sudden reduction on quotas for the importation of globe grapes from my region, leaving many table grape growers in my region reeling, with tonnes of grapes that have no home. An increase in farm value does not mean you are earning more income. I just have to repeat that for those opposite, as they are slow to understand. Unlike residential property in metropolitan areas, it may not be practical, necessary or desirable to soon realise a capital gain purely because the land prices have gone up. Generational farming doesn't think or act like playing the property market. Yet again, Labor could not care one iota about how their policies play out in regional Australia. But then, maybe through the Prime Minister's office or maybe thanks to polling, the realisation dawned on the Treasurer that taxing unrealised capital gains was actually a dopey idea. Had the Treasurer had his way, Australia would have been the first nation in the world to tax unrealised capital gains in this way. Even the Democrats baulked at the idea in the USA. Straight after the election, the Treasurer said Labor's unrealised capital gains tax grab was 'an important way that we fund some of our other priorities'. Let me digress for a moment to say that those priorities are not in Mallee. About $87 million in grants, about one-third, have been stripped from Mallee over a comparable three-year period of coalition government versus the Albanese Labor government. Labor tried to pretend their unrealised capital gains policy was modest, but the Parliamentary Budget Office belled the cat. The first year of their policy was going to yield $300 million, but within 10 years Labor would have been rolling in $7 billion per annum taken from retirement nest eggs—Australians' hard earned super. Speaking of realisation, Mallee voters are an intelligent bunch. I asked this question in Mallee's biggest survey last year: are you worried about higher taxes and the taxing of unrealised gains on retirement savings or superannuation? Guess what? Over 86 per cent of my voters said yes. My theory is that Labor just don't believe in private property ownership. Everywhere you look, they're attacking personal assets. How do the Marxist sayings go? Seize the means of production. The proletariat seizes the property of the bourgeoisie. Labor think they're so clever, masking socialism in tricky marketing and salami-slicing away property ownership and retirement nest eggs slice by slice by slice. Everywhere you look, when you look at those opposite, there is faith in government and nothing else. There's no faith in our farmers, no faith in small business, no faith in families, no faith in individual liberty. The government knows best. What did George Orwell call it? Oh, yes—Big Brother. In the Treasurer's economy, the government manages everything and has its fingers in every pie. Arguably, the Treasurer has strayed from the teachings of his political master, Paul Keating, who built the compulsory superannuation system. Perhaps it was the former treasurer's intervention opposing unrealised capital gains that sealed the deal—that the idea was in fact a very bad one. Another realisation that my Mallee constituents know all too well is that Labor loves to run a consultation while everyone's on holidays or, indeed, while southern cropping farmers are busy with harvest. Consultation on this bill occurred over December and January, true to form, almost as if it's designed to garner minimal opposition and sail through parliament. One big bone of contention with Labor's retirement tax grabs was also the lack of indexation of the $3 million threshold. At long last, after a sustained campaign from the coalition, the thresholds will now be indexed. Again, Mr Keating had noted that a young person today on average earnings would easily have more than $3 million in their retirement. The failure to index the figure was an affront to aspirational Australians. Indeed, Mr Keating had said that people contributing 12 per cent compulsory superannuation from 1 July 2025 would have balances over $3 million at retirement, which 'would reduce the call by the age pension on the Australian budget to two per cent of GDP in the 2050s.' On that front, I note the Association of Superannuation Funds estimates that, by 2050, half of all Australians will be fully self-funded in retirement, which, they estimate, keeps the pension burden at 2.1 per cent of GDP. Is the Treasurer that out of touch with cost-of-living concerns and so desperate for money for a flailing budget that he persisted, until taken to task last year, with unrealised capital gains and refusing threshold indexation? Is he so out of touch he had to be taken to task by his leadership team, the Prime Minister or both? Somehow, during a cost-of-living crisis, the Treasurer thought it would be okay to tax farmers on paper gains only. Had that idea proceeded, farmers would have had to sell off parts of their farm to meet their unrealised capital gains tax liability each year. Farmers use self-managed super funds to prepare for the future, yet Labor—as they love to do—were planning to shift the goalposts to raid retirement nest eggs. That's one reason the coalition is vigilant about elements of this bill that might unfairly punish those who worked hard to prepare for their retirement. The Nationals have been on the case for years. The first time was when the Treasurer came up with this thought bubble during 2024. I called it out in January 2024 as a broken promise from before the previous election. It was a new tax grab. It was Shorten-esque in its brazen nature. Labor had promised it would not make major superannuation changes in 2022, yet there they were, in 2024, proposing taxing unrealised capital gains. In November 2024, I called out how the plan to tax unrealised capital gains on self-managed super funds over $3 million was a disaster, and we on this side of the House kept on the case through the election campaign and beyond. Time and again, Labor act like feudal lords, treating farmers like peasants who really don't own their assets. They entice corporate raiders to take slices of the farm for transmission lines, energy or mining projects, or they eye off the farm nest egg that farmers have set aside for tough seasons. Speaking of which, Mallee has been through some tough times of late, as has broader western Victoria. Labor was advocating this tax grab during both a cost-of-living crisis and drought conditions in our area. Worse still, Labor couldn't coordinate whether Albanese Labor or Allan Labor would hit farmers for money during a drought, so, true to form, they both went after the farmers. Albanese's Labor was after farmers' unrealised capital gains at the same time the Allan Labor government had the idea to jack up their so-called emergency services volunteer levy from the same farmers. Country Fire Authority volunteers have said 'not in our name'—in other words, 'Don't use us, as volunteers, as a basis for tax.' There are effigies of CFA volunteers with gratuitous advice for Ms Allan all over my electorate. I might say that today we hear that the Allan government has now put on hold the ESVF tax for three years. There must be an election coming! That's how on the nose the Labor brand is in Mallee. I could mention the sneaky con job they pulled on a $5 million childcare promise in Loddon shire when the money was going to Wedderburn for a two-year-old promise all along, but I would be straying off topic. Let me explain why the Nationals are eternally vigilant in this area of retirement taxation. The sorry tale of Labor's chase of unrealised capital gains demonstrates that, in their core DNA, Labor do not understand the regions and are coming for family trusts next. It took a sustained opposition campaign to demonstrate that the Australian public do not support hitting hardworking Australian families' retirement savings. Labor will be back chasing your assets in the community, and the Nationals will remain eternally vigilant to protect the farm and hard earned retirement savings. The Nationals will always stand up for our farmers and farming communities, and that includes their assets. In fact, I look forward to the debate on whether Labor have snuck in a cunning death tax under their revisions to the consultation draft. We are always on the lookout for Labor's sneaky ways of punishing Australians for their hard work and for putting assets away for the future or for future generations. The coalition supports the LISTO, the low-income superannuation tax offset, as it is a tax cut. However, I have to flag that it offers no immediate cost-of-living relief. The LISTO will boost superannuation balances for the future, not working families' pockets here and now, and that is a problem. All the people in regional Australia are fed up with not being looked after by the Labor government and with them coming after these unrealised gains. Capital gains are, generally, not in their interests, and they are very well aware of it. 17:42 Dr GARLAND 295588 Chisholm So far we've had a couple of rather strange contributions from those opposite. It is disappointing, but not surprising, that those opposite have been less than wholehearted in their support for a fairer superannuation system, given that, at every turn, they have taken an approach that finds the idea of every Australian having dignity in retirement to be quite a radical idea. On this side of the House, we are the party of superannuation. It was Labor that established this system, which is the envy of the world, and, as Australians, we should all be very proud that we have such a system. I commend the changes in the Treasury Laws Amendment (Building a Stronger and Fairer Super System) Bill and the Superannuation (Building a Stronger and Fairer Super System) Imposition Bill to the House. As the Albanese government members are fond of saying, myself included, we want Australians to earn more and to keep more of what they earn. The changes here make that possible, in addition to all of the other reforms our government has implemented to make that so. I'm sure this is a statement you've heard many times in this place, and it is something that we really do mean. We build on that mission today through helping low-income workers keep more of their superannuation whilst making the system stronger, fairer and more sustainable. We're making super fairer in a few different ways. We're doing this through boosting the low-income superannuation tax offset, LISTO, and making a number of important changes to better target superannuation concessions for large balances. We're going to increase the LISTO by $310 to $810 and raise the eligibility threshold from $37,000 to $45,000 from 1 July 2027. This will help deliver a more secure retirement for 1.3 million Australians, of whom around 60 per cent are women, with the total number of Australians eligible for LISTO increasing to 3.1 million. Something our government has been very proactive and focused on, through both of our terms of government so far, is addressing the gender pay gap and inequality, and that includes inequality in retirement. This is a really important measure to ensure that we are doing what we can to close that gap even further, in addition to a number of other changes we've already made. The changes we're making will ensure low-income workers receive a fairer tax concession on their superannuation contributions, to align with the government's third round of tax cuts that will take effect next year, in 2027. This will benefit all workers with incomes between $28,000 and $45,000, with an average increase of $410 in the LISTO payment. These workers could receive a potential benefit at retirement of around $15,000, depending on an individual's income over their career. We know how important that compound interest is when it comes to superannuation, which is why it's important for younger generations too that these changes come into effect—so that they are not disadvantaged as they get older and so that they have the opportunity to accumulate that interest on their superannuation for their retirement. This is real cost-of-living relief. That's what we're really focused on, on this side of the House. I do find it interesting that those opposite have played games already, in the short time we've been having this debate. When given the opportunity to ask questions in question time about the economy, they have neglected to do so, letting their constituents down, which I think is an appalling shame. We are making these changes here today as part of our plan to help low-income workers earn more, keep more of what they earn and retire with more too, so that every single Australian can have a dignified retirement. We're also making a number of practical changes to the design and implementation of our policy, to better target superannuation concessions. These are sensible changes which take two years of feedback into account, while still maintaining the main objectives of our policy. I'm really grateful for the feedback that I've received from my community in Chisholm, and I thank everyone who has taken the time to raise issues with me and enabled me to speak to my team here about ways that we can work through those issues and find ways to deliver reform, which is exactly what the Prime Minister and the Treasurer have done. We are a government that listens, first and foremost, and we act on the feedback we get from our community. We're going to introduce a second threshold to better target superannuation concessions on the earnings of large balances above $10 million to make those concessions even more targeted. We're also going to index the large-balance thresholds of $3 million and $10 million, apply these changes to realised earnings and push back the start date by one year to consult on final details and prepare legislation. Again, we are a consultative government who listens to our communities. The original model that was presented was the best option identified at the time, but we have taken the decision as a government to adjust the model to recognise the views we've heard since then. It is good that Australians have a government that is responsive, that listens, that is not stubborn and that adjusts to the views and the changing circumstances of the world. With these changes, we are continuing to deliver on our longstanding commitment—which we took to the last election—to better target superannuation concessions. Our policy to better target superannuation concessions for large balances will continue to affect less than 0.5 per cent of all Australians in 2026-27. It maintains the concessional treatment of superannuation for all taxpayers and makes superannuation tax concessions more targeted for those with large balances. These changes, along with the LISTO reform, will substantially improve the fairness and sustainability of our superannuation system. Today's changes mean that, from 1 July 2026, the total concessional tax rate applied to earnings on balances between $3 million and $10 million will be 30 per cent. The total concessional tax rate applied to earnings on balances over $10 million will be 40 per cent. Both the $3 million and $10 million super balance thresholds will be indexed to maintain relativity with the transfer balance cap that was introduced by the coalition. As part of these changes, we will also adjust the earnings calculation so the concessional tax rates on large balances will only apply to future realised earnings. Treasury will consult on the implementation details, including the best approach to the calculation of future realised gains and attribution to individual fund members. We will apply commensurate treatment to defined benefit interests to ensure equivalent impacts, with Treasury again to consult on implementation details. We will extend the existing exemption for some judges to improve consistency across jurisdictions. This is a small change to respond to the latest legal advice and ensure more neutral treatment. We'll be providing additional support for low-income workers through LISTO, and that will cost around $435 million over the forward estimates. The net impact on the budget of these changes is a cost of around $4.2 billion over the forward estimates, a large part of which is due to that one-year delay. In the first full year of operation—that is, 2028-29—the package will provide a saving to the budget of around $1.6 billion in net terms, including the cost of increasing the LISTO. Final costs and budget impacts will be accounted for in the 2025-26 Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook. We know that the super tax concessions at the moment cost the budget more than $55 billion per year, and we know looking forward that that will exceed the cost of the age pension as we get into the 2040s. What these reforms do is maintain the concessional treatment of superannuation, but they also ensure that that is provided in a more equitable and sustainable fashion. We know, looking at the figures, that there are 14 times as many people who will benefit from this boost that we're making to LISTO as there are people with over $3 million in super. I'm really proud to be part of a government that continues the proud legacy of Labor in making our superannuation system stronger, fairer and more sustainable. As I mentioned at the outset, and as I've mentioned a number of times in this place, the Labor Party is the party of superannuation. It recognised the importance of every Australian having access to dignified retirement. What we're doing here is increasing the LISTO. We're better targeting superannuation concessions. That's in addition to paying superannuation on paid parental leave and introducing payday superannuation, which are going to make a real difference in the lives of so many Australians, including, I know, many in my own community. Those changes, as well, will particularly affect young people, those in insecure work and women workers. So, again, there are a number of ways that we are improving the equity in this system for all Australians. We have increased the superannuation guarantee, and we've legislated the objective for superannuation. Australians are continuing to earn more and keep more of what they earn under our government. Now they'll be able to retire with more too. This is the latest part of our suite of reforms to make sure that we have the best superannuation system, the fairest superannuation system and the most sustainable superannuation system that we can in this country. On that, I commend this bill to the House. 17:53 Dr RYAN 297660 Kooyong Australians are proud of our superannuation system. As a nation, we have one of the most sophisticated and modernised retirement income safeguards in the world, a system designed to guarantee dignity for older Australians. Generations of Australians will finish their working lives knowing that they are financially secure because of their superannuation. Our system is not only strong; it is also robust and sustainable. Despite projections that the number of Australians aged 65 and over will double in the 2060s, the value and size of our superannuation pool means that the percentage of Australians receiving the age pension will continue to decline. When the Keating Labor government legislated our system of compulsory superannuation in 1992, it did so in the country's best interests, with a focus on fairness, sustainability and equity. In 2024, we legislated to enshrine those values. We affirmed in this place that the objective of superannuation is to preserve savings to deliver income for a dignified retirement, alongside government support, in an equitable and sustainable way. In 2026. I'm pleased to see the Albanese government listening to the crossbench calls over several years now to ensure that these super reforms maintain that focus on equity and sustainability. The bills before the House, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Building a Stronger and Fairer Super System) Bill 2026 and the Superannuation (Building a Stronger and Fairer Super System) Imposition Bill 2026, will make two significant changes to the tax treatment of superannuation. The first will adjust tax thresholds on realised superannuation earnings. The second will ensure that people in the lowest income tax brackets receive a genuine tax concession on their super contributions. When these measures were first brought to the House in 2023, they provided for the taxation of unrealised superannuation earnings for balances exceeding $3 million. It was my belief that that legislation in 2023, had it passed, would have represented a policy failure. In 2024, I supported an amendment to that legislation to prevent the taxation of unrealised capital gains, and I noted then that the government's changes would have been a departure from the traditional capital gains treatment in this and other OECD nations in which taxation applies only on realisation. I warned then of the potentially chilling effect of those changes, about which I'd heard from a number of constituents, on small businesses, on farmers and on venture capital funds. Australians need and deserve certainty in their financial decision making. They invest in superannuation in good faith, believing that it is the best investment vehicle for their long-term savings. That certainty would have been threatened by the legislation that we saw in 2023. I was also concerned then that the initial legislation didn't provide for indexation of the $3 million threshold at which balances would be subject to the 15 per cent tax. It was my belief that this policy would have unfairly impacted young Australians when their balances eventually exceed $3 million, which seems like a fantastic sum to many now, but it won't in 20 or 30 years time. So I'm really glad to see the government heed calls from the crossbench and from many in our communities to ensure that reforms to our superannuation system are generally fair and generally targeted. These bills will reduce tax concessions for individuals with total superannuation balances above $3 million. From the 2026-27 income tax year onwards, the concessional tax rates will be an additional 15 per cent on the proportion of realised earnings accrued between $3 million and $10 million and an additional 25 per cent for the proportion of realised earnings accrued above $10 million. Those are still—let's face it—concessional tax rates. Our super tax concessions still go well beyond what is required for a dignified retirement. These bills will result in only modest decreases in the concessionality of superannuation. It will still remain a tax-efficient vehicle for retirement. By the government's projections, these bills will impact fewer than 0.5 per cent of Australians with superannuation accounts in the 2026-27 financial year. The rates on balances above $10 million will affect less than 0.1 per cent of Australians with superannuation accounts. Together, it's projected that, for the moment, these changes will affect only about 90,000 Australians. For that small proportion of Australians who are impacted by these new settings, the financial impact is limited. A person with a $3.2 million balance, with $125,000 in realised investment income, will only pay an additional $1,171 in tax. This increase does seem fair and appropriate. The second change brought about by this legislation also promotes greater fairness in superannuation. The LISTO is a government payment that offsets the 15 per cent tax on concessional contributions to super for eligible low-income earners. It ensures that those in the lowest income tax brackets still receive a genuine tax concession on super. The LISTO is effectively about fairness. It's particularly fair for those people earning less than $18,200, who are not liable to pay tax on their wages but who would otherwise be required to pay 15 per cent tax on contributions to super. Currently, to be eligible for the LISTO, individuals must have a taxable income of $37,000 or less. The Treasury Laws Amendment (Building a Stronger and Fairer Super System) Bill 2026 will expand LISTO eligibility to the upper threshold of the second-lowest tax bracket, meaning that Australians earning up to $45,000 will receive genuine tax concessions on their super. This change is predicted to improve outcomes for approximately 770,000 people who were previously not eligible for the payment. That's actually one in 20 Australian workers. The bill makes sensible changes to the maximum LISTO payment as well. Currently capped at $500, many eligible recipients of the LISTO reach that maximum refund. The maximum LISTO will now be linked to the super guarantee so that tax paid on concessional contributions is offset for eligible low-income earners. Together, these changes will increase government payments for about 1.3 million people on the lowest wages. It's estimated that 35-year-olds on lower wages earning $44,000 will be about $51,000 better off in retirement because of these policy changes, and, for those individuals, these changes will be life-changing. Together, these bills improve the overall fairness and sustainability of Australia's superannuation tax settings. They make our system more equitable, more targeted and more aligned with the legislated purpose of our superannuation system. But it would be a mistake to pretend that our work on intergenerational tax inequity is complete with this bill. Young Australians are still facing unprecedented economic barriers, from housing affordability to insecure work, to slow wage growth and to the rising costs of education and health care. Our tax system continues to entrench these inequities. It delivers disproportionate concessions to already wealthy Australians, while younger Australians are struggling to build financial security. The reality is that intergenerational inequity remains baked into our tax system. Reforming superannuation tax settings is an important step, but it's only a first step. A broader review of tax concessions across the system, including negative gearing, capital gains and the distributional impacts of various offsets and deductions, remains essential to ensuring a genuinely fair and modern tax system. The discounting of the capital gains tax in 1999 marked the beginning of the time when house prices really began to soar in relation to income in Australia. That tax discount is now projected to cost the budget $247 billion in foregone revenue over the coming 10 years. The top one per cent of taxpayers will receive nearly 60 per cent of this benefit this financial year. While the horse might have bolted in terms of slowing the increase in house prices, the capital gains tax discount has been demonstrably too generous. It has driven inequity, distorted our housing system and demonstrated poor value for money in terms of growing housing supply. That's why I'm actively consulting with my community in Kooyong on these broader tax issues. In recent decades, productivity has flatlined and the improvement in living standards that we've come to expect each successive generation to enjoy has stalled. While older Australians have benefited from more generous tax settings on property and superannuation, those who are dependent on income have faced an increasing tax burden exacerbated by the bracket creep that confiscates a higher amount of their largely static incomes. Young Australians are finding it almost impossible to get into the housing market unless they benefit from intergenerational wealth transfer—effectively, help from the bank of mum and dad—and those who are paying tax on work rather than on wealth are bearing too much of the burden for federal spending on programs like AUKUS, the NDIS and other parts of the care economy that will soon reach 27 per cent of GDP. The government has foreshadowed possible changes to the capital gains tax discount in the May budget. Winding back capital gains tax exemptions and capping negative gearing would go some small way towards addressing intergenerational inequity in our tax system, but these changes have to be part of a more ambitious tax agenda. We need to reform the personal tax system to decrease tax reliance on wages and salaries. We should improve taxation of businesses to promote investment. We should talk about the GST and how it is distributed, and we should charge those responsible for climate change instead of subsidising polluting industries with fuel rebates and failing to adequately tax our oil and gas exports. This government spends five times more subsidising the diesel fuel tax credit than it gets from taxing gas exports. It collects more money from students paying HECS than it does from gas companies paying the petroleum resource rent tax. The government collects more from taxing beer and from taxing cigarettes than it does from taxing our gas exports—that is confounding. It is robbing Australians of their futures while it is rewarding multinationals by giving away our finite natural resources. We have to do a whole lot more to urgently address intergenerational inequity. These superannuation changes go some small way towards that, so I support them, but they're very small steps on a very long road. There's a whole lot more that we need to do to reshape our economy for the next generation. In the meanwhile, I commend the bill to the House. 18:05 Ms FERNANDO 299964 Holt I rise to speak in support of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Building a Stronger and Fairer Super System) Bill 2026. Labor is the party of superannuation. It was Labor prime ministers Bob Hawke and Paul Keating who had the courage and foresight to create universal superannuation through the Prices and Incomes Accord. At the time it was a bold and contested reform, but it was grounded in the simple belief that working Australians deserve dignity and security in retirement—not uncertainty, not poverty and not dependency. What began as a three per cent employer contribution has, through steady and responsible reform, grown to a 12 per cent superannuation guarantee as of 2025. That increase represents one of the most significant structural improvements to retirement incomes in our nation's history. For communities like mine, in Holt, this is not abstract policy; it is real life. Holt is one of the youngest and fastest growing electorates in the country. Families in Cranbourne, Narre Warren South, Hampton Park, Lyndhurst, Clyde, Tooradin and Pearcedale are working hard to build a better future. Many are first home buyers. Many are migrants who came to Australia seeking opportunity and stability. They are young parents balancing work and family. They are nurses, aged-care workers, retail staff, warehouse employees, early childhood educators, construction workers and small-business operators. They are not thinking about complex tax structures. They're thinking about paying the mortgage, covering childcare costs and making sure their kids get ahead. Superannuation is about making sure that, when those hardworking Australians reach retirement, they can do it with dignity. This Labor government has acted to make the superannuation system fairer and stronger. One of the most significant reforms we have delivered is paying super on paid parental leave. For too long, women have retired with significantly less super than men—currently around 25 per cent less on average. That gap is not a coincidence. It reflects structural inequalities, time taken out of the workforce to raise children, part-time work, lower average wages and unpaid care responsibilities. In Holt, where so many young families are growing, this reform will make a tangible difference. A mother taking time off to care for her newborn should not be financially penalised decades later. By paying super on paid parental leave, we are recognising that care work has economic value and we are ensuring women are not left behind for starting a family. Over a lifetime, this reform will leave women tens of thousands of dollars better off in retirement. We have also legislated an objective for the superannuation system, something that was first proposed in 2016 by the Turnbull government but never legislated. The superannuation objective strengthens the system against short-term political interference and ensures that any future government seeking to change super must justify those changes against a clear statutory objective. That objective is straightforward—to preserve savings to deliver income for a dignified retirement, alongside government support, in an equitable and sustainable way. Every reform in this bill is consistent with that principle. We are also implementing payday super. Historically, some workers have waited months for their superannuation to be paid. Some have discovered years later that it was never paid at all. That is unacceptable. In parts of my electorate, such as Cranbourne West, we have major industrial and commercial precincts. The overwhelming majority of businesses do the right thing, but honest employers should not be undercut by those who delay or avoid paying workers their super. Payday super will ensure that super contributions are paid at the same time as wages. This will reduce unpaid super, improve compliance and allow workers' balances to begin compounding earlier. For a 25-year-old worker, earlier and more frequent contributions can mean thousands of dollars more at retirement. This is the power of compounding, and it is why timely payments matter. We are also strengthening transparency and accountability in the system through improved reporting requirements and mandatory service standards. Australians deserve confidence that their retirement savings are being managed efficiently and responsibly. Australia's superannuation system is globally recognised as world leading. It is already the fourth largest pool of pension assets in the world, and it is projected to become the second largest by 2031. This is not an accident; it is the result of deliberate long-term policy design. Australia is the only OECD country where age-pension spending as a share of GDP is projected to decline over the long-term, from around 2.5 per cent today to approximately 2 per cent by 2060. By contrast, the OECD average for public pension spending is around 9.3 per cent of GDP. That is long-term fiscal sustainability. This is Labor's responsible economic management. But maintaining that sustainability requires long-term planning. Time and time again we have seen the coalition use superannuation to fix short-term political issues rather than as a long-term economic asset. Under the previous coalition government, approximately $36 billion was withdrawn from the superannuation accounts through the COVID early-release scheme. While many Australians faced hardship during that period, the long-term impact of those withdrawals is significant. Thanks to the coalition, A 30-year-old who withdrew $10,000 could be more than $150,000 worth worse off in retirement. Hundreds of thousands of young Australians substantially depleted or emptied their super balances. Superannuation is not designed as a short-term stimulus tool. It is deferred wages, savings set aside to provide income in retirement. Treating it as a quick fix, as the Liberal Party does, undermines its purpose. The superannuation system is built on a deal between workers, employers, unions and government. Workers contribute through deferred wages. Employers contribute through the superannuation guarantee. Government supports the system through concessional tax treatment. The concessional 15 per cent tax rate is fundamental. It incentivises saving and allows balances to grow more quickly than they would in a standard savings account, but concessional must be sustainable and targeted to the system's objective. Today, fewer than 0.5 per cent of Australians have a super balance above $3 million. For those individuals, even under minimum drawdown rates, they would be expected to receive $150,000 per year tax free in retirement income. Under this bill, there are no changes to tax arrangements for balances under $3 million. Earnings on balances above $3 million will be taxed at 30 per cent. For balances above $10 million, the rate will be 40 per cent—still below the top marginal income tax rate of 45 per cent. These changes are modest. They affect only the wealthiest fraction of account holders and they ensure that superannuation remains focused on delivering retirement income, not functioning as an unlimited tax advantage wealth accumulation vehicle. Importantly, the revenue raised from these reforms will strengthen support for low- and middle-income workers. We are boosting the low-income super tax offset, the LISTO. We will increase the eligibility threshold to $45,000 and lift the maximum payment to $810. This will benefit more than three million Australians. In Holt, that includes early childhood educators in Narre Warren, retail workers in Cranbourne, hospitality staff in Hampton Park and aged-care workers right across my community. These are the people who keep our local economy running. Many are women. Many work part time. Many earn modest incomes while juggling family responsibilities. Analysis from the Super Members Council suggests that women will make up around 60 per cent of those benefiting from this reform, with some projected to be up to $60,000 better off in retirement after their working lives. That is real progress in closing the retirement gender gap. These reforms are about fairness. They reduce excessive tax concessions for the wealthiest 0.5 per cent. They strengthen retirement savings for millions of low-income workers. They protect the long-term sustainability of the system. They keep superannuation true to its purpose, delivering income for a dignified retirement. I want to acknowledge the leadership of the Treasurer, Jim Chalmers, and the Assistant Treasurer, Daniel Mulino, through their work on this legislation. This bill reflects Labor values: fairness, responsibility and long-term thinking. In communities like Holt, where families are building their futures, where young workers are starting their careers and where parents are planning for their children's security, superannuation matters. It matters that the system is strong, it matters that it is fair and it matters that it is sustainable for generations to come. I commend this bill to the House. 18:17 Ms CHANEY 300006 Curtin I rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Building a Stronger and Fairer Super System) Bill 2026 and the Superannuation (Building a Stronger and Fairer Super System) Imposition Bill 2026. When I spoke on these bills previously, I said that I supported their intent—to ensure our superannuation system is designed for people to prepare for a dignified retirement, not as a tax break for the super wealthy. I also raised three key concerns from my community that prevented me from supporting the bills at that time. The bills didn't pass through the Senate in the last parliament and have come back now with some amendments, and I'm pleased that the government has now acted on all three of the concerns that I raised last time. The government has ensured that tax will only be applied to realised gains, has committed to indexing the new thresholds and has delayed the implementation date, although I note that this remains an area of some concern. With these changes, I'm satisfied that the bills now meet the intent in a targeted and fair way and, as such, I will be supporting them. Firstly, I will speak on the intent of the bills. Tax concessions exist in superannuation to compensate people for putting their hard-earned income away for their future. In recognition of this, super contributions are taxed at 15 per cent, significantly lower than income tax rates, which range from 16 per cent up to 45 per cent. But some very wealthy individuals already have far more in super than they need for even the most luxurious retirement and yet they continue to receive the same concessional 15 per cent tax rate. The purpose of super concessions is to support hardworking Australians saving for their future, not to subsidise wealth accumulation for those who are already extraordinarily well off. Every tax concession costs the budget, and therefore the Australian people, through reduced government services or higher taxes elsewhere. We have a responsibility to ensure that these concessions are appropriately targeted. This bill reduces tax concessions for those with significant super balances. For every dollar contributed to super, up to $3 million, the concessional 15 per cent tax rate will continue to apply. Above $3 million, contributions will be taxed at 30 per cent—still well below the top income tax rate of 45 per cent but less of a concession than before. The bill also introduces a $10 million threshold. Contributions above $10 million will attract a 40 per cent tax rate. Again, this remains concessional. Only 0.5 per cent of Australians have more than $3 million in super. Just 8,000 Australians hold more than $10 million. These are extremely high balances. In the wealthiest suburbs of my own relatively wealthy electorate, Cottesloe and Peppermint Grove, the average super balance is just over $500,000, which is still only a sixth of the new $3 million threshold. It's entirely reasonable to expect individuals with very large super balances to receive lower concessions. When these bills were first introduced, I had significant concerns. The most pressing was the proposal to tax unrealised gains. This was poor tax policy, and a number of my constituents were strongly opposed to it. Taxing people on hypothetical profits before an asset is sold could result in large tax bills in years where asset values spike, even if those values fall later and the actual realised profit is far lower. I'm glad the government listened to the widespread concerns expressed across the community, industry and parliament, including my own concerns, which I expressed in letters, in person and in public. Under the revised bill, only realised gains will be taxed, resolving this issue. I also advocated for indexing the $3 million threshold. Without indexation, inflation would slowly push more and more Australians above this threshold, even though their real wealth had not increased. One analysis suggested that, without indexation, today's $3 million threshold would effectively become $1 million in real terms for a 30-year-old worker by the time they reach retirement. Indexing this threshold, as well as the new $10 million threshold, is good tax policy and ensures the reform remains squarely focused on the very wealthy. It's worth pointing out here that income tax thresholds should also be indexed. The refusal by both major parties to do so is a farcical example of political game playing, where periodic tax cuts are used to earn popularity, instead of simply indexing tax brackets to prevent bracket creep once and for all. The third concern I raised was the transition period. People make long-term financial decisions based on the rules that exist at the time, and superannuation, by design, locks up people's own money. We must be extremely cautious about making changes without giving people enough time to rearrange their affairs accordingly. The new bill delays commencement by a year to the 2027 financial year beginning on 1 July 2026. This is an improvement. It still gives only a few months to people to restructure their super if they believe the new settings no longer suit their circumstances and that another structure would be more efficient and appropriate for them. The bill also includes other changes that I support. The introduction of the new $10 million threshold with a 40 per cent tax rate above that level is reasonable and well targeted, particularly considering that it still remains concessional. The bill unfreezes the low-income super tax offset, or the LISTO, for the first time in 13 years. LISTO ensures low-income workers are not paying more tax on their super contributions than they do on their take-home income. At present, a cleaner earning $42,000 a year receives only a one per cent tax concession on their super, while a senior manager earning $220,000 enjoys a 30 per cent concession. This is clearly inequitable. Previously, workers earning below $37,000 could receive a LISTO payment of up to $500. This bill increases the eligibility threshold to $45,000 and lifts the payment to up to $810. This is meaningful support for 1.3 million of Australia's lowest paid workers, most of whom are women, so it will also help narrow the gender super gap. The bill also pegs LISTO to the second tax bracket and the super guarantee rate, ensuring it adjusts automatically over time. It's good to see the government responding constructively to feedback. I commend the Treasurer. This is not a backdown but genuine engagement with community concern. I want to thank all the constituents who engaged with me on this issue, both in the last parliament and in this one. Superannuation is a vital part of Australia's financial system. It's important that when we make changes we get them right, and I believe we've done that here after some ups and downs. While it would have been better to deal with these issues in an exposure draft, we got there in the end. The government put forward reform, the community and parliament provided thoughtful and reasonable feedback, and the government eventually acted on that feedback to improve the legislation. I commend the bills to the House. 18:25 Ms CAMPBELL 312823 Moreton The name of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Building a Stronger and Fairer Super System) Bill 2026 speaks directly to core Labor values—values like equal opportunity for all Australians, values such as inclusive economic growth, values that prioritise reducing inequality and ensuring access to essential services like health and education, and values like security and fairness in retirement. The key word here really is fairness, and fairness is at the very heart of this bill which strengthens our superannuation system and makes it more equitable for all Australians. People all over the world look at Australia's super system with absolute envy because it's a great system. That's understandable. Labor's superannuation system has helped Australians enjoy retirements that are more secure and more comfortable. Put simply, superannuation is at its core and is every day a Labor success story. Labor introduced superannuation, and we're not content in leaving it where we started. We want to make sure that it gets better, that it gets stronger and that it continues in this modern world to support everyday Australians in saving for their retirement. It is successful because it is grounded in principles of fairness, sustainability and the protection of workers' long-term financial security. It is designed to ensure that all Australians can retire with dignity while reducing long-term reliance on the age pension. To keep that super system strong, it must be equitable. This means that tax concessions and benefits should not disproportionately advantage high-income earners. We know where the opposition stands on superannuation. When the superannuation guarantee was first introduced in this place, the opposition were crying that the sky would fall in. The opposition voted for less super for people on low incomes, and, as Treasurer pointed out earlier today, the shadow Treasurer wants to completely dismantle the system, a system that so many people in our nation rely on. Those opposite don't like super. They haven't liked it from the start. At every single point they have tried to pull it apart, and today is no exception. Super is not a bonus. It's not an extra. It's part of people's wages, and that's important. This bill strengthens support for low-income earners and reshapes how superannuation concessions work for large balances. The outcomes will be built in a system that is more fair, more resilient and built to last. I want to talk about the LISTO, the low-income superannuation tax offset, first. It was developed to help low-income earners, many of whom are women, to save for retirement and to make the superannuation system fairer for people on lower wages. It gives extra support to those who don't benefit as much from the concessional tax rate applied to super contributions. For most workers, money paid into super is taxed at a rate far below what they'd pay if that income were taken home instead. But, for people on lower incomes, the usual super tax settings can actually leave them worse off. That's what the LISTO is designed to combat. The LISTO helps fix that by giving eligible low-income earners a tax refund on their super contributions, ensuring they don't end up paying more tax inside their super than they would if they simply received the same amount in their pay packet. The Albanese Labor government is increasing the LISTO by $310 to $810. We're also increasing the eligibility threshold from $37,000 to $45,000. These changes will come into effect from 1 July 2027, aligning with Labor's third round of tax cuts for every Australian. Depending on their income and how much they contribute, workers will see up to an extra $810 added to their super each year. The average increase to the LISTO will be $410. Over the course of a person's working life, this added support can translate into roughly $15,000 more in retirement savings—a significant boost. For many, it is a life-changing boost. It's worth taking a moment to look at who will benefit from this boost to the LISTO. In 2027-28, over 770,000 additional Australian workers will be eligible for the LISTO. This is a big change, and it will have a big impact for those who need it most at a time when we know so many Australians are doing it tough. And 490,000 Australians who are currently eligible will receive a higher LISTO payment. Where this is particularly significant is in the number of Australian women who will benefit. Of the 3.1 million Australians who will be eligible for LISTO under this bill, around 60 per cent are women. Young people will also benefit, with around 500,000 people under the age of 30 receiving the payment. The boost to the LISTO will directly benefit over 100,000 sales assistants, 50,000 administrative workers and over 50,000 workers in our care economy, the hardworking people who support elderly Australians and people with a disability. Just think about those numbers. Over three million Australians will have a boost to their super and a boost to their retirement, comfort and security as they go forward. This is a reform that Labor is justly proud of, because it builds on everything we have done in the superannuation space to date. The other part of this bill concerns necessary and responsible changes to superannuation concessions—necessary because each year the budget forgoes more than $60 billion in revenue through superannuation tax concessions. By the 2040s, these concessions are projected to cost even more than the age pension. The problem is that these tax advantages are not shared evenly and not shared where people need them the most. A large share of the benefits flows to a relatively small group of people with very high super balances—balances that are far above what anyone would reasonably need for a comfortable retirement. In fact, about 38 per cent of all super earnings concessions go to the top 10 per cent of income earners. More than half of these—54 per cent—benefit the top 20 per cent. This means that the system is heavily skewed towards those already in the highest income brackets rather than supporting Australians more broadly. Labor governments are committed to standing up for working Australians, and a major part of that commitment is making sure our superannuation system remains fair and financially sustainable for everyone in our community. This bill better targets the super tax concessions available to individuals who have superannuation balances bigger than $3 million. The bill also reflects two years of feedback on the Albanese Labor government's original design for better-targeted super concessions, and here's how it will work. From 2026-27 onwards, earnings on superannuation balances between $3 million and $10 million will be taxed at a rate of up to 30 per cent. For those with balances exceeding $10 million, the tax rate applied to earnings will increase to up to 40 per cent. Importantly, there will be no change to how earnings on superannuation balances below $3 million are taxed. These earnings will continue to be subject to a rate of up to 15 per cent, maintaining existing settings for the vast majority of Australians. Both the $3 million and $10 million balance thresholds will be indexed to the consumer price index over time so that they can continue to align with the transfer balance cap, and this ensures that these thresholds remain consistent and maintain their intended purpose as the system evolves and as time goes on. Earnings will be calculated using established income tax principles and will be based on realised gains, providing a clear and familiar framework for determining taxable amounts. The policy will also extend to members of defined benefit schemes with equivalent arrangements applied so that these members are treated fairly and so that they're treated consistently with those in standard superannuation funds. Superannuation funds will be responsible for working out how much of their earnings relate to any member covered by these rules. They will then report that calculated amount to the ATO, ensuring the reporting process aligns with the intent and requirements that are set out in this legislation before us today. It's important to note that these changes will apply to less than 0.5 per cent of Australians who hold superannuation accounts in 2026-27, and the higher rate of tax for accounts with balances over $10 million will only affect less than 0.1 per cent of Australians with super accounts. What these changes do, though, is ensure that the administration of the superannuation system is aligned with the legislated objective of superannuation, and this is to enable savings for a dignified retirement in a way that is both fair and sustainable. We've made no secret of our agenda to strengthen the superannuation system, and I'm proud of this government's accomplishments when it comes to superannuation and when it comes to protecting the retirement and future of all older Australians. We've defined the purpose of superannuation in law, ensuring it is clear and protected. To be clear, it is to save money for a dignified retirement, supported by government in a fair and sustainable way. It is not a reserve of funds to be dipped into whenever the coalition feels like it. We've bolstered the system with a profound social reform: the introduction of superannuation on paid parental leave. Paid parental leave will reach a total of 26 weeks by the end of this very year, and, in July last year, the Albanese Labor government began paying superannuation on publicly funded paid parental leave. This reform tackled a longstanding inequality where women's earnings fall, on average, by about 55 per cent in the first five years of raising children. Paying superannuation on parental leave helps reduce that impact. Once parental leave reaches 26 weeks, a participant will accumulate about $3,000 in superannuation contributions during their leave period. This makes a difference. For the first time, it drives equality for women in the superannuation space. I've recently spoken about the introduction of payday super. This reform is aimed squarely at fixing the ongoing problem of unpaid superannuation. The ATO estimates that $5.2 billion of workers' super was never paid in 2021-22 alone. That's roughly $100 million every single week that employees earned but didn't receive. Under the new payday super laws passed last year, superannuation must be paid at the same time as wages because that's what they are. This ensures workers can track their super more easily and spot missing payments early. Unpaid super disproportionately harms younger workers and those in casual or insecure work. Supporting people who are struggling to build retirement savings helps make our superannuation system more fair. Deputy Speaker, I'd like to leave you with a statistic that demonstrates the purpose of this bill. There are 14 times as many people who will benefit from the changes to the LISTO as there are people who have over $3 million in super. It is now time for those opposite to put their support behind a fairer super system, and I urge them to vote for Australians on low incomes, not to vote for bigger tax breaks for the few who have millions in their super funds. 18:40 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina The Treasurer has some explaining to do. He really does, because this legislation bells the cat on his failure. On his watch, what we saw was a proposal by the Australian Labor Party to put in an unrealised capital gain. Who would that have hurt the most? It would have hurt farmers, who already do it tough with the vagaries of the weather, of markets and of international volatility. They were going to be hit with an unrealised capital gains tax. Let's call it what it was: a tax, a proposed slug on them, which would have been so very unfair. With that unrealised gain, what we would have seen would have been farmers whose properties went up in value, increased in worth, then being hit with a tax bill on the price of that land going up even though they weren't going to sell it. Because it had increased in value, they were going to be hit with a tax bill. What were they supposed to do—hive off a paddock or three to pay the tax bill that those opposite wanted to slug them with? Thankfully, public perception and people power has seen that particular element of this particular piece of legislation removed, and thank goodness for that. The government has agreed to index the $3 million threshold, preventing bracket creep from slowly expanding the tax base over time. What we see through those two concepts alone—the unrealised paper gains, protecting SMSFs holding farms and small businesses from being taxed on gains that they have not made, and the indexation of the $3 million threshold—is the government and its Treasurer admitting they got it badly wrong. Thankfully, they could admit that that error needed amending, and it has been amended. But will you hear any member opposite, in their contributions on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Building a Stronger and Fairer Super System) Bill 2026, admit that? No, I don't think you will. I certainly don't think you will hear any admission that this was going to be an unfair slug on our farmers, who are already, particularly in Western Australia, facing the reality that, if they sell sheepmeat to the Middle East, they won't have a trade in the future, with the live export ban. Farmers in the Murray-Darling are facing the prospect of less water because more productive water has been taken and used for the environmental purposes that this government is pushing. Farmers are already faced with the prospect of paying higher fuel costs because of the situation in Iran, and let's not forget the high energy prices which just keep going up and up. The people that that hurts most are small-business owners and farmers, farmers who grow our food and fibre. Another thing that you won't hear from those opposite in their speeches on this important bill is the situation surrounding Shield and First Guardian and the collapses in the managed investment schemes. I appreciate that the government is planning to tighten the rules around MISs and to give the corporate watchdog, the Australian Securities and Investment Commission, more power to demand information. But those Shield and First Guardian collapses cost people their life savings. It destroyed some people, unfairly and tragically so. Can you imagine, Mr Speaker, being one of those people on the cusp of a well-earned retirement, looking forward to your twilight years, knowing that you had that nest egg there, and all of a sudden having it taken away? It's so very unfair, and it's on Labor's watch—on this government's watch. In a 10 February 2026 ABC news article, business reporters Ben Butler and Nassim Khadem wrote: About 12,000 Australians poured $1.1 billion in retirement savings into the two funds, which collapsed in 2024 and 2025 amid what incoming ASIC chair Sarah Court has described as 'industrial scale misconduct'. They're not my words. They go on: Investors in First Guardian, many of whom switched from highly regulated super funds into the product, face little prospect of recovery directly from the fund, with liquidators in December saying just $1.6 million of $446 million tipped into it had been recovered—not enough to pay their fees. In order to recover money for investors, the corporate watchdog has instead launched a series of lawsuits against companies responsible for overseeing the fund. Have we heard the Treasurer explain what was going to be done for those investors? Yes, many of those investors switched from highly-regulated super funds, but they did it based on good information, and, let's not forget, they did it during a period that Labor was in government. Labor talks about being the party and the government of superannuation. They're proud to beat their chest about it and proud to spruik it. They condemn us for supposedly not supporting it. I listened carefully to the contributions of the member for Holt and the member for Moreton. The member for Holt talked about $36 billion being taken out during COVID. She said it 'had depleted or emptied' some of their superannuation pools of money. But what she didn't say is that it's investors' money. What Labor people never understand is that it's actually the money of the investors. It's not their companies' money. It's not the unions' money—although she did mention the unions, because Labor members are always beholden to unions. I can say that, having been a member of a union for 21 years; nobody can criticise me in that regard. Mr Pike 300120 Shame! Mr McCORMACK 219646 Yes, I was! I see that there has to be balance, and I appreciate the role unions do play, Member for Bowman. I do, but it's all in moderation and in balance. What we saw during COVID was a period of time where people were desperate, and the coalition had their back. I would hate to think what would have happened during those dark days had Labor been in power. They wanted us to spend more money. They go on about a trillion dollars worth of Liberal Party debt, which is not true at all—also it was the Liberals and Nationals; I should throw the Nationals into any discussion about who was actually in power—but it was money that kept business doors open. It was money that kept Australians safe. It was money that kept people alive. No Labor member should ever downplay the role that was played by the coalition government, led by Scott Morrison. The Johns Hopkins centre said that Australia was the second-best in the world for COVID preparedness, and part of that was allowing people to access their own money—that is, superannuation. The member for Moreton talked about the title of the bill. I admire whoever it is in the Labor Party who writes the titles of their bills, and I'm being genuine here. It's always rainbows and fairy floss and unicorns; it always seems like, 'Why hadn't we thought of this before?' They are always beautifully scripted, 'building a stronger and fairer' insert word here 'system' or 'program' or whatever the case might be. The member for Moreton talked about this being a core Labor value. She talked about equity and fairness, and every other Labor member will come in here will repeat the same dogma. They will repeat the same lines because that's what they are told to do. It's got to be fairer because it's a core Labor Party value, as if nobody else cares. And here we have the modern-day Robin Hoods taking from the rich to give to the poor. Well, this isn't Sherwood Forest. This is the House of Representatives and there are people on both sides of parliament—I'm sure even on the crossbench too—who care about people in retirement having a dignified quality of life because they have their own money and they can access it. That's important. It is. This is a government which, as I said at the start, has been found out and it is very much waving the white flag of retreat under pressure when it comes to the unrealised capital gains issue and the indexation issue. This was not a proposal that was in any way, shape or form about fairness when it came to the unrealised capital gains. It was not. And certainly I would really like to hear what is being done by the government to help those investors in Shield and First Guardian, those investors who now face a very bleak, certainly not a dignified, quality of life in retirement. Australia needs a good superannuation system. And I would agree with the Labor members opposite who say we have a country that is the envy of the world. It is. But it's not for those poor Shield and First Guardian investors. They are faced with the prospect of not seeing money that was theirs because of what happened with the collapse of those two super schemes. We don't, and we won't, hear Labor members talking about that. Equally concerning as the unrealised capital gains was the government's refusal to index the $3 million threshold. We have an inflationary situation at the moment that is being made worse by this Treasurer, the member for Rankin, and his willingness to pour debt petrol on the inflation fire. I'm not against spending; I never have been. I was in charge of $110 billion worth of spending when I was the infrastructure minister. There's good spending and there's bad spending, and, at the moment, unfortunately, we're seeing too much of the latter on this treasurer's watch. Failing to index thresholds was a silent tax hike. It was. Thankfully, he has acknowledged that with the concessions made in this particular bill. Over time, more Australians would have been captured, not because they were wealthier in real terms but because inflation eroded the value of the threshold. It's bracket creep by design and a flawed policy, and Labor, through taking that aspect out, has admitted that. But you won't hear Labor members mentioning it. You'll just hear them talking about fairness, equity and core Labor values while reading out the title of the bill as though asking, 'Why hadn't the coalition thought about this?' They'll regurgitate history, as Labor members always do, and they're very good at that. But I'll tell you what. They might be good at the politics—Labor members always are—but, I have to say, they're not very good at the policy, and this shows it once again. 18:55 Mr THISTLETHWAITE 182468 Kingsford Smith In my view, if I were to sum up what Australian workers were thinking at the moment, it would be that the income and taxation system is stacked against them. I often hear from workers that, no matter how hard they work, they feel that they just can't get ahead, and they're right. The income and taxation system in Australia is stacked against workers at the moment, and it heavily favours the wealthy. For too long, our taxation system has favoured wealthy Australians at the expense of low- to middle-income workers. You need look no further than the superannuation system to find evidence of this. At the moment, in Australia, the wealthiest 10 per cent of income earners receive $22 billion in tax breaks by transferring their income into superannuation rather than simply paying income tax on it like the rest of Australia. But the lowest 20 per cent of income earners receive only about $800 million in tax breaks despite the fact that that population of Australians is much larger than the wealthiest 10 per cent. So the system is stacked against workers, and is it any wonder that people feel like, no matter how hard they work, they can't make ends meet and that they feel like the system is stacked against them? Because it has been for too long, and our government is going to do something about that. I want Australian workers to know that we hear them. We hear what you're suffering, and we know what you're going through. We know that the system is stacked against you. We know that it unfairly favours the wealthy at the expense of workers. That is why we are changing the system. That is what this bill, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Building a Stronger and Fairer Super System) Bill 2026, is all about. We are acting to rebalance the superannuation system unashamedly in favour of workers. This bill is about ensuring that superannuation works for the people who need it most: the average Australian worker struggling to make ends meet. It's for the workers who keep our community functioning every day, who work hard and who struggle to pay the bills and the mortgage. It's for the tradie that's just started out—and is maybe running their own business or working for an employer—for the cost of tools, running a car and paying the rent. It's for the families who have both parents being forced to work these days, who have dauntingly sized mortgages, who are trying to get the best education for their kids, who are probably looking after elderly parents as well and who are feeling that they just can't get their heads above water. It's for the single parent who is living week to week, who is trying to do the best for their kid, who is maybe having to rely on rent assistance or family tax benefits and who is exhausted at the end of every week, with nothing left. It's for those that are nearing retirement but are being forced to continue to work beyond the normal retirement age because they simply don't have enough in their superannuation to retire on. This bill is for you. This bill represents our government listening to your struggles and acting to make the superannuation system fairer. We'll do it in two ways. The first set of reforms in this bill enhance the low income superannuation tax offset. For too long, the settings have not kept pace with changes in wages, tax thresholds or the superannuation guarantee. As a result, hundreds of thousands of low-income workers have been missing out on the level of support the system was designed to provide. This legislation corrects that. From 1 July 2027, the maximum LISTO payment will rise to $810. The eligibility threshold will move to $45,000. And both will automatically adjust in future, as tax thresholds and the superannuation guarantee rate evolve. These changes ensure that the tax system remains aligned with the broader tax framework and continues to deliver meaningful support, and the impact is substantial. Around 1.3 million Australians—most of them women—will benefit from this reform. The total number of people eligible for the LISTO will grow to 3.1 million. Workers earning between $28,000 and $45,000 will see an average increase of $410 in their low income superannuation tax offset. Depending on their career earnings, this could translate to around $15,000 more in retirement savings. That's real help. That's a substantial change. It's practical and targeted, and it makes the system fairer. It rebalances the system to ensure that we're favouring workers over the wealthy. The second reform ensures that the most generous tax concessions in the system are directed where they're intended: towards helping people save for a dignified retirement, not providing a massive tax subsidy for the wealthiest 10 per cent of Australians with extremely large balances, who are diverting their income into superannuation to avoid paying their fair share of tax. From July this year, concessional tax treatment will continue for all Australians, but the level of concession will taper for those with very high balances. Earnings linked to balances below $3 million will continue to be taxed at up to 15 per cent, but, if you've got a balance of between $3 million and $10 million, the tax rate will increase to 30 per cent. Earnings associated with balances above $10 million will be taxed at 40 per cent. If you've got $3 million or more in your superannuation, you are indeed a wealthy Australian. You are doing well, and the system has provided a massive tax concession for you over a long period of time. But that tax concession has been at the expense of those low-paid workers who are struggling to make ends meet. It's time to rebalance the system. It's time to make sure the system is fairer. These reforms will ensure that the wealthiest Australians finally start paying their fair share of tax through that income diversion into superannuation. Both thresholds will be indexed to maintain consistency over time. These changes affect a very, very small number of Australians—less than 0.5 per cent of the Australian population with superannuation accounts. The higher rate on balances above $10 million affects less than 0.1 per cent of Australians. Anyone would think that a reform that affects such a low proportion of Australians but has such a dramatic effect on advantaging and providing a rebalance for workers in this country would get the support of the opposition, but they'd be fooled. They'd be fooled. Mr Young 201906 Not on gains. It only takes unrealised gains. Mr THISTLETHWAITE 182468 They'd be fooled because, once again, those opposite are going to oppose this very sensible reform that rebalances the taxation system in favour of workers. Once again they are going to side with the wealthiest Australians to protect a system that has led to Australians feeling left behind and workers feeling like they are struggling to make ends meet, like they can't keep up and that the system is stacked against them. Those opposite want to protect the existing system that has ensured that $22 billion worth of tax concessions go to the wealthiest 10 per cent of Australians, a system that is unfair and has gone on for too long, and we are committed to ensuring that we rebalance it. These changes will ensure the distribution of the most generous concessions, ensuring that they are not disproportionately absorbed by a very small number of individuals with balances far beyond what is needed for a comfortable retirement. This is about sustainability, it's about fairness, and it's about ensuring that the system continues to serve the people that it was established for, the average Australian worker, and to provide dignity in retirement. It wasn't a system that was established to ensure that the wealthy could divert income into superannuation to avoid paying their fair share of tax. These reforms are coupled with other reforms that our government is making to ensure that the system is rebalanced in favour of workers. We've legislated the objective of superannuation so it's clear about what the superannuation system was intended to do—to provide that dignity for workers in retirement. We've lifted the superannuation guarantee to 12 per cent. We're ensuring that super is paid on government paid parental leave so that parents—particularly women, who generally retire with a third of the retirement savings of men—ensure that they get a fairer deal, because they have to take breaks from the workforce to raise children. We're finally recognising in Australia, through a Labor government, that if parents, particularly women, are going to have that dignity in retirement, then they deserve to ensure that their superannuation continues to grow whilst they do that important unpaid work of raising children and taking a break from work. We're expanding the performance test to cover hundreds more products, we're strengthening financial reporting obligations for funds, and we've begun reforming the retirement phase to ensure members get better outcomes. All of these sensible reforms are aimed at ensuring that we rebalance our superannuation system to ensure that it provides sustainability and that it works for the average low-to-middle-income Australian worker. But, once again, we're seeing the coalition, the Liberal Party and the National Party—and, let's face it, some of the lowest income workers in this country, some of the lowest socio-economic geographical areas in this country, are in National Party seats—continue to come in here and vote against the interests of working Australians and vote to prop up a system that is delivering $22 billion in tax concessions for the wealthiest 10 per cent of Australians. They ought to be ashamed of themselves when they go back to their electorates and say that they are supporting workers, when they come in here and vote against the interests of Australian workers on every occasion and try and prop up a system that has ensured that workers feel that they can't make ends meet any more and that they are struggling. The Albanese government is determined to make sure that we rebalance the superannuation system so that it meets its original intention and works in favour of the workers of Australia. 19:09 Ms SPENDER 286042 Wentworth I rise to speak on the Superannuation (Building a Stronger and Fairer Super System) Imposition Bill 2026 and the associated Treasury Laws Amendment (Building a Stronger and Fairer Super System) Bill 2026. I do welcome this bill, and I welcome the government's approach to the superannuation system in its current form, not in its previous form. I'd like to talk a little bit about why it's important and why I think it is a useful reform, and, at the same time, why I disagree very strongly with the previous speaker and how they characterised that reform. I'm very wary of people setting up reforms as class warfare. I think that that does not help this country stay together. Certainly some of the language that has been used around these bills is not helpful to making reforms which are genuinely useful. I have spoken to my community a lot about superannuation, about its purpose and about what people want. Particularly when the government first floated changes in the superannuation system, I went out to my community. We had over 1,100 people respond to a survey, and over 80 per cent of people said they do support changing tax concessions on super, reducing some of the highest tax concessions and, indeed, increasing tax concessions for less wealthy people because they see the need for that. It was interesting. I had a number of people write in to say: 'The current tax concessions actually are beneficial to me personally, but I still support reform because I do want to make sure that all Australians can have good lives and I think that this is a reform that is appropriate.' It's that spirit that I do think the speakers particularly on the Labor side, given the language of the previous speaker, need to bear in mind. I represent a lot of wealthy Australians who are very concerned that people across the country aren't able to live dignified and decent lives. I represent many people who are well off who worry about their kids and their grandkids and, frankly, even if their kids and grandkids are sorted out, they worry that other Australians who are working hard just can't get ahead. So they worry about that. They are open to reforms. I have had many people recently say, 'I'm benefiting from various concessions, but I support change here because it can help other people.' So when members of parliament demonise those people and say, 'It's just the wealthy, so it doesn't matter if we take money away from them because there are only a few of them,' it doesn't help. It's actually not going to help drive the reform that the country needs in a way that the country can stay together on. I just really warn people to consider this as they are considering these bills. Why do I think this reform is appropriate? It is genuinely because we have a tax system and a broader economic system at the moment which has various features which I think have delivered outcomes that we don't really want. I'm going to talk specifically to some of those outcomes. For instance, in this country, if there are two families living next door to each other, both on 100 grand, the older, retired family, on average, pays half the tax of the younger family. A younger family is likely less wealthy, unlikely to own their own home, or certainly less likely to have paid it off, and more likely to have significant costs to them, such as child care or paying off HECS debts. A wealthier family, on average, pays half the tax as a younger working family. I just don't think that makes sense and I don't think that is fair. At the same time as we saw from 2004 to 2016 the wealth of households over the age of 65 grow by around 50 per cent, the wealth of households under the age of 35 didn't move. So we've ended up with a bit of a generation gap emerging which I think has only grown since then, although we don't actually have the numbers. And so we have a situation where younger Australians are struggling to meet the milestones of their parents. We have a 20 per cent drop in homeownership for younger Australians compared to previous generations. So we do have real challenges in the social compact that we are offering younger Australians and that we're actually offering the broader Australian group—that sense that, if you get a decent job and you work hard, you should be able to create a decent life for yourself whether your parents can help you or not. I think it is really important that as a parliament we consider this. This is one of the issues that I have championed the entire time I've been elected. That is why I support the government looking at tax in a way to make sure that all Australians, regardless of background, can afford decent lives for themselves and their families. I think that is something that, as a country, we do want. Let's come to the detail of this bill. There are many causes for some of the challenges in our system at the moment—there's low productivity and the lack of housing supply—but, certainly, the superannuation system has played a part. We do have a superannuation system where the concessions are very generous. It's appropriate to have concessions on superannuation. We lock people's money up for a long period of time. We say that they can't access it until a certain age. So I think it is extremely appropriate that there are concessions in the superannuation system above and beyond the progressive concessions in the working tax system. That is appropriate. Then the question is: are the levels of concessions appropriate? This is where I have a lot of common ground with, and where I do support, the government's bill. I think it is fair. When I talk to my community about the purpose of superannuation, and the purpose of giving people concessions for superannuation, people very much do agree that the point of the concessions in superannuation is to support people to have a dignified retirement. That's something that the country can unite on: we want people to have a dignified retirement. We do not want people to be in poverty or to be insecure in their later years. There is a financial benefit to the country as well. If we have a decent superannuation system, where people can have a dignified retirement, then they also have less recourse to the public purse and to age pensions. There is a sense that that is the purpose of super. I then look at my community and how they look at superannuation concessions currently and ask, 'Do they support that?' They do support a dignified retirement, but, in some cases, the concessions well and truly go beyond what is needed for a dignified retirement. That is why, on balance, I support pulling back the concessions on high-value super funds: because the concession should be directed towards supporting a dignified retirement, but it is unnecessary to give additional concessions that go beyond supporting that dignified retirement. I want to flag a conversation I had with someone in my electorate about this. A man came up to me—he was probably about my age, in his 40s—and he said, 'I'm concerned that what we're doing is giving concessions to people who have significantly more wealth in retirement than the childcare worker who looks after my kid every day.' That really stuck with me, because I think that is the question. Tax concessions are a choice. We don't have a lot to go around. The question is: Are they being applied in the way that we think is best for the country? Is it fair, consistent, economically efficient and predictable? Those are some of the themes we should consider with regard to our tax concessions. I think, in this case, where the government has landed is appropriate. And I will say that if the government had been taxing unrealised gains—as it had initially intended to do—I wouldn't have supported this bill, even though I do support changing tax concessions. I made this point in various forms to the Treasurer and to others and played a significant role, I think, in working with others so the previous form of the bill did not go ahead in the last parliament. When I talk to my community, people do steadfastly support pulling back superannuation concessions, particularly when they can support people with lower balances to build more effective super. But the taxation of unrealised gains is bad policy. It is inappropriate and would certainly have unintended consequences, particularly in the innovation sector—in the startup sector—as well as for other groups. That is why I strongly opposed that part of the policy. I want to recognise that it's not easy to change your mind publicly and that the Treasurer changed his mind publicly, restructured the package, indexed the thresholds and removed unrealised gains. I think that this is a much better policy and package for it. I will give the Treasurer enormous credit for being able to do that, because I'm sure it wasn't easy. I'm sure it wasn't necessarily what he wanted to do. But he listened to feedback. I think that is actually what people expect from us here in the parliament. That's really where I want to leave my comments. The only thing I would say further is that what I do want to see, and what I think this government should be doing, is linking any changes—any reductions in tax concessions—to meaningful reductions in income taxes for working-age people so that it's not just more money in the government coffers. I think this is really important. When you listen to Australians talk about tax—and we're talking about tax, which is a really positive move—there is a great deal of concern that tax increases, and this is a tax increase, just go to government coffers and that governments can sometimes spend without as much oversight as you would like and sometimes, frankly, on things that are pretty political as opposed to what best benefits the country. There is a distrust around government spending—that it isn't as effective as it could be and that government doesn't always use every single dollar as well and as thoughtfully as we do in our homes. Again, I'll comment on the words of the previous speaker, the member for Kingsford Smith, who I have enormous respect for. He said something like 'it's not many people whose money it is and so it doesn't really matter'. I don't want to verbal him, but I want to acknowledge that it's not the government's money that they're touching. It's somebody else's money, so we need to show respect. We need to make a strong case if we are going to make changes to the money that people have and those tax arrangements. I think that is really important. The government, if it is contemplating any more tax changes in the budget, should keep the covenant with the Australian people that, for any additional tax that it raises, it should give it back in income tax concessions. It's not only important on principle; it is important because younger working people are really hurting right now. They are really struggling with the cost of living. Tax concessions is a way that you can actually make a real difference to people's lives, and in a quick way. It is important because government spending has grown at a rate that I think most Australians have some concerns about. It was just over 24 per cent when the government came into power. It is now at 26.9 per cent. That is a significant growth in government spending. Honestly, it is important that government spending is pulled back over time, because I think that that level of growth and spending is definitely unsustainable. These are the core reasons why I think it is really important that the government uses any sort of money that is raised to give back to Australians who are struggling, particularly younger people who really feel like they can't get ahead. The numbers bear them out. They can't get ahead. They're spending less on non-essentials than previous generations did. They're not building wealth like they used to. They are not meeting the milestone of buying a house like they used to. They're not having kids like they used to. We know that money and economic circumstances are playing into this. So I do support the bill, but I think the government needs to link any tax increases to tax reductions. I forgive the government in this case because they did announce a tax cut for the lowest tax level before the election, so I'm letting them balance this one out. I'm giving credit for that. But I think any credits after that should be returned to the people as tax concessions on working because that's where they are really needed. 19:23 Ms COKER 263547 Corangamite I rise today in support of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Building a Stronger and Fairer Super System) Bill 2026. This bill is about something absolutely fundamental: making Australia's superannuation system stronger, fairer and more sustainable in the longer term. Superannuation represents the best of what it means to be Australian. It represents dignity, it represents security and it represents confidence that, after a lifetime of work—often physically demanding or sometimes underrecognised—Australians can retire with stability and independence. In my electorate of Corangamite in Victoria, I often see what superannuation means in very practical terms. I speak regularly with people who came to Australia after the Second World War, moving to the Geelong region to build new lives. They worked in factories, on building sites and in small family businesses. They weren't wealthy people, but, over decades of steady work, they built up superannuation balances that now sit alongside the age pension and provide them with something incredibly important: choice, certainty and dignity in retirement. For younger generations, this superannuation reform will deliver even more over the course of their careers. But, while this is so, we also know this: the benefits of super could be better distributed. That's why we're introducing this bill—to make superannuation fairer for all, to help disability and aged-care workers, to help retail and hospitality staff and to help early years educators and nurses get the secure retirement they need and deserve. To achieve this, this bill makes two important changes. Firstly, it boosts the low-income superannuation tax offset and, secondly, it better targets superannuation tax concessions for very large balances. Together, these reforms strengthen the system. They provide more support for those on low incomes, while ensuring that the concessions for larger balances are fair and sustainable. On the first change, the low-income superannuation tax offset exists for a simple reason. Without it, low-income earners could pay more tax on their super contributions than they would on their ordinary income. This is not fair, so under this legislation we will increase the maximum payment by $310, lifting it to over $800 from July next year. We'll also raise the eligibility threshold from $37,000 to $45,000. These are not minor adjustments. They are meaningful reforms that deliver on the Albanese government's core commitment to help more Australians get ahead and lead fulfilling lives. Changes in this bill will help deliver on that commitment. The changes will deliver a more secure retirement for 1.3 million Australians, the majority of whom are women. It will mean the total number of Australians eligible for LISTO will increase to around 3.1 million people. Our changes will benefit all workers with incomes between $28,000 and $45,000, with an average increase in LISTO payments of $410 annually. These workers are our disability support workers, our aged-care workers, our retail hospitality staff, Australians who work weekends, nights and public holidays, our early childhood educators and our nurses. These are the workers who care for us, who care for our communities and who bring people together, and yet, too often, they retire with far less than they deserve. By strengthening LISTO, we are making sure that low-income workers receive a fairer tax concession on their super contributions. Over the course of a working life, these changes could deliver around $15,000 extra at retirement, depending on an individual's income path. This is not insignificant. For someone on a modest income, $15,000 can mean the difference between replacing a broken-down car or going without. It can mean more Australians have the ability to pay for the support they need at home, whether it's improving the energy efficiency of their home or simply ensuring they have what they need to live comfortably. The LISTO eligibility threshold and maximum payment amount will also automatically adjust in line with any future changes to income tax thresholds and the superannuation guarantee rate. This will ensure that low-income workers receive a fairer tax concession on their super contributions to align with the government's third round of tax cuts taking effect in 2027. Those tax cuts and these changes will make a real difference to the lives of millions of Australians who work hard and who do deserve better, such as Australians who volunteer at sporting clubs and food relief centres. They should have support, and that's what this bill delivers. The second key part of this bill reduces tax concessions for individuals with a total super balance above $3 million. This will affect less than half a per cent of all Australians and will commence from July this year. Let me repeat that. It will only affect less than half a per cent. It will mean the concessional tax rate applying to future earnings on balances between $3 million and $10 million will be a combined headline rate of 30 per cent. Earnings corresponding to balances below $3 million will continue to be taxed at 15 per cent in the accumulation phase and— Debate interrupted. ADJOURNMENT 71 ADJOURNMENT Health Care 71 19:30 Dr RYAN 297660 Kooyong Ahead of the forthcoming budget, I'd like to speak to how we can improve productivity through investment in health care. Health care is not merely a cost on the national balance sheet. It is an investment in the wellbeing of our people, which underpins workforce participation and drives economic growth. Investment in health is a productivity goldmine for Australia's economy. Every dollar invested in health and medical research yields close to $4 returned to the Australian economy. There are few sectors in which the economic dividends are so clear and so direct. Our healthcare system is not operating at its productivity potential. That's not because of the people who deliver care. Instead, the problem lies in the structures around them: outdated regulation, fragmented data systems, poor workforce planning, underinvestment in research and missed opportunities for disease prevention. Firstly, Australia's health and medical research sector is world class, but it is underfunded and underleveraged. Medical research is a critical enabler of productivity. It drives new treatments, new industries and new jobs while reducing pressure on hospitals and primary care services. But our expenditure on R&D has fallen to only 1.7 per cent of GDP. That's the lowest in 20 years. The Medical Research Future Fund sits now at almost $25 billion. It remains underdistributed, and that money is just sitting fallow in the government's bank account. The MRFF represents billions of dollars in lost opportunity for discovery, for translation and for commercialisation. We could address this immediately by increasing MRFF disbursements to $1 billion annually, which was the original intention of the fund when it was created. The government could also engage with Horizon Europe, and it could also engage with fully funding the National Health and Medical Research Strategy. Secondly, we have to address workforce planning and regulation. It's extraordinary that there's currently no single body responsible for workforce planning for the national medical workforce. Workforce shortages are amongst the most significant constraints on productivity across the care sectors. If we want a productive system, we need modern workforce regulation. We need clearer scope-of-practice frameworks and a national planning agency with real authority to enable better workforce distribution. Another major productivity bottleneck lies in training. Students in many health disciplines have to complete hundreds of hours of unpaid placements. All should be included in the Commonwealth Prac Payment scheme. When students defer or abandon their degrees because they can't afford placements, we are losing a workforce that we've already invested in training. That is a false economy. Finally, we can't talk about healthcare productivity without talking about prevention. Australia spends less than two per cent of its total health budget on preventive care, despite evidence that every dollar spent on prevention returns $14 in downstream savings from fewer chronic conditions, fewer hospitalisations and fewer years lost to disease. Chronic diseases are one of the country's largest drivers of lost productivity. In 2023-24 alone, Australia's health expenditure reached $270 billion. That was driven, in part, by avoidable chronic conditions that could be reduced through better prevention. People with chronic conditions are 60 per cent less likely to participate in the labour force and less likely to work full time. Early detection, healthier environments and community-wide preventive programs all reduce rates of chronic illness and resulting absenteeism. Nowhere is that clearer than in dental and oral health. Nearly one in five Australian children defers dental care due to cost. In 2023-24 we saw 88,600 preventable hospitalisations for dental conditions in Australia. That is a stark illustration of how failing to invest in prevention costs us far more in the long term. Expanding preventive dental care, starting with children and older Australians would reduce chronic health risks later in life. It would reduce the incidence of chronic disease, diabetes and stroke in older Australians. Improving productivity in our economy doesn't have to be about asking people to work harder. It should be about building a system that works smarter, that invests in healthcare research, supports its workforce, reduces chronic illness and sees health not as a cost but as the foundation of prosperity. Myuna Colliery 72 19:35 Mr REPACHOLI 298840 Hunter Today I rise to speak about something that matters deeply to me and my community: job security, fairness and what can be achieved when workers, unions and communities stand together. This week an agreement was reached to continue operations at Myuna Colliery under a new 3-year framework while Eraring Power Station remains online. This agreement saves around 300 direct jobs at a mine, 300 local jobs, and it protects over a thousand more across the broader Lake Macquarie and Hunter community. Contractors, transport operators, small businesses, suppliers, apprentices, cafes, mechanics and family owned operations all rely on Myuna and Eraring continuing to operate. These are not just statistics on a page. They are mortgage payments. They are school fees. They are apprenticeships. They are kids footy registrations. For months those families were living with uncertainty. Myuna was built for one purpose and for one purpose only—to supply Eraring Power Station with coal. It has no alternative market, no rail link, no export pathway. It exists just to power that power station. When questions were raised about the commercial arrangement between Centennial Coal and Origin Energy, the future of the mine and those 300 jobs were suddenly in doubt. That uncertainty rippled through the community. Let's be clear. This was not about geology. This was not about demand disappearing. Eraring is continuing to operate. This was about whether the commercial arrangement would match that reality. What we have now seen is Centennial Coal and Origin Energy move, negotiate in good faith and land on a practical outcome that delivers certainty, and that is a great thing. It is great to see both companies come back to the table and work through the issues to secure a sensible 3-year framework. Origin Energy stepping up and securing this arrangement demonstrates what responsible corporate citizenships look like. Large energy companies operate in regions just like mine because of their hard-working locals. The least that those communities deserve is fairness, certainty and good faith negotiations when jobs are on the line. This agreement recognises that reality. This outcome did not just happen. It happened because workers stood together. It happened because families spoke out. It happened because the community make it clear that avoidable job losses were not acceptable. I want to place on the record my thanks to the Mining and Energy Union for the work they did throughout this process. In particular I want to acknowledge Grahame Kelly, Jeremy McWilliams and Joey Price. Their leadership, steady approach and focus on constructive solutions made a real difference. I also want to thank the site delegates, the workers at Myuna and their families, who held firm during months of uncertainty. They conducted themselves with strength and dignity. They did not ask for special treatment. They asked for fairness. They asked for certainty while the power station they supply continued to operate, and that's exactly what this agreement delivers. It's a win for workers, it's a win for families and it's a win for the Hunter community because when you save 300 jobs at a mine you're also protecting thousands more across the supply chain. You're protecting the local engineering workshops. You're protecting the truckies. You're protecting the apprentices learning a trade. You're protecting small businesses who depend on steady workflow through our region. You're protecting the economic heart belt of communities right across Lake Macquarie and the Hunter like Wangi Wangi, Morisset and Cooranbong. The Hunter has powered New South Wales for generations. Our miners, power station workers and contractors have turned up in the middle of the night, in the heat, in the rain, in tough conditions to make sure that homes, hospitals and businesses right across the state have reliable power. That contribution should never be taken for granted. We understand that change is happening in our energy system. We understand that transition is underway, but that transition must be fair, responsible and respect workers and communities who have kept the lights on for decades. What this agreement shows is that when workers, when unions, when businesses and when the community stand together, practical solutions can be found. This was not about shouting from the sidelines; this was about standing up, backing our community and insisting on a sensible outcome. Today, 300 workers and their families can now breathe easier. Thousands more across Lake Macquarie and the Hunter can plan ahead with confidence. That matters. I will always stand up for the workers and the communities who power our nation. Thank you for everything you do. Thank you for the hard work you put in. And, most of all, thank you to your families who put up with you being away and out of action and out of the town for many days on end and away for long hours as well. (Time expired) Monash Electorate: Interfaith Community, Monash Electorate: Renewable Energy 73 19:40 Ms ALDRED 11788 Monash For many years I was honoured to be invited to the annual Gippsland interfaith iftar dinner, which was held in the Latrobe Valley. On Saturday night, I attended the first formal iftar dinner held in the Baw Baw Shire. I deeply appreciate the generosity of spirit behind the invitation to the broader community, which brought people together from different faiths and backgrounds bonded in friendship, respect and shared values that are important to our community in Monash. In an uncertain world, evenings like this remind us that regional communities bring people together. I particularly want to acknowledge the Baw Baw Islamic Network Australia president, Fahad Zakaria; vice-president, Mansoor Shamsi; secretary, Abdul Mohsi Khan; treasurer, Ali Haidar; and committee members Zahid Khan, Mehreen Syed-Shamsi and Sahrish Rafat for their leadership and for the enormous effort that goes into bringing together this event every year. The themes of iftar, including self-restraint and empathy for those less fortunate, are examples for many people in our community who are able to strongly connect to those themes and messages. When I was elected to this place, I committed to standing up for farmers in Monash at every opportunity, and that's exactly what I will continue to do. Recently, I've been meeting with a number of local residents and farmers deeply concerned about the impact on prime agricultural farmland, coupled with a lack of social licence, presented by a number of renewable energy projects across West Gippsland. From Yarragon to Darnum and Trafalgar East, I continue to hear from local residents about the giant battery energy storage projects being proposed smack bang in the middle of prime dairy and horticulture country. The residents concerned have no quarrel with the concept of renewable energy, but it needs to win the community support where it seeks to operate. State and federal renewable energy zones were established with the goal of keeping these projects in designated areas, presumably away from soil that needs to be preserved for the food that we grow and produce and that ends up on tables across the country. Well, these projects are well outside the designated renewable energy zones that have been established, and in some cases they are in bushfire prone areas and near waterways. The proponents have put together a slapdash approach to community engagement, hosting community forums at inconvenient times, like four o'clock in the afternoon when many impacted residents are in their milking sheds and can't step away. The other issue I have with the way these renewable energy projects are being handled in my community, particularly by the Victorian Labor government, goes to the state-owned and managed State Electricity Commission, which has just purchased the Delburn Wind Farm business. Now, this is not the original and best SEC; it's not the SEC that John Monash was the inaugural chair of and that he used to set Victoria up as a manufacturing powerhouse with the once four now three coal-fired power stations in the Latrobe Valley. This SEC was set up by the Victorian Labor government a couple of years ago. It employs one person in Gippsland. It competes with the private sector. And now it has purchased a wind farm that hasn't been capable of washing its own face as a standalone private enterprise or winning the support of the community in which it is seeking to operate. The purchase, on behalf of the Victorian taxpayer, was around $700 million—this is not loose change!—and yet this is a state that has a debt greater than the debts of the states of Tasmania, New South Wales and Queensland combined. I don't think anyone in their right mind can argue that this is a good use of taxpayer money, or that taxpayers should be bearing the risk of a project that to date really hasn't been able to stand up. Our region deserves better. Our community deserves better. Farmers in my region deserve to be treated with respect. Our soil, our prime agricultural land, needs to be better respected and better utilised. The treatment that farmers in my electorate have had to bear from the Victorian and federal Labor governments is just not good enough. To the local residents and farmers in my electorate who have contacted me: I will continue to work with my state coalition colleagues on this. We will stand up and fight for you. It is not good enough. You deserve better, Gippsland deserves better and Australian farmers deserve far better than what they've had so far. Gilmore Electorate: Defence 74 19:45 Mrs PHILLIPS 147140 Gilmore Nowra is a proud defence and Navy town, home to HMAS Albatross, HMAS Creswell, the Fleet Air Arm and the Royal Australian Naval College. Defence and defence industry are our biggest employers, and I am proud of the amazing work they do for our community and our country. That's why I am absolutely delighted that Nowra's iconic 'chopper on a stick' is coming back. After more than 25 years sitting proudly at the town's northern gateway, the UH-1B Iroquois helicopter, serial 894, was carefully removed from its longstanding post in September 2023 for detailed examination and repairs. But, after more than 20 years exposed to the elements and a decade since its last refurbishment, the aircraft had begun to show significant deterioration. Sadly, a heritage assessment by the Royal Australian Navy's Sea Power Centre confirmed that the helicopter was no longer suitable for public display and posed a potential safety risk to the community. Since its removal, my community has been crying out for the chopper's return, and I've been working hard to ensure it comes back. Last week, I was thrilled to announce it is coming back. To make its return even more exciting, the people of Nowra have a chance to choose which helicopter will take pride of place back on the stick. They can place their votes online for a life-size model of the UH-1B Iroquois, affectionately known as the 'Huey', which served with the Royal Australian Navy from 1964 to 1989, or a model of the Seahawk helicopter, which has been operated by the Royal Australian Navy since 1988 and represents the contemporary aviation capability of the Fleet Air Arm and the ongoing role HMAS Albatross plays in supporting naval operations. I've spoken to a lot of former and serving defence personnel, and, believe me, everyone has a very strong opinion about which chopper should return to the stick. Of course, there's the historical attachment to the Huey, which was a much-loved symbol of our town for almost three decades and recognises the significant role the chopper played in the Vietnam War. And then you have the Seahawk Romeo, which local people can see flying overhead and represents HMAS Albatross at Nowra, the Navy's largest operational establishment and home of the Fleet Air Arm. I know how much our community loved the chopper on a stick. In fact, I was stopped in the supermarket over the weekend and congratulated for bringing it back. People are thankful they get to choose. There's been spirited debate on my social media page as people share their memories of the Huey with its distinctive 'thump thump' sound and their enthusiasm for the future of the mighty Seahawk. One older resident, Steve, said, 'I love the Hueys, as just about everyone my age has seen them in countless movies, but the Seahawk is the present and future of the Navy.' Our poll certainly has people talking, and I'm genuinely so interested and excited to see the poll results after voting closes on 26 March. In the lead-up to the election, I promised to return the town's icon. I thank the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Defence for joining me in Gilmore to announce its long-awaited return. Returning a chopper to Nowra's town entrance is so important, and I have been encouraging everyone in the Shoalhaven to have their say and, importantly, to cast their vote. I'm asking people if they will be on team Huey or team Seahawk. Having a chopper back on that stick represents the critical role our former and current serving defence personnel have played and will continue to play in defending our nation. I hope it will also encourage local young people to consider a career in defence or defence industry. Since its removal, I've been working hard at every step of the way to ensure our prominent Navy icon returns, because that's what our community wants and deserves. I'm absolutely delighted that everyone will get to have their say on this next chapter in Nowra's history. Will it be Huey, or will it be Seahawk? Whichever chopper is chosen, it will be an enduring feature for decades to come and will honour the region's deep ties to the Navy and its proud aviation heritage. I encourage everyone in the Shoalhaven area to cast their vote. National Security 75 19:50 Mr CONAGHAN 279991 Cowper This Labor government has plenty of slogans, but the one they should adopt is 'divert, deflect and deny' because that is exactly what they have done for the past term and a half, and Australians know that. I can give you three examples of 'divert, deflect and deny'. For 'divert', the horrible Bondi massacre was preceded by over two years of ignoring the warnings by the director-general of ASIO and by the people in the Jewish community that something was coming. Yet, when we saw that horrible massacre, what happened? We saw diversion; we didn't see action. We saw this government blame gun laws—not radical Islamists but gun laws. I went to a rally in my electorate with over 700 good, honest, decent gun-owning people. They were angry that this government had diverted the attention from them and their failures to change the gun laws against them, to punish them and to divert the spotlight from the Prime Minister and from his failure to do what he had to do over a period of two years. Now, they'll lose their guns and they'll have to comply with other laws. We have the strictest laws in Australia, but, because of the diversion and because of this government's failures, we have to change. Then, we look at 'deflect'. This week, the coalition has been criticised for asking questions about the ISIS brides—or should I say ISIS sympathisers. These are people who left our country, left our shores and left the best country in the world to work and fight for ISIS. But what does the government do? They don't answer the questions that we ask about repatriating them. The ISIS sympathisers should never come back. They should not be in this country, because they hate us. They hate what we stand for. They hate what we do. We've heard the vomit, the disgusting words, of some of those ISIS brides about what they should do to teachers, about what they should do to the public and about what they should do to Australia. We do not want you in this country, and the coalition will do absolutely everything to keep you out of here, because you do not deserve this country. You do not deserve to be here, and you do not deserve the benefits of what this beautiful country offers to all those beautiful migrants who come into this country and offer what they have. You will not spew your violence into this country. Then, we look at 'deny' and the denial of the government's policy in relation to illegal tobacco. We have criminal gangs running our streets—in Melbourne, in Sydney, in Brisbane—because this government won't act. We need a government that enforces our laws and that gives our AFP the funds and the muscle to fight against them. But we don't have that. All we have is denial and deferral and a government that doesn't recognise what is going on in this country, and we should condemn them for it. Corangamite Electorate: Defence Estate 75 19:55 Ms COKER 263547 Corangamite I rise tonight to speak about the Defence estate audit and what it means for Fort Queenscliff and parts of Swan Island in my electorate of Corangamite. I am so fortunate to have these sites in my region—places with incredible histories, sites that are loved by our communities. Like my communities, I share a passion for these sites and want to see them protected and celebrated, with greater access for all Australians. Fort Queenscliff is more than 160 years old. It is iconic. It is part of our defence history. It was home to many defence personnel, bringing vibrancy and economic benefit to the town of Queenscliff. While it will remain a significant part of our nation's heritage, it no longer serves to benefit Defence in our defence capability. This being said, the heritage elements within the fort will continue to be protected into the future. This is non-negotiable, and it will apply to the magnificent red-brick exterior walls, the black signal tower and the Army barracks, alongside many other key buildings and features on the site. On top of this, we will work with the community on how we best increase visitation to the site, including the museum. Any divestment will mean that whoever decides to purchase the land must treat the site with care, respect and a demonstrable focus on preservation and increasing public access. Currently, the fort only holds tours twice a week, with 35 spots available for each session. Outside of those times, the gates are shut and the community is kept out. This will change for the better through this process. Let me be crystal clear; a purchaser will need to adhere to strict heritage protections, and community access will be enhanced. The whole idea that the fort could be pulled down is an absolute furphy. There is so much misinformation flying around, and it's not constructive. The fort cannot be bulldozed and turned into a supermarket, as some peddlers of misinformation have suggested. Heritage buildings cannot just be torn down. These are just two ridiculous examples that have been peddled by people who should know better. I urge those people to take instead a commonsense, rational approach, where we work constructively to protect the heritage assets while embracing tourism and the economic benefit that could well come from opening the doors of the fort more often. I have to be abundantly clear that this divestment process will uphold all relevant obligations, including under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. Likewise, the land at Swan Island that is currently home to the Queenscliff Golf Club will not be subject to inappropriate development. Any such outlandish suggestions are just another attempt to sow fear. The golf club will continue to be consulted. They have been kept in the loop, and they have had an opportunity to feed into the process. My message to locals is this. Divestment will not happen overnight. Engagement sessions are set to take place, and I will let you know when and where they will happen. The heritage assets will be protected and respected, and community access will be much better than it is now. I'd like to thank the Deputy Prime Minister, the Assistant Minister for Defence and all Defence officials who have played a key role in getting us to this point. The Defence estate asset audit sets up our ADF for the future while honouring the past. It acknowledges Defence is not a heritage management administrator. It recognises that our historical sites must remain accessible to community, and, notably, heritage assets must be protected. It sets the foundation for an increase in funding for defence capability. And it's good economic management, with the potential to increase visitation and economic benefit. There's much water to pass under the bridge, but I will work with and for communities to get the best outcome possible. That's my commitment—to work constructively alongside the community, listening and ensuring our history is accessible, respected and protected for future generations to enjoy and cherish. House adjourned at 20:00 NOTICES 76 NOTICES Presentation 76

Tuesday, 3 March 2026

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Dr Garland ) took the chair at 12:40, a division having been called in the House of Representatives.

GRIEVANCE DEBATE 78 GRIEVANCE DEBATE Population, Housing 78 12:40 Ms SHARKIE 265980 Mayo What are the greatest issues facing us as a society? I would say our birthrate is actually a good litmus test on the confidence and optimism of our nation. We want Australian families. We need Australian families, and we want and need couples to raise little Australians. On that front, we are failing miserably. Our birthrate year on year has declined, and we're doing very little to stem that decline. The government's own department records birthrate in freefall, and it's expected to continue to decline. We've prioritised very high levels of immigration over natural increase by birth. In 2023-24, we had a natural increase of 105,000 little Australians, which is births less deaths, and a net overseas migration of 423,000 people. In 2025-26, our natural increase is expected to decline to 99,000. By 2065—and this is what should make every one of us deeply concerned—when we are, according to government data, expected to have a population of 41 million people, we will have a natural population increase of just 69,000 new little Australians, and that's for a population of 41 million people. We have very little time to turn this around, and I believe that there are some levers that the government can pull and they must pull hard to arrest this decline. In 2023, we had a fertility rate low of 1.49, and then that has dipped further. New data from the Centre of Population says that in 2026 it is expected to decline to 1.42 children per couple, the lowest it has ever been—lower than during the Great Depression and lower than during World War I and World War II. In the early 2000s, the Howard government saw this and were concerned by this, and they implemented a raft of measures and actually asked the Australian community to have another baby. That saw in 2005-2006 an increase in just that one year of 2.4 per cent. We need to do that again. Why are couples not having families? Many couples in my community tell me they simply can't afford to have a family. Nearly half of young Australians cite the expense of raising children as a major obstacle. Over half of Australians under 35 have delayed parenthood due to cost pressures, and child care in Australia consumes well above OECD average share of household expenses. Child care is inflexible. Many young people say to me: 'I don't want to have children for them to grow up in a childcare centre and for those places to be the ones that see the first steps and hear the first words. I want to be able to raise my own children where one of us can stay home.' Now that choice is considered a luxury. We have no meaningful tax incentives for families with children. We do not offer income splitting, nor do we have any tax offsets. Income splitting would allow a family's tax burden to be divided and collected across two spouses. This creates a fairness because the same family income can have two very different tax bills. For example, one family with a whole family income of $200,000 where both are earning $100,000 each can have a combined tax bill of $41,000, whereas the same income of $200,000 as a family where one member is at home raising children and the other is out earning the $200,000 pays $56,000 in tax, a nearly $15,000 difference. This is unfair. Thirteen OECD nations allow income splitting, including the United States, France, Germany, Poland and Spain. If we want to arrest the decline, this is one measure that we can do. This is saying, 'We value families. We value families being created in our nation.' Out-of-pocket expenses for child care, whether it's day care or vacation care, are a legitimate work expense, yet we do not allow families to claim this on their tax return. We should do everything we can to support families to thrive. Income splitting and ensuring that out-of-pocket childcare expenses can be classed as a work related deduction are two measures that would really make a difference to young couples who want to create a family—or perhaps they have one child, and they can't imagine being able to afford a second child. The second issue we must address urgently is housing affordability. This is the biggest lever we can pull and one that I think we can do very swiftly. House prices have skyrocketed over a decade and so has our population. In 2016, the median house price in metropolitan South Australia was $494,000. In January this year, it's $996,000. That's nearly a million dollars. The average new mortgage in South Australia is around $600,000. Those monthly repayments sit at around $3,600. And, of course, we've just had an interest rate rise. You can't have those mortgage repayments and have a family. There just isn't the financial bandwidth. Both couples must be working full time and only covering their own expenses. We've had successive governments constantly create policies that increase housing demand and do not reduce it. The government's latest solution was to create a subprime disaster in the wings for first home buyers through the five per cent deposit scheme. This policy, according to the government's own data, was expected to increase house prices by 0.5 per cent. The reality is the demand has surged, and prices have surged, and the government's own modelling was proven false. Just recently, in the Guardian it was reported, 'Hot competition for cheaper Australian homes has powered a relentless "up-crash" in prices despite rising interest rates'. And, 'Inner-city one-bedroom units in Brisbane have risen close to $20,000 each week, making sales prices from as recent as January irrelevant.' This was bound to happen: when you add a further demand lever without taking away a demand lever—such as the very high numbers of migration since COVID—you are adding fuel onto an already lit fire. We must take the heat out of this insanity, and the only sensible and logical way to do this is to reduce migration numbers immediately. This means both permanent migration and temporary migration. The government says that the rate of permanent migration hasn't changed, at 185,000 each year, but realistically that rate is too high when we look at the fact that just 36,294 new dwellings were completed in 2025. In 2000, our net permanent migration rate was 74,000. That is a much more sustainable figure. This is not about people coming from any particular country; this is just saying that the demand is overwhelming. The supply is not there, and we are squeezing ordinary, everyday Australians out of housing. That's not even to mention the 2.98 million temporary visa holders in Australia, which is a new record across ABS quarterly stats. Every person needs somewhere to live, so that's fuelling demand, particularly in the rental market. In September last year, 736,000 of those 2.98 million temporary visa holders were student visas, over 225,000 were graduate visas and just under 400,000 people were on bridging visas. Cutting migration down to prepandemic levels, stripping 100,000 out of our permanent migrant numbers would allow housing prices to slow and trigger immediate relief for the nation's battered renters and first home buyers. FoundIt's modelling showed that aligning migration with building completions would strip two to three per cent off national home prices growth annually. It's going to slam the breaks on runaway prices, and it will also address that structural vice of squeezing the entry-level housing market. Stripping roughly 100,000 people from the intake to return to prepandemic levels—that's not a huge ask; that's not a radical thing to say—would allow compression of growth without causing a catastrophic housing crash. Right now in Australia, we have fewer young couples having babies and we have fewer families. Families are the foundation of our nation. We must address what I see as a crisis. How can it be that in 2065, when we will supposedly have 41 million people living in Australia, we're going to have fewer than 70,000 new Australians, when we take births away from deaths? We must do more. We must create policies in this place that are pro-family, and we're not doing that at the moment. I urge the government to look at making income splitting a reality and to look at the foundations around whether that's increasing family tax. There is a whole raft of things we can do that says to young couples, 'We want you to have a family, we know you want to have a family and we're going to do everything we can in this place to make that a reality for you.' That should not be an unattainable dream in Australia in 2026, but, very sadly, right now it is. Multiculturalism 79 12:50 Mr LAXALE 299174 Bennelong Over the past few months, my community of Bennelong has once again been doing what it does best—celebrating moments of cultural significance together. We marked Lunar New Year with lanterns and lion dancing. We gathered for Holi in clouds of colour and joy. We're currently preparing for Nowruz with reflection and renewal, and on Australia Day we stood together as one community in the greatest country on earth. In Bennelong these are nice events or fringe occasions. They're not political statements and they're not competing expressions of identity. They are different traditions lived and celebrated side-by-side in one Australian community. Yet at a national level we're seeing some leaders live a very different reality and lead a very different debate. We've heard the opposition leader say migration standards are too low. We've heard the leader of One Nation state plainly that they don't believe in multiculturalism. We have heard senior Liberal figures now promoted to the frontbench claim that Australians are becoming strangers in their own home. This is a terrible debate they're having. It's not the language of a quietly confident country and it's definitely not the language I hear in my electorate. It's a tone that suggests belonging here in Australia is fragile, it's a tone that puts people's identity under threat and it sets up the ridiculous proposition that there are 'real Australians' or 'better Australians' and then there's everyone else. When leaders like those of the Liberals, Nationals and One Nation legitimise division, and the language shifts that way, it reframes the debate. It stops being about policy settings and it becomes about belonging. It becomes about who gets to feel secure in this country and who doesn't. There's a dangerous and false implication in this debate led by those three parties—that is, that celebrating cultural heritage and multiculturalism somehow weakens Australian identity. From what I see in Bennelong and across the country, that idea couldn't be further from the truth. When families stand together on Australia Day and then gather for Lunar New Year, when children of all faiths and backgrounds throw colour at one another at Holi and then sing the national anthem at their school assembly, when communities prepare for Nowruz, and when small businesses are coaching local sports and volunteering in their local neighbourhoods, I don't see that as division at all; that's modern Australia. Multiculturalism is an Australian value, not the opposite. In Bennelong we do not experience these celebrations as competing loyalties; we experience them as a shared joy. You don't become less Australian because you celebrate your cultural heritage; you are Australian because you do. Yet too often in this place, and in parts of our national conversation, we hear something else. We hear migration spoken about as though it's a threat rather than a contribution. We hear rhetoric that suggests cultural diversity is a weakness to be managed rather than a strength to be embraced. We see the politics of division and grievance in debates that demand seriousness, care and responsibility. We can and should have serious discussions about the challenges we face today. We should debate housing supply. We should debate lack of investment in infrastructure. We should debate migration settings in a responsible and evidence-based way. But we shouldn't pretend that migration is to blame for each of those challenges, as some here do, because that has dark consequences for people like my family and people who live in electorates like mine. When migration was negative, while borders were closed, rents rose more than during the decade prior. During that same period, housing prices surged by 25 per cent. Housing became more unaffordable during a period of closed borders. The evidence doesn't support the blame being pushed out by others that migration is to blame for our housing crisis. Blaming migrants won't fix this crisis, which is 40 years in the making. Blaming migrants will not reduce cost-of-living pressures. Blaming migrants is lazy and divisive, and it will only weaken our country at a time when we need it to be stronger and we need to be more unified. Communities are living through a period of grief and uncertainty. Communities across our country have carried enormous emotional weight. They've watched events unfold locally but also overseas. Families have felt shock, and they're anxious. In moments like these, leadership matters and words matter. When national leaders speak as though belonging in Australia is conditional, those words travel, and they land in schoolyards, in workplaces and in neighbourhoods, like those in Bennelong. They make people of all ages question whether or not they are fully accepted. They make families wonder whether their loyalty is being silently measured because of the language they speak at home or the colour of their skin. Social cohesion doesn't erode by accident. It erodes when it's chipped away, comment by comment, headline by headline, insinuation by insinuation. Rebuilding that trust is far harder than undermining it. In Bennelong I represent proud Iranian Australians who are not defined by their geopolitics. I represent Chinese Australians who are not defined by foreign governments. I represent proud Indian and Korean Australians and many others who are not defined by events beyond our shores. I represent a huge Italian community in Ryde, who settled here decades ago—having once arrived as newcomers, they are now woven into the very fabric of our community. There are people who arrived generations ago, like my family, and those who arrived last year, and they stand side by side. They love our country. They're not outsiders. They're not temporary guests. They're Australians. When they hear national leaders suggest that standards are too low or that belonging depends on people changing who they are, they feel it, their children hear it, and communities are weaker because of it. In Bennelong, multiculturalism isn't abstract; it's who we are. It's visible in our shopfronts and our classrooms. It's celebrated in our parks. It's lived every single day. Every street in my electorate has benefited from the contribution of migrants. Our small businesses, schools, sporting clubs and community organisations are all stronger because of the diversity within them, not despite it. We're one of the most successful multicultural nations in the world, and that didn't happen by accident. It took a lot of work. It happened because leaders and communities made a choice, again and again, to build a shared future rather than to pit Australian against Australian. That same choice now sits before us. In this place and in front of the cameras, we can reach for a rhetoric that pits Australian against Australian or we can choose unity. We can simplify our problems by blaming others, or we can do the hard work of governing together on behalf of all Australians. It's easy to imply that belonging is conditional. It's easy to suggest that some Australians must prove more than others. What is harder is to say that multiculturalism is not a weakness to be managed but a strength to be defended. It's even been put in our national anthem, which reads: For those who've come across the seas We've boundless plains to share; With courage let us all combine To Advance Australia Fair. It's with courage, again, that we need to combine. And I say to the Liberals, the Nationals and One Nation: be courageous; be leaders. In Bennelong I see that leadership every week, from families who live every day together as Australians from every corner of the earth. Bennelong is stronger because of our differences. Australia thrives because of our diversity, and Australia is better when we celebrate multiculturalism than when we attack it and blame it for problems we must face. Middle East 81 13:00 Mr HAWKE HWO Mitchell I rise today to add my voice to that of the Iranian Australian community—to speak about the war in Iran, the preconditions that have caused this conflict and the situation that now emerges and faces the Middle East. I think it's a good segue to add that the member for Bennelong is correct about multiculturalism and Australian values, but he did not name those Australian values. And that evasion is very important. Why do people want to come here from all different parts of the world? Why do people want to flee conflicts and war zones? Why do they want to flee hideous theocracies like Iran to come to our country? It's because of the political, social and economic freedom that our country affords and the rights that we give every one of our citizens—attached to their individuality and to who they are—through our constitution and our laws respecting society. So today I join the Iranian Australian community in welcoming the moves of our ally and friend the United States in directly removing the head of one of the most evil regimes in world history: the Ayatollah Khamenei, one of the most evil figures in Australian history. Pezeshkian, of course, is one of the most evil presidents in Australian history ever to grace the world's history. We welcome it not because we see bombs falling in the country. We welcome the fact that those people that are oppressed under the Iranian regime, the Iranian people themselves, now have a chance for freedom. It isn't the United States imposing it from the outside. We have to remember that the population of Iran have struggled peacefully in every way they can think of, for decades and decades, to their own detriment, to fight their own government. We, in the West and in free societies, know that the government can be our best friend, but the government can also be our worst enemy. And we see the case of the worst enemy in the Iranian regime—of their own people. When you hear the stories from the Persians who've come here, the Iranian citizens who've fled, of what happens back home, it's just like an Orwellian nightmare. And you don't have to listen to me today. You can read the words of our own Kylie Moore-Gilbert who, in her piece today in the SMH, really spells out the circuit breaker that the death of Ayatollah Khamenei represents for ordinary Iranians—decades of murder, torture and rape of people. But the morality police—imagine that. Imagine if we, in our country, said we were establishing morality police. As Moore-Gilbert says, they control the lives of everyday citizens in Iran in granular detail, down to who they can marry and who they can hold hands with in the street. The morality police control whether citizens can wear shorts and whether they can play sports. They control things like food and drink, funeral rites, child custody, the inheritance of property and permission to leave the country. Everything is controlled by the regime. Imagine life under such a regime. Of course, it is with great sadness that we see that war is necessary. But war is one of the few solutions when Iran, which is one of the greatest terrorist states and one of the grey zone actors in our world today, has attacked our own country. I want to do something unusual and commend the Albanese government for the stance they've taken and the moral clarity that they've shown—Prime Minister Albanese has shown moral clarity on Iran—and I do welcome the Australian government doing that. It's important that we stand together with the Albanese government as an opposition, and we do, to support Prime Minister Albanese taking a very strong stand on the destabilising and terrorist state that is Iran, not only because it has attacked Australia. We saw the expulsion of the Iranian diplomats from Australia because of planned terrorist attacks and terrorist activity within our own country. But we are not alone. There have been hundreds of these incidents over decades. In France, there have been convictions of terrorists sponsored by Iran. Iran is the single greatest sponsor of terrorism of any state in the entire world today. It has taken too long for the world to do something about it. For too long, countries have put up with Iran, this 'grey zone' actor, deliberately undermining the peace and prosperity of free countries all around the world. Australia has not been immune to these actions. It's why we saw the bravery of ordinary Iranians—let's be frank, the bravery of Iranian women, who over many decades stood up to the regime at great personal risk. Mahsa Amini is a symbol—a poor Kurdish woman beaten to death by the morality police for violating dress codes. Other women have stood in their tens of thousands—while bullets have been fired at them—to stand up for their basic freedoms and rights. This is what unites us in the west. This is what unites us in multiculturalism—that we have a rights based society that respects people as individuals, attaches human rights to them and does not take those rights away. No-one may take those rights away in our rights-respecting society. But these things do not exist in Iran. So, when we act, when we support the United States as the Albanese government and Australia are now doing, we are supporting the right action even though it comes at a great cost. For a diaspora of people, for a population like the Iranians, who have for decades struggled and protested—who in January of this year were massacred in record numbers at a protest rally—this is really the only answer anyone can think of. The mullahs in Iran, who have deliberately suppressed the freedom of the population for their own religious purposes, are some of the most evil clerics on the planet today. This has been a grand struggle of the Iranian people for a long time. While this comes at a great cost, you can see we are not alone. When you see that almost all of the gulf states unanimously oppose Iran, you have to think, 'What's going on?' Peace in the Middle East is one of the most elusive goals for the world. What unites most countries in the world today is an understanding that Iran is a terrorist actor and a terrorist state and is against those gulf states, those Arab states, as much as it is against Australia and the United States. Thus we find ourselves acting in concert to act against a terrorist state like Iran. I highlight again for the House, as my community and the people in Western Sydney who've come here from Iran have told me repeatedly, intelligence agencies from Iran have been monitoring and acting against people here in Australia for decades. With the amplification of those efforts, we saw that Australian intelligence linked the state of Iran with arson attacks that occurred in late 2024—one in a cafe, one at a synagogue in Melbourne—which led to the Israeli ambassador being expelled. But let's be frank, the embassy here in Australia was acting against citizens of Australia because of their background, and that had to be stopped as well. Welcome as well was Australia's listing of the IRGC as a state sponsor of terrorism. Again, it was too late by all governments and, frankly, an admission that our own government didn't act fast enough or strongly enough. The Albanese government could have acted faster on what was compelling evidence that the revolutionary guard corps was a state sponsor of terrorism. It's a lesson for all of us. What should we do now? Obviously we should support the United States. We should support our allies. We should support the gulf states who understand and live with Iran as a menace and a danger to their daily lives every single day. But we should also take action within Australia. The government needs to do a thorough review of anyone who is here on a temporary visa, especially those who are foreign preachers within Australia and preaching at mosques. Any of these individuals who preach hate to young Muslim men within Australia need to be deported. Their visas need to be cancelled. It should be routine. It should be happening already, yet the evidence that is coming out of some of the mosques in Western Sydney is that people are lamenting the death of Ayatollah Khamenei and that some of the preachers are preaching hate speech. I ask a question of this government and of this parliament: why did we pass hate speech laws so recently following the Bondi terrorist attack in Australia, which was again ISIS inspired, terrorist inspired? Why did we set up 15-year penalties, if we cannot tackle the most basic hate speech being preached in mosques in Sydney right now under the guise of religious speech? Those laws need to be now put into practice. The government needs to enforce them. Our agencies need to take the actions. That's what our security agencies and other agencies need to focus on in this, because we must preserve our own society first. That means removing the dangerous influence of foreign hate preachers and those who would preach hate to our young minds. We know the effects that that has. But I say this to the people of Iran and the Australian Iranian community: Australia stands with you. We stand with you in this terrible war, and it is necessary to do whatever we can to support the long-held aspiration of the people of Iran for a better life, a better society and a freer society. Hasluck Electorate: Men's Health 82 13:10 Ms LAWRENCE 299150 Hasluck It was absolutely a privilege to host the member for Hunter in Hasluck in his role as Special Envoy for Men's Health. He brings his rich background as a tradesman, small business operator and Olympian, and he approaches men's health with a practical focus on access, prevention and engagement in a colourful way in which only a man of that background possibly can. Over the course of a very busy day, we visited Bassendean Men's Shed, had a little detour to the Last Crumb cafe and had lunch by the river. Then we visited the Midland Medicare Mental Health Centre, Moorditj Maaman Men's Group in Midland and the local business AES Equipment Solutions in Hazelmere, and then we were off to the Swan Districts Football Club and then community venues at Alfred's Kitchen and the Stirling Arms Hotel in Guildford. The Bassendean Men's Shed provides community spaces where men can work on practical objects, share skills and maintain social connections. The men there are masters at creating the most beautiful wooden bird boxes and community bench buddy seats. They repair people's loved homewares, and of course this is complementary to the peer support they provide each other. The men's sheds I've visited across my electorate all promote wellbeing amongst their members and are always fascinating places to visit and have a yarn. Sadly, men die younger than their female counterparts in Australia, but this does not have to be the case in 2026. For those who missed the session, the member for Hunter challenged the Bassendean Men's Shed members to book yearly check-ups with their doctors and undertake prostate cancer screening, which now is only a finger-prick blood test. He also asked each member to have the same conversation with their brothers, their sons and their sons-in-law. As the member for Hunter said, with his typical frankness and clarity, 'If we can create a culture where boys go with their dads to the GP in the same way girls go with their mums, we might start to shift the culture around self-care for men's health too.' The most striking thing about the new Midland Medicare Mental Health Centre is the way that it provides a free, accessible mental health support service. It's a walk-in model, and it's designed to reduce barriers to care. From the moment you arrive, you're greeted by a wonderful person at the front desk who will simply ask what type of support you might be looking for and then will direct you to the right area, and it's all very private. In fact, you can even walk in without even providing your name. You volunteer as much information as you're in a position to share and willing to share. From that point on, whether you need a counsellor, art therapy, group therapy or perhaps some more serious assessment and support with psychology, it is all available, and the hours are fantastic––from early in the morning till late in the evening, seven days a week. People, no matter where they come from, don't even actually need a referral or a Medicare card to access the Midland Medicare mental health support service, and the issues that they're dealing with can simply be relationship issues within the home or within the workplace. Examples that we heard were around anxiety issues, gambling and drinking. These things can be treated, and support is there for everybody to access. Men too often have an 'It'll be right' attitude, which the member for Hunter, when he visited the service there, committed to challenging. The ability to walk in and receive help without an appointment—without a Medicare card, even—absolutely demonstrates our commitment to ensuring that everyone has access to the care that they need when they need it. It was an absolute privilege to introduce the member for Hunter, as the Special Envoy for Men's Health, to the Moorditj Maaman Men's Group. Moorditj Maaman provides a culturally appropriate space for supporting the health and wellbeing of Aboriginal men and families in the Midland area. Programs focus on cultural connection, mentoring, community participation and holistic wellbeing. They also are very well regarded—and getting quite a fabulous reputation—for singing and teaching lullabies in Noongar, ensuring that connection to our youngest generation is created. Uncle Frank spoke to us about respect, relationships, reflection and responsibility, and, together, the whole group discussed how connection is the opposite to addiction. We talked about difficult subject areas, and the member for Hunter acknowledged that the rates of suicide for Indigenous men are higher in Australia than for any other demographic. He underlined the importance of community groups—just like Moorditj Maaman—building connection and belonging, to address the social isolation that can lead to suicidal ideation. Group members spoke about the profound effect the Moorditj Maaman Men's Group has had on their lives and the connections it's created—through the leadership of Jon Blurton, in particular, but all of the longstanding friendships that have been forged through the group were clearly evident. They spoke about Jon's kindness and his dedication to community. Providing a sense of belonging and community, the Moorditj Maaman Men's Group has helped so many to forge a better path. I commend Jon Blurton, Sharon Gough and the Indigo Junction team for supporting this initiative. AES Equipment Solutions operates a major workshop facility in Hazelmere. They service mining and industrial equipment needs across the state. It's a familiar space for the member for Hunter, who visited there in his capacity as Special Envoy for Men's Health. The member for Hunter addressed the workshop floor and called out the reality that men are often disciplined about maintaining and servicing their equipment and vehicles, for a 5,000- or 10,000-kilometre check, but they're much less disciplined about looking after themselves. He spoke about the importance of breaking the taboo on speaking about men's health within the workplace. Strong leadership in a workplace is critical to creating a supporting environment and ensuring that tradies, particularly on a workshop floor, are working at their absolute best and are focused on the task at hand. AES general manager Alex Cooper spoke to the importance of workers looking out for each other. So often, young men carry the weight of depression without saying a word, and it's colleagues on the workshop floor who are often the first to notice something amiss. He spoke about how you can see it on their face, in the way they look at you, and you don't actually have to even hear it being said. Both Alex and the member for Hunter spoke about asking, 'Are you okay?' and listening to the response—seeing if you can make a difference in someone's life by providing a lifeline and being the first step in your workmate seeking the help that they need. The member for Hunter made the salient point that, in many workplaces, there is still a culture of silence, a stigma around mental health and a fear about sharing concerns. He really encouraged everyone on the workplace floor to look for the unofficial leaders, and then he called on those unofficial leaders to go above and beyond for their workmates by challenging themselves to step up and get training in mental first aid to maximise that help that they're already providing on the workshop floor. As a proud patron of the mighty Swan Districts Football Club, I did my bit to recruit the member for Hunter to the club, at least as a supporter—although many of the members were asking him to try out in the ruck. We met the coaches, players, executives and staff there on the hallowed grounds at Bassendean, and the dedication and love for the game was really clear. One of the newest recruits was even from the member for Hunter's home town, so I think we almost got him to convert. It was great to hear his pep talk to the team about keeping physical health at an optimum but also about how having a high performing team relies on your mental performance, too—and that also needs a coach. Under the leadership of President Peter Hodyl and CEO Jarrad Wright, players are encouraged to utilise their support networks regularly, not just when times are tough. I'm very proud to be the co-patron of this club, where both the physical health and the mental health of players is front of mind. When you come to Hasluck, if you hear Lisa calling out 'bacon burgers', 'CRAMS', 'Alfred's special' or 'pea and ham soup', you know exactly where you are: you're at Alfred's Kitchen. Alfred's Kitchen in Guildford is 80 years young and a very well-known landmark. It's run by locals Daniel, Neil and Jenny Lawrence—a namesake but not related—and it absolutely does make the best burgers in Australia. It also provides an organic space of connection. The moment it starts to get a bit cooler, we all get together and celebrate community around the fire pit. I know Dan has rated it as the best burgers in Australia. Rural, Regional and Remote Australia: Services 84 13:20 Mr BOYCE 299498 Flynn Today I rise to speak on three grievances born of neglect, underinvestment and a failure to properly consider the needs of rural and regional Australia. These issues are not theoretical policy discussions; they are real challenges affecting healthcare access, economic opportunity and biosecurity protections for communities that help drive our state and national economy in Central Queensland. My first grievance relates to the healthcare services in the Gladstone region. Since the closure of the Mater hospital and the downgrading of Gladstone Hospital from a level 4 facility to a level 3 facility, under the former Queensland Labor government, there has been a significant decline in the availability of maternity specialists and other essential medical services. This decision has had a profound impact not only on Gladstone residents but also on surrounding regional communities that rely on the hospital as a critical healthcare hub. For many families, healthcare access now means travelling further, waiting longer and facing greater uncertainty during already stressful circumstances. Regional Australians deserve access to safe, reliable health care close to home, not a gradual erosion of services over time. Even more concerning was the revelation of a report, hidden by the former Labor state government, which showed that Gladstone Hospital block 1 and 2 buildings were in a dire condition. By 2023, parts of block 2 were quietly decommissioned, without any clear plan to repair or upgrade these facilities. By mid-2024, half of the top floor had been taken out of action due to its deteriorating state, and by July 2025 the entire top floor was vacated to ensure patient and staff safety. This situation did not arise overnight; it is the result of years of underinvestment and deferred maintenance—problems that regional communities too often experience when infrastructure planning fails to keep pace with population and service demand. I welcome the Queensland government's commitment to expanding Gladstone Hospital while maintaining access to health services during construction. The new facility will deliver 51 additional beds and treatment spaces, including 40 new inpatient beds, six renal dialysis chairs and five high dependency unit beds. This investment represents an important step towards restoring confidence in healthcare delivery for the region and ensuring Gladstone residents receive the level of care that they deserve. My second grievance concerns infrastructure, specifically the apparent abandonment of the Inland Rail extension to the port of Gladstone. I recently joined with Senator Matt Canavan in calling attention to the federal government's failure to progress this critical project. During Senate estimates, it was revealed that the department of infrastructure spent $4.8 million completing a business case for the Inland Rail extension. That work was finalised in January 2024, yet the project has since stalled, without explanation or progress. Even more concerning was the revelation that the Labor Assistant Minister for Regional Development, Senator Anthony Chisholm, who publicly promoted the project ahead of the 2022 federal election, had not even read the business case. In 2021, while speaking with locals in Gladstone, Senator Chisholm stated that the existing Inland Rail to Gladstone would bring significant benefits, alleviate freight pressures in southern Queensland and support long-term growth of the Gladstone port and the local economy. These were strong words, but actions must follow commitments. Labor says one thing in regional Australia and another in Canberra. It is deeply disappointing that a project with clear economic potential, strong regional support and complete planning work is allowed to sit idle. Numerous studies have demonstrated that the Inland Rail to the port of Gladstone will transform how goods move across Australia, creating long-term opportunities for regional communities, including those within the Flynn electorate. CSIRO modelling shows that the Inland Rail could reduce national freight transport costs by close to $213 million annually across approximately 22 million tonnes of freight. These savings would flow directly to Australian businesses and industries, strengthening productivity and regional growth. The benefits extend across more than 12,000 supply chains and 94 communities, including the coal, steel, grain, vehicle, horticulture and livestock industries. An extension to the port of Gladstone would connect Inland Rail from Toowoomba through Miles, Wandoan, Moura and Banana, creating a direct export pathway to domestic and international markets. This is not simply a regional project; it is a nation-building infrastructure project. The federal government should release the business case publicly, particularly if senior ministers have not taken the time to read it themselves. Regional Australians deserve transparency and certainty about projects that shape their economic future. My third grievance relates to the growing issues of tick outbreaks affecting regions across Queensland. Recent outbreaks, including near my hometown of Taroom, highlight a problem that's been building for years. Producers across the South Burnett and surrounding regions have repeatedly raised concerns with me about the increasing risks posed to the Queensland beef industry. A public meeting held in Taroom on 13 February drew approximately 250 attendees. The Queensland Department of Primary Industries provided useful information regarding tick identification, treatment symptoms, symptoms of tick fever and life cycle management. While this engagement was welcome, a key concern raised by producers remains unresolved: the breakdown of these third-party tick inspection systems. Under the previous Labor government, the then agricultural minister Mark Furner phased out the government's stock inspectors and clearing dips, replacing them with private third-party inspection models. Since that change, outbreaks have increasingly occurred in areas previously considered 'clean country' across southern and Central Queensland. It is now abundantly clear that the system designed to manage cattle movement between tick infested and tick-free zones is not functioning as intended. The immediate priority in Taroom is to identify the full extent of the outbreak, treat the affected cattle and restore the areas 'clean' status. Currently, four properties are under quarantine, and there is concern that many more may follow. Many landholders operate multiple properties under the same PIC number, increasing the risk of further spread. One of the most significant issues raised during the community discussions was the sheer scale of the inspections required. Thousands of cattle now require inspections simply to obtain permits to move, yet there are not enough accredited tick inspectors available to meet this demand. Producers are asking reasonable questions: How did this occur? Why has it happened repeatedly? What steps have been taken to prevent future outbreaks? While the departmental staff are working with existing legislative frameworks, the broader responsibility lies with the government's policy settings. The Queensland government must recognise that the current system introduced by the former Queensland state government is not delivering the level of biosecurity protection that is required. This issue must be addressed urgently to protect Queensland's clean areas, safeguard producer confidence and defend one of our state's most important agricultural industries. I've raised three grievances today. Healthcare access, critical infrastructure and biosecurity management share a common theme: regional communities cannot continue to be an afterthought. Rural and regional Australians contribute enormously to our economy, our exports and our national prosperity. They deserve investment that keeps pace with their contribution, infrastructure that supports growth and systems that work in practice not just on paper. Addressing these issues is not about politics; it's about fairness, opportunity and ensuring that where you live does not determine the quality of service that you receive or the opportunities available to your community. Regional Australia definitely deserves better, and it's time the government deliver it. Women's Health, Hanson, Senator Pauline Lee 85 13:29 Ms JORDAN-BAIRD 316021 Gorton I rise to speak about some of the absolutely horrific stories emerging from a Melbourne hospital about Dr Simon Gordon, an OBGYN whose female patients are alleging they were left traumatised and betrayed. Doctors play a valuable role in our lives. They look after our health systems and take care of our health. But it's a lot deeper than that. No matter who you are, when you visit a doctor or a specialist, you are putting your trust in that healthcare professional—trust in their authority, trust in their professional training and expertise, trust that the advice they give you is correct and trust that they have the best intentions to do what is genuinely in the interest of your own health. It's an incredibly vulnerable experience to undergo surgery, trusting that your doctors and your healthcare team are there to give you the greatest possible care. For a medical professional to break that trust is a violation. The allegations against Dr Simon Gordon are a demonstration of a violation of the trust between healthcare professionals and their patients. Women have alleged they have undergone many highly invasive surgeries they were told were medically necessary, only to find out that they weren't—women who allege that they were told lies about their pathology results, which led to their ovaries being removed unnecessarily, and that the numerous invasive, expensive surgeries left them in far greater pain than before. It is an absolute blight that these allegations are coming from women navigating women's healthcare problems. Historically, women's health hasn't just been neglected; it has been taboo. I remember, when I was in year 8, one of my best friends had endometriosis and had to undergo surgery. Granted, we were in year 8, and going through that at a young age while you're still growing up is really, really tough. But what sticks out to me now from this memory is just how taboo that was. We weren't supposed to talk about it. We weren't supposed to ask about it. Women's health conditions, like endometriosis, were very stigmatised back then, and no-one really knew what it was. Issues women and girls were having around women's health were shoved under the rug. So it's not altogether surprising that, at a government and policy level, you could almost say the same. The fact of the matter is that, for decades, women's health was neglected, and the bottom line is that, a lot of the time, women aren't listened to. We've been told that the pain's in our heads—that we just need to go on the contraceptive pill and all will be resolved. Because of this, many women have understandably felt mistrust towards our health system. So for allegations to come out about a Melbourne doctor betraying his patients in such a significant way is absolutely despicable. It takes just one bad actor to further erode women's trust across the healthcare system. That should anger all of us, men and women alike. I'm part of a Labor government that is made up of women across the country, women who understand Australian women's experiences because we live them too and who care deeply about women's issues. I'm signing on to be the co-chair of the Parliamentary Friends of Endometriosis because these issues matter to me. I'd like to thank the outgoing Labor co-chair, the member for Bendigo, for all her hard work and advocacy in this space over the last few years. I support the minister for health in having written to the Victorian health minister about the stories from Epworth hospital that have come to public attention, and I support the minister for health in asking to consider whether agency Safer Care Victoria, which oversees the operation of private hospitals in that jurisdiction, should conduct an inquiry into the Epworth hospital. I also welcome the Victorian premier's referral of this case to the Victoria Police for potential investigation around any criminal offences that might be involved here. Most of all, I thank the women involved in these allegations for sharing their stories. It's not easy, and it takes a great deal of courage. The bottom line is that women's health needs to be taken seriously, and that starts with listening to women. I'd like to raise a second grievance. I'd like to condemn the recent disgraceful comments made by Senator Hanson. The rhetoric that has been echoed in the parliamentary chambers and in public statements around the country in the recent weeks has been absolutely abhorrent. We had this senator recently tell the Australian community there are no good Muslims. As a so-called leader in a country built on the backs of migrants, what exactly does she mean by that? I invite the senator to my electorate in Melbourne's western suburbs, to tell that statement to over 12,000 people belonging to the Muslim community in my electorate. It's a shame that I have to say this, but I'm not surprised that this came from One Nation. Quite frankly, this is by no means the first comment Senator Hanson has made during her terms in parliament that deserves every bit of criticism and condemnation. Let's call it what it is: racism. It is racist to say there are no good Muslims in Australia. One Nation have one clear goal: dividing everyday Aussies and disrupting social cohesion—while, by the way, being bankrolled by wealthy overseas donors and being flown to the US for flashy speaking tours. I am surprised, though, at the role the Libs have in this, and the space they seem to try to carve out for themselves in the future of Australian politics. I don't know about anyone else watching the Liberal-National 'noalition' lately, but they seem absolutely lost. They are stooping to One Nation's divisive tactics, inciting hatred and sowing fear. The three right-wing parties of Australia—the Libs, the Nats and One Nation—are seeming more and more the same. Frankly, I don't get it. It's not what the Australian people want to hear about. Right now, Aussies across the country care about the cost of living, access to health care, education and improved infrastructure. Divisive language and divisive politics is not in the interest of a single Australian. In yesterday's censure motion against the One Nation senator, the Liberal-National coalition, bar just two, sat alongside her, signalling support for her racist remarks. The member for New England simply brushed these comments off as just words, and from the Liberal-National coalition's actions yesterday in the Senate it seems they agree. I'm sorry, but it's not good enough. Words have consequences. Extremist language fuels extremist behaviour. It feeds violence. Over the summer we saw at Bondi what this kind of extremist rhetoric can lead to. It is not enough to condemn the comment without real accountability. The standard you walk past is the standard you accept. The Liberals, the Nationals and One Nation are hand in hand trying to redefine Australian identity—and we won't let them. We are a country strengthened by multiculturalism. We are a safe haven for multicultural communities to practice their religion free of discrimination. Living in freedom, not in fear—that is the Australia we know and love, and we refuse to let these extremists make Australian identity anything but that. Using religion as an excuse to vilify other groups has no place in our country and in our society. The recent reports of hate preachers stoking the flames of hate have no place in our society. I went to a Melbourne beach with a friend a few weeks ago. While we were there we saw a group of men from the National Workers Alliance walking up and down the beach, spouting white supremacist views and hatred with microphones and speakers to beachgoers. They were using our flags in vain, not as a symbol of democracy but as a symbol of division and contempt for multicultural Australia. These men are not living Australian values. I would argue these men are not welcome in our community or in any community in this country to spout such vitriol. We call it out, and I stand here to call it out. There is a lot of discussion happening at the moment, and it's pretty dark. But I agree with Senator Wong when she says she maintains hope for Australia. I have hope for Australia. Personally, I have hope for my community—a proud, multicultural, multifaith community. Young leaders working together to combat racism at school gives me hope. Volunteers from mosques, temples and gurdwaras feeding those in need gives me hope. Members of the RSL raising money and awareness for veterans' welfare gives me hope. Every action of kindness, no matter how small, gives me hope in that face of division. We are stronger. When I give these speeches in parliament calling out the abhorrent language and racist behaviour from the Liberals, the Nationals and One Nation, I have my community in mind because they're good people and because they're who get hit by these comments of hatred the hardest. The hatred rhetoric is real, and they're forced to face it day to day. Calling out extremism matters. It matters for my community and for Australians right around the country. We choose what is Australian identity and what is not. There is strength in our diversity. That strength binds us and unites us. That's the message I would like to give Australians. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 295588 The time for the grievance debate has expired. The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 192B. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Sitting suspended from 13:39 to 16:00 CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS 87 CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS South Australia: Floods, South Australia: Marine Environment 87 16:00 Mr VENNING 315434 Grey Over the weekend, torrential rains led to devastating flooding across regional and remote South Australia. The highest official falls over the three days included 175 millimetres in Yunta, 150 millimetres in Minnipa, 147 millimetres in Arcoona Bluff, 111 millimetres in Ceduna and 108 millimetres in Wudinna. Yunta received more rain in just two days than it did in all of last year. Braemar Station recorded over 200 millimetres, and remote communities like Oodnadatta were cut off. Meanwhile, constituents like Tony Williams from Mount Barry Station reported major road damage, with conditions too perilous for even the most experienced four-wheel drive drivers. This is welcome rain, but it has had some devastating and heartbreaking consequences. I extend my deepest condolences to the family and friends of Darran Hyman of Kadina. This heartbreaking loss underscores the unpredictable danger of these conditions. The message from emergency services is very clear: never ride, drive or walk through floodwaters. Please obey the road closures. To those impacted: we stand with you. As always, for emergencies, please call triple zero or the SES on 132500, but, for non-emergency assistance or help navigating federal and state support, please reach out to my electorate office on 1300301742. We are here to help you through this. While relief spreads across metropolitan Adelaide that the algal bloom has, in the words of the Premier, 'virtually disappeared' from city beaches, I remind this House that for the people in the Yorke Peninsula and the Eyre Peninsula the nightmare is far from over. In fact, the nightmare has just begun in the Spencer Gulf, and I've seen it firsthand. As the algal bloom tracks north-west towards Wallaroo, where I live, it leaves devastation in its wake. Locals are expressing deep sadness and feeling powerless. I've been following the tireless work of citizen scientist Lochie Cameron at Corny Point, the relentless efforts of the team at Great Southern Reef and diver Stefan Andrews, who has described the grief and frustration of seeing waters turn toxic. While I acknowledge the state's recent grants, financial bandaids do not solve the ongoing trauma. The algae is moving, not vanishing. As the member for Grey, I am staying close to this issue and holding the line for my constituents. I call on this House: do not stick your head in the sand. Come and witness what is going on. This is not over. Just because the bloom left metropolitan beaches doesn't mean you can walk away. You must remain in the conversation. I will stand with the people of Yorke Peninsula, the people of the Eyre Peninsula and the people of the Spencer Gulf until the waters are clear again and marine life returns. Tertiary Education 88 16:03 Ms JARRETT 298574 Brisbane Last month, across the country, students started their postschool education. They gathered in lecture halls and classrooms that were bigger than anything many of them had encountered before. They were on campuses that were unfamiliar but full of possibility. Recently, I had the privilege of meeting many of these young students at university campuses across Brisbane during O week. I met Toby, who has just started his university journey, studying a degree in political science, philosophy and economics. I also met Will, who's studying a Bachelor of Law at the University of Queensland and who's in his second year. We talked about the excitement of going to university—we can all remember this—and the opportunity that provides for young people. We also spoke about the ways this Labor government is helping young people get ahead, whether that be paid pracs for nursing, midwifery, social work and teaching—recognising that placement is work and that it should be paid for—or that we're supporting more university places than ever before. This year more Australians will start a university degree than at any point in Australia's history. University applications are up, and we're training our future teachers, nurses, doctors, social workers, engineers, scientists and more. I talked to existing students who've had their student debt cut, saving them thousands of dollars. We're also making vocational education more accessible, because part of that is a stepping stone to university, and we've capped PBS scripts at $25 or $7.70 for those on youth allowance. It was great to see those many smiling faces, because there were a lot of students who didn't know that that was the case. This means that no student will have to choose between their health and their education. Australians deserve world-class health care, world-class education and world-class services, and that starts with backing the next generation, who are going to deliver this for us. I also had the pleasure recently of attending a number of school leadership ceremonies across Brisbane. I visited Ascot, Windsor, Wilston and Brisbane Central schools to congratulate the leadership teams. There were a wide variety of leadership positions. We had the usual school captains and sports captains as well as library captains, sustainability and marine captains, culture captains, music captains and band captains. But, importantly, no matter what their badge represented, these leaders knew that being a leader is not about the badge. It's about how you act. It's about helping others, being brave, speaking up when things aren't right and doing what's right when people aren't watching or listening. I'd like to wish all our school leaders every success in their leadership journey in 2026. With leaders like those I met in Brisbane, the future of our community is bright. Mackellar Electorate: Community Events 88 16:06 Dr SCAMPS 299623 Mackellar When I'm not in Canberra, I love being out and about in Mackellar. It really is the best part of the job. We have more than 500 community organisations on the Northern Beaches of Sydney. Many of them are volunteer run. All of them are powered by big hearts and tons of generosity. Groups like Zonta Northern Beaches, the Women's Resilience Centre, Computer Pals, Sailability Pittwater, Saltwater Veterans, the Men's Wellbeing Collective, choirs, Scouts, RSL sub-branches and many more. They are the quiet achievers of our community. They step in when someone needs help. They create connection and vibrancy and represent the true spirit of Mackellar. Over the past two weeks, I've been out and about in the Mackellar community and I've seen that spirit up close. I've met the incredible volunteers at the Collaroy Turtles water safety program, including President Tanya Carmont. They give their time to provide one-on-one support so kids and adults can learn to be safe and confident in the water. I also joined in the races with the Collaroy Swimming Club, the largest ocean pool swim club on the Northern Beaches. At the Special Olympics awards lunch, we celebrated the remarkable achievements of local athletes and the incredible commitment of their coaches and carers. I also met the children from Brewarrina taking part in the Bush to Beach program at South Narrabeen Surf Life Saving Club. First Nations students who demonstrate regular school attendance come to the beaches to learn to surf and snorkel. Watching their confidence grow is community in action. I must certainly do a special shout-out to Jack Cannon and his team, who volunteer countless hours to get this transformative program off the ground. Last week, I also attended the relaunch of the Mona Vale Chamber of Commerce, where local business owners spoke candidly about the pressures they're facing. I look forward to working with them directly and advocating for policies at the federal level to help our businesses flourish on the Northern Beaches. Thank you to Kylie Harding, the new chamber president, for her hard work to get the chamber up and active again. I was also proud to receive a Scout supporter scarf from the 1st Elanora Heights Scout Group and congratulate Scout Leader Sean Blasdall on achieving his Wood Badge, the highest leadership training level in scouting. My team and I also took part in the RSL LifeCare veterans expo in Dee Why last Friday, an important community event where local organisations come together to connect veterans and their families to services and support. I am constantly awed by the people who give their time so generously on the Northern Beaches of Sydney, often quietly and without recognition. To every volunteer, organiser, coach and advocate, thank you. Our community is a much more wonderful place to live because of you. Midland Station 89 16:09 Ms LAWRENCE 299150 Hasluck Sunday 22 February was one of those days that mattered. Thousands of locals came down to celebrate the opening of the new Midland train station, and I was proud to attend on behalf of the federal minister for infrastructure, transport, regional development and local government, the Hon. Catherine King. This wasn't just a ribbon cutting. It was a community event, a celebration of shared investment, a sign of what is possible when governments work together and deliver. With more than $400 million invested through Commonwealth and state partnerships, this project is a clear example of cooperation creating public good. I want to acknowledge the Premier, Roger Cook, and the Deputy Premier and minister, Rita Saffioti, for their focus and their commitment over many years to bring their vision of METRONET to life. And I especially thank the member for Midland, Steve Catania, and the Midland and Districts Historical Society, who championed preserving the old station clock. That clock now stands proudly within the new development, linking Midland's history to its future. This new landmark station sits adjacent to Midland's historic railway workshops, the railway worker cottages and the new Bellevue railway workshops. From my electorate office just literally down the road, I've been able to watch this project take shape week by week—steel, concrete, cranes and now a modern, accessible station that is genuinely one of the most impressive on the network, with local Indigenous artwork fully incorporated into the whole design. Let's be clear. Infrastructure is not just about buildings. Around 1,000 workers contributed to this build—engineers, planners, tradespeople and apprentices. This is what shared investment means. It means jobs. It means skills. It means real training pathways for young people. Through initiatives like our fee-free TAFE and the support for apprenticeships, the Albanese government is making sure that we've got the skilled workers to deliver projects just like this one, not just in Midland but right across the whole country. For families across Hasluck, the benefits are immediate. Better public transport means safer access and stronger connection to their jobs, education and, of course, services. With the state government's $2.80 go-anywhere fare, every tap on and off is real cost-of-living relief. When household budgets are tight, affordable public transport really does matter. Midland train station is strengthening the area as a hub for workers, services and community life. Good transport, of course, doesn't just move people; it expands opportunity. It means where you live doesn't limit where you can go. The opening day captured exactly that spirit, and the family fun day brought together everyone, from face paintings to formalities emceed by the former WA WBA light-heavyweight champion Danny Green. It really showed how much the community cares and what it serves. New England Electorate: Roads 89 16:12 Mr JOYCE e5d New England I rise today to talk about one laurel for the government and three barbs. The laurel is that I want to thank them for the money that we've got for road 358. It's the second range crossing for the New England Highway that goes from Willow Tree to Merriwa. It's the only road I'm going to get to open twice in my career because, the first time we opened it, it fell into the creek and they had to redo it again, and now we're going to open it a second time. And here are the three barbs. Another east-west road requires upgrade at the Port Stephens Cutting. Someone is going to get killed there. Unless you're on the two-way, you do not know about timber trucks coming down, and there are completely blind corners. It is widely used because it's the shortest route to the coast, and we've had logs come off trucks and go through cars as they come down. There's $20 million allocated to fix this up, but the federal government is just not starting. They're not allocating the money. It's got to be allocated, or you have to be somehow responsible for any accident that happens. The next one is in the city of Tamworth. We've got the money put aside to upgrade the New England Highway from the Calala roundabout out to Greg Norman Drive along the Goonoo Goonoo Road—it's part of the New England Highway—but it's just never started. They keep pushing it back and pushing it back and pushing it back and pushing it back, and the cost keeps going up and up and up. The people of the city of Tamworth—over 70,000 people—keep on asking, 'When is this going to start?' And all I can say is that that's a good question for Catherine King. The money has been in the budget; it's just that the motivation is not in the government. The final thing is something very close to my heart. Unfortunately and tragically, the other day there was a fatality on the Moonbi Range. This has happened now a number of times. People go onto Google Maps and find the next route. Well, the next route is the Danglemah Road. I live on it. The Danglemah Road was only built in 1927 because the country south of Danglemah was too wild. It's a single-lane dirt road, and then next thing it turns into a national highway, and it's just bumper to bumper with cars going in both directions and Teslas that won't go off the road because they weigh too much and they're scared of it. We had one truck that went off the side. We had to get chains to chain it up so it didn't fall off a cliff. People have absolutely no idea how to drive on these roads. It is pandemonium. If it happened once, it would be a novelty. But this has now happened numerous times. If you're not going to stop traffic being diverted up Danglemah Road, then you have to fix up Danglemah Road so it can be an alternate route in times of crisis—and it's certainly not that. The last time major work happened on Danglemah Road was the Great Depression, and not much has happened since. If anybody out there is listening to this: please fix up Danglemah Road. Union Aid Abroad—Australian People for Health, Education and Development Abroad 90 16:15 Ms KEARNEY LTU Cooper Today I rise to recognise the important work of Union Aid Abroad—APHEDA. APHEDA was born out of the Australian union movement in 1984, sparked by the courage and imagination of a remarkable young nurse, Helen McCue. She believed that the values that shape our union movement—solidarity, fairness and collective strength—should reach far beyond our workplaces and even beyond our shores. From that simple but profound idea, a global justice organisation took shape. I've had the privilege of working closely with APHEDA both as secretary of the Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation and as president of the ACTU, and as a board member of APHEDA itself. I have seen firsthand the integrity, commitment and humanity that guides their work today. Today, APHEDA partners with 42 trade unions and community organisations across 14 countries throughout South-East Asia, the Pacific, the Middle East and Southern Africa. Together they carry out more than 30 projects dedicated to improving health, expanding education, strengthening workers' rights and building sustainable, resilient communities. Their mission speaks deeply to two causes that have shaped my own life—the power of unionism and the importance of international solidarity. I highlight today some of the remarkable work APHEDA is doing in supporting Timor-Leste, a place that holds a personal meaning for so many in our movement. During my time in the union movement, I had the honour of standing with those who fought for Timor-Leste's independence. To this day, it remains one of our proudest moments as a movement that the unions of Australia were awarded the medal of the Order of Timor-Leste for our solidarity. Today that solidarity continues. Around 80 per cent of people in Timor-Leste rely on subsistence farming. Yet, despite their resilience, many communities still struggle with limited access to land, the pressures of a changing climate and restricted access to markets. In response, extraordinary local organisations work with APHEDA and support more than 12,000 farmers who are now organising themselves through municipal unions, grassroots committees and an international agrarian reform network. Education has been at the heart of this transformation, and graduates of these programs are now leading cooperatives, supporting community groups and stepping into roles in local government. Coffee, one of Timor-Leste's most important crops, has long been controlled by global supply chains dominated by large companies, and small growers struggle to compete. In response, farmers formed the Federation of Solidarity Economy, a cooperative network connecting growers directly with ethical markets. Already, more than 1,000 tonnes of organic Timorese grown coffee have been exported to Japan, with new opportunities emerging—including here in Australia. As Jenito Santana from the Kdadalak Sulimutuk Institute said so beautifully: This is not just about buying coffee. It is about valuing the work of our farmers and investing in local production systems that benefit communities, not corporations. Agriculture Industry 90 16:18 Dr WEBSTER 281688 Mallee The world's population is growing, but prime agricultural land is shrinking. Food security has never been more important. Once prime agricultural land is lost, it is almost never recovered. Last week I traversed the electorate of Mallee, and everywhere I went people were talking about the need to protect our prime agricultural land. Deputy Speaker Aldred, you may ask, 'What from?' Mallee constituents want to see a halt to the ideological renewable bludgeoning of their communities by Labor governments, federal and state, chasing unattainable emissions targets that are hurting their properties and their businesses. They want to see a halt to the division that is tearing their communities apart, risking their livelihoods, taking away their private property rights and compromising our nation's food security. They want to experience genuine social licence processes, but they are not. Victorian government entity VicGrid sent letters in late February to 27 landholders within the footprint of the VNI West transmission line. These Mallee farmers have been given 30 days to comply or face huge fines. The Victorian government has given authorities the power to gain access to private farmland by force. Forget biosecurity, forget private land rights. This is simply outrageous—an Orwellian takeover of private property. Deputy Speaker, I want you to know these farmers are not for turning. They will not simply roll over and play dead. The Nationals are fighting to protect prime ag land and to stop it being sacrificed for political agendas. Yesterday in the House, the member for Lyne, my colleague, put forward a private member's bill built on years of work consulting with farmers and regional communities, proposing the best protections for prime ag land on the planet. The bill proposes comprehensive national mapping of our agricultural land and categorisation by value. The bill proposes the Commonwealth must not fund future projects that reduce the farming productivity of tier 1 and provides ironclad protections for social licence via independent reporting and assessment by a national agricultural commissioner. I want to give a shout-out to the passionate community advocates driving change in this area: Wimmera Mallee Environmental & Agricultural Protection Association, Across Victoria Alliance, Southern Wimmera Renewables Research Association and the Wallaloo & Gre Gre District Alliance. Their voices are embedded in this bill, and it is their livelihoods this bill seeks to protect. Ballarat Electorate: Roads, headspace Ballarat, Woady Yaloak Football Netball Club 91 16:21 Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR Ballarat The Brewery Tap Road intersection at the Western Freeway on the outskirts of Ballarat is one of those intersections where you hold your breath as you go through it. There are adjacent businesses and busy side roads intersecting with this major highway. Locals have always known how dangerous this spot is, and I get regular emails about near misses that have been there. It is a complex intersection, and it won't be easy to fix, but we are investing $100 million towards the upgrade for planning and early works. Victoria's Big Build is currently undertaking consultation. At their recent drop-in session, 90 locals attended to contribute their suggestions and experiences. I thank everyone who has engaged so far. Local knowledge is important in determining the best solutions to projects like this. The $100 million Brewery Tap Road is in addition to our billion-dollar investment to upgrade the Western Freeway between Melton and Caroline Springs on the way to Melbourne. These will be critical upgrades. Under the former coalition government, these projects were in the too-hard basket for a decade, but the Albanese government is committed to doing something about them. Thirteen years ago, I attended the opening of headspace Ballarat. I don't think we knew back then how successful this service would actually be. In the last year alone, headspace Ballarat has delivered 4,800 appointments supporting young people. Last year, the Albanese government pledged an additional $72.7 million for headspaces, and $1.2 million of that funded a relocation of headspace Ballarat. It is a welcoming, fit-for-purpose and accessible space. It's double the size of the old premises and features stunning art by local Wadawurrung artist Jenna Oldaker. Perhaps most importantly, this space is designed for young people by young people. I was lucky enough to meet 19-year-old Taylah Sims at the recent opening, and she was part of the project user group. Here is some of what she had to say about headspace Ballarat: For many young people, walking through these doors might be one of the hardest steps they ever take. But today, we've made that step just a little bit easier. This centre is more than bricks and paint. It's a message. A message that young people's voices matter. That our wellbeing matters. And that when we were invited into the process, we can help create something truly meaningful. And you have created that, Taylah, for thousands of young people across our region. The Ballarat Football Netball League recently made the decision to exclude the Woady Yaloak Football Netball Club from the 2026 junior competition. The community and locals are understandably very distressed by this decision. I'm particularly disappointed that the 80 netballers who are ready to start the season haven't been provided yet with an option to play. Participation in team sport is so important for girls. While the league has put forward a plan for the footballers, there's been no alternative option for the netballers. I urge the league to review this decision and hopefully find a pathway for netballers from Woady Yaloak to play. Grey Electorate: Agriculture Industry, Grey Electorate: Volunteering 91 16:24 Mr VENNING 315434 Grey South Australia is a big state, and the electorate of Grey is a very big electorate. It is 910,000 square kilometres, representing an area bigger than New South Wales, and, in that, there is some productive farming land and there is some unproductive farming land. It would make sense for us to preserve our productive farmland. Well, no; the opposite is, indeed, happening. Periurban Adelaide is pushing into the electorate of Grey, and the state government has changed their rules around what is considered agricultural land. The township of Roseworthy once was a small farming community; now it is destined to have around 60,000 to 80,000 people as Adelaide expands. This is prime agricultural land, and it will be for generations and generations to come. I've had suicidal farmers come to me because of what's happening to their land in this part of South Australia. Why is it that we are building homes on prime agricultural land? If you understand where Adelaide sits in the state of South Australia, there is plenty of unproductive land right near the city. So why are we building homes on productive farming land? Let's have the Gold Coast of South Australia between St Kilda and Port Wakefield. This is unproductive land. We should be developing houses here, not on prime agricultural land. The same goes with renewable energy zones. Again, we could be building solar panels and wind turbines where we do not have productive farming land. Instead, the Labor state government continually is putting pressure on farming. In South Australia, only seven per cent of land is considered productive, and unfortunately we are turning that into developments. Volunteer grants are open. Please apply to my office today. We have grants available of $1,000 to $5,000 for community groups in the electorate of Grey. Small communities run on volunteerism. In Bute—as I said in my maiden speech—a township of only 250 people, 34 individuals run the Lions Club. As we know, without volunteers, our communities wouldn't run, whether it is running the school bus, running the canteen, helping the footy club, helping the netball club or, indeed, driving the elderly around to get to their appointments at the nearby hospital or in Adelaide. So please reach out to my office. Volunteer grants are open. Burt Electorate: Medicare, Armadale University Study Hub, Our Veteran's Haven 92 16:27 Mr KEOGH 249147 Burt There is great news in the electorate of Burt in Perth's south-eastern suburbs, where now over 40 per cent of GP clinics have moved to be fully bulk-billing for all patients. Since our bulk-billing incentive payment came into effect in November, we've seen bulk-billing rates on the rise, with the largest quarterly increase of bulk billing in more than 20 years, outside of the COVID pandemic. Our record $8.5 billion boost to Medicare is working, making it easier for you to find a bulk-billing doctor close to home. We're also seeing the benefits of the Albanese Labor government's Medicare urgent care clinics. They're open seven days a week for extended hours. They're fully bulk-billed. I even used the Medicare urgent care clinic in Gosnells when I dislocated my toe last year. I was campaigning too hard! Last week, I had the pleasure of opening the Albanese government funded Armadale University Study Hub. For students in my community, getting to university can often be an hour or more on public transport each way. With the new study hub, you can access support, internet, study areas and meeting rooms all close to home. This is so important because across Australia nearly half of young people have a degree, but not in Armadale. Hubs like this make education more accessible so that you can reach your academic goals without having to leave your community. Located on Jull Street, the hub is close to the train and bus stations and the shopping centre. University has never been more accessible in our south-eastern suburbs than now. The Armadale hub is also unique in offering a soon-to-open creche, perfect for those parents that are studying. So, if you're at uni or you're just thinking about it, you can find out more about the Armadale University Study Hub at the City of Armadale website. Our Veteran's Haven in Forrestdale is now officially open. It's a beautiful space for our veteran community. They support the mental health and overall wellbeing of veterans in our south-eastern suburbs. They look at a veteran as a whole person, not just through the lens of their service. The haven offers connection, a social network. It offers hobbies and an opportunity to share a laugh. I really want to congratulate Cath, Iain and their amazing team, who came together to build this unique facility. I'm proud to have officially opened the haven, not just as the Minister for Veterans' Affairs but as their local federal member for Burt. It's fantastic to see this support for our veterans in our community. Kemerton Lithium Plant 92 16:30 Mr SMALL 291406 Forrest The first thing I did after being appointed the shadow assistant minister for infrastructure was visit the Albemarle lithium plant at Kemerton in my electorate. I did so alongside the shadow minister for industry and sovereign capability, Andrew Hastie. Two hundred and fifty local people have been thrown out of jobs with the closure of that plant. The company has cited operating costs as the reason for that. Of course, we all know that operating costs are primarily driven by energy costs in heavy industry. This is firsthand evidence in my electorate—ground zero, if you like—of Labor's net zero ideology killing Australian jobs and our manufacturing capability. This is the result of energy prices going up by some 40 per cent in the four years since the Albanese government was elected. Prices dropped by some 10 per cent when the now leader of the opposition, Angus Taylor, was the Minister for Energy in this country. Energy prices are up 40 per cent, and businesses are the canary in the coal mine because there is no subsidy, no protection, from energy prices for Aussie businesses—small and family businesses, in particular, like those that depend on large employers like the Albemarle lithium plant for work, whether from contracts, servicing, technicians and the like, right through to the cafes, hairdressers and local businesses that depend on manufacturing activity in Australia for a vibrant and prosperous economy that allows us to pay for our most vulnerable. Instead of a future made in Australia, we're seeing Aussie jobs consigned to history and those very same jobs exported to places like China. The coalition believe in lower energy prices because that is what underpins a healthy economy in which private businesses have the capacity to invest, to take risks, to employ, to do what they do well and to drive this country forward. In a dangerous and uncertain world, we want to see more sovereign capability here in Australia, and that means that we need more than words. We need more than slogans. The so-called Future Made in Australia is currently consigning Aussie jobs to history. There are 250 local families in my electorate that understand more than ever that in this cost-of-living crisis there is nothing worse than losing your job and the security that it provides to your family. ARTEXPRESS, Australia Day Honours and Awards 93 16:33 Mr MONCRIEFF 316540 Hughes The southern Sydney community is brimming with creative and artistic talent, especially from our young people. One of my favourite displays of this talent is ARTEXPRESS, which features a selection of exceptional student artworks created for the art-making component of the HSC examination in visual arts. I was so excited to be at Hazelhurst Arts Centre in Sutherland Shire, alongside Sutherland Shire Mayor Jack Boyd, for the official opening of ARTEXPRESS 2026. ARTEXPRESS is the annual exhibition showcasing outstanding bodies of work submitted for the HSC examination in visual arts by students from across New South Wales, and Hazelhurst has been presenting it since 2004. This year, the students' works were absolutely mind-blowing. The exhibition featured 51 students from across the state, including seven from southern Sydney schools, with students pushing aesthetic, conceptual and formal boundaries across drawing, painting, ceramics, photomedia, time based forms, graphic design, sculpture and printmaking. Walking through the gallery, I was struck by how much maturity and ambition was on display. ARTEXPRESS is now in its 43rd year, selected from the cohort of over 9,000 students who completed the 2025 HSC visual arts course. I want to wish special congratulations to Grace Wilson from Inaburra High School, Elliana Clarke from Shire Christian School and Christopher Foster from Bonnet Bay on what were some truly inspiring works. I had the chance to chat to Christopher about his creative process for his work Cursive Curlicues and the way that he utilised the oxidation of copper to influence its form. Christopher and all these young artists are taking their lived experiences, their identity, their culture, their environment and the issues that define their generation and channelling them into work that is honest, original and incredibly moving. I encourage everyone in southern Sydney to get along to Hazlehurst Arts Centre and see this free exhibition before it closes on 12 April. I want to honour the Australia Day Honours recipients from across the Hughes electorate. Gwen Cherne received the Member of the Order of Australia for her significant service to veterans and their families. Kelly Wren was recognised for her extraordinary service to tennis, basketball and athletes with an intellectual disability. Ian Holmes was honoured for his service to football. John Spence was recognised for his service to sport. And Alen Stajcic received his OAM for his service to football as a coach. I welcomed a few of these recipients to my office for afternoon tea to congratulate them on their amazing work and thank them for all they're doing in the community. I also welcomed the family of the late Mark Berkovich to my office, who received a posthumous Medal of the Order of Australia for his service to the community through a range of community organisations. We were also joined by Australian Police Medal recipients, including Detective Chief Inspector Stuart Bell of Como and Chief Inspector Rodney Pratt of Maianbar, who were recognised with the APM for their distinguished service in law enforcement. Congratulations to all the recipients and thank you for your work in the community. Breast Cancer 93 16:36 Mr YOUNG 201906 Longman As many know, International Women's Day is on Sunday. Typically we spend the day celebrating women's achievements. However, this year I would like to talk about something that impacts about one in seven Australian women: breast cancer. Recently I met with Michael Harris who told me about his wife—who I had known for many years—Katrina. In 2011, Katrina was diagnosed with the most common form of breast cancer, invasive ductal carcinoma or IDC. When we talk about breast cancer, IDC is what we think of. We think of the TV ads and the GP posters that tell women to feel for lumps. That is exactly what Katrina did, and that was exactly how she was diagnosed. Thankfully she caught it quickly, and she was given the all clear a year later. Six years on and tens of scans later, Katrina's oncologist found more cancer. This time was different. She was diagnosed with invasive lobular carcinoma, or ILC, the second-most common form of breast cancer, which makes up approximately 15 per cent of all diagnoses. However, unlike IDC, ILC does not form lumps. Its growth mimics normal breast tissue, meaning that it remains hidden from mammograms, particularly in women who have higher C and D breast density. Sadly this means that a lot of women, Katrina included, find out about their cancer once it has already taken hold. For Katrina, 75 per cent of her breasts were cancerous by the time it was discovered. Silently the cancer was spreading across her body, only to be discovered once it had started doing serious damage. This could have been caught earlier. Katrina and women like her with high-density breasts could be made aware that a mammogram would more than likely not pick up ILC and that they would need to get an MRI. After a double mastectomy and multiple rounds of chemo and radiation, the cancer seemed beaten, yet time passed and it reappeared. This time it was found in her head, stomach, bowels, liver, bones and limbs. The cancer had silently spread all around her body. It became too much for Katrina and sadly she passed away late last year. Even in her final days, Katrina continued to advocate for IDC awareness. She engaged with cancer support groups both domestically and abroad to share her story and to talk about the limited diagnostic support for women with high-density breasts. It is the determination of Katrina and Michael that has led me to talk about this serious matter. This International Women's Day, I'm calling on the government to honour her memory and provide MRIs for women with C and D category breast density. I'm also calling for GPs and those who perform a mammogram to more strongly inform every person they test that it may not pick up all cancers and that an MRI is the most effective scanning process for those with category C and D density breasts. Doing so will allow for early intervention, which will in turn save lives. Discovery at Play Early Learning Centre Shoalwater 94 16:39 Ms MADELEINE KING 102376 Brand Recently I had the pleasure of visiting the wonderful kids at the newly opened Discovery at Play Early Learning Centre in Shoalwater. My thanks to the director, Candice Morrison, and her team. Their passion for giving children the best possible start in life is evident in everything they do, from their modern teaching environments to their strong commitment to the children. The visit highlighted why I'm so proud of the Albanese government's three-day guarantee, which ensures every eligible family can access 72 hours of subsidised care every fortnight. I know that many parents are in casual work with hours that shift from week to week. Others are trying to return to work after a long period out of the workforce. The guarantee replaces the old activity test and ends the catch 22 where parents couldn't get child care without work but couldn't get work without child care. Now families can pursue rewarding jobs knowing their children are receiving high-quality care that centres like Discovery at Play in Shoalwater deliver so well. While this is great for families, I also want to recognise the incredible educators who make this system work so well. That's why our government is delivering a 15 per cent pay rise for early childhood educators. When we value and support educators, we strengthen the entire early learning sector. When we talk about giving our kids the best start, that commitment extends well into the school years. I was really pleased to visit Malibu School, a specialist education support school and safety bay for students with complex cognitive, physical and sensory needs. Malibu has been a part of the community for over 40 years. Indeed, I went to the school right next door. During my visit, I had the pleasure of meeting the new principal, Julayne Charlton, and seeing the extraordinary work happening at Malibu. I met the wonderful education assistants at the school and the remarkable students taking on the challenges in their lives with determination and joy, learning to be independent so that upon graduation they can go into the world and participate in it on their own terms. I want to acknowledge all of the staff, parents, guardians, carers and families connected with Malibu School. Their commitment to the education of the students is something to behold, as is a Malibu School assembly. I've never seen such joy at a school, loving chaos and joy in equal measure. I'm excited to go back and visit when I can. I know they're putting in a new putting green; it's going to be very exciting. The Royal Australian Navy based at HMAS Stirling, not far from the school, will be helping out the school, and that's a great contribution from that local personnel. I also want to pay tribute to Marine Rescue Rockingham, who hosted this year's Emergency Services and First Responders Open Day at the base in Point Peron, a fantastic celebration of all the organisations that keep our community safe. I want to extend a special thanks to Commander Samantha Gibling for her leadership in planning a great event that was well attended by so many kids in the community right across Brand. Gambling 95 16:42 Mr WILLCOX 286535 Dawson We often think our children are safest when they are at home, but, for thousands of Australian families, a predator is sitting right there in the palm of a child's hand. I recently met with the team at Relationships Australia in Mackay. These are the people on the front line. They see the gut-wrenching reality of a mother handing over the keys to a family home. They see the hurt on the face of a father who feels he has failed his children. They see the once happy homes shattered by the silent, invisible plague of gambling addiction. But they told me something even more chilling. The next generation of addicts are being groomed right now through their video games. We're talking about loot boxes. The technical term is 'random reward microtransactions', but let's call them for what they really are: digital poker machines for children. A child uses their parent's credit card to pay for a chance to win a digital item. It's the habit, the near miss, the dopamine rush of the win. Research from the University of Tasmania proves these games activate exactly the same neurological pathways as a casino. These games hardwire our children's brains for a lifetime of addiction before they even reach high school. The Albanese Labor government recently rushed through a social media ban for under-16s, but they left a gaping hole in the legislation. Time and time again, this government loves a headline, but they hate the hard work of being thorough. This government ignores recommendations. They dismiss amendments from the opposition, and, as a result, they leave our children exposed. Why is a social media company facing a $50 million fine while gaming developers are allowed to facilitate predatory gambling targeted at exactly the same kids? It is staggeringly inconsistent. This government has effectively locked the front door to social media, but has left the back door wide open for the gambling industry to walk in. Families need real protection. Yesterday was World Teen Mental Wellness Day. I ask this government to stop rushing for the sake of the news cycle and to start protecting the neurological future of our children. We cannot allow the next generation to be the sacrificial lamb for a government that is too lazy to finish the job. The experts at Relationships Australia Mackay are pleading for a chance to stop this fire at the spark before it burns down children's entire lives. Gorton Electorate: Volunteering 95 16:45 Ms JORDAN-BAIRD 316021 Gorton Across my electorate there is one common thread that binds our community together—the volunteers. They are the quiet achievers, the people who step forward without fanfare and give their time, their skills and their hearts to strengthen the communities we call home. That is why I'm pleased to remind local organisations that expressions of interest are now open for the 2025-26 federal volunteer grants. These grants provide practical funding to support equipment, training and resources, ensuring volunteers can continue their extraordinary work safely and effectively. I strongly encourage eligible organisations to apply and take advantage of this opportunity to invest in the people who invest so much in our communities. Nowhere is that spirit of volunteerism more evident than at the Country Fire Authority Rockbank Brigade. Recently, I had the privilege of visiting the incredible volunteers at the Rockbank CFA, a small brigade operating a single tanker from what is quite literally a tin shed with one bathroom. Rockbank may have once been considered a country town, but that is no longer the case. Established in 1953, the Rockbank CFA has faithfully served its community for more than 70 years. Today, it sits on the urban fringe of one of Australia's fastest-growing corridors between Caroline Springs and Melton. What was once rural landscape is now rapidly transforming into dense residential development. Yet this brigade remains 100 per cent volunteer run, carrying responsibilities that rival those of fully-staffed urban emergency services. As Melbourne's west continues to expand and housing estates extend through this growth corridor, Rockbank has transformed into a thriving suburban community. Streets, schools and shopping centres now stand where paddocks once were. With that growth comes increased demand on essential services, particularly emergency services. Since 1 July alone, this small brigade has responded to more than 250 callouts, including bushfires, road accidents, grassfires and house fires, while also supporting neighbouring CFA brigades, particularly during the recent bushfire emergencies. These highly skilled volunteers are there day and night, leaving their jobs, their families and their own commitments to protect ours. I particularly acknowledge Derek, one of Rockbank CFA's longest-serving members, who began as the sole firefighter in the area and has witnessed firsthand the extraordinary growth of this community. Alongside Derek, Todd and every volunteer and supporter, the Rockbank CFA is a powerful reminder of what community spirit looks like in action. If we're serious about building thriving communities in Melbourne's west, we must continue to work collaboratively to ensure essential services grow in step with population growth. To every volunteer at Rockbank and to volunteers right across the electorate of Gorton and across our nation: thank you. Your commitment, your courage and your community spirit make our nation stronger every single day. Simpson, Corporal Adam Patrick 96 16:48 Mr THOMPSON 281826 Herbert It's with great sadness that I inform the House of the passing of a 2nd Battalion Royal Australian Regiment veteran—8551468, Adam Patrick Simpson, born 28 December 1989, died 26 February 2026. Adam served at the 2nd Battalion Royal Australian Regiment from 2009 to 2017. He will be sorely missed by his daughter, friends, brothers and colleagues. Adam served as a mortarman, as an infantry soldier, and his passing has hit personal notes throughout the wider Townsville community and the Australian Defence Force. Businesses have been posting their profound sadness on his passing. I just spoke to one of his former platoon sergeants who informed me he was just a great bloke, a good man and a good soldier liked by all. He had discipline and worked hard. The 2nd Battalion Royal Australian Regiment would be feeling a big hole right now, as one of their veterans is, sadly, no longer with us. I think this does highlight the continued work that needs to happen to make sure that the people we ask to serve in our name, who serve this nation so proudly, get the support and the help that they need and deserve. I know that Simmo had some injuries when he was in Defence. He worked closely to go through his rehab and get better, to be as good as he could be. I've seen tributes just flow for his passing. I want the 2nd Battalion Royal Australian Regiment to know that when one of us falls—regardless of unit, regardless of location—it affects all of us and hurts all of us. I know that you'll give him a great send-off. You'll make sure that his family is looked after, that the brothers get the support that they need and don't have to go through this on their own. There's been a failure here, and governments need to do better to make sure that we support our most brave. I just want to say to Simmo's family and loved ones: I'm sorry. I'm sorry you've had to endure this. He was far too young. He should not have died; he should still be here. And, yes, we must do better. Rest in peace, mate. World Hearing Day 96 16:51 Ms COFFEY 312323 Griffith Today is World Hearing Day, and this year's theme is 'From Communities to Classrooms: Hearing Care for all Children'. This theme highlights the unique hearing and language journeys of all children and families, and it is a timely reminder of the importance of inclusion and learning, and of making sure every child has the chance to participate fully in their life at school and in their community. This year's campaign focuses on preventing avoidable childhood hearing loss and on ensuring children with ear or hearing issues are identified and supported early. In Griffith we know just how much this shapes a child's life. It shapes how they learn in the classroom, how they build friendships and how confident they feel in the world around them. When children can hear, communicate and connect, they are better able to thrive. And when they need support, that support should be there early, clearly and without barriers. Around 30,000 people use Auslan, with over 16,000 reporting in the 2021 census that they use it at home. For the first time, the 2021 census included Auslan as a prompt when asking what language was used at home, ensuring that the language was recognised and shown through the datasets. Last week I had the opportunity to sit down with Brett Casey, the CEO of Deaf Connect, and it was a valuable conversation. I want to sincerely thank Brett and the entire team at Deaf Connect for the work they do to support the deaf and hard-of-hearing Australians, their families and communities. Brett has served as Deaf Connect's CEO since 2010, and that continuity of leadership has helped shape practical, community focused support over many years. I also want to acknowledge the many other organisations, advocates, educators, interpreters and community groups who work alongside them to support our deaf community. Their work helps to build a more inclusive Australia where more people can participate fully, communicate confidently and feel genuinely connected. One of the programs we discussed was Auslan90, delivered by Deaf Connect with support from SBS. It's a simple and powerful initiative that provides the day's top stories, in a format designed specifically for Auslan users, alongside weekly deep-dive videos that give more context on key issues. It's practical, accessible and empowering. It recognises a simple truth: access to information is part of participation, and participation must be universal. That's what World Hearing Day is calling on us to remember. From our communities to our classrooms, we all have a role to play in making sure children are supported early, that Auslan is recognised and valued, and that no child is left behind because the support they need is too hard to access or comes too late. When we improve hearing care, we do more than support learning. We support connection, we support dignity and we give every child the chance to flourish. So I would just like to say thank you to Brett and to Deaf Connect. Live Animal Exports 97 16:54 Mr RICK WILSON 198084 O'Connor I rise today to condemn the Cook and Albanese Labor governments for precipitating the closure of the first of my many O'Connor abattoirs. The announced closure of Beaufort River Meats came just one day after WA Minister Jarvis proudly announced the allocation of $20 million in supply chain capacity funding intended to support those affected by this government's nonsensical ban of the live sheep export trade. These are the first live sheep export trade transition dollars to actually reach affected producers and processors. But after almost two years of uncertainty, WA sheep numbers have collapsed to the point where processors are struggling to keep their doors open. This is a massive case of too little coming too late. My electorate of O'Connor once produced the bulk of the sheep destined for live export by sea, but due to government-induced loss of confidence, farmers have been pivoting from sheep production literally in droves. Our state flock has plummeted from 12.7 million in 2022 to an estimated six million, falling below the critical mass for a sustained WA processing sector. Of this $20 million grant allocation, over $16 million has gone to just five processors. My phone has been burning up with devastated sheep farmers asking me why their applications have been rejected when they are the worst affected by the live sheep export ban. How did this government get it so wrong? It was that they just didn't listen. Industry has long warned of the perverse outcomes of banning a perfectly legitimate and ethical live sheep export trade. These are now playing out locally and internationally. Many of our Middle East trading partners are impacted by the conflict unfolding on their doorsteps. Kuwait is our biggest live export destination. They also import huge volumes of Australian wheat, barley and chilled sheepmeat. When I visited Kuwait in 2024, it really hit home when they talked about how much they relied on their trusted and longstanding trade relationship with Australia, saying, 'Throughout the Gulf War it was Australia who continued to deliver food to our country of four million citizens who cannot produce their own.' Sadly the last ship sailed to Kuwait some time ago. With the government-driven shortage of sheep for domestic processing, coupled with skyrocketing sheep prices, it is unlikely there will be any shipments going forward, which means the live sheep export ban starting 1 May 2028 is effectively upon us already. This makes the rollout of the government's much lauded transition package even more urgent. Funding needs to be refocused on rebuilding confidence and salvaging the livelihoods of participants throughout the supply chain if the sheep meat industry in O'Connor is to be saved. Environment 97 16:57 Mr LAXALE 299174 Bennelong Families across Bennelong care deeply about climate action, and so do I. I believe in leaving the country stronger and safer for the next generation, and that belief is shared by families across Bennelong. I've seen that commitment firsthand through my engagement with members of Parents for Climate North Sydney, who asked that their collective voice be conveyed in this parliament. In their words, 'In our homes and streets, families are already doing their part. We are putting solar on our rooftops, driving electric vehicles, switching off gas, reducing waste, composting, planting trees and walking or cycling to school. We are teaching our kids about sustainability and supporting each other through the changes we all need to make. Despite our efforts, climate change is already affecting us. Families in Bennelong have lived through bushfire smoke, floods and extreme weather. We feel the health impacts of pollution and the anxiety our children carry about their future. Our hope is simple—that our kids will grow up in a safe, healthy Australia where action on climate matches the scale of the challenge. Our fear is that, without urgent national leadership, their future will be less secure, less fair and more dangerous.' During the 2020 election, I made the Parents for Climate candidate pledge. It was a commitment from me to work constructively with them and my community to advocate for stronger climate policy. Their pledge calls for stronger federal leadership, support for households to electrify affordably, access to renewable energy for renters, cleaner and more accessible public transport, and decisive emissions reduction. I'm proud to be part of a government that has taken significant action in all those steps, with more to come. Through the safeguards mechanism, we're reducing emissions. Our most recent data in August showed emissions fell by 1.4 per cent, or 6.5 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent, and projections are looking good. We're investing record amounts into renewable energy, the cheapest form of new energy. New figures show that in the most recent quarter, renewable energy powered 51 per cent of the national grid. And our policies to help households electrify and reduce emissions are going gangbusters. The Cheaper Home Batteries program has installed over 250,000 batteries across Australia—1,579 of those in Bennelong. Lastly, the federal government is investing $115 million in New South Wales's first electric-only bus depot, in Bennelong, home to 150 brand-new electric buses, meeting Parents for Climate's ask for cleaner and more accessible public transport. For renters, our solar sharer scheme will kick off from 1 July. That's each and every item of that pledge met, but I know there's much more to do. I'd like to thank Lucy Leonardi, Anna, Jane, Warren, Catherine, Susannah, Lisa, Emily, Chen, Maria and Sarah, and all the Bennelong parents and grandparents from Parents for Climate who informed this statement and who hold me to account every day. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 299150 In accordance with standing order 193, the time for constituency statements has concluded. BILLS 98 BILLS Commonwealth Entities Legislation Amendment Bill 2026 98

Commonwealth Entities Legislation Amendment Bill 2026

Second Reading 98 17:00 Ms CAMPBELL 312823 Moreton In most workplaces, whether it's a small business—it doesn't matter what type, like manufacturing, retail or hospitality—whether it's a busy office, whether it's an aged-care home where people are caring for our oldest Australians, whether it's a manufacturing facility or whether it's a large corporate organisation, the integrity and accountability of the leadership are the guiding principles that determine how people feel. They determine how decisions are made, and they determine how smoothly things operate. Integrity in the workplace means acting ethically. It means acting honestly. It means being honest in communication and making decisions that align with organisational values. Accountability means taking responsibility for actions, decisions and outcomes. It relies on clear expectations and the willingness to own results, whether positive or negative. It's not about blame; it's about learning, improving and maintaining transparency. Together, integrity, accountability and leadership create workplaces that function smoothly, build trust and deliver better outcomes. They strengthen culture, guide behaviour and form the foundation of organisations that are respected by the employees, the community and customers. When it comes to workplaces, Labor has always been the driver of better and safer workplaces, of fairer workplaces, of workplaces where everyday Australians are treated right. We've seen that in the introduction of such seminal reforms like superannuation, making sure that everyday working people have the ability to put a nest egg away and make sure that they are set up for their future. We saw it in workplace legislation to make working people safer, and we've seen it in the practical real wage increase for working people. This is true for the range of workplaces I mentioned, and it's also true for organisations led by statutory office holders across the Commonwealth. In fact, the stakes are even higher in the public sector. Government institutions operate under a unique level of scrutiny and a unique level of responsibility. The same principles that strengthen non-government workplaces, that keep them fair, safe and trustworthy, are just as essential, if not more so, in the institutions that serve our communities and uphold the public's confidence. The Commonwealth Entities Legislation Amendment Bill 2026 highlights the Albanese Labor government's commitment to improving the integrity and accountability of appointments of statutory office holders across the Commonwealth. Statutory office holders play an important role in serving the Australian community. They're given significant authority. They lead organisations, they make key decisions and they approve the use of public funds. With responsibilities of this scale, Australians rightly expect these roles to be carried out with integrity, with good judgement, with accountability and that strong commitment to the public interest and, indeed, in doing so, our national interest. Because of that, it's crucial that the systems we use to appoint and hold these office holders accountable reflect the workplace standards Australians expect in 2026. Community expectations are evolving, shaped by modern workplace culture, shaped by stronger calls for transparency and a focus on ethical leadership. Our frameworks need to keep pace with these expectations so we can maintain that trust, so we can support effective governance and ensure those in these roles are equipped to be recognised for the important work that they do, day in and day out. This bill updates the appointment arrangements across the Foreign Affairs and Trade, and Attorney-General portfolios. It will apply to the statutory office holders of the following three agencies within Foreign Affairs and Trade: firstly, the CEO of the Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research; secondly, the CEO of the Australian Trade and Investment Commission, Austrade; and, finally, the Director-General of the Australian Safeguards and Non-Proliferation Office, known as ASNO. Currently, there are limited provisions for ending an appointment when conduct or performance falls short. That's why this bill introduces a set of changes designed to make the rules around ending a statutory appointment clearer and more responsive. It expands the grounds on which a statutory officer may be terminated, and, for the very first time, it provides a mechanism to suspend an office holder from their duties when serious concerns arise. These amendments will ensure that the office holders can be held to account for serious misconduct or for unsatisfactory performance. It's what these agencies deserve, and it's what Australians deserve when they think about senior office holders of the government. In cases where behaviour or performance falls well below the expected standard, termination would be available as an appropriate consequence. The strengthened termination provisions would only apply from the date the bill commences. They are not intended to capture or reassess any conduct that occurred before the new framework comes into effect. The provisions for ASNO are built different—they're a bit different. ASNO operates as a nuclear regulator, and maintaining its regulatory independence is absolutely essential. This independence may require limits on when and how officials can be removed from their positions. As a result, for ASNO, the amendments mean that the statutory office holder could be held accountable for serious misconduct but only where that misconduct has been formally established through the existing statutory assessment process. The bill does not introduce a new ground for termination based on unsatisfactory performance. A new provision, which will apply to each of these agencies, will be giving the responsible minister the capacity to suspend an office holder from their duties. This power could be used where there are reasonable concerns that allowing the office holder to continue might pose a risk to staff, undermine the agency's reputation or compromise the interests of the statutory authority. The bill also includes sensible but more minor modernising updates. One example is the proposal to reduce the ACIAR CEO's term from seven years to the more common five-year appointed period, aligning it with modern public sector practice. The changes in this bill will amend the Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research Act, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation (Safeguards) Act, and the Australian Trade and Investment Commission Act. In the Attorney-General's portfolio, this bill affects the Office of Parliamentary Counsel, making amendments that concern the appointment duration and the termination of the first and second parliamentary counsel. At present, these office holders can only be removed by the Governor-General and only in a very narrow set of circumstances. This limited approach no longer reflects contemporary expectations for workplace behaviour or for workplace accountability. Modern workplaces require clearer and more comprehensive standards, particularly when it comes to dealing with repeated bullying, harassment or other forms of unacceptable conduct. Quite simply, modern workplaces—regardless of whether you are in the private sector, the public sector or an agency—should uphold those values and meet the expectations that Australians deserve to see. The current provisions do not provide a way to address these types of issues, leaving a gap between community expectations and what the existing legislation allows. Under the amended framework, a broader range of grounds for ending an appointment would be introduced. These include unsatisfactory performance, conviction for an indictable offence, bankruptcy, extended or unexplained absence from duties and undertaking paid work outside their role without approval. These changes ensure that the same basic expectations applied to employees across Australia also apply to these very senior statutory roles. Together, these updates would bring the Parliamentary Counsel Act 1970 in line with what most Australians would view as fair and reasonable minimum standards in a modern workplace. They strengthen accountability while ensuring the integrity of the offices is supported by clear and contemporary safeguards. The bill also amends the tenure of the first and second parliamentary counsel office holders from seven to five years. This brings these positions in line with the statutory office holders at other Commonwealth entities, such as the Administrative Review Tribunal. Labor promised to return integrity, honesty and accountability to government, and our progress has been substantial already. This is another important part of that puzzle. The National Anti-Corruption Commission was established in July 2023, an independent statutory entity empowered to investigate serious or systemic corruption involving Commonwealth public officials. Later that same year, Labor established the Parliamentary Workplace Support Service, PWSS, as an independent statutory agency through the Parliamentary Workplace Support Service Act 2023. This implemented recommendation 11 of the Set the standard independent review into Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces. The act provides for a dedicated human resource function to support parliamentarians and support safer and more respectful Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces. In 2024, the Albanese Labor government drove through reforms of the Australian Public Service, designed to reinforce the expectation that the APS continues to strengthen its skills, continues to deepen its institutional knowledge and continues to stay focused on serving the public interest both now and into the future. By embedding these principles into the framework, we ensured the APS operates with impartiality and a strong service ethos and that it remains accountable, respectful and grounded in the highest ethical standards. In October 2024, Labor replaced the Administrative Appeals Tribunal with the ART. This was necessary to introduce a more open, merit driven approach to appointments. The ART also benefited from stable long-term funding to ensure effective ongoing operation. There was a focus on efficiency and clearing the significant backlog of cases with streamlined procedures, improved workflows and strengthened support services. In December last year, the government released the Australian Government Appointments Framework. A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 17:13 to 17:32 Ms CAMPBELL 312823 This provides a clear set of expectations and guidance to strengthen transparent, capability based selection for Commonwealth public roles. It outlines the standards ministers must follow when making appointments, ensuring decisions are grounded in merit and aligned with effective governance and positive outcomes for the Australian public. Under the framework, ministers are accountable for appointments within their portfolios and are expected to be open about how those decisions are made. Appointees should reflect the diversity of the Australian community. They should look like the communities that we represent. Ministers are encouraged to work closely with their departments when designing and carrying out recruitment processes. It also emphasises a focus on continually strengthening the capability and performance of boards and public bodies. These standards apply broadly, across appointments to Commonwealth public offices, including secretaries, agency heads, statutory officers and board members. The breadth of these reforms illustrates Labor's commitment to restoring trust and faith in government institutions. You need only to think about robodebt, which the Prime Minister described as 'a gross betrayal and a human tragedy' to understand why this was necessary. The Commonwealth Entities Legislation Amendment Bill 2026 continues this record of progress. Through this ongoing work to strengthen how appointments are made, the government is reinforcing its commitment to upholding public confidence and safeguarding trust in our national institutions. These improvements bolster trust and reflect a modern Australian workplace. For this reason, I commend the bill to the House. 17:34 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina The Commonwealth Entities Legislation Amendment Bill 2026 is, supposedly, presented as a governance modernisation measure. It is aimed at aligning certain statutory office holders with, apparently, contemporary accountability standards. It applies to the following entities: the Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research, the Australian Trade and Investment Commission, the Australian Safeguards and Non-Proliferation Office and the Office of Parliamentary Counsel. Australians are, at present, living under one of the most secretive and least transparent federal governments that we have seen. I recall as a boy growing up on a farm at Brucedale—nine miles, we used to say, from Wagga Wagga. I can remember the then federal member—he'd been a state member before that—the honourable Wal Fife, the late Wal Fife. He was the member for Wagga Wagga in the state parliament from 1957 to 1975 and then he stood for federal Parliament and won. He served Farrer from 1975 to 1984 and then, after a redistribution of boundaries, Hume from 1984 until his retirement in 1993. When my late father, Lance, was farming along the Olympic Way and Wal was driving past back to his home in Wagga Wagga and saw Dad, he'd pull up. I can remember the two of them having long conversations over the fence. Dad would always say to me, 'Now there's the local member,' and he was so highly respected—as he should have been. I don't think the electorate in general has the same respect for politicians—certainly not for party politicians—and that is of deep regret. It is a shame, because you don't get to be elected to the House of Representatives unless you get a high proportion of votes, and we should have accountability, transparency and respect for those office holders. We should. I can remember when I first came to this place in 2010. Harry Jenkins, the then speaker, said, 'Don't ever look across the parliament and think that someone there doesn't deserve their place here, because they've earned the number of votes required, they've earned the respect of their electorates and they've earned their place to sit in the House of Representatives.' The Senate's a different story altogether. I'm not paraphrasing Mr Jenkins, but that is a truism. But, regrettably, there isn't the same respect for members of parliament these days. And these things—mobile phones and social media—have had a part to play in this. This particular bill, the Commonwealth Entities Legislation Amendment Bill 2026, might be seen as being a perfunctory bill, and it is. But we've just seen, in the House of Representatives just now, another successful bid by the government to shut down debate, unfortunately. The Chief Government Whip, the member for Lalor, has gone in and moved a motion to stifle debate, and this happens again and again and again. When Labor came to office in May 2022, the Prime Minister elect, the member for Grayndler, said at the time, 'We will be more accountable; we will be more transparent than the last mob.' Labor hasn't been. And, unfortunately, that has added to the distrust of party politics. And I love party politics; I do. I think it's important for the Westminster system. Does this particular piece of legislation assist and aid that process? Time and again, this government's instinct is to control information, to sidestep scrutiny and to move what would be seen as key decisions out of the parliament's line of sight. And that is a pity. As I said, I am a believer in the Westminster system, and a big believer that ministers have to have accountability. Ministers must have the final say. I have stood in this place and in the House and talked about my concerns about how our ministers' responsibilities are being watered down because, at the end of the day, the buck has to stop somewhere. And, generally speaking, it always was the minister's office—the minister's pen. I don't think that we should have a bureaucracy down the hill getting the final say or rubber-stamping ministers' decisions. I say this with genuine intent: it's up to ministers and future ministers—and I'm looking at the member for Sturt because I'm sure she will one day be a minister—to not just take the word of their bureaucrats when they put papers that they need to sign into their in-tray, papers that will into law or into regulation matters or issues that are important and of vital concern to the general public. Make sure you read every item. What we've seen from this Labor government is a pattern of watering down a minister's responsibility. I think what it also does is erode the culpability, the transparency and the 'buck stops here' axiom for ministerial responsibility. The party political system has served Australia well since 1901, since Federation. We have seen—and I can say that safely in this room right now because there aren't any of them here—the Independents and the teals make out as if they're running the show, and they are not. Labor's in power now. They won the most seats; government is formed in the House of Representatives. What we don't want to see—and this is just learned advice; take it on board if you will—is a situation that's happened in some European countries, where the independents or minorities are running the show and they're changing the prime minister every five minutes. We've done enough of that since, quite frankly, Kevin Rudd got speared halfway through his first term. But what we don't want to see is the teals—they're already out there making out as if they're running every precept of parliament and every procedure, yet they will never be around a cabinet table—let's hope they're not—making the decisions. Ministers make the decisions. The buck has to stop with them. I don't like to see the watering down of the ministers' responsibilities. But what we are seeing is transparency being eroded. Instead of lifting the parliamentary standards, what we've seen is Labor making accountability harder. I'm not that in favour—although I have had discussions with the Prime Minister about this—of charging for freedom-of-information access. That said, when I was the deputy prime minister, I would have about two staff members doing almost nothing other than answering freedom-of-information requests most days. Usually, the requests were from Labor—would-be ministers and shadow ministers pretending as though there was something behind every closet and under every box that needed to be in the full glare of the public. The Prime Minister himself said to me that it is just bogging down good democracy. I don't necessarily disagree with him on that score, but we do need to have public accountability. We do need to have transparency. I don't think, as with a lot of things, that this government is getting it right, with all due respect. The matters here—because this bill is not being proposed in a vacuum—do sit squarely within the same culture: reduce transparency, centralise control and weaken parliamentary oversight. I don't think that is a good thing. That just gives rise to these teals and the Independents thinking, 'There is obviously something to be seen here, so we'll make a big fuss of it, and we'll go out into the media and we'll get all the undue attention that Senator Pocock and his cohort in the upper house often get about the power of statutory offices and the power of ministers.' Heaven help us! Ministers are there because they are given that responsibility by the Prime Minister because somebody has to look after certain portfolios, and hopefully Independents never will. That's the core issue. If you combine greater ministerial powers with weaker visibility, you won't get what's called in this bill 'modernisation'. I know this bill is there to supposedly 'modernise' governance measures. According to what Labor's trying to do, it's going to move some maximum terms to five years. It's going to expand termination grounds to include serious misconduct—I would have thought that would have been there already—and, for most roles, unsatisfactory performance. If it were in the private sector, sometimes you can't get rid of people for unsatisfactory performance to save yourself. I know. I've been in those sorts of positions, and you have to manage people out. The difficulty there is that, if you make a mistake in the private sector that's going to cost millions or billions of dollars, you lose your job like that in an instant. You do it in the federal parliament, you get promoted. That's just the way it is. The bill would allow ministers to set written performance standards which can be used when assessing unsatisfactory performance—okay. It would introduce express suspension powers and give the minister a new power to issue general written directions to the Office of Parliamentary Counsel. I'm not against ministers just doing their job. If only they would! If only sometimes they could! I'm really not. But, individually, many of these elements are not unprecedented. Again, I refer to the fact that it's just getting ministers to do their job. We certainly, as a coalition, as Liberals and Nationals together— Mr Wallace 265967 Amen! Mr McCORMACK 219646 'Amen!' the member for Fisher says. May that long occur. We're not opposing accountability, certainly not. I wouldn't want anybody reading this Hansard,quite apart from sending themselves to sleep, to think that we are opposing accountability, because that is not what we are about. But what problem, I do ask, is this bill actually solving? Why are there only four agencies—the ones I mentioned before? Why them, and why at this point in time? Why are their new performance standards not subject to tabling, to disallowance and to publication? These are genuine questions, and I know they'll probably be answered by the member for Sturt, who follows me. I have a high regard for her knowledge of the law and for her history in that regard and her legal work in the past. But are suspension and termination safeguards strong enough to protect procedural fairness and independence? These are all the sorts of questions that that people who are of a like mind will be asking. They certainly are. And do these governance procedures or architecture—call it what you like—preserve the right balance between executive control and parliamentary oversight? Again, it gets back to the balance. I earnestly don't believe that Labor is getting the balance right in so many areas of endeavour. If this bill is about, as Labor will claim, restoring public trust and modernising accountability, then consistency is important. Keep to your word. Stick to your promises. If you say you're going to do something, then for goodness sake do it. I don't think we get that right these days. The days of Wal Fife leaning over the back fence with my father, talking about the government of the day and what things are happening in Canberra or Macquarie Street, as the case was, are long over, and people unfortunately have this distrust. It is such a shame. Rather than sometimes squabbling over the scraps off the table, the parliamentary dispatch box, I think we should be talking up what we do as a profession, because we're just playing into the hands of One Nation, of the Independents and of those dreaded teals. We are. We should be proud of what we do as party politicians. We should, because we have provided the best form of government since Federation. Long may that continue. Let me tell you, ladies and gentlemen, that, if the Independents ever get hold of the Treasury benches, control of the blue room, the blue carpeted offices and the cabinet table, then we are all in a lot of trouble—a world of hurt. 17:49 Ms CLUTTERHAM 316101 Sturt I rise today to speak in support of the Commonwealth Entities Legislation Amendment Bill of 2026, but I do start by thanking the member for Riverina for his very kind words. I also talked politics with my dad non-stop, and both of us shared a great love for our wonderful democracy and our parliamentary system, and a respect for those who put their hand up for public work. I also will do my best to address some of the concerns the member for Riverina raised during his remarks, particularly with respect to the watering down of ministerial powers which, with respect, I don't accept is happening with respect to this bill. The purpose of the bill is to amend appointment, suspension and termination arrangements for statutory office holder positions that lead four Commonwealth entities: Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research, Australian Trade and Investment Commission, Australian Safeguards and Non-Proliferation Office, and my favourite, the Office of Parliamentary Counsel. This objective is being achieved to update and clarify integrity and accountability settings for certain statutory office holders, just as in the Foreign Affairs and Trade and Attorney-General's portfolios. It does so by reforming the statutory framework for appointment, suspension and termination. The intent is to reflect modern community and workplace expectations for Commonwealth officials. These are primarily governed by the Public Service Act 1999 for Australian Public Service employees, and also the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act for all officials. These quite rightly set very high standards of integrity, professionalism and accountability. Officials are expected to behave honestly, act with care and diligence, disclose conflicts of interest and use Commonwealth resources properly. The Australian public demands this, and the Australian public deserves this. In terms of the operation of the bill, there are two schedules. Schedule 1 amends a number of acts—the Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research Act, the Australian Trade and Investment Commission Act and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation (Safeguards) Act—to reflect community expectations of Commonwealth statutory office holders and reflect modern workplace standards. In addition, it expands and clarifies the grounds on which the appointments of the statutory heads of those agencies may be terminated. There are new discretionary grounds for termination. These include serious misconduct and unsatisfactory performance, which I think most reasonable Australians would consider to be fair enough, given serious misconduct would include serious breaches of the Australian Public Service Code of Conduct; unlawful discrimination; serious or repeated bullying or harassment; and corrupt conduct, which may result from breaches of public trust, abuse of office as a statutory office holder, misuse of information gained in the capacity of their role, or if the person does something that adversely affects a public official's honest or impartial exercise of powers or performance. Corrupt conduct is defined in section 8 of the National Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2022. The Australian Public Service Code of Conduct, to which agency heads and statutory office holders are bound—what is actually in it? It can be found in section 13 of the Public Service Act 1999. It requires employees to behave honestly and with integrity in connection with APS employment, and to operate with truthfulness, sincerity and frankness. The code prevents employees from improperly using inside information or the employee's duties, status, power or authority to gain, or seek to gain, a benefit or an advantage for the employee or any other person. It also requires employees to act with care and diligence in connection with their APS employment, and for the employee to treat everyone with respect and courtesy, without harassment and in compliance with all applicable Australian laws. Compliance and breaches are determined by reference to an objective standard following a lengthy and transparent process which is underpinned by procedural fairness. This is one of the concerns the member for Riverina raised in his remarks, but there is a clear and transparent process underpinned by due process and characterised by procedural fairness, with significant opportunities for response and engagement. There are some reasonable exceptions to the objective standard, such as if an employee has a level of experience or any specialised skills or training that they might have received which may mean they ought to have had a higher degree of awareness about their conduct. So, in addition to termination of a statutory office holder's role on this basis, the bill would also enable the minister to suspend the appointments of the statutory heads of the agencies in question for a maximum period of 12 months. This is not a watering down of the minister's powers; it is putting power in the hands of the minister. The initial period of suspension would be capped at three months, but it can be extended for more than three months and up to a total duration of 12 months in certain circumstances. The minister has the power for the first three months of suspension and then may consult with the Prime Minister or cabinet for any suspension with a total duration of longer than three months. This approach aligns with the expectation as set out in the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet's Cabinet Handbook when seeking approval for acting arrangements for significant office holders. This is a necessary power. It's not unchecked, but it's a necessary power in the hands of the minister that is appropriately filtered by time requirements and by consultation requirements. The final element of schedule 1 to the bill is that the new maximum term of appointment for the CEO of the Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research and other agencies would be five years, which is contemporary. It is very similar to the length of time CEO's stay in listed entities in the private sector. It is contemporary and is reduced by the current arrangements by only two years. Then we have schedule 2. This schedule will amend to the Parliamentary Counsel Act 1970 to insert new ministerial directions power—again, this is not a watering down of ministerial power; this is a new ministerial power—and to ensure appointment provisions for the Office of Parliamentary Counsel reflect modern community standards and expectations of Commonwealth statutory office holders. The Office of Parliamentary Counsel is responsible for drafting and publishing the laws of the Commonwealth of Australia. This is significant. It also publishes legislation, maintains the Federal Register of Legislation and provides training in relation to drafting and Commonwealth legislative processes. It's led by statutory office holders who are appointed by the Governor-General to draft and publish Commonwealth laws, and these office holders are the First Parliamentary Counsel and the Second Parliamentary Counsel. These are roles that are established under the Parliamentary Counsel Act 1970. Schedule 2 contains another new power for the minister—not a watered down power, a new power. This is in relation to giving written directions of a general nature to the Office of Parliamentary Counsel about the performance of its functions. Then, like schedule 1, the new maximum term of appointment for the First Parliamentary Counsel and Second Parliamentary Counsel is five years. Again, it is a contemporary approach which is very much reflective of the private sector and other offices of similar function in the public sector. With respect to termination, the bill expands and clarifies the grounds on which the appointment of Office of Parliamentary Counsel statutory office holders may be terminated. These grounds would remain mandatory in respect of bankruptcy related issues, but the new list of discretionary grounds for termination comprise conviction of an indictable offence, physical or mental incapacity, serious misconduct, unsatisfactory performance, absence from duty in certain circumstances, engaging in paid work outside official duties without the consent of the minister—another power of the minister—and failing to disclose interests under the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act. Like schedule 1 serious misconduct pursuant to schedule 2 includes serious breaches of the APS Code of Conduct, unlawful discrimination, serious or repeated bullying or harassment, and corrupt conduct. These expanded provisions are entirely appropriate and reflect community standards and expectations for statutory office holders who are carrying out the type of critical work that is performed by the Office of Parliamentary Counsel. From a human rights perspective, bills of this nature necessarily engage with human rights. In this case, the bill engages with the right to work and rights in work under article 6 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the right to a fair hearing pursuant to article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. With regard to the right to work, the new expanded grounds for termination—serious breaches of the code of conduct; bankruptcy; corrupt conduct; conviction of a serious indictable offence; mental or physical incapacity; serious misconduct; unsatisfactory performance; absence from duty in certain circumstances; engaging in paid work outside official duties without the consent of the minister; and failing to disclose interests in accordance with the PGPA Act—are proportionate, necessary and reasonable. They are proportionate to the need to protect and promote integrity and public confidence in the work that statutory office holders are doing. They are also consistent with the termination provisions under other Commonwealth statutes governing statutory office holders. Reasonable Australians would expect that statutory office holders with management responsibilities would be removed from the workplace by terminating their employment where their behaviour created an unsafe working environment—for example, through bullying or harassment, or where trust and confidence is irretrievably gone because of a failure to disclose a disclosable interest. Further, the minister's powers of suspension for the statutory heads of the agencies in question also engages the right to work and rights in work. These are also proportionate, reasonable and necessary in order to promote the right to safe working conditions by staff, and they will operate to protect the health, safety and welfare of employees in those offices. The new powers are also consistent with suspension clauses in other Commonwealth statutes for statutory office holders. In relation to the engagement of fair hearing rights under article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the bill does not alter any of the existing procedural fairness requirements that would already apply in relation to any termination decision under any of the acts that would be amended by this bill, and the new and expanded grounds for termination will also be subject to procedural fairness requirements. I can confidently say that the member for Riverina's concerns about procedural fairness can be put to rest because there is a serious degree of procedural fairness and due process already afforded. This legislation brings the system into line, as already set out in other acts. This bill does not seek to impose onerous or unfair requirements or processes on statutory office holders just because of their position, which is another nod to fairness. Instead, it recognises the significance of being a statutory office holder appointed by the Governor-General and demands the highest standards of personal integrity be practised in recognition of that. Australians quite rightly expect this of each other, and they certainly expect it of their office holders. This bill brings expectations for the relevant statutory office holders in line with other existing frameworks and with community expectations. I commend the bill to the House. 18:03 Ms SPENDER 286042 Wentworth I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Commonwealth Entities Legislation Amendment Bill 2026. This legislation, I believe, is perfectly unobjectionable. It brings the statutory office holders who lead four Commonwealth agencies into line with our other government organisations by reducing their maximum term of appointment from seven to five years and by adding grounds for suspension or termination of office holders similar to what exists for other positions. The question I have for the government is: at a time when inflation is high, when productivity is in the doldrums, when house prices mean young people are struggling to get into the housing market and achieve the same outcomes as their parents, when social cohesion is under pressure, when trust in government is at a low ebb and when Australia's clean energy transition is happening more slowly than we would like, is this legislation really the best use of our parliamentary time? Is tweaking the employment contracts of four government appointed officials really an issue at the top of the government's precious parliamentary agenda? I would genuinely hope that this sort of bill would come in a big omnibus bill of uncontentious pieces of legislation that we could push through parliament, so we can focus on more important things, but in this case it hasn't. This is the question I ask the government in relation to this: where is the ambition and how is it reflected in the legislative agenda? Every week we have a crossbench briefing from the government on legislation for the coming weeks. They cancelled it tonight because there was only one bill to bring forward and it was a very minimal one. Again, we're going to have sat six out of nine weeks. Where is the legislative agenda that really justifies this? There is important work to be done. For instance, the government has indicated—very rightly, I think—that there's a significant deregulation agenda that is required. Where's that legislation? They have taken steps forward on things like the 'tell us once' policy, but there is much, much more work to do. This is the sort of legislation I think people expect us to be dealing with in the parliament. What about the whistleblower protections—they're long overdue—or gambling reform, or protections for LGBTQ+ students and teachers so that they can't be fired or expelled because of who they love, because of getting divorced or because of having a child out of wedlock? What about forcing companies to allow you to opt out of social media algorithms, or dealing with the CFMEU and the impact that has had on government procurement, with $15 billion worth of expected impact in Victoria, of which probably $2 billion is federal money? That really is the question here. I respect this piece of legislation. I have no problems with it as a piece of legislation. But the country expects us to be doing much more on issues that matter to them. The government's legislative agenda is absolutely surprisingly light, given the challenges facing our country. The question for the government is: is this the ambition that you should be approaching, given you have a supermajority in the House and you have two different and achievable pathways through the Senate? Surely there is more that the government can do with its legislative agenda than this. 18:07 Ms ROWLAND 159771 Greenway I thank the chamber for debate on this bill. The Albanese government is committed to ensuring integrity, honesty and accountability in government. The community expects public officials, especially those who are the subject of statutory appointments at senior levels, to perform their duties with the highest integrity. The Commonwealth Entities Legislation Amendment Bill 2026 will ensure that, where statutory office holders engage in behaviour that breaches the APS Code of Conduct, amounting to discrimination, bullying and harassment or corruption in their workplaces, they can be removed from office. The bill also ensures statutory office holders are held accountable for their performance, with unsatisfactory performance being appropriately addressed. These are standards expected of most working Australians. They should apply to statutory office holders too. The Albanese government remains committed to the principles of regulator independence, and the bill is sensitive to the independence of decision-making by statutory authorities. To this end, the amendments in this bill are not designed to fetter the independence or discretion of statutory office holders but to ensure they are accountable for their performance and conduct in the workplace. The bill will strengthen appointment safeguards for a range of statutory office holders, and the government will continue its focus on returning integrity, honesty and accountability to government, ensuring we better reflect community expectations. Through these ongoing efforts, the government will continue to ensure the Commonwealth is the model employer we expect other employers to be. I commend the bill to the chamber. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment. Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2025-2026, Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2025-2026, Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 2025-2026 105

Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2025-2026

Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2025-2026

Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 2025-2026

Second Reading 105 18:10 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fenner In the 1950s a significant change took place in medicine. The advent of evidence based medicine saw that field move from an approach which had previously prized grey-bearded experts towards a more scientific and critical approach, which looked to test new treatments. Streptomycin, the polio vaccine and other treatments were evaluated using randomised trials. This was a significant step forward for medicine, saving thousands of lives. Treatments which were previously thought to be effective turned out, when subjected to a rigorous control, to be ineffective. Treatments which had been thought to be long shots turned out to save lives. The shift towards evidence based medicine has marked one of the most crucial changes within medicine over the course of recent centuries. Right now, public policy is going through the same transition. Effectively, what we're trying to do with a randomised trial is to identify the counterfactual—what would have happened if the treatment hadn't been put in place. You can think of this a bit like Gwyneth Paltrow from Sliding Doors. In that movie, we get to see both of the alternatives—what happens when she catches the train and what happens when she doesn't. But real life isn't like that. We only get to see one pathway through, and, in evaluating new medicines or evaluating new policies, it's critical to have in our minds what would have happened if the policy hadn't been delivered. Randomised trials assign people to the treatment and control groups through the toss of a coin. That approach ensures the two groups are identical when you have a large sample on both the observables and the unobservables. I've spent much of my career as an economist using natural experiment approaches, trying to tease out a treatment group and a control group using differences in state variation, using a regression discontinuity or using instrumental variables. But what we're trying to do in each of those instances is to benchmark against a randomised trial to see what would have happened if we'd been able to put a randomised trial in place. In many instances in public policy, we now do have those randomised trials. When New South Wales was facing the question in the late 1990s as to whether to establish drug courts, it set up just such a randomised trial. That trial assigned people randomly to go through either a drug court with its specialist drug addiction treatment programs or the traditional criminal justice process. The evaluation found that drug courts passed a cost-benefit test. Those offenders assigned to the drug court were less likely to re-offend subsequently. You didn't have to place any weight on the wellbeing of drug offenders. You just had to look at the benefits to the community. Randomised trials can help cut through ideology in order to ascertain what works and build up that evidence base. We've seen a suite of randomised trials put in place in educational interventions. I acknowledge the work of Richard Holden and others at the University of New South Wales, evaluating what happens when culturally appropriate questions are placed on tests. For example, if students are able to think in terms of the Parkes telescope—a local reference—rather than the Sydney Town Hall, they turn out to do better on the same questions. I see the member for Bass nodding. Her experience as a teacher reflects the understanding that it isn't simply about testing students on an arbitrary set of facts; it's also about making those questions culturally appropriate. That randomised trial conducted by the UNSW team provides insights that are going to be valuable in education. In the United States we've seen the advent of randomised trials looking at what happens with high-quality housing programs. The Moving to Opportunity study provided housing vouchers for people in high-poverty neighbourhoods to move to low-poverty areas. It found a significant improvement in fields such as mental health and particularly a significant benefit to children whose families moved when they were very young. In Australia, we've had a randomised trial of high-impact case management for long-term homeless people. The Journey to Social Inclusion evaluation conducted by Sacred Heart Mission in Victoria showed how difficult it is to make an impact on the lives of the most vulnerable. It found extremely low employment rates in both the treatment and the control group—a reminder not that we should give up on these challenges but that they are hard, and we need to do more in order to establish efficacy of programs intended to help the long-term homeless. Increasingly, systems are being put in place in order to conduct more randomised trials. Our government established the Australian Centre for Evaluation within Treasury in order to conduct more rigorous experiments right across the policy spectrum. We understand that taxpayer dollars are provided in a sacred trust to governments, and that it is our obligation to do with those dollars the very best that we can. The Australian Centre for Evaluation has worked with the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations, the Department of Health, Disability and Ageing, the Department of Social Services and other agencies in order to build the evidence base. They produced a recent report, Strengthening evaluation in the Australian government 2026-2030, which turns that intellectual case into a set of operating instructions right across the Commonwealth. The Australian Centre for Evaluation, led by Eleanor Williams, has conducted a scan of all of the available randomised trials within Australian public policy going back to the 1970s. That evaluation, that scan, has been important in terms of identifying what evidence is there and what more could be added. The Australian Centre for Evaluation has also ensured that they are using their own techniques, evaluating their own education programs, their own training programs, through randomised trials. I commend them for the work that they're doing in order to bring a greater sense of rigour. Sometimes randomised trials can be testing significant programs such as drug courts or housing vouchers to move to low-poverty neighbourhoods, but sometimes they can also be looking at effective tweaks. The BETA behavioural insights unit within the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet has experimented with trials that simply inform those doctors who are superprescribers of antibiotics that their propensity to prescribe antibiotics is higher than average. That randomised trial has seen a significant decrease in the propensity of doctors to overprescribe—a straightforward tweak followed up through administrative data, which had a real impact in saving money for taxpayers and in reducing antimicrobial resistance. This illustrates the point that randomised trials can also improve democratic accountability. Philosopher Ana Tanasoca and I have written about the value of randomised trials in strengthening democracy. At a time when democracy is under strain from populist forces around the world, it is important that governments are able to show to taxpayers that we are using the very best available evidence. One way in which we're able to do that through randomised trials is by showing how cleanly we are comparing the treatment and control groups. Randomised trials are an important way of systematising evidence. At a time when there has been a reproducibility crisis within a whole lot of fields of social science, it's absolutely vital that we are able to show clearly how the evidence is being built. I acknowledge in the chamber the member for Banks, Zhi Soon, who spent considerable professional time before he entered parliament working on randomised trials and other forms of rigorous evaluation. He brings to this place a rigour of thought which is reflected in the work the Australian Centre for Evaluation is doing. I acknowledge, too, the leadership role that the Australian Centre for Evaluation has played through the OECD. They helped the OECD convene a workshop last year on randomised trials and other rigorous evaluations, which led to a recent policy paper, Unleashing the policy potential of rigorous impact evaluation and randomised trials. Bringing together the expertise of people like David Halpern from the UK has been critical in order to build the rigour and the international evidence sharing. The Wellcome Trust, the European Economic and Social Research Council and other funding bodies are now supporting work in order to build more rigorous evidence and to distil the evidence that exists. In the UK the What Works Network, through centres such as the Education Endowment Foundation, ensures that policymakers have at their fingertips the best available evidence. The Education Endowment Foundation has conducted more than 200 randomised trials, and about half of all pupils in British schools have been part of a randomised trial conducted by the Education Endowment Foundation. That rigour is not only helping education policymakers; it's also helping principals and teachers themselves, who are able to turn to the Education Endowment Foundation site and see presented in very straightforward terms what works and what doesn't, how big the impacts are, in months of learning, and how much the program costs. In this way they can make a very scientific comparison of what's available. I also commend the Paul Ramsay Foundation, whose experimental grants round funded to the tune of $2.1 million seven different randomised trials, which were aiming to test what works in social policy at a modest cost. This is an example—as the Arnold Foundation in the UK and Jon Baron and others have shown—of the power of low-cost evaluations. There were more than 100 non-profit organisations that stepped forward to apply for the Paul Ramsay Foundation's funding to support experimental programs. They recognise the value of having rigorous evidence in order to support policy programs. We should hold fast to our passion for tackling big policy challenges, but we should hold lightly to any particular solution. We should be willing to acknowledge, just as those researchers who are trying to find a cure for cancer do, that programs that look good in the lab may not work in the field, and we should be open to moving on to other solutions. If you take 10 medical drugs coming out of the lab, only one of them, on average, will make it through three phases of clinical trials and into market. So, too, in the area of social policy, we should recognise that much of what we value will not necessarily have the impact that we intend it to have. The rigour that the Australian Centre for Evaluation brings is important in terms of building the policy case. Alongside this, we need to do a better job of building systematic reviews. Rather than making decisions based on a single study, we should be drawing together all of the available evidence, weighting more highly the higher quality evidence and bringing out what health researcher Julian Elliott has called 'living evidence reviews'. Living evidence reviews came out of COVID, with the notion that you needed to continuously update the evidence. The Campbell Collaboration in social science and the Cochrane Collaboration within medicine have done a very good job of producing systematic reviews, but we now need to make them continuously updated so policymakers and practitioners can immediately reach out and find out what is the best evidence on any particular topic that they're engaged in. Better distillation of the evidence and better creation of new evidence will help to build the case for better economic and social reform. Our government is committed to evidence based policy. You can see that in the record number of randomised trials we're putting in place and in the rigour with which we are training public servants through the evaluation profession. I commend all of those public servants who've engaged in the Australian Centre for Evaluation's evaluation training, which is raising the quality of evaluation understanding right across the Public Service and better serving the Australian people. With rigour and a 'try, test, learn' approach, we can better serve the Australian people. 18:25 Ms LANDRY 249764 Capricornia by leave—One of the most damaging examples is Labor's decision to slash NDIS provider travel reimbursements by half. Under these changes, providers' capacities to travel to clients in regional and remote areas have been severely reduced, regardless of distance. For communities spread across vast geographic areas, like my electorate of Capricornia, this is not a minor budget adjustment. It is a direct threat to access to essential care. In Central Queensland, people with disability often rely on visiting allied health professionals. These changes make it harder, not easier, for providers to service regional communities. It can mean the difference between accessing care like those who live in cities or going without altogether. Changes to the NDIS under the Albanese Labor government are having serious and deeply concerning consequences, particularly because of the government's failure to properly understand, anticipate or manage the unintended impacts of its poor decisions. Calls to my office include NDIS cases where participants have had their funding reduced by more than 50 per cent. Essential therapies have been removed, support hours have been slashed and assistive technology has been delayed or denied. Families are being forced to fight simply to maintain the level of care that was previously assessed as reasonable and necessary. Bureaucrats in Canberra are redefining eligibility and supports while participants on the ground are left scrambling to appeal decisions that directly affect their health, safety and quality of life. In some cases, we are advocating for participants whose medical status means that a loss of support is not merely inconvenient; it is potentially life-threatening. No family should have to go into battle with the system to secure the basic supports that keep their loved ones safe. Sustainable reform of the NDIS is essential. The coalition has always supported measures to ensure the long-term viability of the scheme. Reform must be careful, transparent and guided by genuine consultation, not rushed adjustments that leave vulnerable Australians bearing the risk of unintended consequences. When the NDIS was created, it was built on a promise that Australians living with disability would have certainty, dignity and choice. Under this government, that certainty is eroding. Participants deserve clarity, and families deserve stability. The government must urgently address the very real harm being caused by its poorly executed changes to the NDIS. In regional towns like Clermont, the significant shortfall of aged-care housing marks a critical failure of the Albanese Labor government to support rural Queenslanders. Clermont is far more than a small rural town of 3,000 people. It's a powerhouse for agriculture, mining and tourism. It helps build this nation's prosperity. Clermont is facing a worsening aged-care shortfall, while the Queensland Health-run Montcler facility provides high-care beds, the closure of intermediate- and low-care residential options, including the former Clermont Nursing Home, has created a systematic gap in the provision of aged-care services. Seniors who have worked their entire lives in this community are now being forced to move away from family, friends and support networks simply because appropriate facilities do not exist locally. Community projections indicate the region will require more than 180 additional aged-care places by 2030 to meet demand. Yet, despite repeated representations, clear evidence of need and a rollout-ready solution, this government has failed to act. Labor even rejected funding for a much-needed seniors' living facility under the regional Precincts and Partnerships Program. At a time when Clermont is crying out for aged-care accommodation and independent living options, this government said no. The Clermont Monash Lodge revitalisation initiative is ready to go. It would deliver seniors' accommodation, ease housing pressure for younger families and support the town's recovery following recent floods. It would strengthen the community's long-term sustainability. It is exactly the kind of practical regional project that should be prioritised. I have written to the Prime Minister and I have met with the Minister for Aged Care and Seniors. I have put forward the case clearly and constructively. The response has been silence. This government is quick to announce billions in metropolitan infrastructure and inner city projects. But when it comes to core services in regional Queensland—doctors, aged care or housing for seniors—the cupboard is bare. Seniors who built a life in Clermont should not have to leave in their final years because the Albanese Labor government failed to provide funding for essential infrastructure so they could remain in their community. The coalition fought hard during the Senate inquiry into aged-care reforms to secure hardship provisions, grandfathering arrangements and caps on contributions to protect older Australians. We stood up to ensure dignity and fairness remained at the centre of the system. The wealth of this nation is built from towns like Clermont. The Albanese government must stop taking regional communities for granted. Towns like Clermont deserve better than this government's indifference. Central Queensland has also been dealt another blow with Labor's decision to axe $23 million in funding for the Rocky Sports Club project, funding that was approved by the former coalition government in 2020. This project supports 129 sports clubs and community groups and would have delivered jobs, vital community infrastructure and long-term economic benefits for Rockhampton and the wider region—especially with Rockhampton being a potential Olympic city. Instead, after years of delay and false hopes, Labor walked away from the project entirely. This decision speaks volumes about Labor's priorities. A project that required a simple variation to proceed—a project that would have created jobs and strengthened community participation—was simply discarded. It does not stop there. Labor's war on agriculture, its attacks on the resources sector and its anti-small-business agenda have made it harder for industries in Capricornia to thrive. Farmers tell me they are struggling with rising costs, with fuel and fertiliser prices at record highs. This is not just a problem for farmers; it's a problem for every Australian who relies on affordable food, secure supply chains and a strong regional economy. Vital roads in my electorate, like the Bruce Highway and the Peak Downs Highway, have been left to crumble due to funding cuts. While lives continue to be lost, Labor continues to claim that regional Australians are better off. While all of this regional and rural neglect is happening, the Albanese Labor government would win a winter Olympic gold medal for spending; it's the highest spending government outside of a pandemic in 40 years. After nearly four years of Labor, Australians are paying more for everything. Insurance is up 39 per cent, energy is 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 are not luxuries; these are essentials. What makes this even more concerning is that Australia's inflation rate is now higher than many comparable economies. Government spending is now growing at four times the rate of the growth of the economy. Debt is projected to reach $1.2 trillion. Since coming into office, Labor has added $100 billion to the national debt. Spending is now $160 billion higher than when Labor came to power, equivalent to around $16,000 for every Australian household. All of this is occurring while the Commonwealth is collecting extraordinary levels of revenue. In 2024-25 alone, the government raised $717 billion in receipts—25.9 per cent of GDP, the highest level in 25 years. Revenue is not the problem; spending is. The consequences are being felt through higher interest rates. In February the Reserve Bank raised rates by 25 basis points to 3.85 per cent. Every rate rise hits mortgage holders, renters and small businesses. Young Australians have been locked out of the housing market, families have been forced to delay major life decisions and future generations are being saddled with debt they did not choose. These appropriation bills may be technical in nature, but they reflect a deeper and more troubling pattern. This is a government that believes more spending is always the answer, regardless of the economic or regional consequences. The opposition will not oppose these bills, but we will continue to hold the government to account. Australians deserve fiscal responsibility, measured budgeting and leadership that understands that proper fiscal management, focused on the most important priorities, is not optional in an inflationary environment; it is essential. When Labor spends, Australians pay. It's time for leadership that puts Australians first. 18:34 Mr HOLZBERGER 88411 Forde I feel an affinity for the member for Capricornia, myself coming from the country originally. I'm a Broken Hill boy; it's where I spent many years. The member representing the great city of Broken Hill is here as well. While I share an affinity on a personal and perhaps a geographical level, I think there might be a philosophical divergence in Australian politics that we haven't seen for a long time. Some of the comments made in that speech, I think, really outline what that philosophical difference is. I feel like I woke up in an alternate universe where the member for Goldstein is somehow the alternative Treasurer of this country. He is somebody who I'm not sure would fit in particularly well in the rural electorates that many of you here represent, where I come from, and I think he would struggle in the outer metropolitan electorate that I represent today. I feel like there is a bit of an alternate universe where people on the other side see the member for Goldstein as having some economic answers. Maybe it is that there is this philosophical difference in Australian politics. I think we've really seen a divergence in that over the last 10 years or perhaps a little bit more. With the member for Goldstein I think we have one of the most radical, if not the most radical, assistant Treasurers when it comes to their personal philosophy. I sort of understand that philosophy. And I do want to use this speech to talk a little bit about that, because where the government spends its money is the best indication of what the government's values actually are. So this is a good opportunity to talk about values, talk about philosophy and talk about the sorts of values that I did learn growing up in Broken Hill—where you look after your community, where you look after your mate and where you work hard and expect a return on that work. In Broken Hill you've always got to remember that you are fighting as a community. You're fighting for the person next to you, and you don't want to leave that community behind. They would find the sort of philosophy that the member for Goldstein, the shadow Treasurer, professes to be a very sterile ideology. I think that where the government spends its money is really an indication of what that philosophy is. That's why I think where the government prioritises its spending in housing, energy, training, health—and mental health particularly—and infrastructure really brings to my mind that saying that you should run a country the same way that you run a business. I've also run a business. I started off as a contract musterer around Broken Hill—not the biggest business—where I had a bike, a ute, a pack of dogs and the will to win. The most important thing that you need in any business is the will to win. From there we moved to the city, when we had a little baby, and I ended up running a construction company. I really learnt some things along the way, and I want to talk about that in a second. One thing I learnt is that there are two ways to run a business: you can strip the profits out, run the business into the ground, put off the investment and put off the maintenance; or you can invest in your plant and your people. The way that the Liberal Party and the National Party used to run their political philosophy was that they used to invest in the plant and they used to invest in their people. That is where I think we are now seeing a divergence. The member for Goldstein, the shadow Treasurer, has a fundamental philosophy which I'll get into in a second. I do understand it; I do get it. Ultimately that philosophy is about neglecting to invest in your plant, your people, your housing, your energy, your training, your infrastructure, your health system and the mental health of your people. That's why this next election is really going to be about that big difference in philosophical approaches. I went from contract mustering to running a construction company, but there was something that happened in between. This is where I get the member for Goldstein. I'd imagine the National Party would probably not sign up to his economic philosophy, being the agrarian socialists that I think many of you still are. There was a bit of time there between contract mustering and running a construction company where I got to hone my own political philosophy. We went when we had a baby—my partner wasn't going to live in the outback of New South Wales, so we moved to Tenterfield, where I worked in a service station. I was flipping burgers and serving petrol in my early 30s. My partner gave me a book on getting from nought to $5 million in five years. I thought: 'Geez, this book's a heap of rubbish. It's one of these get-rich-quick books.' By the time I read it, I was hooked because it wasn't about getting rich; it was about this philosophy of taking personal responsibility for your own decisions and realising that the choices you make have consequences. It said that if you change the way you look at the world, you can change your environment and you can take that responsibility. I would say it rounded out a political philosophy I developed through the Labor Party, which is a bit more about that collective action—that governments can solve all the problems. Sometimes that's right, and sometimes that's not right. Anyway, that book began a journey for me where I ended up reading about 160 or so of those business books. I wanted to run my own business, and fundamentally what I wanted to do with that business was help businesses teach their workers financial responsibility and some of those things I had learned. I get where the member for Goldstein is coming from in his philosophy. He has this aggressively individualist approach to people making choices in their own lives to control their own destiny, and says government shouldn't get involved in that. I get that; I understand where he's coming from. But there's a point at which something like that becomes utterly ideological and not founded in reality, and there's a point where that becomes un-useful to the rest of society. On superannuation, this week the government is building on its superannuation policy, which is very much a Labor Party policy. In those books I was reading, one of the philosophies was that you pay yourself first: you put 10 per cent of your income and you pay yourself first no matter what, because over time you can build up that pool of savings from just a pile of money—which can be there for security if you need it—to a pile of assets, effectively, that you can invest to create a passive income. I understand that argument that you should pay yourself first. But the reality is that life gets in the way. If it wasn't for a compulsory superannuation system that took 10 per cent and put that 10 per cent away for workers, there wouldn't be $4.3 trillion worth of national savings for people to retire on. There would be people retiring into poverty, just as there was prior to superannuation. In politics you have to be pragmatic. The ideological purity doesn't work. It didn't work for the Labor Party in the 1950s and 1960s, and it's not working for the Liberal and National parties today. I'm sure there are sensible people in those parties. I have a personal affinity for people from the bush; they reside mainly in the National Party. I say to them: for the sake of the country, encourage your colleagues—particularly the shadow Treasurer—to drop this ideological obsession with this personal free market approach to economics. As attractive as it might look on paper, it would not work to the extent where you would end up with the pool of savings that we have for superannuation—and it has not worked over the last 30 or so years that prime ministers such as John Howard, Abbott, Turnbull and Morrison have followed the approach of the government withdrawing itself from providing essential services like housing and energy. There are probably two things that I really want to come to this place to prosecute. There are two economic arguments that I want to come to this place to prosecute, and those are cheap public housing and cheap public energy. In many ways, that was the postwar economic miracle, the economic recipe of Australia—cheap public housing and cheap public energy. There was cheap public housing not just for people that desperately needed it but for railway workers, for meat workers, for teachers, for car workers. In fact, I like to shock people a little bit by saying that one of my economic role models was Thomas Playford, who was the Premier of South Australia and Australia's longest-serving premier, who served from the 1940s to the 1970s. He was a Liberal premier who built the South Australian Housing Trust and who put into the charter of the South Australian Housing Trust that it would aid in the economic development of the state. At one point, the high point in Australia, something like 40 per cent of every rental in South Australia was for public housing for car workers. That's how they built the car industry. It wasn't just the reduction in tariffs that destroyed the car industry; it was the cost of housing going up, meaning that wages had to go up. Actually, that didn't help business in the end. The whole idea about public housing was that you could take the pressure off wages. You could then attract international manufacturing companies like the car industry to South Australia and Australia. But it wasn't just Liberal Party premiers, of course; it was the philosophy at the time. This is what I'm trying to say. There used to be this sort of agreement between Labor and Liberal that the government had a role to play in the economy for the good of the economy, not just out of the goodness of our hearts but because it was actually the economically sensible thing to do. So it was with energy. We built great public energy assets in this country. Just to surprise people, I don't just go around quoting premiers of Australia from ancient history; I like to quote Peter Dutton, somebody who's been in the news a bit lately, in a certain report. Amongst all of the things Peter Dutton said that I would disagree with, I thought he summed up the importance of energy perfectly when he said that energy is not just part of the economy; energy is the economy. It absolutely is the economy. Australia's postwar economic miracle was built on those two foundations: cheap public housing and cheap public energy, but the ideological obsession that the opposition has had with withdrawing itself from the market has seen energy infrastructure privatised, corporatised and ultimately wither away to nothing. Coal-fired power stations closed all around the place, but they weren't replaced. What I don't get is this ideological obsession against renewable energy. I just don't get it, because nobody's building coal-fired power stations any more. In fact, I think something like $3 million went into a study to build a coal-fired power station in Collinsville, but they didn't even finish the study, let alone the coal-fired power station. No-one's going to build a coal-fired power station anymore. The opposition want to dangle out there a change to our energy policy to allow nuclear energy. Who's going to do that? The Australian people aren't going to let you spend $600 billion doing it. I don't think there's any private enterprise lining up to do it. Doesn't this sound sensible? Renewable energy firmed by gas and batteries. Doesn't that actually sound sensible to those in the opposition? Somehow there is this ideological obsession that you can't have this approach; you need the most expensive approach of coal and nuclear. If you believe in coal and nuclear, therefore you don't believe in climate change, somehow. The Prime Minister talked about that. Those are exactly his words from the last election. That's when I thought that he was really nailing it, with the way he summed it up. Our energy future is renewable energy firmed by gas and batteries, yet the opposition has withdrawn from the field. I rise in support of these bills because the best indication of the values of a government is how it spends its money. I urge you to support it. 18:49 Dr WEBSTER 281688 Mallee It was very refreshing to hear the member the Forde and his arguments throughout that discourse, particularly that he sees reward for effort as a noble and good thing and that energy is the economy. Those are just two pieces that I took out of his speech. They're very true, and there is a reason we are not into all renewables—because it is not sound policy, as we are discovering with electricity bills around Australia. Every person who gets an electricity bill knows that it is bad policy. Anyway, that's a conversation I will take up at another time. It was very good to hear from you though. I want to speak about how, when Labor spends, we pay. The biggest collapse in living standards in the developed world—that is a statement no Australian is proud of right now. It comes because Labor has an addiction to spending which is driving up the cost of living. We have a $1.2 trillion debt bomb that future generations—our children, our grandchildren—will be paying for. Who knows how long it will take to come down? It will certainly be a lot longer if Labor stays in power. Australians are paying more for their mortgages. They're paying more, as we've already discussed, for their power bills and for their groceries. Every time you go through the checkout, every Australian knows, it is so expensive. You can almost see it on people's faces. Let alone rents, which seem to rise at 10 per cent levels on a very regular basis. Australians will pay the price tomorrow as Labor locks in decades of deficits and intergenerational debt. The Reserve Bank of Australia forecasts the worst medium-term economic growth ever. Economists warn that Australians' living standards will continue to erode—this is not good news—putting more pressure on the federal government's deteriorating budget. The latest central bank forecasts show that the economy is expected to grow just 1.6 per cent over the year to June 2028. Mortgages are up by an average of $1,800 a month after 14 rate rises since Labor came to office. Mortgage holders have paid at least a $23,000 increase in interest on their mortgages since Labor came to office. Households are paying 16 per cent more for food, 18 per cent more for health, 22 per cent more for rents, 39 per cent more for insurance and nearly 40 per cent more for electricity. So much for $275 in savings! Households have burnt through all the fat they may have had in their budgets. It has been taken up by rate rises and the rising cost of living. This is tellingly obvious at the supermarket checkout. Families are making hard decisions about how to keep their budgets sustainable, cutting back on anything extra for kids—music lessons, sport and other extracurricular activities. Going out for a meal—that has gone through the roof—if you can find a restaurant still open. And that's if families can continue to service their mortgage or rental property at all. In my electorate of Mallee, emergency food relief charities are experiencing unprecedented demand, and even then I'm having to fight for them to get their funding reinstated, such as for the Horsham Christian Emergency Food Centre and the Stawell Interchurch Council Cottage, as Labor, as they're want to do, apply a desktop modelling approach and fail to understand the distances between towns in my electorate, thereby cutting funding. Fortunately, the minister has heard my cries. I have met with her, and she has reinstated partial funding for those services. It's not enough in a cost-of-living crisis, when people are hurting day after day. Spending in the current budget—and, I predict, in the upcoming May budget—is based on heroic assumptions, as former Treasury assistant secretary David Pearl wrote on Saturday 28 February. Mr Pearl writes, accurately: … we are … in a long-term economic decline … the largest drop in living standards of any OECD country since the … pandemic … little real wages growth since 2011 and labour productivity stuck at its 2015 year level. That's over 10 years ago. The first false assumption Mr Pearl calls out in his expose of what he calls 'economic fantasies and delusions' is that cutting carbon dioxide emissions will somehow improve productivity. He writes: … too many of us refuse to accept—or even consider as a remote possibility—that any policy of rapidly cutting carbon dioxide emissions must necessarily lower growth, hurt productivity and lower living standards (while having no effect on the climate, absent similar commitments from the big economic powers). Not by a little bit but, as its whole-of-economy ill-effects compound across time, by a great deal. He continues: In the 1990s, this growth trade-off was considered a truism by conventional economists, who opposed heavily front-loaded emissions cuts for that reason. Yet today Canberra's conventional wisdom is that emissions cuts not only carry no costs but—in the words of Productivity Commission chairwoman Danielle Woods—are an economic prize, relying on the fantasy that wind and solar are the cheapest form of power. I say 'Hear, hear!' Those opposite should be uncomfortable in their seats, especially those that like to preach about being on the right side of history. Mr Powell says of the second delusion about our public finances: … too few of us are prepared to admit that the budget's forward estimates and projections are a complete fiction. Not unreliable and inaccurate, as critics typically maintain, but completely divorced from reality. They show that future deficits will remain small in economic terms and virtually disappear by 2035-36, with net debt remaining stable at 20 per cent of GDP—a result that virtually every other developed economy would kill for. But the assumptions they rely on are deeply flawed. They assume that across the next decade, federal spending will remain stable at close to 27 per cent of GDP—despite the expected rapid growth in the National Disability Insurance Scheme, our interest bill and other programs—because, get this, the cost of the public service is assumed to fall significantly. As the Parliamentary Budget Office has found, if we are more realistic about the latter, spending could be underestimated by as much as 3 per cent of GDP, resulting in much higher deficits and debts. Thirdly, Mr Pearl rightly says: Our third delusion is our inability to accept the world has changed fundamentally during the past five years. Labor have been in government for four of those. Events in the Middle East on the weekend have only underscored that comment. I suspect the article was submitted before the bombs fell on the ayatollah in Iran. Mr Pearl writes: We have seen a return of intense great-power rivalry, reflected in rising military tensions, the fracturing of the world's trading and financial systems, and the collapse in global support for net zero. What we had of a rules-based order (the concept was always overstated by the Davos mob) is under genuine threat, with serious implications for small, trading economies such as Australia. It is high time the emperor was called out for wearing no clothes. It's time for the delusions to end and for the Albanese Labor government to stop the fiction and be truthful with the Australian people in the May budget. Labor's spending has blown out to 27 per cent of GDP, the highest level outside of a recession in nearly 40 years. Former RBA governor Philip Lowe made clear that inflation has lasted longer in Australia because of Labor's spending spree. IFM Investors' chief economist, Alex Joiner, said that the fiscal guardrails have come off. Instead of tackling spending, Labor's answer is to increase taxes on your super, your savings, your housing and your small business. Every minute, we are paying $50,000— or $72 million a day—just on interest on Labor's debt. Every dollar that pays interest is a dollar we can't spend on Medicare, schools, hospitals, NDIS, aged care or tax relief. We cannot put unsustainable spending on the national credit card for our kids to pay back tomorrow through Labor's higher taxes. 19:01 Ms URQUHART 231199 Braddon I rise today to speak in support of this package of appropriation bills: the Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2025-2026 and related bills. These bills give effect to decisions outlined in the 2025-26 Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook, which the Albanese Labor government delivered at the end of last year. MYEFO strengthened the budget, reduced debt and reinforced our government's responsible approach to economic and fiscal management. The figures demonstrate a significantly stronger budget position than the one we inherited and a stronger position than was forecast at the time of the election. In fact, it was the only mid-year update on record to deliver a better bottom line in every year of the forward estimates, less debt in every year of the forward estimates and net policy decisions that improve, not worsen, the fiscal outlook. We are delivering on our commitments, making space for unavoidable pressures and strengthening the budget all at once. In my electorate of Braddon, people are practical. They are not interested in slogans or scare campaigns. They want to know if their government understands the pressures they face and if it's taking responsible action to ease those pressures while strengthening the services that our communities rely on. The Albanese Labor government is doing exactly that. Under this Labor government, 47,000 taxpayers in Braddon received a tax cut on 1 July 2024 Those who earn between $18,201 and $45,000 will receive another tax cut on 1 July this year and another in July 2027. This helps put more money in the pockets of workers. That is not accidental. It is the result of deliberate, responsible reform that puts fairness at the centre of the tax system. Unlike those opposite, who prioritise tax arrangements that overwhelmingly benefit the top end of town, Labor's approach delivers relief to low- and middle-income earners—the people who spend their money locally and keep regional economies like the electorate of Braddon moving. We've done this while improving the budget position and reducing debt, proving that you can provide cost-of-living relief without recklessness. For younger Australians and working families in Braddon, student debt has been another significant pressure. Around 7,866 people in Braddon have a HECS debt. For years they watched their debt grow faster than they could repay it. Our government acted where others had failed to act. We fixed unfair indexation and reduced student debt, giving thousands of Braddon residents the chance to get ahead, not fall further behind. I've spent a significant amount of time at the Cradle Coast campus of the University of Tasmania, and I've spoken to students about what having that money back in their hip pocket means to them. And they are absolutely grateful. They say the difference that that makes to them into the future is really significant. That reform is already making a difference to household budgets, to confidence and to economic participation. I've spoken to many of these students, as I said, and they are grateful for that relief. Cost-of-living pressure also shows up every time someone walks into a pharmacy to fill their prescription. That is why we delivered cheaper medicines, a reform that is particularly important in regional communities with older populations and higher rates of chronic illness. As of 31 December 2025, Braddon residents have saved more than $10 million through cheaper medicines. That is a concrete, measurable outcome. It means fewer people skipping their prescriptions, fewer people delaying their treatment and better health outcomes right across the electorate. But health care is not just about affordability; it's about access. For too long, regional communities were expected to accept less when it came to health care. That is why the Albanese Labor government has made the largest investment in Medicare in its history, and Braddon is seeing the benefits of that investment. I'm really pleased that Braddon now has Medicare urgent care clinics in both Burnie and Devonport. These clinics provide bulk-billed care during extended hours, giving people an alternative to the emergency department for urgent but not life-threatening conditions. That means that families can get care across the weekends and out of hours in the evenings. They reduce pressure on our local emergency wards at the North West Regional Hospital and the Mersey general hospital, and they do so without cost to patients, because that is what Medicare is supposed to do. Bulk-billing more broadly is recovering because our government chose to act. It was in the June quarter of 2025 that the GP bulk-billing rate in Braddon was at 87.3 per cent. That represents thousands of appointments where people were not charged a gap fee—appointments that were accessible because we tripled the bulk-billing incentive for those who needed it most. Patients only needed their Medicare card, not their credit card. Those opposite let bulk-billing collapse, and we are rebuilding it through that initiative. When we talk about health care, we must also talk about mental health. Mental health care is health care, and, for too long, it was treated as optional or secondary, particularly in our regional areas. Under the Albanese Labor government, Medicare mental health centres have been delivered in both Burnie and Devonport. They are both open now. They're walk-in centres. They provide free walk-in mental health care without the need for a referral. The thing that I really like about these is that both of these services have peer support workers—people who have been through the difficult times. People who walk in can talk to someone who not only has experienced it but also provides that support. They are there for people in crisis, for those who are struggling with anxiety or depression and for those who need support before a situation escalates. They are reducing barriers to care, but they are also saving lives, which is really important. Taken together—tax relief, student debt reform, cheaper medicines, urgent care clinics, bulk-billing support and mental health centres—this is what delivery looks like. These are not theoretical benefits; they are policies that are improving the lives of people who live in Braddon right now. And, importantly, they reflect Labor's belief that regional Australians deserve the same quality of services and opportunities as those in our major cities. The Albanese Labor government does not see communities like Braddon as an afterthought. We see them as central to Australia's future. Our fiscal position matters, especially at a time when inflation, while having moderated significantly from its peak, remains higher than any of us would like. Importantly, in its statement in early February, the Reserve Bank did not point to government spending as a source of inflationary pressure. In fact, the RBA made it clear that the current pressure on inflation is coming from private demand. In the Statement on monetary policy, the RBA upgraded its near-term GDP outlook and explicitly attributed this to stronger private demand. They stated: The near-term upward revision is driven by private demand … and— The contribution of public demand to year-ended GDP growth has continued to ease in recent quarters, as expected. The data bears this out. In the year to September, annual private demand growth increased more than five-fold. Over the same period, annual public demand growth was less than a third of what it had been the year before. When we came to office, inflation was 6.1 per cent and rising rapidly. It is now significantly lower. Underlying inflation was almost five per cent, and it too has eased considerably. We recognise very clearly that people are still under pressure. That is why we are continuing to roll out responsible, targeted cost-of-living support, tax cuts for every taxpayer, relief from student debt, cheaper medicines and more bulk-billing right across the country—things like Medicare urgent care clinics, Medicare mental health centres, and opportunities for people to get help when they need it most and not have to pay for it. We on this side care about our communities and we care about our regional communities—communities right across the country like those in the electorate that I represent, the electorate of Braddon. 19:10 Mr CHAFFEY 316312 Parkes Today we're here in this place once again to talk about adding yet more money to a budget that is already weighing our nation down like a lead anchor. This isn't 20 bucks in a jar to put towards a bit of home maintenance; this is $12.7 billion that our nation can ill afford. This money is to fund the Albanese Labor government's last budget—a budget Australians rely on to be fiscally responsible, a budget Australians rely on to be carefully crafted to make the most of their hard-earned dollars and a budget that must take every cent into account. This is not a matter of objecting to the specific policies and programs that will be funded under this extra money; this is an objection to the carefree, last-minute, devil-may-care attitude to spending Australians' money. That is the real problem here. The coalition has taken the Labor government to task over this recently, with the Reserve Bank of Australia increasing interest rates to 3.85 per cent to deal with the rising tide of inflation. That rise will knock some first homeowners out of the running for their first home. It will add to the financial pressure so many Australian families are already feeling when they look at their rising power bills, their rising food bills, their water bills and all the many other expenses that are starting to pile up. What is Labor's response? 'It's not our fault.' The Reserve Bank governor begs to differ. She confirmed government spending had contributed to the latest interest rate hike—a truth that is cold comfort to a young couple in Broken Hill, Narrabri or Parkes who can no longer afford to buy their first home. We are already looking at the highest-spending government in 40 years outside of the pandemic. Thanks to the Albanese Labor government, Australia will soon hit $1 trillion in debt, with $100 billion added since they came to government. We are looking at an interest amount on that debt of $50,000 a minute. That's the equivalent of a possible house deposit in regional Australia going up in smoke every single minute. This is spending at a level most Australians simply can't comprehend. What could this $12.7 billion do in regional Australia? It could change lives in the electorate of Parkes, where parents remain on the waiting list for child care. Older Australians can't access aged care, and our underresourced police stations are struggling to deal with the rise of crime. What could $12.7 billion do in communities still waiting for progress on the Inland Rail? What could $12.7 billion do for Narrabri, which lost $7.5 million when the inland port was shelved as soon as those on that side of the House formed government? What could it do in Dubbo, which has had $20.6 million to fix damaged roads knocked back? The Lachlan Shire Council was denied $29 million for its roads, the Narrabri Shire Council was denied $21.5 million, and the Burke Shire Council was denied $14.9 million to maintain its road network. The hits just keep on coming for the electorate of Parkes and for regional Australia—and here we are again with the Labor government holding out their hands for more of your money. Where is the promise of caring for Australians, the promise for making things cheaper and—as promised at the last two elections—the promise to leave no Australians behind? My office has dealt consistently with troubled carers, parents and people with disabilities who no longer can receive that at-home visit that's needed from carers because this government has cut funding for travel for our most vulnerable people. Communications in the bush have gone backwards. We have heard over and over again of the increased problems with the coverage since the 3G network was shut down in October 2024 under Labor's watch. Many of those across the vast tracts of land in my own electorate of Parkes who have been lucky enough to get a bar or two of coverage have now lost it. The simple ability to get hold of someone during a time of emergency or for business purposes or simply to have a chat with one of your neighbours, for some of those who were fortunate to have it, now no longer exists. There are many more who are still waiting for certainty that their triple zero calls will be heard. I've heard from farmers, from travellers, from businesspeople and from parents of students that their telecommunications is not only substandard but non-existent. Once upon a time, you could stand out in a paddock and ring triple zero in an emergency. Now we have business owners in regional towns that need to walk out into their street just to access internet banking. What's happened to the Mobile Black Spot Program? It stalled under the Albanese Labor government. Where is our health care, where is our child care, and where is our aged care? In amongst all this spending, a person suffering a suspected heart attack in Broken Hill might not be able to get their local emergency department. I know this because I've heard from them. Red tape and lack of assistance for councils might be preventing someone in urgent need in Cobar from accessing aged care. I know this because I've heard from them. I've heard from the community, such as Coonamble, Narrabri, Bourke, Nyngan and Broken Hill, that regional Australia has a childcare desert. This is not rhetoric; it is the lived experience of many people in the Parkes electorate. Where are our urgent care clinics in the Parkes electorate, which covers more than half of New South Wales? There are none, zero, not one. There are problems with the urgent care clinic model. The model is making it tough for existing clinics. But in my electorate we have neither urgent care clinics nor any assistance for healthcare providers trying to find professionals to work in our remote areas. What about the much hype around fee-free TAFE? It fails to take into account the people in my electorate and regional Australia that may be required to travel up to four hours or even more to get to a TAFE building where there's a qualified teacher. Let's sum it up. Inflation is up. Interest rates are up. Big projects are at a standstill. We have problems with health care, child care, aged care, education, road funding, the National Disability Insurance Scheme, telecommunications and so much more. Now some of the areas of the Parkes electorate are heading into drought, and some of them are actually flooding as well at the moment. What assistance can our primary producers expect from the Labor government? Where is the support for our food and fibre producers who feed our country and many other nations through our exports, and where is the support for our struggling councils? The latest local government audit by the Audit Office of New South Wales reported problems with financial sustainability in a number of councils in my electorate. It said that Central Darling Shire had low availability of cash and was highly dependent on government grants that aren't there under Labor, Cobar Shire had insufficient revenue and was highly dependent on government grants that again are not there under Labor, and Walgett Shire had insufficient revenue and was highly dependent on government grants. They're still waiting. Local government in regional areas right across Australia are struggling due to our smaller populations, escalating costs and more and more demands on them to do the job previously done by other tiers of government. I don't see them here with their hand out for $12.7 billion. Some of that $12.7 billion, more than $2.9 billion, is for the cheaper home battery project. That adds up to about $7.2 billion in total over a four-year period. This cheaper at-home battery program was not in Labor's energy policy they took to the last election. There's no mandate for this program, yet $7.2 billion of taxpayer dollars will be spent over a four-year period. How many billions have already been ploughed into renewable energy? The Climate Energy Finance think tank says the Albanese Labor government and the Minns state government have committed about $76 billion of taxpayer money to climate and green energy spending over the past three years. That includes $19 billion on Rewiring the Nation, $7 billion on critical minerals production tax credits and $6.7 billion on hydrogen production tax credits. The Institute of Public Affairs has reported that, in 2024, out of Australia's 50 largest solar farms, only 28 per cent were entirely owned by Australians. Of the total subsidy paid, $1.2 billion was given to solar and wind projects that were foreign owned. These billions of dollars are going straight out of our country. The rationale seems to be that, if we sink enough funding into alternate energy, eventually something's going to go right. With all of that spending, you'd think we would be looking at cheaper power bills, but no—more spending, higher bills, spiralling costs and no energy certainty. I've said it before and I'll say it again: there is a cheaper way, there is a better way and there is a fairer way. Let's take a look at the events that followed in this place after that horrific Bondi terrorist attack. This was a heartbreaking day in our history and one that requires a response from cool heads. Instead, we got a panicked reaction that kicked out at Australia's legitimate gun owners. Labor estimated $1 billion for a gun buyback program would be enough. However, experts in this field say this cost could be more like $5 billion to $10 billion. This decision has been pushed through by the Albanese government with the support of the Greens without consideration of the massive cost to all Australians. I couldn't see that funding for the gun buyback program in the plea for more money within this bill. Not only is there a staggering upfront financial cost to this rushed decision-making; I'm hearing of the devastating impacts on small businesses in my electorate. These reforms could mean the ends of their small businesses. I've heard from struggling gun owners in Walgett, in Dubbo, in Moree and in Broken Hill. I quote from one of these family business owners: None of these changes stop or will ever stop what happened, but the government will never admit its own faults. It will only ever pass them on to people like me. We know the loss of any small business in a regional community can have serious impacts. The potential loss of these businesses has huge consequences not only to the suppliers but also to their consumers—another blow for regional Australia. Spending is needed—spending is needed in all of the areas that I've outlined—but this appropriation bill is a clear indication of poor planning, of spiralling spending in all the wrong places and of an out-of-control budget that continues to fuel the rocket of inflation. Debate adjourned. Federation Chamber adjourned 19:24