STATEMENT BY THE SPEAKER

2026-09-15 3 1 0 House of Reps 0 1

Tuesday, 15 September 2026

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

STATEMENT BY THE SPEAKER 1 STATEMENT BY THE SPEAKER International Day of Democracy 1 12:00 The SPEAKER 53517 Before I call the Leader of the House, I have a short statement to make to the House. Members, today is the International Day of Democracy. It's an opportunity to reflect on the state of democracy around the world and here at home in Australia. We are the 10th oldest democracy in the world, and this year we commemorate 125 years of federation and our parliament—an incredible feat. As Australians, we have much to celebrate as a nation with a proud history of democratic innovation. We are the best country on earth. As people elected to represent our communities here in the federal parliament, we have a responsibility to safeguard our democracy to ensure Australians have the knowledge, skills and access to reliable information to participate in the decisions that affect their lives. Today, I'm proudly wearing a 'Democracy Counts' pin to show my commitment to protecting Australia's democracy. BILLS 1 BILLS National Student Ombudsman Levy Bill 2026, Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Amendment (National Student Ombudsman Levy) Bill 2026 1

National Student Ombudsman Levy Bill 2026

Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Amendment (National Student Ombudsman Levy) Bill 2026

Reference to Federation Chamber 1 12:01 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I declare that, unless otherwise ordered, the National Student Ombudsman Levy Bill 2026 and the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Amendment (National Student Ombudsman Levy) Bill 2026 stand referred to the Federation Chamber for further consideration at the adjournment of the debate on the motion for the second reading of the National Student Ombudsman Levy Bill 2026. BUSINESS 1 BUSINESS Orders of the Day 1 12:02 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I declare that Federation Chamber order of the day No. 4, government business, Aged Care Legislation Amendment (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Aged Care Commissioner and Other Measures) Bill 2026, stands returned to the House for further consideration. Consideration of Legislation 1 12:02 Ms STEGGALL 175696 Warringah I move: That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the following from occurring immediately: (1) the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Voter Protections in Political Advertising) Bill 2026 being called on; (2) debate on the second reading of the bill proceeding immediately for a period of no longer than one hour; and (3) any questions required to complete passage of the bill then being put without delay. On this International Day of Democracy, we should remember that every seat in this chamber rests on a choice made by the Australian people. As you just now reminded us of on this International Day of Democracy, the importance of the information on which voters rely is so very important in this current day and age, even more so than previously. Australian people entrust us with their future, and we owe them an electoral process in which they can have confidence. That responsibility is becoming urgent, from the Victorian elections to the New South Wales elections within the next six months. Queensland, the Northern Territory and the ACT have elections scheduled for 2028, and, of course, the Australian Electoral Commission is preparing for a federal election in the period from August 2027 to May 2028—ironically, potentially within the next 12 months. Across those campaigns, Australians will confront an information environment that is rapidly changing at extraordinary speed. Australia lacks a national truth in political advertising laws to protect voters from misinformation and disinformation during election campaigns and also from AI generated deepfake content. Artificial intelligence can manufacture a candidate's words and voice. Their networks of bots can amplify a lie until it appears to be common knowledge. Increasingly, AI agents can coordinate that activity with limited human direction. The risk is that Australians make decisions about their future on the basis of events that never happened, statements that were never made and apparent community sentiment manufactured by people hiding behind a screen, often in foreign nations, which essentially amounts to foreign interference. Those threats cross electoral boundaries. This parliament must lead by putting effective protections in place for federal elections and referendums and encouraging stronger standards across Australia. That is why I moved this motion to suspend standing orders on the International Day of Democracy. It's to bring on debate without delay to ensure we have protections in place. The government has an opportunity to act while there is still time to prepare for the coming elections, and we should take it. I urge the House to suspend standing orders, to resume debate on the private member's bill that I presented and to then put the questions necessary to complete the passage through the House. The integrity of elections that put all of us in this place warrants parliamentary debate and a vote. Voters are left exposed to misinformation, disinformation and intentional weaponisation of deep fakes in our democratic elections. I've repeatedly asked the major parties to close this gap. Australians are protected when misleading advertising is used to sell them a product or service in the commercial environment. No-one disputes that that is some impediment of freedom of speech for commercial companies. Yet here we are, in the political space, and a different standard is applied. Overwhelmingly, Australian voters want this fixed. They want this change. They want all of us held to a better standard. They should be entitled to comparable protections when advertising is used to secure their vote. At a federal level, the existing prohibition primarily addresses deception about casting a ballot. It leaves a significant gap around factual claims used to influence a voter's choice. This does not mean impeding opinion. You can have opinion, but factual claims can be established. The government knows this. It has had ample opportunity to act. In fact Labor, in the previous parliament, tabled legislation to amend electoral communications but then chose not to bring it on for debate or a vote. There are so many examples around where this is important. I bring up the example of the previous member for Goldstein, Zoe Daniel, at the 2025 federal election. In February 2025, the National Anti-Corruption Commission concluded that no corruption issue arose from the referral that had been made about her. There had been no use of Commonwealth resources and the relevant conduct occurred without her knowledge or authority. This referral to the NACC had been done by an ex-member of parliament, a former Liberal member, and it was clearly politically motivated. Yet we saw billboards continuing to circulate in Goldstein, after the NACC had dismissed the referral, invoking the referral and knowingly casting doubt on her integrity. This billboard was authorised by the former Liberal member for Mackellar Jason Falinski without including that the referral had been dismissed with no proper basis for it to have been made. This is the weaponisation of an integrity process. A person can make a politically motivated complaint that does not establish wrongdoing and yet advertising that will significantly impact and influence voters can be freely thrown around with impunity as there is no legal recourse. If this were commercial, it would be stopped. So, the urgency is obvious. A correction after polling day cannot give voters back their opportunity to make an informed choice. AI and coordinated bot networks make that problem vastly harder to contain. ABC News Verify examined 370 images posted by 14 overseas-run Facebook accounts in a single week in support of Pauline Hanson and One Nation. Now if that is not foreign interference, I don't know what is. Genuine and AI generated images were combined with fabricated stories about Australian public figures. Australian voters are already engaging with this material. This month, Anthropic reported AI assisted influence operations using fake profiles and news sites, including campaigns, timed to national elections. The machinery for deception is being developed and deployed. Meanwhile, parliaments don't even have the courage to debate whether to respond. Suspending standing orders today will give Australia that opportunity. The research from the University of Southern California also demonstrated that, in simulated social networks, AI agents could autonomously co-ordinate political messaging, amplify one another and reuse successful content. Agents can manufacture the impression of consensus and make a false claim look credible through repetition. Nearly 10 years after the Cambridge Analytica scandal, we cannot allow a repeat of a deception event of this nature with more advanced technology available. We can't leave individual Australians to investigate every account, image, ad and voice that they encounter. Those commissioning and distributing political advertising must carry responsibility for its accuracy. The private member's bill—the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Voter Protections in Political Advertising) Bill 2026—that I call on for debate provides a practical framework to do that. It establishes enforceable rules against misleading factual claims, false endorsements and deceptive representations about who authorised and distributed electoral material. Politicians, parties, candidates and third-party campaigners would be covered. First, it establishes a political advertising standards board. It would sit within the AEC but be quite independent. This takes away any concern of the AEC commissioner being implicated in having to be the decision-maker. I am responding to the direct feedback of the AEC. It would bring judicial, legal or other specialist expertise to investigate breaches that require corrections, removal or withdrawal. Second, it introduces an enforceable ethical political advertising code. This is not brain surgery. This is not a fanciful idea. Every other area of advertising has a standards code applicable to it. Why is political advertising exempt? This ethical political advertising code should be introduced. Third, and probably most importantly, AI generated political content would require clear watermarking disclosure, including deepfake images and audio. Minor technical edits can be left alone, but, if it is substantially AI generated, it should be disclosed; viewers should be aware. I want to plead on this because, for women in politics, this is incredibly important. We face, more than anyone else, disproportionate online harm, including sexualised abuse and deepfakes. When intimidation drives women out of public debate, the whole community loses. In June, I asked the Prime Minister during question time when the government would act. He acknowledged the risks and dangers of AI and how it could change how politics operates and would consider these proposals. But here we are, within 12 months of the next federal election, and still nothing. Today, International Day of Democracy, is the day to act. It is an opportunity for the government to make good on its previous proposal and bring on a debate to ensure that we have protections for truth in political advertising. The SPEAKER 53517 Is the motion seconded? 12:12 Ms LE 295676 Fowler I second the motion. As the member said, and as you also mentioned, Mr Speaker, today is International Day of Democracy. The member for Warringah's Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Voter Protections in Political Advertising) Bill 2026 rests on a simple principle: that Australians deserve the truth when they are being asked to cast their vote. That should not be a hard question for our political leaders. The fact that it even needs to be made in 2026 is quite extraordinary. Our democracy depends on healthy, robust debate. It needs competing ideas and competing visions about who's best able to shoulder the responsibility of representing their community. But, for democracy to work and to thrive, what is put before voters must be honest. Too often, campaigns become a race to debunk claims that should never have been made in the first place. When the member for Warringah first introduced this bill, she shared stories of community independents being targeted by third-party campaigns during the 2025 federal election. I can tell this House that my community was also targeted. I found out, by chance, at the end of a prepoll day. Going home at night, I listen to meditation. I turned on my YouTube channel, and what did I see? I saw photos of me next to the then opposition leader, Peter Dutton, and the words 'a vote for Dai Le is a vote for Dutton'. There were many untruths in that ad. At prepoll booths, posters were displayed falsely claiming I was preferencing the Liberals over Labor. I did not preference anyone, but that mattered little. I gave my community a guide and I told them to number the boxes as they saw fit, because that is their right and choice. As a matter of fact, on the how-to-vote card Labor was above the Liberals, therefore that was already false—because, if the number was going downwards, I would have preferenced Labor before the Liberals. My team challenged the posters the day before the election. The wording was changed from 'a vote for'; it became 'a risk of'. It was still misleading but apparently close enough to be allowed. Social media advertisements kept running, and so did the targeted disinformation campaign aimed to confuse the people least equipped to test it. The member for Warringah and I represent very different communities in very different parts of Sydney with different challenges and vulnerabilities. That is precisely why I support this motion. If an effective disinformation campaign including AI generated material that people struggle to distinguish from the real thing has a damaging impact in one of Australia's most highly educated electorates, imagine the consequences in a community like mine in Fowler. For many of my constituents, English is a second language. Working out how to complete a ballot paper without support in their first language is very challenging already. It cannot also be a burden for them to work out whether what they read about a candidate has been fabricated. As the member said, it is our responsibility to make things simpler so that, when people cast their vote, they know what they're casting and who they're casting it for. In a community as rich and vibrant as Fowler, we cannot allow diversity to be exploited as a weakness. It is unacceptable for multicultural communities to be targeted through closed social media groups, which are often their only accessible source of news. As a proud democracy, we must do better than prove the mistrust right. The only way to do that is to start with the truth. This bill proposes that political advertising be truthful and factually accurate, that substantially AI generated content be clearly labelled and that an independent political advertising standards board be established to uphold those standards. This is not an extraordinary ask. It is a bare minimum. Australian Consumer Law already prohibits businesses from making false or misleading claims about a product. Surely we can extend the same protection to the foundations of our democracy. My message to the government is simple. Do not take the public for granted. Do not assume that a slogan repeated often enough is a substitute for earning someone's vote. I support the member for Warringah's motion so that this House can properly debate a bill that puts truth at the core of Australia's democratic process. As today is the International Day of Democracy, the least we can do is actually have a democratic process in this House and call on a debate and actually have a conversation and talk about what is truth and what can be used, especially during the campaigning period, where emotions are high and where members are trying to win votes but to win votes in an honest and democratic way. I really commend this motion to the House. 12:17 Mr CONROY 249127 Shortland I move: That the debate be adjourned. The SPEAKER 53517 The question is that debate be adjourned.

The House divided. [12:21]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

69 AYES Abdo, B. J. Ambihaipahar, A. Belyea, J. A. Berry, C. G. Briskey, J. L. Burnell, M. P. Burns, J. Byrnes, A. J. Campbell, J. P. Charlton, A. H. G. Chesters, L. M. Clare, J. D. Claydon, S. C. Clutterham, C. L. Coffey, R. K. Coker, E. A. Comer, E. L. Conroy, P. M. Cook, K. M. G. Cook, P. A. Dreyfus, M. A. Elliot, M. J. Fernando, C. J. France, A. A. Freelander, M. R. French, T. A. Garland, C. M. L. Georganas, S. 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. Khalil, P. Lawrence, T. N. Laxale, J. A. A. Leeser, J. Leigh, A. K. Lim, S. B. C. Mascarenhas, Z. F. A. McBride, E. M. Miller-Frost, L. J. Mitchell, R. G. Moncrieff, D. S. Neumann, S. K. Ng, G. J. Payne, A. E. Phillips, F. E. Reid, G. J. Repacholi, D. P. Roberts, T. G. Ryan, J. C. Scrymgour, M. R. Sitou, S. Smith, D. P. B. (Teller) Smith, M. J. H. Soon, X. Stanley, A. M. (Teller) Teesdale, J. A. Templeman, S. R. Thwaites, K. L. Urquhart, A. E. White, R. P. Witty, S. J. Zappia, A. 10 NOES Chaney, K. E. Farley, D. Haines, H. M. Le, D. T. (Teller) Ryan, M. M. Scamps, S. A. Spender, A. M. Steggall, Z. (Teller) Watson-Brown, E. Wilkie, A. D. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

BILLS 4 BILLS Customs Amendment (Safeguard Inquiries) Bill 2026 4

Customs Amendment (Safeguard Inquiries) Bill 2026

First Reading 4 Second Reading 5 12:25 Mr CONROY 249127 Shortland I present the explanatory memorandum to this bill and move: That this bill be now read a second time. The Albanese government supports free and fair trade. Since coming to office, we have repaired our trading relationship with China and signed free trade agreements with the European Union, the United Arab Emirates and the United Kingdom. We are a trading nation. Rules based trade is good for Australia and Australian jobs and households. But when trade is not fair, we stand up for Australian businesses and Australian workers, with evidence based processes that safeguard the national interest. We take action to ensure Australian manufacturing isn't hurt by unfair trade. We act, because we want a strong and resilient economy and a future made in Australia. Today I introduce the Customs Amendment (Safeguard Inquiries) Bill 2026. This bill represents an important step forward in creating fit-for-purpose national trade architecture for a complex and shock prone world. This bill vests responsibility for undertaking safeguard inquiries with the Australian Trade Remedies Commission (currently known as the Anti-Dumping Commission). The transfer is an important step in modernising Australia's trade remedies system. This will streamline Australia's trade remedies architecture. Australia's trade remedies system has not undergone significant reform in a decade. The turbulence of global trade and significant over capacity requires us to strengthen our trade defences. This is why the Albanese government has committed to strengthening and modernising Australia's trade remedies system—to ensure it is fit-for-purpose to address current and emerging trade challenges. Australia is increasingly at risk of import surges that threaten our domestic manufacturers. Safeguard actions are an important tool in maintaining our sovereign capability in response to such surges. Safeguard actions may be applied when a safeguard inquiry finds that there has been an increase in imports that is causing or threatening to cause serious injury to a domestic industry. The Customs Amendment (Safeguard Inquiries) Bill will give effect to the transfer of responsibility for safeguard inquiries from the Productivity Commission to the Commissioner of the Australian Trade Remedies Commission. This is a commitment that we made following the Economic Reform Roundtable. Better, more efficient regulation was a key area of consensus from the roundtables. Consolidating responsibility for all trade remedies functions within the Australian Trade Remedies Commission will better support Australian manufacturers and consumers through a single expert agency, while streamlining processes and improving regulatory efficiency. The bill will rename the Anti-Dumping Commission to the Australian Trade Remedies Commission to reflect the commissioner's broader remit. Consistent with our obligations under international law, safeguard actions can be imposed by the government if an inquiry objectively determines that an increase in imports due to unforeseen developments is causing or threatening to cause serious injury to an Australia industry. These measures serve as short-term 'emergency relief' to allow local producers to adjust to new market conditions and to defend Australia's interests. These measures support local businesses, giving Australian industries vital breathing space to adapt, restructure, or improve their competitiveness, in line with the international rules-based approach and Australia's overall open trade commitments. As occurs under the existing approach, in practice, industry representatives would write to government to apply for safeguard inquiries. The responsible minister can—if warranted—ask the commissioner to commence a safeguard inquiry and issue terms of reference for that inquiry. The bill establishes a framework for fair procedures for the parties involved and rigorous approaches in the conduct of safeguard inquiries. The bill ensures that the commissioner conducts inquiries based on evidence to establish if there has been an unforeseen surge in imports that is causing, or threatening to cause, serious injury to Australian industry. Given safeguard measures can impact on the economy, downstream industries and consumers, the bill introduces a legislated public interest consideration. This requires the commissioner to have regard to whether implementation of a safeguard measure is in the public interest before making a recommendation to the minister. To do this the commission will consider: the benefits to Australian industry in removing the identified serious injury or threat of serious injury; the economic significance of the industries in Australia that are affected; and the likely impact on the Australian economy, downstream industries and Australian consumers of government imposing or not imposing safeguard measures. Under the bill, as is currently the case, the commissioner must provide the minister with a report of the safeguard inquiry. The written report will then be tabled in parliament for transparency. The commissioner must also, subject to certain exceptions relating to confidential information, make public all material received as part of a safeguard inquiry. The Productivity Commission will continue to be responsible for safeguard inquiries that are in train before the commencement of the bill. This means that the existing safeguard inquiry on fabricated structural steel will remain with the Productivity Commission until completion. That inquiry will remain governed by the current laws and processes and not by this bill. In summary, this bill will create one specialist body in the Australian Trade Remedies Commission. It will comply with Australia's commitments to the World Trade Organization and the rules based trading system. It will provide stronger defences against sudden and unforeseen surges in imports by providing a single authority that can bring deep expertise to trade remedies—supporting Australian industry, our regions and a future made in Australia. Debate adjourned. BUSINESS 6 BUSINESS Rearrangement 6 12:32 Mr THOMPSON 281826 Herbert I move: That so much of standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the government business order of the day No. 12, relating to the Statute Update Bill 2026, being called on immediately. I don't think there is a more important thing to do in this parliament today than bring forward the Statute Update Bill for debate. Having a $5,000 cap placed on veterans' allied health services is a disgrace. This parliament and the Australian people should be able to hear what the government has planned for them. Right now we've got a minister that doesn't meet with veterans, a prime minister too afraid to sack an incompetent minister and veterans around the country having a cap of $5,000 placed on them. I want to read some of the messages that I've received. One says: 'I live with chronic pain, post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety and depression. I rely on ongoing treatment to manage these conditions. Under the $5,000 cap, I would have access to allied health treatment for only two months before I max out. What am I supposed to do for the rest of the year? I have wounds on my lower legs that were not responding to treatment. DVA told me I had to stop attending the Wesley Hospital wound clinic. I protested, but the decision did not change. After missing appointments at the wound clinic, my condition deteriorated. I contracted sepsis and came close to death. 'This is what happens when bureaucratic decisions get in the way of veterans and their treatment. I served for more than 20 years, including through the gulf and Iraq wars. I'm experiencing serious anxiety about these cuts. I just want assurance that the support I rely on to live will continue without disruption.' My office recently received a call from a veteran who was a breaking point because of the $5,000 allied health cap. During the call, he spoke about suicide. A veteran who had served this country was talking about taking his own life because he feared losing access to the treatment and support he relies on. This is the human consequence of poor policy from a government that's turned its back on veterans. Apparently, this bill was so important when it went to the Senate, before amendments were made, and now it's been kicked into the weeds—now no-one wants to talk about it. The Attorney-General takes carriage of this, with the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. But they're happy for this just to go away. Well, this won't go away. It's not going away. Veterans' lives are at risk. And, yesterday, to be gaslit by the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, who came in here and had the hide to read to me about safe language and how we shouldn't talk about suicides, was absolutely disgraceful. It's not him who carries the coffins. I carry the coffins. Veterans around the country will carry the coffins. This is incompetence from a minister out of his depth and laziness from a prime minister who should sack him. The Prime Minister and the Minister for Veterans' Affairs both came in here and spoke about all these fantastic changes that they're making. On one of these changes, they stood in front and openly misled. They were told only hours before that the 12 sessions to receive allied health care were actually up to the GP. Your GP could fill out a form—this form—and you wouldn't have to rely on those 12 sessions. It's up to your medical professional. The Prime Minister was told that. The Minister for Veterans' Affairs was told that. Yet, when asked in question time, they came in here and pointed to that, but they failed to mention the at-risk client assessment form used by GPs, your medical professional. They didn't want this on the record, because they were hanging their hat on a separate side of a policy. We're not actually debating or wanting to debate that process. We want to talk about and debate the $5,000 cap on veterans allied health care, because it shouldn't be there. It should be removed. It should be scrapped. You should scrap the cap. And if you're not going to scrap the cap, then the Minister for Veterans' Affairs should walk up to the dispatch box and resign. That's what should happen. Right now, this government—this lazy Labor government—is playing politics with our veterans. That's what is happening, and that should be absolutely condemned at the highest level. Our veterans have put on the uniform and served in combat, peacekeeping, humanitarian missions and on natural disasters. They are the people that we've turned to for help in our darkest days. Now, when our veterans are turning to this government to do the right thing, they are being abandoned; they are being let down; and they are being failed every single day that this is allowed to drag on. Veterans have travelled from all around the country to come to Parliament House to meet with their ministers. The first time they tried to get a meeting with the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, it was declined. The minister had a very important engagement at the Governor-General's house for some champagne and canapes for the address-in-reply. I can tell you now that there is nothing more important than a veterans' affairs minister meeting with veterans and listening to their concerns—not sitting back, rolling your eyes, folding your hands, throwing a tantrum and scoffing, and saying, 'Well, I could have been at the Governor-General's place today.' I don't care if you could have been at the Governor-General's reception. It doesn't matter. We have veterans that have flown here. We have veterans talking about their fear of their friends dying by suicide because of this cap. And they were gaslit by the veterans' affairs minister. Then, to try and mop it up, the Prime Minister says, 'I will meet with them now.' Well, sorry, Prime Minister; you have decisions to make. Those decisions are scrapping the cap and getting rid of an incompetent minister. I don't think they're too hard. I think it could happen right now. If the Leader of the House wants to stand up and confirm that we're going to scrap the cap today, by all means, he should do it. I know that the electorate of Herbert in Townsville is the largest garrison city. It has the most veterans per capita. It's where I served. It's where I deployed to East Timor and to Afghanistan, where I was wounded in combat and where I found myself in the darkest hole. The only way that I knew that I would get out was because I could get service to allied health care—the psychology that I needed, the physio that I needed, the occupational therapist that I had to see. My mates that I call brothers have been in that hole. Some never came out: Jesse Bird, Brad Carr—people that I lived with, people that I call family, people that I call brother. I attended those funerals. I talked to their mums, and I looked at them when they sat up there in the gallery, right before the royal commission was called. And I apologise that it took so long for this to happen. Not one veteran's life should be lost. Today we have this ability to get rid of something that will detrimentally hurt the veteran community. This $5,000 cap for our veterans is going to see them worse off. It's going to hurt them. It's going to hurt their families. We've already heard messages from people that said that they won't be a burden on their family. You know what that means? It means they have a plan. It means they won't be here because they don't want their families to see them at their worst—where they were. It doesn't matter what electorate you represent; when you're here, your job is to listen to, work for and deliver for the people you represent. That's your job. The people you represent—like the veteran, their family member, their loved one—are watching. They're watching how you act, they're watching how you vote and they're watching, hoping that you'll do the right thing. Today you have that opportunity. You have that opportunity to bring this bill forward. You have this opportunity to scrap the cap. You have this opportunity to tell the Australian people that 'lest we forget' are not just words. It is a commitment that we give to our veterans and our ADF personnel. Our ADF personnel are terrified. What happens when they get out? Caps get placed on their health care. We have a commitment to our people that serve, and we should honour them every single day. What is happening through a very incompetent Labor Minister for Veterans' Affairs is not honouring them. The Prime Minister should have got rid of the Labor Minister for Veterans' Affairs more than a couple of weeks ago, when the veterans met with him and complained about his poor actions and his treatment. I want to say one thing to our veterans. We will not stop fighting for you. We're in your corner. We will make sure we do everything we can to scrap this cap. This allied health cap of $5,000 shouldn't be there, and this government should be ashamed. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 249710 Is the motion seconded? 12:42 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina The motion is certainly seconded, and standing and sessional orders do need to be suspended. The vote that was taken yesterday on this very important amendment, which came from the Senate—it needs to be brought back into the House and it needs to be ratified. It needs to be put in place because our veterans deserve better. Last Thursday in the Senate, every non-government member voted in favour of scrapping the cap—35-20, a resounding result. And yet, when that amendment came to the House of Representatives yesterday, it was roundly defeated. I say shame on the government. Today is the International Day of Democracy. Yesterday was a day of infamy, and I'm not overegging it. It was absolute treachery. It was a day of shame, and we have trashed democracy by making sure that that amendment yesterday was kicked into the long grass, as the member for Herbert has just said—kicked into the long grass. Our veterans deserve better. When you have veterans of Australia with wall-to-wall opposition, when you have the Senate, the upper house of the Australian parliament, voting resoundingly to scrap the cap, why is it that the government—and government is formed in the House of Representatives—votes to have that particular amendment kicked into the never-never? We've got our public gallery full of young people. Thank you for coming to Canberra. Thank you for coming to parliament. Now, if those young people should one day decide to serve our nation, I hope the government of the day in the future looks after them when they give up that uniform—when they leave the Australian Defence Force and they return to civilian life. As it stands, on 15 September 2026, the government has put in place a policy that, from 1 July next year, there's going to be an arbitrary dollar figure placed on that service, on that noble duty that our veterans have performed. They have served. They have done what this nation asked them to do. That is simply not good enough. Tomorrow, the government, by the sounds of things, is going to go on this divestment crusade where they sell off 68 defence properties. On one hand, they're selling up defence properties, and, on the other hand, they're selling out our veterans. It's simply not good enough. When you actually look at the properties, we've got HMAS Cerberus. We've got Swan Island in Victoria, and we've got Fairbairn Golf Course in the ACT. What do you think they have in common? They've got golf courses. Those bases, those defence properties, have got golf courses. If it was Royal Marrickville, it'd be a different story, wouldn't it! It would actually be funded. It'd be preserved. It'd be protected. No, they're being sold off. They're being sold off because defence properties of heritage value—of defence tradition—are being sold off, and our veterans are being sold out by this government. It's simply not right. Yesterday—when the vote took place, the suspension of standing orders was moved and seconded, and passionate debates were brought forward—what do you think happened when the Minister for Veterans' Affairs and Defence Personnel was sitting in that seat that the member for Watson currently occupies? There were back slaps. I've not seen that since the carbon tax of 2011, the live sheep trade ban of 2024 and this year's budget. There were back slaps then too because this Labor government likes to congratulate itself when it does the wrong thing, and this is doing the wrong thing. It's doing the wrong thing not just by our veterans but by their families, and it's doing the wrong thing by our nation. Our nation deserves better. Our veterans certainly deserve better. A former Labor prime minister, Billy Hughes, said this. An honourable member An honourable member interjecting— Mr McCORMACK 219646 He wasn't Prime Minister at the time. I agree with that, but he was a Labor prime minister and let's not disparage him. He said: When you come back, we will look after you. That's what he said back in 1917, and it rings true today, whether it's World War I or the Afghanistan war. Mr Burke DYW He wasn't always with us. Mr McCORMACK 219646 It rings true today whether he was a Labor prime minister or he was a National Labor Prime Minister. It matters not. We should—as a nation, as a Commonwealth and as a parliament—look after our veterans, and we're not doing it unless we scrap the cap. (Time expired) 12:47 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I'll deal with a few issues. I'll deal with the issue in substance that the members have just referred to with particular respect for the member for Herbert for the incorporation of his extraordinary willingness to serve this country and the way that he has framed the discussion in those terms. If I can, on a tiny side note before I get into the substance—there was mention of Billy Hughes as a 'Labor prime minister'. Realistically, Billy Hughes ended up in every party except the party of the previous speaker. In answering the question 'why was the country party the only party you never joined?' his response was, 'You have to draw the line somewhere.' I only mention that because Billy Hughes was raised as if he was somehow a loyal Labor identity. He had an interesting time here. There is one other thing I would like to say, given that we are talking about veterans, before I get to the substance of the direct issue that's contained within the Senate amendment to a largely unrelated bill on what's been referred to in the speeches. A lot of this debate goes to the issues of people in this House and throughout all of Australia wanting to find the best way to show respect to our veterans. It's the first time I've had the chance in front of a microphone to express the level of solidarity that exists from every member of this parliament with the member for Canning and the horrific allegations that were made against him by a member of the other place. As Minister for Home Affairs, I work with people who wear our uniform. Obviously people think of Border Force, but the Commander of Operation Sovereign Borders is a member of the Navy, and the cybersecurity coordinator is a uniformed member of the Army, Lieutenant General Michelle McGuinness. We all talk about ourselves being in public service, and we are. But what people who wear the uniform and put themselves in harm's way do is beyond our level of public service—and so far beyond. The concept that anyone with the opportunities that we have, as civilian members of parliament, could think that somehow it is okay to use the word 'traitor' against somebody who has worn our uniform—who has decided that, in the interests of public service, they were so committed as to be willing to put their life at risk—should be beneath anyone elected to this place. I respect that we're here for a different issue, but I think most of us, if we get the opportunity, want to be able to make clear just how horrific that is. The member for Canning has been the shadow against me. We have no end of disagreements. But there will be never a moment where I or any decent Australian will have anything but the deepest respect for his service. Allow me then to go to the issue that's before us. First of all, the concept of there being a limitation on services to veterans before they have to go back and get a new referral is actually not a new concept. At the moment, the concept of having to go back to get a new referral is done in terms of number of visits. The proposal that the minister has been advancing is that, instead of it being done by number of visits, it would be done through an amount of money—a cost. The number of visits at the moment is 12, and after 12 visits somebody, if there is a further clinical need, goes back for a further referral. The proposal, which the government is continuing consultation on, is that another referral would be required after a $5,000 review point. The concept which has garnered a lot of public discussion is that having to go back for a further referral is something new. It is not. At the moment, it's based on number of visits, and the proposal for the minister is that, instead of it being 12 visits, if there was a further clinical need beyond $5,000, then another referral would be required. I respect the concept is out there, as it is in much of the public discussion, that there is a cap being introduced for the first time. There's anxiety that comes with that. But I just want to deal with both of those concepts. There is already a point at which a further referral is required, and it's based on the number of visits, not on the quantum of money. To have to go back to make sure that a further referral is given is in no way new. The second argument that's been put out there is that, in some way, the government is trying to save money with respect to veterans. Can I just say, the government's increased funding for veterans is in the order of $16 billion. Now, I'm not going to go through the different recommendations and the state of delays in dealing with veterans' entitlements when we came to office in any level of detail. But let me say, you don't save money by spending $16 billion extra. The concept that the government is somehow trying to save money is not accurate. The concept that there is not already a point at which someone has to go back for a further referral is not accurate. If the argument from those opposite is that we are better off with a number of visits being the point of referral, rather than the dollar value, then that's a policy argument to have, and I respect that. But I don't think either conclusion is necessarily or fairly framed as somehow being disrespectful to veterans. One is based, as the current system is, on the number of visits being 12. The other is based on the total cost of the referral over time then reaching $5,000. In each case, at the moment, when someone reaches 12 visits, they go and get a further referral, and they get more care as is required. That process, if someone were to hit the $5,000, would be the same. You'd get the further referral, and, on getting the further referral, more care is made available. The government has been delivering the services and supports that the veteran community not only needs but deserves. Since day one, we have worked to improve the lives of defence personnel. We've worked to improve the lives of veterans. We've worked to improve the lives of their families in Australia with significant funding increases for the simple reason that this not only was overdue but is what veterans deserve. The state of veterans support funding when we came to government required that we provide the extra funding. For anyone who looks at budgets, $16 billion is not a small amount, but can I say we don't hesitate in providing the extra funding for veterans. No amount of funding ever matches the extraordinary sacrifice that they have been willing to make for all of us. As a direct result of this government's additional DVA staff in the 2022-23 budget, we cleared the backlog that we had inherited. The backlog meant not the situation we're talking about at the moment, where someone would have to go back to a referral. A backlog meant: Was someone even getting the care to start? Did they even had the approval to start? So that's what we've been reforming to be able to fix, and it did need to be fixed. The government has continued to properly resource DVA so the funding for health care, the funding for support and the compensation that veterans need and deserve can get to them faster. The payment changes we've made have been the most significant payment increase for the allied health services that are provided to veterans in 20 years. The increase in fees paid to providers will expand the network of allied health professionals available to veterans. One of the challenges, of course, was: even after approval, could you find someone to give the care? Unless the expansion of funding for the services was provided, you had the delay. Then, after the approval, you had the search, and you still had those challenges. Against all of this, we just need to be aware that throwing allegations around, claiming that anyone in this parliament doesn't care about veterans, sends a message which I don't think anyone should send. For all of us, while we work out policy differences, the unity of this place in our commitment and respect for people who've worn our uniform should be a unity that we never put at risk. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 249710 The time for this debate has expired. The SPEAKER 53517 The question is that the motion be agreed to.

The House divided. [13:02]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

49 AYES Aldred, M. R. (Teller) Batt, D. J. Bell, A. M. Birrell, S. J. Buchholz, S. Caldwell, C. M. Chaffey, J. L. Chaney, K. E. Chester, D. J. Farley, D. Gee, A. R. Haines, H. M. Hamilton, G. R. Hastie, A. W. Hawke, A. G. Hogan, K. J. Kennedy, S. P. Landry, M. L. (Teller) Le, D. T. Leeser, J. Littleproud, D. 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. Ryan, M. M. Scamps, S. A. Sharkie, R. C. C. Small, B. J. Spender, A. M. Steggall, Z. Tehan, D. T. Thompson, P. Venning, T. H. Violi, A. A. Wallace, A. B. Watson-Brown, E. Webster, A. E. Wilkie, A. D. Willcox, A. J. Wilson, R. J. Wilson, T. R. Wood, J. P. 87 NOES Abdo, B. J. Aly, A. Ambihaipahar, A. Belyea, J. A. Berry, C. G. Bowen, C. E. Briskey, J. L. Burke, A. S. Burnell, M. P. Burns, J. Butler, M. C. Byrnes, A. J. Campbell, J. P. Chalmers, J. 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. Dreyfus, M. A. Elliot, M. J. Fernando, C. J. France, A. A. Freelander, M. R. 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. Khalil, P. King, C. F. King, M. M. H. Lawrence, T. N. Laxale, J. A. A. 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. Payne, A. E. Phillips, F. E. Plibersek, T. J. Rae, S. T. Reid, G. J. 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) Teesdale, J. A. Templeman, S. R. Thwaites, K. L. Urquhart, A. E. Wells, A. S. White, R. P. Witty, S. J. Zappia, A. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

13:06 Mr THOMPSON 281826 Herbert I seek leave to table the client assessment form for GPs. It wasn't the minister's fault, but, being wrong, there's no need to have 12 sessions to get a referral as a veteran; you can have your GP sign this and not get a referral for one year. The SPEAKER 53517 Thanks, Member for Herbert. You've indicated to the House what you'd like to table. Leave not granted. BILLS 11 BILLS National Student Ombudsman Levy Bill 2026 11

National Student Ombudsman Levy Bill 2026

Second Reading 11 13:07 Mr LEESER 109556 Berowra I rise to speak on the National Student Ombudsman Levy Bill 2026, and to also comment on the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Amendment (National Student Ombudsman Levy) Bill 2026. Let me start by talking through the coalition's position on these bills. The coalition does not oppose them. They are framework measures that establish the levy mechanism for the National Student Ombudsman. Before I get to the substance of the bills themselves, I want to spend a few moments on the framing. The context is important because the reason we're having this debate about a funding model for a student ombudsman is, quite frankly, the way the situation on campus has deteriorated over the last four years. That's why we needed the ombudsman in the first place; that, and that alone, is the reason. It's fair to say that this is not the minister's preferred framework. The preferred approach on the government's side is to suggest that the ombudsman is the inevitable product of long years of advocacy and reform. I read the minister's second reading speech with great interest. He spoke about the reasons he established the ombudsman: The National Student Ombudsman opened its doors in February last year. It has been a long time coming. Students and advocates had been calling for one for decades. The universities accord recommended that we establish one. The Action Plan Addressing Gender-based Violence in Higher Education agreed by all Australian education Ministers called for it too. And this government has acted. Let's check that, because the truth is messy and this government doesn't look as good as it would like to. It is true that there have been decades of calls for an ombudsman—not necessarily this ombudsman, but an ombudsman. It's true that this government eventually legislated with bipartisan support. But this ombudsman is not the ombudsman that was called for decades ago, and, if we're being fair, Labor has been just as active in blocking ombudsman proposals as we have been, and as they have been, in calling for them. It's true that this ombudsman responds in part to the national action plan for gender based violence, but it also responds to the remarkable post-COVID deterioration in our universities, on our campuses and in our cost of living. Indeed, the build of its powers and the overwhelming number of complaints relate to things unrelated to health and safety. That is what the ombudsman does, where it focuses its energy. The last annual report makes clear that of the 1,711 complaints the ombudsman had received, 95 per cent related to issues other than health and safety. They related overwhelmingly to course administration, teaching and learning, unmet academic requirement or misconduct matters, and fees and financial matters. As I said, the remarkable post-COVID deterioration in our universities, on our campuses and in our cost of living. The truth is messy. Let me spend a few minutes on this point. How did we get here? The history of advocacy on this point. It is true that, before the Australian Universities Accord final report recommended the establishment of the National Student Ombudsman as one measure to 'improve the overall student experience', the coalition proposed an independent student ombudsman to investigate and resolve student complaints, whether it be concerning student safety, deficient courses or a lack of enforcement of university policies. It's true that that recommendation was later included in the universities accord final report. But what about the response to the broader sweep of history the minister implied in his second reading speech? Do the calls go back decades? Well, as I said, there have previously been calls for ombudsmen. In 2001, there was a bipartisan recommendation in this place for a national ombudsman, after consultation with the states and national representative bodies on higher education. That proposal was opposed by the New South Wales Labor government at the time. And, in 2002, the proposal was also examined by Victorian Labor, who also opposed it. The Victorian review found no university supported the proposal, while all the student submissions supported it, and raised objections around duplication and other concerns. So much for that. In 2004, the idea was revived. The National Union of Students called for an ombudsman, but the ombudsman it called for was specifically designed to be a measure to support international students. In 2009, they repeated that call and even sought to expand it to all tertiary students—but again with a focus on international students. Let me read from the NUS proposal at the time. This is what the NUS said in 2009: … the NUS proposes that the ombudsman office be given authority to assist students with Student Visa Cancellation cases that are currently heard at DIAC and the Migration Review Tribunal with regard to breaches of academic progress and attendance (condition 8202), change of provider (condition 8206), satisfy visa requirements (condition 8516), notification of residential address (condition 8533), and the work limitation conditions of the student visa (condition 8501). As most student visa cancellation cases are for breach of condition 8202, this office would play an important role in ensuring all cases are appropriately dealt with. Instead of being a complaint handling centre, the ombudsman that the NUS called for was an advocate for international students in administrative review tribunals, the very same students whose visa rejections the government is quite properly now dealing with on the papers after it completely botched the establishment of the Administrative Review Tribunal. So is the government acting on those old NUS calls? Hardly. That is not the ombudsman we have now. It's far from it. And it doesn't stop there. In 2009, under the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government, the national student grievances project expressly examined the calls for a national student ombudsman. This is the Student Grievances and Discipline Matters Project final report to the Australian Learning and Teaching Council. That report was supported by Southern Cross University, University of Sydney and University of Technology Sydney. The report made no recommendations for or against a national student ombudsman. It expressly said there was 'less enthusiasm for a national student ombudsman among staff interviewees'. One of the recurring themes the national student grievances report listed in its findings was: … while internal university ombudsmen were generally supported, there was little enthusiasm for a national student ombudsman, particularly given the existing regime of state and territory ombudsmen. The general feeling was that that more effort should be put into improving internal processes. The report goes on to identify areas for further research and specifically states as follows: The third area relates to the idea of a national university ombudsman. In our conclusions, we did not express support one way or another, but our research does reveal that feelings about such a role are mixed. The main concerns expressed are that it will add yet another layer to the plethora of forums that already exist, both at Commonwealth and state or territory level. In fact, it wasn't until the Baird review a year later, led by former Liberal minister Bruce Baird, father of the distinguished former New South Wales premier Mike Baird, that we saw the institutional precursor to the ombudsman we have in place today. The design there was specifically intended to avoid overlap. The state ombudsman would perform a role for domestic students, with a national body overseeing international issues. The Baird review was the trigger that saw the shift to an idea of a national student ombudsman using the Commonwealth Ombudsman as its institutional home, exactly as is the case today. In fairness to my friends on the other side, the Gillard government backed in the Bruce Baird report. In 2017, it was the coalition that established the other institutional precursor, the VET Student Loans Ombudsman. So, when Labor implies it's responding to decades of advocacy by establishing this National Student Ombudsman, the problem is that they actually aren't. They're not implementing the old NUS proposal. In fact, they're building on a coalition legacy. Let me turn then to the issues of sexual violence on campus. We started to see this issue in response to student experience surveys starting in 2016 and then specifically the survey in 2021. These specifically raised widespread concerns. Those campaigns contributed to the push for better handling of complaints in the university sector. They continued to the establishment of this ombudsman. But, if we're being honest, that isn't the main focus of this ombudsman. Being fair to the government, gender based violence on campus is the focus of an entirely separate regulator, the Higher Education Gender-Based Violence Regulator, which sits within the Department of Education. But, as I said, if you look at the full suite of this ombudsman's powers and the way it spends its time, it is not focused on gender based violence. That brings me to the post-COVID period, because the real push for the National Student Ombudsman as we know it—a body with broad powers to deal with general complaints about universities—only really began in earnest in late 2022 and 2023 under the years of the Albanese government. The National Student Ombudsman that was legislated in 2024 doesn't exist because the government is acting on years of advocacy. That advocacy called for something different. The National Student Ombudsman doesn't exist wholly and solely because of the gender based violence concerns. That's part of it, but it's not the focus. As I said, health and safety make up around five per cent of the ombudsman's work on gendered violence, accounting for 28 of the 1,711 complaints made in the last annual report. Indeed, the gender based violence regulator, an entirely separate entity, is specifically focused on these issues. The National Student Ombudsman does not exist because of decades of Labor support. State Labor opposed it when the idea was first put forward on a bipartisan basis, and the institutional precursors come from Liberal leaders, not Labor internals. Instead, if Labor were being honest, the form and focus of the current National Student Ombudsman is a structural response to the remarkable post-COVID deterioration we've seen in our universities, on our campuses and in relation to the cost of living. The truth is messy. It doesn't fit the government's preferred narrative, but then these days it seems very few things actually do. Let me put some figures out around the post-COVID deterioration on our campuses. They are illuminating. The list is long, and there's no joy in it. It helps illustrate why we are seeing so many complaints, why there's a need for a body like the National Student Ombudsman. First, domestic enrolments have been falling. In 2022, there were 1.103 million domestic students at university. According to the most recent data, that number has fallen since Labor came to office. When Labor came to office, there were 1,102,757 domestic students enrolled in higher education. The last complete official data shows 1,086,789. It's the lowest number since 2019. Second, as we learned in the committee inquiry, the government cut funding for Commonwealth supported places by more than $1 billion in 2025 and 2026. They hid this in estimates variations. It didn't feature in their budget. Third, according to the Department of Education, since 2022, the student-to-teacher ratio has deteriorated. Meanwhile, administrative, technical and operational staff are growing rapidly in our universities. Between 2022 and 2025, the 'other staff' category—predominantly professional, administrative, technical and operational staff—grew by nearly 15 per cent. Teaching and research staff—the frontline of universities—grew by only around seven per cent. The university administrators are growing at twice the rate of the lecturers and researchers. This means taxpayers are paying for more bureaucracy and students are having to deal with bigger classes. Fourth, the 2025 Quality Indicators for Learning and Teaching Graduate Outcomes Survey recorded low graduate satisfaction of just 74.9 per cent. Undergraduate ratings for student support and services were just 71.2 per cent in both 2023 and 2024—the lowest on record since 2015. Fifth, polling from the universities themselves conducted by the Australian National University reveals that the proportion of Australians with 'quite a lot' or 'a great deal' of confidence in Australia's universities has fallen from 68.1 per cent in April 2023 to 62.1 per cent—a very significant collapse in public confidence in our universities. Sixth, this government has ripped the guts out of research at our universities—the same research that drives productivity. This includes cutting more than $2.3 billion out of university research through cuts to Australia's economic accelerator and abolishing the Trailblazers Universities Program, a program which saw co-investment by government and industry into research that reached more than $1.02 billion. It slashed our research capacity program by more than $920 million from when the coalition was in office. The effect of that cut is massively magnified in real terms because of the government's runaway inflation. On the government's own numbers, research spending in this country is projected to reach a 10-year low by 2029. Seventh, since Labor came to office, complaints by students and staff to TEQSA have almost quadrupled. There were 237 complaints in 2022 when the coalition left office. That increased to 386 in 2023, 718 complaints in 2024 and 942 complaints last year—increasing exponentially every year. Keep in mind that these are complaints to TEQSA, not the ombudsman. The safety data in those complaints is very bad. In 2022, there were 16 TEQSA complaints in relation to both gender based violence and other wellbeing and safety. The most recent figure is 76 complaints in relation to gender based violence, up from 16. Again, that's complaints to TEQSA, which are separate and in addition to the National Student Ombudsman. Eighth, we have had the spectacle of week after week of encampments and hate filled activity across our country, against our country and against Jewish Australians. This has led to extraordinary levels of racist abuse and hatred on campus, as measured by the Racism@Uni survey. This was, above all, against Jewish students but was also against other groups and stems from the basic failure of university leaders—a failure that they continue to marinate in, a failure to respond properly to the antisemitic hatred that has occurred since October 2023. When you don't step in and stop encampments targeting one group, you send a message that it's okay to target other groups. When you don't adopt a definition of antisemitism, you say it's okay to target other groups. When you fail to take leadership and properly investigate the levels of antisemitism going on in your classrooms, in your courses and against the students, you send a terrible message. This is how university leaders have failed. Ninth, more than half of Australia's universities dropped in world rankings in June of this year. Australia is on a downward slide in relation to school performance. Australia is on a downward slide in relation to university performance too. Tenth, we now have the burden of a massively overregulated university sector. Universities themselves are complaining about having to comply with more than 300 pieces of legislation and regulation. Based on a submission by TEQSA itself, there are now at least 15 different regulators and oversight bodies that the universities report to. Professor George Williams, Vice-Chancellor of Western Sydney University, has described it as a Frankenstein system with a thicket of regulation. That's Labor's record on universities. That's Labor's record on student opportunity—more red tape, more violence, more dissatisfaction, drops in rankings, drops in performance. And that's before we get to the ongoing scandals about overseas tutoring factories, the sector-wide failure to come to grips with AI and the way it threatens not only the integrity but the value of every degree. If one artificial intelligence agent can write the assessment and another artificial intelligence agent marks it, what exactly is the degree certifying? To come back to the Ombudsman with these factors in mind, is it any wonder that students want to complain? Under this government, they have lots and lots to complain about. Let me finish by addressing the substance of the bills before us. The first bill, the National Student Ombudsman Levy Bill 2026, establishes a levy on higher education providers to recover the operating costs of the National Student Ombudsman. The second bill, the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Amendment (National Student Ombudsman Levy) Bill 2026, which amends the TEQSA act, establishes the machinery for collecting that levy and makes payment a condition of registration. The bill leaves in regulations the amount, the calculation, the methodology, the indexation and exemptions to be prescribed. The guardrail in the legislation is that the minister must be satisfied that the effect of those regulations will be to recover no more than the Commonwealth's likely costs. This means that this framework legislation itself provides little clarity on how the levy will operate in practice. Detailed provider impacts will depend heavily on the regulations established by the levy formula rather than these bills. The justification is that this flexibility is required because costs will change over time, and that's fair enough. If the government produces a levy formula that is arbitrary, disproportionate or unfair to particular institutions, there are parliamentary disallowance mechanisms available to challenge it. We will scrutinise those regulations as appropriate when the time comes, and presumably there will also be grounds for administrative law challenges if the minister makes a decision that is unsound or disproportionate. The more salient point is about the shifting of the cost burden. In effect, these bills move the ombudsman from direct taxpayer funding to a cost-recovery model. Its ongoing operating costs of around $11 million a year would be funded by the higher education sector. It moves the burden from the taxpayer to the sector, and we will support it on that basis. This is an appropriate legislative change. But the broader point here is that there is a clear need for the ombudsman, and this parliament shouldn't forget that context, because there's no joy in that conclusion. I thank the House. Debate adjourned. STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS 15 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Franulović, Mr George 15 13:29 Ms LE 295676 Fowler Earlier this month I had the honour and privilege of attending the Father's Day Zabava with AHFG Lindo at King Tom Club in Edensor Park in my electorate of Fowler. We were there as a community to gather to pay tribute to a great man, George Franulović, who marked 40 years of dedicated service to the Australian Croatian Folklore Group Lindo . It was a surprise party for George; his community didn't let him know that they were there to pay tribute to the amazing decades of service that George has given to his community. George's journey with Lindo began when he was just eight years old, first as a dancer and then, as a young teenager, as a musician. Since then, he has given his time generously week after week through rehearsals, performances, community events and celebrations. His contribution has always been about service, generosity and a deep commitment to preserving Croatian music, traditions and culture for future generations. He is one of Lindo's longest serving musicians. George has done far more than just performing; he mentors young people, shares his knowledge and encourages the next generation to carry forward this important part of their heritage. I warmly congratulate George on his remarkable 40 years of service and thank him for his outstanding contribution to the Croatian culture in Australia. Middle East 15 13:31 Mr ZAPPIA HWB Makin Yesterday I visited the Wall of Tears banner that was on display on the front lawns of Parliament House. The banner lists the names and includes some photographs of the 18,457 Palestinian children killed between October 2023 and July 2025 by the Israeli attacks on Palestine. Around 300 more children have died since then. These were innocent children who had no role in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and whose lives were cut short in such a brutal way—just as were the 1,200 Israelis killed by Hamas on 7 October 2023. Other Palestinian children who survived the bombings and shootings have undoubtedly been left with lifelong psychological and even physical injuries. The banner is a sad reminder of the levels of Palestinian human loss, suffering and daily violation they endure while much of the world looks away, perhaps weary from decades of conflict. Palestinians continue to live as oppressed people, having their homes and land taken from them by ever-encroaching illegal Israeli settlements. Around the world, people are increasingly condemning the Netanyahu government and calling for international responses. A two-state solution is the best prospect for peace between Palestine and Israel, but there will be diminishing hope of achieving that if the Palestinians are driven from their homes or left with no land to call home. Kooyong Electorate: Community Events 15 13:32 Dr RYAN 297660 Kooyong Last weekend I attended three Mid-Autumn Festival events. On Saturday, I attended the Melbourne Taiwanese Chamber of Commerce's Moon Festival. The 34th anniversary of this popular community event attracted more than 25,000 people. Thank you to Mr Terence See for organising a wonderful celebration. On Sunday, Mr Jimmy Ji and the Hubei Association of Australia presented a fantastic multicultural celebration in Box Hill, and Ms Julia Fu and the committee of the Chinese Seniors Cultural Association held a wonderful Mid-Autumn Festival event at the Hawthorn town hall. Falling on the 15th day of the eighth month in the Chinese lunar calendar, when the moon is brightest and full, the Moon Festival celebrates harvest and family unity. The round moon and the round mooncakes symbolise completeness. Wherever we are, we share the same moon. For families in Kooyong with relatives in Taipei, Shanghai, Hanoi, Hong Kong, Kuala Lumpur or Seoul, the moon that they see over Melbourne is the same that their parents and their relatives will observe. It was a great privilege to join these mid-autumn celebrations with members of the Kooyong community—Zhongqiu Jie Kuaile. Trinity Gardens Bowling Club 15 13:33 Ms CLUTTERHAM 316101 Sturt Last Saturday provided absolutely spectacular weather in Adelaide, perfect for the launch of the summer season of bowling at the Trinity Gardens Bowling Club. Hosted by club patriarch Ray Thompson, the afternoon was an opportunity to connect, celebrate the club's almost 90-year history and get some physical exercise in the beautiful sunshine. I was privileged to participate in the first bowl of the season to kick things off. My attempt had too much juice on it, and it sailed off somewhere across the green. But it didn't matter, because, at the Trinity Gardens Bowling Club, it's actually just about participation and having a go. Believe me; players want to win for their club during the pennant competition, but, on Saturday, talent—or lack of it, in my case—didn't matter. It was also excellent that two of the club's oldest players—Bob, who recently celebrated his 100th, and Mario, who is aged 102 and who Bob told me he has been trying in vain to catch—came out and had a bowl. Older than the club itself, Bob and Mario illustrate that you are never too old to participate in your community. Lawn bowls, because of its gentle and accessible nature, is the perfect sport for Bob and Mario. The club has grown in recent years, and this year it will be fielding three teams in the pennant competition. I wish Ray, Bob, Mario, Margaret, John, Hank and Michael and all of the players a happy and successful season. Mackellar Electorate: New South Wales Volunteer of the Year Awards 16 13:35 Dr SCAMPS 299623 Mackellar I recently had the pleasure of celebrating our wonderful volunteers on the Northern Beaches of Sydney at the 2026 New South Wales Volunteer of the Year Awards. Now in their 20th year, the volunteer awards recognise the work of individuals and volunteer teams from a diverse range of organisations across the state. The Northern Beaches is lucky to have over 36,000 compassionate and passionate volunteers who dedicate their time to supporting our community, whether it's fostering connection, fighting fires, repairing toys, mentoring or saving lives on our beaches. Our volunteers are the heart and soul of our community. Congratulations to all the Northern Beaches nominees and awardees, including Mel Kypri, the founder of Mowana Safe Space and the 2026 Northern Beaches Volunteer of the Year; Tilly Cooper, the Young Volunteer of the Year; Kerry Gleeson, the Adult Volunteer of the Year; SES commander Christian Young, Emergency Volunteer of the Year; and Warrior Woman Foundation Wise Women Mentors, the Volunteer Team of the Year. Thank you all so much for your service, your compassion and your support for so many within our community. Racism 16 13:36 Ms KARA COOK 316537 Bonner Racist, hateful, divisive, dangerous—these are just some of the words used to describe One Nation and its politics. In recent days, horrific comments by Senator Pauline Hanson have resurfaced. Her words are not merely ignorant. They are dehumanising, they cause real harm and they have no place in our parliament or our country. I recently travelled across Queensland as part of the parliamentary inquiry into racism, hate and violence directed at First Nations people. We heard from elders, young people, families, health professionals and community organisations. Their evidence was confronting and heartbreaking. We heard how racism reaches into our health care, education, workplaces, public spaces and the online world and how reporting systems remain fragmented, inconsistent and culturally unsafe. In direct response to this evidence, the Albanese Labor government has invested $2 million in Call It Out, the First Nations racism register. It provides a simple and secure way to report racism, expose its prevalence and build the evidence we need to drive systemic change. More than 700 submissions have been made to our inquiry, and the final report will be delivered in the coming months. To everyone who trusted us with your story, thank you. We will not answer racism with silence. We must name it, we must report it, and together we must call it out. Maranoa Electorate: Tourism Industry 16 13:38 Mr LITTLEPROUD 265585 Maranoa This morning, the community of Stanthorpe won the top tiny town tourism award, nationally, for our country. It's a great achievement for the little town of Stanthorpe. It has over 5,000 people and is 2½ hours from Brisbane. It shows the importance of tourism for our communities in an electorate that relies on agriculture. When the weather goes against us, we need the tourism industry to continue to be able to prosper, and the community of Stanthorpe has done that. We've got one of the finest wineries now in the country. We talk about the Barossa and the Hunter. Well, the Granite Belt is coming home strong. It's the new kid on the block, and I'd encourage everybody to get to Stanthorpe and try the new wines. In fact, it's Halliday Award winning wines that we've got at Ballandean Estates and Balancing Rock. And now we've got new ones like rokkwell, Dear Vincent and even Ravenscroft, where we've got young producers coming out, giving a tourism experience for people in South-East Queensland to come out into western Queensland and to actually experience a first-class product. To win this award speaks volumes about our local community on the Southern Downs, whether it is the apple and grape festival that they have every two years, which brings tens of thousands of people to Stanthorpe, or whether it's the accommodation that has continued to be invested in, in our community. It diversifies our economic base, and it says to the rest of the country that regional Australia and the tourism in regional Australia is first class and should be supported by us all. Congratulations, Stanthorpe. Parliamentary Representation 16 13:39 Ms MASCARENHAS 298800 Swan Australians should ask themselves a simple question: what kind of country do we want to be? A kid called Anthony grew up in social housing with his mum, Maryanne, a single mother living with a profound disability. She didn't have wealth. She didn't have power. But she had kindness. She had generosity. She did what millions of Australian mums do every day. She gave her child the best shot that she could. And you know what? That child became Prime Minister of Australia. How bloody awesome is Australia? What's interesting is that Pauline Hanson's folks ran a milk bar in Brisbane and raised seven kids. These are two real Australian stories of hard work and perseverance. That's why Hanson's attack on Maryanne is bigger than an attack on our prime minister's mum. It's an attack on the whole idea of what Australia is, which is that, no matter where you come from, what your parents have, you can make it in this country. Both of these families raised kids who ended up in parliament. That's something that we should be proud of. It's a testament to the kind of Australia that we can be and we should be, where hard work, not wealth, can get you elected and maybe even make you Prime Minister. Albanese Government 17 13:41 Ms LANDRY 249764 Capricornia Australians were promised lower costs, greater certainty and honest government. Instead they have seen broken promises, backflips and a growing gap between what this government says and what it does. Before the election, Australians were promised power bills would be cut by $275. That promise has not been delivered. We heard 'my word is my bond' on stage 3 tax cuts, only to see that those tax cuts changed. Australians were told negative gearing would not be touched, yet changes followed. Now we have serious questions surrounding the Prime Minister's links to the Marrickville golf club. More than $6 million in taxpayer funding was promised to the club through Labor's invitation-only grants program. We then learned the Prime Minister was an honorary member, a fact that was not declared on his register of interests. The Prime Minister says he did not know about the honorary membership, yet in 2019 he publicly spoke about visiting the club for decades. Australians can draw their own conclusions. Australians are seeing a pattern. Promises are made before elections, but too often they are changed afterwards. Whether it's power prices, tax policy or other commitments, Australians are entitled to expect their leaders to say what they mean and mean what they say. People in communities like Capricornia know when they've been told one thing and they're seeing another. Australians remember the promises that were made. They know what they are paying at the check-out, at the bowser and on their power bill, and they can decide for themselves whether this government has delivered what it promised. Federal Election 17 13:42 Dr GARLAND 295588 Chisholm Today is the International Day of Democracy, and I believe that defending our democracy is the job of everyone in this place and everyone who aspires to be in this place. Sadly, I've been thoroughly appalled, as has my community, by attempts over the last few elections to undermine our proud system. My wonderful electorate of Chisholm was confronted with misleading signs in AEC purple at the 2019 election. In 2022 we saw some terrible behaviour which led to the AFP attending prepoll booths regularly. In 2025 we saw a disgraceful assault on our democracy through the swarming on our beautiful community by members of the far right and the Exclusive Brethren. I was personally attacked by notorious characters almost daily. But it is on the behalf of the voters and volunteers that I am so upset by the conduct at that election in 2025. People who want to contribute to our country were subjected to vile abuse and intimidation. I witnessed voters distressed, relentlessly harassed, when they were simply trying to exercise their right to vote. I am so pleased that the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters is making it their business to pursue this horrible undermining of our democratic system. I add my voice in supporting the upholding of the Australian values of respect and integrity in our democracy. Happy International Day of Democracy to you, Deputy Speaker Claydon. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 Thank you. Member for Berowra. Berowra Electorate: Roads 17 13:44 Mr LEESER 109556 Berowra Last week we found out that the Prime Minister's favourite local golf club received more than $6 million through Labor's electoral slush fund. The grant was supposed to deal with sewage, but the stench remains. While Labor's going around splashing cash on its favourite mates, people in my electorate are missing out on vital infrastructure under Labor. New Line Road is the worst bottleneck in my electorate. It's the main link for communities north and west of Pennant Hills Road, and its congestion is getting worse by the day. The Labor government now plans to build thousands of additional homes around the Cherrybrook metro precinct. This means even more pressure on a road that local residents already describe as dangerous and unfit for purpose. When we were in government, I secured $10 million from the federal coalition to plan for the widening of New Line Road. The former New South Wales coalition government then committed $70 million to widen the road between Hastings Road and Purchase Road. Then Labor came to office and shelved the project. Our community has waited long enough. If Anthony Albanese can fund millions of dollars for a golf club, he can help fund a road used by everyday families across my electorate. The Albanese government should put money on the table and help get this project moving. Before thousands more homes are built in Cherrybrook, the infrastructure has to be ready. New Line Road has to be widened. The people of Cherrybrook, of Dural, of Glenorie and of the suburbs north and west of there have been waiting half a century. It's time to get this done. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 I'm just going to remind the member for Berowra, though I didn't interrupt you there, that the use of personal names is really out of order in these speeches. It's creeping in, and I'm not going to allow it in future. Federal Election 18 13:45 Ms CAMPBELL 312823 Moreton I've spent almost my whole adult life working on election campaigns—directing campaigns, handing out how-to-vote cards, knocking on doors and organising volunteers. But, in 2025, we saw something new. We saw something different. In evidence presented to the electoral matters committee, what we have seen is abhorrent behaviour, what we have seen is intimidation, and what we have seen is harassment. In recent media reports, there have been allegations that the Brethren took secret money from Neo-Nazis to track, to follow and to target political figures—not just any political figures; the opponents of the Liberal Party. Today, on the International Day of Democracy, what that means is that the coalition has serious questions to answer. What did they know, and when did they know it? Did they know about secret payments? Did they know about undeclared third-party assistance from the Brethren? Did they know about physical threats? Australians deserve the answer. Albanese Government 18 13:47 Ms McKENZIE 124514 Flinders If hypocrisy were taxable, this Prime Minister would get the budget back into surplus in a flash. Under this Prime Minister, there are two sets of rules: the ones that apply to you and me; and the ones that apply to Prime Minister Albanese. Take housing. The Prime Minister has bought up big and negative-geared a number of properties. Good on him! But it's now a choice he denies all other Australians. Take health care. The Prime Minister tells you that Australians have never had a better friend in health care than his government. And yet, in my electorate, 33,500 older Australians will be facing hundreds of dollars more in their private health insurance costs. Apparently, older Australians now need to make even greater sacrifices, but not Canberra, because every single minute another $50,000 is being added to the interest bill of this government! And what about when it comes to defence? The Prime Minister tells us that national security has never been more important in this country, and at the same time he wants to flog off a huge portion of HMAS Cerberus in my electorate, the cradle of the Navy, in Crib Point, where roughly 6,000 sailors and triservice personnel get their start in the ADF each year. Our small businesses are constantly told to absorb yet another cost, another regulation, another hit, to their bottom line. More sacrifice for you, higher costs for you, more rules and red tape for you, and, all the while, the Prime Minister gaslights Australians, telling them they've never had it better. Federal Election 18 13:48 Ms BELYEA 309484 Dunkley Today is world democracy day, and it is a timely reminder that 72 per cent of the world's population lives under autocratic rule. Here, in the greatest democracy in the world, we should never take our democracy for granted. That is why the conduct involving the exclusive Brethren during the 2025 election is so concerning. The exclusive Brethren intruded in our democratic process through intimidation and coercion. Democracy depends on free and fair elections where every person can exercise their right to vote without undue influence. The Exclusive Brethren profess Christian values of honesty, integrity, humility, respect and care for others. Yet many of the behaviours reported during this election appear inconsistent with those values and raise legitimate concerns about the appropriateness of their conduct. Candidates, volunteers and voters should not be threatened and intimidated in our democracy—not now, not ever. The Liberal Party described the Brethren as a support group. Australians deserve greater transparency about the nature of the relationship and the roles these individuals played in the election campaign. At a time of global democratic backsliding, our democracy is too precious to be threatened by exterior groups. Albanese Government 18 13:50 Mrs McINTOSH 281513 Lindsay Happy International Day of Democracy! We have the best democracy in the whole world. In a democracy, Australians get to have a say. Australians can forgive a government for making a mistake, but they will not forgive a prime minister who has one standard for himself and another for everyone else. That is about integrity. The Labor government promised transparency. Labor promised a different kind of politics, a kinder kind of politics, so let's apply that standard. I think all politics start locally. In my community, Labor promised to fast-track a major infrastructure project called Dunheved Road. In fact, the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government came into my electorate and said that road would get done 'super fast'. It was promised in 2019. We are now in 2026, and that road—guess what? It hasn't even started. It's not even on the cards in the near future. Labor promised noise insulation for families across Western Sydney underneath the new airport flight paths. Three years later, how many completed installations have occurred? Guess how many—zero. There have been no installations of noise insulation for my electorate. This is not complicated. If you demand transparency, be transparent. If you demand accountability, be accountable. If you make a promise to the Australian people—whether it's lowering power bills by $275; saying that you only need a Medicare card, not your credit card when going to a doctor when it's very clear you need both; or whatever you're saying to the Australian people—tell the truth and have no double standards. Australians see right through it. Federal Election 19 13:51 Ms BERRY 23497 Whitlam As we mark the International Day of Democracy, it's important to reflect on the experiences of Australians participating in elections. During the 2025 federal election, I witnessed conduct at polling booths that does not belong in a free and respectful democracy. Elections should be conducted in a manner that allows every Australian to vote without intimidation, pressure or undue influence. Of particular concern was the behaviour associated with Liberal Party campaigning at many polling booths. In my electorate, booths were aggressively overrun with Liberal Party campaign workers and materials, creating an environment that many voters found intimidating and overwhelming. I observed people with sensory issues visibly distressed by the experience, and I witnessed voters with observable cognitive impairment being told how to vote. As a female candidate, I also experienced and witnessed inappropriate behaviour towards women. It was directed at myself and other female booth workers. Such conduct has no place in Australian public life. While volunteers from most parties and independent campaigns conducted themselves respectfully, the behaviour that caused concern was largely associated with Liberal Party booth operations involving members of the Exclusive Brethren. Their conduct and approach was out of step with what we all expect during elections. Voting should be a positive and empowering civic experience. It's vitally important that every Australian can participate in elections with confidence, freedom and a sense of fairness. Veterans: Health Care 19 13:53 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina Across the world today we celebrate democracy. We mark the International Day of Democracy. Yesterday, in this place, we trashed democracy. When the amendment came back from the Senate in relation to scrapping the cap, 86 to 46 was the vote. Over in the upper house it was 35 to 20 last Thursday to scrap the insidious, unfair, unjust and un-Australian cap on our veterans—a $5,000 figure placed on their allied health, on their physical health and on their mental health. This is simply not good enough. Yet, when the vote came into the House of Representatives, there was a 40-vote difference. You know what? Veterans across Australia will have a look at who voted to not scrap the cap and they'll remember. They'll remember it on 11 November. They'll remember it on 25 April. But you know what? They'll remember it next election day; they will remember. When we say the words, 'Lest we forget', we should not just have those words as a throwaway line; they should actually mean something. Labor had another chance today. It's time to scrap the cap. It's time to respect veterans' noble and courageous duty. Federal Election 19 13:55 Ms SITOU 298121 Reid My family has never taken our democracy for granted. My parents grew up in a country where they didn't enjoy the freedoms we have in Australia today. They know what it means to live without the right to speak freely and the right to vote. That's why they love Australia so much, and it's why we all have a responsibility to protect our democracy. It's more than casting a ballot; it's about making sure every person can exercise their right to do so freely and without intimidation. At the last election, I saw behaviour that undermined those principles. In my electorate, members of the Exclusive Brethren were handing out for the Liberal Party. I witnessed an unprecedented influx of campaigners, aggressive behaviour and harassment, and some voters told me they were intimidated. There have been disturbing allegations that the Exclusive Brethren may have recruited Neo-Nazis to harass people at the election. That is not what voting in Australia should ever look like, and the Liberal Party need to explain why they've chosen to undermine our democracy. Our democracy is precious, should be nurtured and should never be a plaything for the Liberal Party to toy with. Manufacturing Industry, Energy 20 13:56 Mr TEHAN 210911 Wannon Yesterday was a harrowing day for the steelworkers at Whyalla. Over 600 of them were told that their jobs no longer existed, yet that night they had to put up with the Minister for Climate Change and Energy going on 7.30 and absolutely gaslighting Australians. This is what he had to say: 'I never quite bought all the hype on green hydrogen.' But he held it out as the green dream that was going to save their jobs. And what happened? Six hundred people and their families today are facing absolute uncertainty. What do you think the energy minister has done to help try and secure those jobs? Absolutely nothing. You've got the hardworking local member here fighting for them, trying to get them their jobs back, and what the energy minister is doing is completely gaslighting them, coming up with statements like his green energy dream was going to deliver them jobs, when all it did was give them false hope. Shame on you! Migration 20 13:58 Mr FRENCH 316550 Moore Tim Minchin has a very clever song called 'Prejudice'. The joke is that prejudice looks pretty ridiculous when you change who it is aimed at. In my family, that is easy. There are seven of us. Five of us have red hair; my mum and I are the only non-gingers. I grew up in what One Nation might call an unsustainable level of ginger migration. We were completely overwhelmed, yet somehow civilisation survived. We didn't introduce a ginger cap. We didn't decide the correct number of redheads was zero for three years. That is the problem with One Nation's new migration policy. They have started with the answer: net negative migration. Australia needs controlled and sustainable migration, but migration policy should respond to what Australia actually needs—housing, infrastructure, workers and economic capacity—not working backwards to make it fit. A number is not a policy just because you say it loudly enough. If you build an economic policy around a number, eventually someone will ask you to explain it. When asked, the member for New England seemed to suggest that that required supernatural powers. Well, he is not the Messiah. He is just a very naughty boy, because nobody was asking for a miracle. They just wanted him to do the maths, and apparently that remained a problem. If your answer to economic scrutiny is to stop listening to economists, that is an economic policy. If the numbers fall apart under scrutiny, the problem isn't the scrutiny. The SPEAKER 53517 In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 20 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Whyalla Steelworks 20 14:00 Mr VENNING 315434 Grey My question is to the Prime Minister. In February last year, the Prime Minister came to Whyalla and promised workers that his government's $2.4 billion bailout package would provide certainty for the future of the steelworks. Yesterday, the blast furnace was permanently closed. More than 600 jobs were lost, and after 19 months there is still no buyer. Prime Minister, why is Labor spending $150 million on luxury beachside climate talkfests for politicians, bureaucrats and activists in Fiji but only able to stump up $10 million for workers in Whyalla? Honourable members Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The member for Hunter and the member for Perth will cease interjecting. Order, Member for Casey! 14:01 Mr CONROY 249127 Shortland I thank the member for his question about what is really distressing news for the people and workers at Whyalla. I'll start by a simple, fundamental point: we won't be lectured about support for manufacturers and workers by those over there. We won't be lectured by those over there about support for workers. Honourable members Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The minister will pause. The Manager of Opposition Business? Mr Tehan 210911 A point of order on relevance. The question said nothing about the opposition— The SPEAKER 53517 Okay, resume your seat. I know, but—order! Just resume your seat. The minister was responding to a wall of noise that he was receiving from the opposition. I'll ask the minister not to be provoked, but I'll also ask the opposition not to interject. This is what happens. So, everyone: ask the question, and then we'll hear the answer. The minister will return to the question. Mr CONROY 249127 I thank you. The Albanese government understands the serious operational challenges faced by administrators who've been working hard to restore operations of the blast furnace at Whyalla steelworks. The administrator, KordaMentha, have announced that efforts to restart the blast furnace over recent months have been unsuccessful. And that's really awful news for the community and anyone passionate about steelmaking. The truth is that years of failure to invest in the steelworks by the previous owner have resulted in the blast furnace being beyond repair. But those opposite would ask us to ignore the laws of physics and workplace safety. Let's be very frank about this. I'm going to be very frank with the chamber. The Gupta Group had a responsibility to the workers of Whyalla Steelworks and failed them. This is entirely Gupta's fault and a lack of maintenance under his ownership. This is the truth. This blast furnace had been neglected for almost a decade. Anyone who understands steelmaking understands that blast furnaces require regular maintenance, and it's been very clear that, under the Gupta group, this had not occurred. Now, we stepped in with the Malinauskas government to try and save these steelworks. That's why we allocated almost $3 billion to work hard to save the future of steelmaking in South Australia. Now, the first stage, around restarting the blast furnace, was not successful, because of the years of lack of maintenance. But we still have two bidders interested in continuing steelmaking at the facility, and we're working very hard in conjunction with the South Australian government to secure this future. We will continue to stick up for the workers and the community of Whyalla—rather than those on the opposite side, dancing on the grave of the blast furnace, which is what they're trying to do right now. We won't be lectured by those who shut down the South Australian car operations, those who shut down two naval shipyards in this country and those who allowed three oil refineries to be shut down. We'll continue to fight for the future of Whyalla. We'll continue to fight for the future of those workers. We'll continue to fight for the future of steel in this country. We won't be lectured by those who use workers as a hi-vis prop, rather than looking after them. The SPEAKER 53517 Order! There was far too much noise during that answer. I think everyone can agree with that. I ask all ministers to temper their language, and I ask all members to cease interjecting when people are on their feet. I don't want to take action today, but, if this continues, there'll be consequences for actions. Australian Defence Force: Recruitment 21 14:05 Ms LAWRENCE 299150 Hasluck My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister. Why are more Australians choosing to join and stay in the Australian Defence Force under the Albanese Labor government? How is this investment putting defence recruitment and retention back on track? 14:05 Mr MARLES HWQ Corio I thank the member for her question and acknowledge her service in the Australian Army Reserve. In the last financial year, 8,100 young Australians enlisted in the Australian Defence Force. This now takes the size of the full-time force to 64,000, the largest that it has been in a quarter of a century. I really want to acknowledge the Minister for Defence Personnel because this is a result of intentional government action. Defence Force recruiting is now where young people are—less on TV and more online. We have shortened the recruiting time, which was at more than 300 days when we came to government. It's now 263—still too high—but in areas of critical need like submariners and engineering, we've got that number right down. We've increased pay right across the force but particularly in areas of skill shortages like cyber and communication. We have a better offer in respect of housing. We have a better offer in respect of education. In short, the Australian Defence Force is now just a better place to work, which is why the separation rate is now down to 7.4 per cent, well below the long-term average. It's important to also acknowledge the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide, which has also played a role here. We still do have a long way to go, but we really are improving defence culture, and it is a much safer culture. It's really pleasing that, in these numbers, there are now more women who are serving in the ADF. When we came to government, the Defence Force was shrinking. In the last year, alone, of the former coalition government, it shrunk by 1,400. We've achieved this result by actually turning the ship around, because when those opposite were sitting in the chair, they were quite literally asleep at the wheel. The SPEAKER 53517 The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order? Mr Tehan 210911 Yes, on relevance. It didn't have a 'compare or contrast' or 'an alternative policy', and I don't know why the minister wants to make politics of this. Mr Burke DYW The final words of the question referred to getting retention 'back on track'. That requires the minister effectively, in being relevant, to refer to what the situation was before we came to government. The SPEAKER 53517 The Leader of the House is correct. There was an opportunity to open this up about the reasons why, but I just don't want the minister, or the Deputy Prime Minister, to simply have an attack on the opposition. He'll need to explain what the reasons are, as he was asked about that, and under the standing orders is entitled to do so. So he is being directly relevant and he'll continue. Mr MARLES HWQ The key reason was those opposite were completely asleep at the wheel, although probably not the member for Herbert; he would have been having a beer—not that there's anything necessarily wrong with that. There's nothing wrong with that. Through activist policy, through focused investment, we are now growing the Defence Force again, which shows that, when you set the conditions right, young Australians are keen to wear our nation's uniform. That is the best part of this story, because, in this great news, the real credit lies with the thousands of young men and women across our country who are now making the remarkable decision to serve our nation. Prime Minister 22 14:09 Mr KENNEDY 267506 Cook My question's to the Prime Minister. Reports in today's Herald say Toorak businessman, Kunal Shah, attended an exclusive fundraising dinner with the Prime Minister and Daniel Andrews in November 2024. Mr Shah has now been charged with selling hundreds of swords and prohibited weapons, including one to a child. Be straight with Australians. What did the Prime Minister discuss with this weapons dealer over dinner? The SPEAKER 53517 There is a little difficulty with this question under the Practice in terms of fundraising, and those questions are party affairs. So I'm going to ask the member to rephrase the question to allow it in order. The practice is clear about asking questions regarding fundraising and operations of parties. We can find a way through. I'm pretty clear we can. The manager on a point of order? Mr Tehan 210911 The prohibition on questions asking about party activities, noted on page 553 of the Practice, does not prohibit questions about the actions of a minister, vis-a-vis their party. To put it in another way: if this question had only been asked about this secret Labor fundraising dinner, the question would rightly be ruled out of order. I can point you to— The SPEAKER 53517 Yes, we're on the same page about this. I'm just saying that I can rule that part out of the question. I'm happy to do so, as the manager has helped me to do so, but I just thought he might want to invite it. In deference to the manager, we'll rule that part of the question out and the Prime Minister can answer the question. 14:11 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I'm not sure what it is. The SPEAKER 53517 Can the member for Cook assist the House under the manager's direction about removing that part of the question and making it directly relevant to the Prime Minister's responsibility? We'll find a way through this. 14:11 Mr KENNEDY 267506 Cook (): My question is to the Prime Minister. Reports in today's Herald say Toorak businessman, Kunal Shah, met with the Prime Minister and Daniel Andrews in November 2024. Mr Shah has been charged with selling hundreds of swords and prohibited weapons, including one to a child. Be straight with Australians. What did the Prime Minister discuss with Mr Shah over dinner? The SPEAKER 53517 The manager? Mr Burke DYW There's still not, even after the rephrase, anything that's connected to the Prime Minister's official duties—nothing. It's: what did somebody else say to him? The SPEAKER 53517 Yes. You've got to make it reasonable and responsible about what the Prime Minister's responsibility is—not an event or something that happened. The question we can get in order, because it's referring to media reports today. So there's no question about that. There's no problem with that. If you can clean it up a little bit, and make it short and sharp, and then make it directly responsible to the Prime Minister. Mr KENNEDY 267506 My question is to the Prime Minister. Reports in today's Herald say Toorak businessman, Kunal Shah, met with the Prime Minister and Daniel Andrews in November 2024. Mr Shah has now been charged with selling hundreds of swords and prohibited weapons, including one to a child. Be straight with Australians, Prime Minister. How does this align with your agenda in keeping Australians safe, and what was discussed during this dinner? 14:13 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I think it says it all about the state of the opposition that this is question 2 in question time. There was Whyalla. The 600 workers who lost their jobs was worth one question, and then we go from questions without notice to smears without notice. There's been a bit of activity in New South Wales about fundraisers, it must be said. That's something that the Leader of the Opposition is sure I'm following on a day-to-day basis. I'm sure he's following it very, very closely indeed. The SPEAKER 53517 Has the Prime Minister concluded his answer? Order! Honourable members interjecting — The SPEAKER 53517 The members on my right! The member for Macnamara is warned. Has the Prime Minister concluded his answer? We'll move to the next question. Artificial Intelligence 23 14:14 Ms TEMPLEMAN 181810 Macquarie My question is to the Prime Minister. How is the Albanese Labor government ensuring artificial intelligence works for people and is shaped in line with Australian values? How does this approach help our nation harness the incredible economic and productivity benefits of this technology? 14:14 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for Macquarie for her serious question about a real issue facing Australians. Echoing comments yesterday from Anthropic and others, today the Director-General of the Australian Signals Directorate, Abigail Bradshaw, has raised the prospect of an early warning system for advanced AI models. Companies are working together with governments to identify and address AI risks immediately, before release, rather than when it is too late. Our national security community already works closely with frontier AI companies because safety and security is a key to building trust and to getting the benefits of AI, including for our national security. And we do that by making sure AI works in Australia's interests because AI is not neutral and we must make sure that we use the capacity that we have to ensure that artificial intelligence reflects Australian values, that it works for people, that it enhances rather than undermines our democracy, that it helps to build our future economic resilience and backs our jobs, that our creative industries are protected and that the price of using AI is not higher energy bills or scarcer water. That's why we're going to legislate Australian standards for artificial intelligence. That's why we've established the parliamentary AI committee, chaired by the member for Maribyrnong, with the deputy chair, Senator Duniam, from the other place. We seek to shape artificial intelligence in Australia's interests, and of course we are not alone. This Friday, I will travel to the United States for talks with tech companies but also with the United Nations in New York. There will be a real focus by countries, who are all dealing with this challenge that is before us, seeking to harness the incredible benefits of AI, but doing that so as to take responsibility for its impacts. Artificial intelligence doesn't stop at anyone's borders, and our leadership and our collaboration with our partners overseas will help us to make the most of AI at home so that artificial intelligence happens and is rolled out the Australian way, with Australian values in Australia's national interest. DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 23 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS Acknowledgement 23 14:17 The SPEAKER 53517 Before I call the member for Kennedy, I'm pleased to inform the House and to welcome to question time Councillor Rebecca Crossling from the Mildura Rural City Council, who is a guest of the member for Mallee, and representatives of the Australian Constructors Association, the ACA, which is the peak body for Australia's construction industry, representing the country's leading contractors. Welcome to question time. Honourable members: Hear, hear! QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 23 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Energy 23 14:18 Mr KATTER HX4 Kennedy Prime Minister, you're aware that American and Western Australian policy says no gas exports until all domestic demands are satisfied. Australian gas exporters told the ACCC this year they have sufficient gas to supply Australia while meeting international contracts. Would you agree that a genuine reserve resource policy should reduce east coast gas prices from around $17 to below $7, comparable with Western Australia and world prices. Will you agree to a true reservation for Australia that mandates every gas exporter to supply Australian households and industry first, saving Mount Isa and other light industrial undertakings? 14:18 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for Kennedy for his question. I'll answer it and then get the Minister for Resources to supplement my answer. I've stood with the member for Kennedy in Mount Isa a number of times, backing in industry and support in that vital area of Queensland. The member is certainly right that, when it comes to gas reservation in this country, it needs to be an important part of the policy solution that is required. Our resources have provided us with enormous benefit and income from export, but we also need to make sure that gas is available for domestic manufacturing and, particularly, that we learn the lessons of Western Australia, which has successfully had a gas reservation scheme on the east coast, which is what we have been working on—consulting with industry constructively. I look forward to continuing to consult with the member for Kennedy on these issues. I'd ask the minister to add to my answer. 14:20 Ms MADELEINE KING 102376 Brand I thank the member for Kennedy for his question. We do agree, as the Prime Minister has said, that we should have a gas reservation policy that mandates that every gas exporter supplies Australian households and businesses first. That is precisely what this government is doing through the development of the national gas reservation scheme. I'm well aware of the Western Australian gas reservation policy, but I do note how difficult it was to pass at the time in 2008. It was visionary Labor policy, and that vision remains. In 2022, this government inherited a gas policy bin fire. Through the Future Gas Strategy, we have methodically set out how gas will work with our net zero emissions targets that have been legislated. Now, with the introduction of and the exposure draft of the national gas reservation scheme, we are continuing this further. The member for Kennedy will know that the announcement of the gas reservation scheme was of great benefit in his electorate. It provided the commercial confidence required for the private purchase of Phosphate Hill fertiliser. That would have closed without that scheme's being introduced. Member for Kennedy, for your benefit and for the benefit of others in this House, up until a few months ago, another party here supported a gas reservation scheme. The members for New England and for Farrer would be aware of this. The leader of One Nation, Senator Hanson, very much supported a gas reservation policy. Indeed, in March, she introduced legislation for it in the Senate. In June, though, unfortunately for households around the country and for industry, she backtracked on that and is now not supporting a gas reservation policy. We've been very clear on this policy, which is more than can be said of the One Nation Party. The SPEAKER 53517 The minister's time has concluded. Defence Recruitment 24 14:22 Ms COMER 316551 Petrie My question is to the Minister for Veteran Affairs' and Minister for Defence Personnel. How is the Albanese Labor government growing the Australian Defence Force, and what difficulties has this faced in the past? 14:22 Mr KEOGH 249147 Burt When it comes to our Australian Defence Force, our people are our most important capability. But, when we came into government, we confronted a Defence Force that, under the coalition, was shrinking. There had been a failure of the coalition to make sure we had the Defence Force that we needed in the geostrategic circumstances that we confront. So we committed to rebuilding the Australian Defence Force when we came to government. We took urgent steps. We introduced better health care, we introduced better access to study, we introduced more flexibility to Defence housing, and we've had better access to family health care as well for those members in our Defence Force. Of course, we added the continuation bonus as well. We've also been bold in how we promote joining the Australian Defence Force, not just on TV, radio and billboards. We've been in social media—we're on TikTok as well—making sure that our young people are seeing the advertisements and the— Honourable members Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 We're not having screaming. We're not going to do that. I'm going to ask the member for Riverina to remain silent for the remainder of this answer. Mr KEOGH 249147 We've been making sure that our young people see the over 300 different role types and opportunities available to them in our Defence Force, and our Defence Force numbers are now back on track. We are growing for the second year in a row. Two financial years ago, we had our biggest recruitment numbers in 15 years, with over 7,000 people joining the Defence Force. This year, it's over 8,000 people joining—our biggest in 16 years. Separations rates, which under the opposition were around 10 per cent, are now down to 7.4 per cent—the lowest in 15 years. We now have the largest Defence Force that we have had in a quarter of a century because we've invested more than $1 billion in supporting recruitment to and retention in our Defence Force, which, in the geostrategic circumstances we face, is critically important work that we do—making sure that we are on track to growing our Defence Force to be 69,000 people by the early 2030s. I mentioned that there are more than 300 different roles available across our Australian Defence Force—the obvious roles in infantry, in Air Force, in Navy but also so many different roles across the cyber domain and the space domain as well. And we've accelerated the timelines on recruitment. They're now under a year and, for those most critical roles, they are now down to 150 days. We continue to work on bringing down those recruitment timelines, which had blown out to over a year under the coalition government. We are delivering real change to support our Defence Force in growing instead of shrinking like it was under the opposition. I say to everybody: if you're interested in joining our Defence Force, go out and Google ADF careers. Green Hydrogen 25 14:25 Mr TEHAN 210911 Wannon My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. Last night, the minister said with a straight face, 'I never quite bought all the hype on green hydrogen'. Does the minister recall who said this on 17 November 2023: Australia's hydrogen industry is projected to generate $50 billion in additional GDP by 2050, creating tens of thousands of jobs in regional Australia as Australia transforms to a renewable energy superpower. Or has he wiped this statement from his mind like his promise to lower power bills by $275? 14:26 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon I thank the honourable member for the question about green hydrogen and Australia's green hydrogen potential. It is the case that it was a few years ago that it was suggested that green hydrogen could play a role in home heating, in car transport. Electric vehicles just overtook petrol vehicles in Australia. Do you know how many hydrogen cars were sold in Australia last year? One vehicle. So there was a lot of hype about green hydrogen in previous years, and I had the view and have the view that green hydrogen will play a role in industrial decarbonisation. I said that on the 7.30 Report last night, and, if the honourable member wanted to quote me in full, he could have. I went on to say that, equally, the reports of the death of green hydrogen are exaggerated. Now, it is the case that a lot of things have been said about Australia's potential for green hydrogen over the years. It is absolutely the case that a lot's been said about green hydrogen in Australia. For example, I do recall the quote that the honourable member just mentioned. It's also been said: Exporting green hydrogen as a solid will reduce costs, increase safety and simplify overseas processing which will put Australia at the forefront of an emerging renewable energy market leading to new jobs, new business opportunities and environmental dividends. Well said, Dan! Well said. That is exactly what the shadow minister said about green hydrogen. The SPEAKER 53517 The minister will pause. The minister has a habit of doing this, and I'm not happy with the minister. You've done it before—not calling members by their correct title. So the minister is now warned. I want all members to be shown respect. No matter which side of the chamber people are addressing, members must use their titles. It is a red line. That is how we show respect to one another. The minister will continue. Mr BOWEN DZS Thank you, Mr Speaker. The member for Wannon said it very well—very eloquently did the shadow minister. But he was part of a team, because what he was also doing was supporting his colleagues. It is the case that he was referring to the announcement that the Morrison government was working to continue with international colleagues to establish Australia as a hydrogen export powerhouse. That was a joint press release between the honourable members, the honourable gentlemen, the member for Hume and the member for Wannon—a joint press release, not even singular. The SPEAKER 53517 The manager on a point of order? Mr Tehan 210911 Yes, it was a very specific question. On relevance: the minister said last night that he didn't buy all the hype on green hydrogen. Well, why did he make the statement he did? The SPEAKER 53517 I thank the manager. We don't need the question stated again. And that element also wasn't part of the question. The minister will continue for 49 seconds. Mr BOWEN DZS Promises have also been made to the people of Whyalla and Port Bonython. For example, it was said: "Hydrogen hubs such as this one will consolidate Australia's resource strengths to unlock clean energy and stimulate a potential surge in industrial activity, with benefits to flow on to the region's local communities," Minister Taylor said. Mr Taylor 231027 It wasn't green hydrogen, you idiot! The SPEAKER 53517 I'm not happy with the Leader of the Opposition saying that to another member of parliament. I think we will just withdraw that and then we'll move on quickly. Mr Taylor 231027 I withdraw. The SPEAKER 53517 I thank the Leader of the Opposition. Public Sector Governance 25 14:30 Ms COFFEY 312323 Griffith My question is to the Minister for Social Services. How is the Albanese Labor government responding to the cruel and immoral robodebt scheme, and how does that compare to other approaches? 14:30 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney I want to thank the member for Griffith for her question. I know she has an enormous amount of compassion for the constituents in her seat that were impacted by the illegal and immoral robodebt scheme, created by those opposite, which caused pain and trauma for more than 400,000 people across Australia. It was a shocking and deliberate case of maladministration perpetrated knowingly by ministers. None of us can forget when former minister Tudge said: We will find you, we will track you down, you will have to repay those debts and you may end up in prison. One problem—a lot of people didn't owe those debts. Those opposite claimed they were going to save taxpayers $4.7 billion through this scheme. Instead, it has cost taxpayers $2 billion. The Albanese government established a royal commission as one of our first priorities when we came to government. Sadly, that royal commission heard countless tragic stories of people being hounded by their own government to repay debts that they did not even owe. The royal commission found: Robodebt was a crude and cruel mechanism, neither fair nor legal, and it made many people feel like criminals … It was a costly failure of public administration, in both human and economic terms. When the scheme's 'unfairness, probable illegality and cruelty' became apparent at the beginning of 2017, the royal commission found that the path taken by those opposite was to double-down. They started leaking stories about victims of this in the media. We agreed, of course—or agreed in principle—to all 56 of the royal commission's recommendations. Fifty-two of those 56 recommendations have now been fully implemented, and implementation of the remaining four recommendations is ongoing. The bill being debated in this House this week is our next step to ensuring justice for robodebt victims. The government settled the Knox robodebt class action in 2025. Around 168,000 people are covered, with $475 million available in compensation for people who were harmed. Under normal circumstances, compensation payments like this may be subject to things like tax or social security income-testing arrangements. Of course, this bill means that the payments won't be subject to that or to benefits like social security, veterans payments, NDIS supports or aged-care contributions being impacted. The bill will make sure that compensation paid to robodebt victims under the Knox settlement is received in full, and I certainly urge all members to support that legislation. Housing 26 14:33 Mr CHAFFEY 316312 Parkes My question is to the Minister for Housing. Is the minister aware of a Housing Industry Australia report released today that states that sales of new homes have been slashed by 20 per cent in the past three months and 1,700 construction businesses have gone bust in the three months since the budget? Is the minister aware that this is the highest quarter of construction insolvencies on record? Where will Australians live if the Albanese Labor government keeps sending builders broke? 14:34 Ms O'NEIL 140590 Hotham I actually really appreciate this question because it goes to the underlying reason why we have such chronic housing issues in our country, and that is that, for 40 years, our country has not been building enough homes. There's one thing I think I probably agree with the honourable member on, and that is that, if we want to fix the housing crisis, if we want to have more affordable housing for Australians, we've got to build, build, build. That's going to improve the situation for everyone. We have a pro-supply government and we just delivered a pro-supply budget which will build an additional 30,000 homes for the country. Speaker, I might just refresh your memory and the memory of the parliament about why it was a pro-supply budget. Two simple reasons—first, remember that we've made tax changes in the budget, but new builds continue to get access to those very beneficial tax treatments; and, second, of course, there were really important supply initiatives in that budget. I want to speak just quickly to Budget Paper No. 1, which goes through the impacts of the budget changes. That paper says: Driven by reforms and investments that reduce barriers to housing supply, this budget will support up to an additional 30,000 homes over the next decade— The SPEAKER 53517 The minister will pause. The minister is directly answering about the numbers in the question and where the people will live. She was asked specifically, 'Where will Australians live if the Albanese Labor government keep sending builders broke?' She's answering that with a direct budget reply about where people will live. I think it's going to be very difficult to take a point of order on relevance. Mr Tehan 210911 The question was about the Housing Industry Australia report that was released— The SPEAKER 53517 No, it wasn't. Resume your seat. That was part of the question. That wasn't the question. The question was as I just stated to the House: 'Where will Australians live if the Albanese Labor government keeps sending builders broke?' The minister was in a direct sentence about the numbers of where people will live, so you couldn't be more directly relevant. I know there are other parts of the question, but you can't pick and choose what you like and what you don't like, and I can't pick and choose what the minister can and can't say. I can only make the point to the House that anyone who's listening knows she's being directly relevant. In fact, she's directly answering the question, which always helps my job. So, Minister, please continue. Ms O'NEIL 140590 Anything to make it easier for you, Speaker. Again, I just reiterate to the House—I'm actually literally quoting from the federal budget, which was what the question was about: … this budget will support up to an additional 30,000 homes over the next decade, and more, as the benefit of productivity enhancing reforms flow through to the housing market. For honourable members opposite me, who are evidently incredibly confused about this, I'd encourage them to come and have a look at the budget documents themselves. I want to talk to them about some of the recent economic data that we have about new builds. Now, listen to this one: The ABS lending indicators— Opposition members Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order, members on my left! I'm not putting up with this. The minister is giving information and facts and figures to the House about the question she was asked. I'm asking everyone to show respect and to listen to the minister. Ms O'NEIL 140590 It says: The ABS lending indicators for the June quarter show that the number and value of new investor loans is the highest since records began. They show a 27.5 per cent increase on investor loans for new builds and a 20 per cent increase on construction loans. I mean, honestly! We have got approvals data that's up 9.1 per cent on last year, the third year in a row that we have seen this increase. Those opposite like to come in and talk a big game. I want to remind them that approvals were falling 21 per cent when they left office. They were presiding over a 50-year high in the increase of construction costs that we have brought down to 3.8 per cent. This is a good indicator for the parliament about where the politics of housing are at. Those opposite are constantly coming in here and defending a broken housing market. We are for change and we're not afraid to say it. The Australian people want us to reform Australia's housing system, and that is exactly what our government is doing. Cybersafety 27 14:38 Ms CAMPBELL 312823 Moreton My question is to the Minister for Communications. How will the Albanese Labor government's proposed digital duty of care protect Australians from illegal and dangerous material online? 14:39 Ms WELLS 264121 Lilley I thank the member for Moreton for her question, one of our foremost thinkers on the nexus between social media and social cohesion. In one generation, online technology has given international terrorists full access to Australian children. The average age of a minor being investigated by ASIO is now 15 years old, the youngest it has ever been. The timeline of radicalisation has changed from months and years to weeks or now even days. Social media and online platforms have been used to provoke polarisation and to create a permissive breeding ground for real-world violence. If the platforms have been incubators and accelerators for extremism to date, we hold grave fears that artificial intelligence could make these problems worse. Our national security organisations and law enforcement are doing everything in their power to protect Australians from the rising threat of terrorism and extremism. But Australia's proposed digital duty of care will go right to the source, putting the onus on big tech to identify, detect and prevent the risk of online terrorism and extremism before it occurs. I welcome the support of Australia's Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism, Jillian Segal, who today called on parliament to work together and pass the proposed digital duty of care when it is introduced in October. At the royal commission, the special envoy spoke about how, within hours of the Bondi attack, social media platforms were feeding users denials that it was real, conspiracy theories that it was a false-flag operation, and justifications for the murder of innocent people. The special envoy joins the many community organisations and public figures who support our digital duty of care. The proposed duty should not be controversial or political. Terrorists should not be able to live-stream their attacks or recruit children through online games. AI chatbots should not instruct children how to commit violent acts. Protecting Australians from illegal material and protecting children from harm should be a bipartisan priority. Yet the Leader of the Opposition has called Australia's proposed digital duty of care a 'Big Brother bill', and, just an hour or two ago, the member for Cooke thundered, 'We will not let this woman continue to censor everyday Australians.' Honourable members Honourable members interjecting— Opposition members: This woman! Ms WELLS 264121 You said it. The Leader of the Opposition describes his desired changes to the duty of care— Honourable members Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Member for Barton! Chief Government Whip! Member for Cooke! Ms WELLS 264121 The Leader of the Opposition is not a bystander to national debate. I implore him and others to listen to the Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism. Let's work together to protect children online. DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 28 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS Acknowledgement 28 14:42 The SPEAKER 53517 I'm pleased to welcome Selena Uibo, the Leader of the Opposition in the Northern Territory parliament; and Councillor Ry Collins, the Mayor of Whitsunday Regional Council, as a guest of the member for Dawson. Honourable members: Hear, hear! QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 28 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Private Health Insurance 28 14:42 Mr CHESTER IPZ Gippsland My question is to the Prime Minister. Joanne lives in my electorate and says she was shocked to learn her private health insurance rebate would be cut, saying, 'This proposal feels like boomer bashing. I'm on a part age pension and will be unlikely to continue paying for private health insurance if the rebate is cut or removed.' The Parliamentary Budget Office forecasts that almost 1.5 million age pensioners will be impacted by Labor's policy to rip $3 billion from older Australians' private health cover. Prime Minister, in the midst of a cost-of-living crisis, why is your government making life harder for 1.5 million age pensioners, like Joanne? 14:43 Mr BUTLER HWK Hindmarsh The government is asked about $3 billion which will be invested entirely into more aged-care beds, more Support at Home packages and better care for people receiving those Support at Home packages—in particular, our decision to reverse the co-contributions that were being charged for showering and other hygiene services. The opposition continue to ask these questions, which are legitimate questions. But, as an alternative government, they still haven't answered the question about whether they support these investments or whether they have an alternative way of funding the billions and billions of dollars we need to continue to invest in every budget and every budget update. The Leader of the Opposition says, 'Don't make the cuts,' so presumably he has an alternative way of funding the additional aged-care services that older Australians require, or he's just not going to support them. He's just not going to support the additional beds or the additional packages— Mr Taylor 231027 Eight billion dollars! Mr BUTLER HWK That's going to go into aged care? You're making this up as you go along. I can go to the question. Opposition members Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 The Leader of the Opposition! Mr BUTLER HWK You can only spend it once, mate! As I said yesterday, this is a difficult decision we have taken after reflection about the degree to which we need to lean in heavily to provide more aged-care services to a population that is ageing at unprecedented levels. What this decision will do is return the private health insurance rebate to its original design, which did not discriminate based on age. It provided people living next door to each other with the same rebate, even if they were of different ages. I said we don't take this decision lightly, but we have to make some hard choices if we are going to provide older Australians in unprecedented numbers with the sorts of care and dignity that they deserve. Langby, Dusty 28 14:45 Dr FREELANDER 265979 Macarthur My question is to the Prime Minister. Today, Dusty Langby and representatives from the charity Little Wings are visiting Parliament House. What has Dusty been up to lately and why is his work helping sick children from regional, rural and remote Australia so important? 14:45 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler Thank you to the member for Macarthur not just for his question but for his extraordinary record as a paediatrician serving people in south-west Sydney. There isn't a child in his electorate who wasn't delivered by the member for Macarthur, I think. That explains one of the reasons why he sits there with a very good margin! Today, I was absolutely delighted to meet with young Dusty Langby, his parents, Sarah and Andrew, his brother, Angus, nurses Christine Letton and Nichole Callan and the CEO of Little Wings, Clare Pearson. Dusty is an extraordinary young Australian, and I know the member for Parkes has very much welcomed the announcement that we made today. Dusty has walked 540 kilometres from Warren to Canberra, raising money for Little Wings. This morning, he was completely exhausted, and it's not surprising. This young man has been getting up at 5 am every morning and walking for hour after hour along the road, along with his mum and members of his family and the support group which are there. This has all been aimed at raising funds to help sick kids. For families in regional Australia, getting specialist care can mean travelling hundreds of kilometres. What Little Wings does is help to bridge that gap. It helps get them to the big cities, the capital cities—particularly Sydney and Brisbane—to make sure they get the care that they need. Whether they live in Warren or whether they live in 'the warren' in my electorate, they get the same access to great care. Last year, they helped over 5,000 children in rural, regional and remote areas. Dusty on this walk has raised almost half a million dollars. It came about while he was lying in the dam, he and his mum told us. He had this idea that he just wanted to do something to assist kids in need. What a fine young man he is. He has raised almost $500,000. He asked us to match it, and the Australian government will match it, and I think that would be welcomed by every Australian. In addition to that—in addition to the million dollars that he's raised—we're extending funding for Little Wings for a further two years. That's an additional million dollars to make sure Little Wings can keep flying. I want to congratulate Dusty. I want to wish him all the best. He starts high school next year. Just think about this—a 12-year-old boy, still in year 6, making this absolute commitment to his fellow Australians and in particular his fellow young Australians from regional communities like Warren. What a cracking lad he is, and he's an inspiration for our entire nation. At a time when we need more optimism, this kid has the lot. Well done, Dusty. 14:49 Mr CHAFFEY 316312 Parkes on indulgence—I want to associate my comments with the Prime Minister's. Thank you for matching the funding. In fact, just looking online at the moment—because fundraising's still continuing—it's almost $540,000 that Dusty has raised. I also want to congratulate Dusty, his mother, Sarah, also a nurse who serves with Little Wings, and the CEO of Little Wings, Clare, who also joined Dusty for the more than 540 kilometre walk over 16 days down here to Canberra. I was fortunate enough to join them on the road for several of those days—only for short times, of course. I couldn't possibly walk that far a distance. But this is something that has been planned for many, many months. He really is a man in a boy's body, showing that commitment. But it's all of the communities along that journey as well that have fundraised and been part of this journey. I do appreciate and thank the Prime Minister and the government for their support. Donations to Political Parties 29 14:50 Ms SPENDER 286042 Wentworth My question is for the Prime Minister. Today is the International Day of Democracy. Last year, Transparency International ranked the Commonwealth equal-last nationally on lobbying transparency. In a time when many Australians are feeling that times are tough, a survey conducted by McKinnon found 72 per cent of Australians think politicians serve ourselves and vested interests first before we serve them. Will the government commit to following the example of most states and territories in publishing ministerial diaries or at least lists of who ministers have met, so Australians can see who really is in the room and increase that trust? 14:51 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler (): I thank the member for Wentworth for her question. My diary is regularly published through FOI proposals—in response to the question. But in response to the broader question raised by the member for Wentworth as well, we established the National Anti-Corruption Commission. That was promised by previous governments but never delivered. We have strengthened the ministerial code of conduct. We've strengthened protections for whistleblowers. We've increased funding for the Australian National Audit Office. We've restored transparency to AAT appointments and established the ART. We've reinstated a standalone privacy and FOI commissioner. And we've established the Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission. I'm not familiar with the statement that the member referred to. But can I say this: when I go to the UN next week, I'll meet with leaders who have never answered a question in parliament. I'll meet with leaders who have never held a press conference and answered questions from journalists. In most parts of the world, leaders do not go through the transparency that we have in this country. So I'm proud of our democracy. And when I go overseas, I'll talk up our democracy, because that's what I will do. Even in the UK—we're based in the Westminster system—the prime minister's questions are held for one hour, once a week. They are questions on the Notice Paper and then a follow-up question. It's nothing like what we have here. I think we are a great democracy, and I'm proud of it. Cybersafety 30 14:53 Mr BURNS 278522 Macnamara My question is to the Minister for Education. What is the Albanese Labor government doing to protect children from harmful content online and combat antisemitism throughout the education system? 14:53 Mr CLARE HWL Blaxland Can I thank my friend, the much-loved member for Macnamara, for his question. Our children aren't born racist. No-one is born antisemitic. No-one is born with hate in their hearts. It's something that's learnt; it's something that's taught. And I think we all know where that can end—the sort of wickedness that it can lead to. There's lots that we need to do to tackle antisemitism. Part of it is what we do in education, and that's why we appointed David Gonski to chair the Antisemitism Education Taskforce. David is a towering Australian, somebody respected and admired, I think, by everybody in this chamber. He understands the education system inside and out. He understands the power of education and what it can do. The work that David has led has focused on all parts of the education system—what we do in teacher training, in teacher resources, as well as the changes we need to make to the curriculum. All that is important work, but that work can be undone when kids finish school and they get back on their phones and back on the internet. Antisemitism, as we all know, has exploded online. To give you an example about how it's affecting our kids, research shows that a teenage boy today only needs to spend about an hour on TikTok looking at lifestyle content for men before being served conspiracy theories about Jewish people. It's algorithms that do this, spewing all that poison at our kids, serving up hate on a plate. We need to do something about it. It's not just the government saying this; today, the Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism, Jillian Segal, made the same point. The special envoy told the Daily Telegraph: "Within hours of the Bondi attack, we saw social media platforms feeding users denials that it was real, conspiracy theories that it was a 'false flag' operation and justifications for the murder of innocent people," … "My hope is that a digital duty of care will make it harder for algorithms and recommender systems to dish up this sort of content to Australians, particularly children. "People should have a choice of what they see, but to the extent what they see is determined by algorithms, feeds should contain fewer overseas bots pushing malicious hate and fewer anonymous trolls using antisemitism to drive engagement." It's a powerful argument, and it's a reminder of what algorithms do and what they're doing to our kids and the dangers that they pose, and a reminder to all of us here to work together and to come together and do something about it. Prime Minister 30 14:56 Dr WEBSTER 281688 Mallee My question is to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister embarrassed us all with his sexist remarks and gestures about the Japanese prime minister. Then his government handed his close personal friend Rhys Muldoon a job as an adviser in his government after Mr Muldoon made a series of vile, sexually violent and misogynistic posts about Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price and Peta Credlin. When did the Prime Minister first become aware of Mr Muldoon's vile tweets? 14:57 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler When they became public debate today. I wasn't aware of those comments until they were raised in the media, and neither was Senator Dowling. The comments are completely unacceptable. Senator Dowling has taken immediate action, and that's appropriate. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Casey will not use—I can see he's got a photo. I'm just going ask him to fold that photograph up. The member is seeking to table a document? Mr Violi 300147 I seek leave to table the following documents: the Prime Minister on election night with his close personal friend Rhys Muldoon; the Prime Minister being kissed on the cheek by his close political ally Rhys Muldoon; and disgraced Labor adviser Rhys Muldoon with the Prime Minister. Leave not granted. The SPEAKER 53517 I've asked the member not to do that. Resume your seat. People are entitled to state what the document is, which I allow, but they're not going to take advantage of my goodwill or the House's goodwill by using props when trying to table things. I think everyone now knows that that is a boundary I do not want crossed. Economy 30 14:58 Ms STANLEY 265990 Werriwa My question is to the Treasurer. How is the Albanese Labor government managing the economy and the budget responsibly in the face of serious global uncertainty, and what are the alternative approaches? 14:59 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin I thank the member for Werriwa for her question and for the great work that she does in her local community. From an economic point of view, the end of the war in the Middle East can't come soon enough. We've seen in the last day or so that the oil price is now, again, $107 per barrel; that's 50 per cent higher since the conflict started. What that means is that the war on the other side of the world is weighing on growth, and it's pushing up inflation right around the world. This is the point that the Reserve Bank's assistant governor, Sarah Hunter, made yesterday when she described the global environment as more inflationary and said the risk to inflation from the Middle East conflict has 'tracked up recently'. The longer the war drags on, the more concerned markets become about the impacts of inflation. It pushes up expectations for global interest rates, which then pushes up bond yields as well. We saw the European Central Bank raise rates last week, and the market is now pricing in an interest rate hike in every single major advanced economy. Overnight, the US 10-year yield crossed five per cent for the first time since 2023, and that means higher borrowing costs as well. We're not immune to these challenges. Our 10-year yield is up around 75 basis points since the conflict started, whereas in the US it's up about 100 basis points. That's why, at a time of heightened global economic uncertainty, responsible economic management is more important now than ever before. It's why it's so important that we have lower gross debt to GDP than every major advanced economy. Our gross debt as a share of our economy is much less than half of the US, less than half of Canada and the UK. It's also less than a quarter of gross debt to GDP in Japan. Because of this government's responsible approach to the budget, the bottom line is more than a quarter of a trillion dollars better than what we inherited from those opposite, and gross debt is around $200 billion lower. Our responsible approach to managing the budget stands in stark contrast to those opposite. Most of the $1 trillion of debt in the budget—in fact, almost two-thirds of it—was racked up by the Liberal Party, when they doubled the debt even before COVID. They now have made more than half a trillion dollars worth of commitments since the election, with no explanation as to how they would pay for them—just over the four-year forward estimates, more than $110 billion in commitments. Mr Tim Wilson IMW That's just a lie. Dr CHALMERS 37998 We know that the war in Iran is the key driver of the uptick in inflation around the world, but by their own— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! We're going to get the member for Goldstein—don't look surprised—to withdraw. Mr Tim Wilson IMW To assist the House, I'll withdraw. Mr Burke DYW Mr Speaker, 'to assist the House' is viewed as a qualified apology, which is done on occasions when you have not ruled that something is unparliamentary. When something is unparliamentary, a withdrawal should simply be made without any qualifiers whatsoever. The SPEAKER 53517 We'll do it the right way. It was good enough for the Leader of the Opposition yesterday to follow my lead. It'll be good enough for the member for Goldstein to simply get up and withdraw. Mr Tim Wilson IMW I'll withdraw. Dr CHALMERS 37998 It's the closest he gets to the microphone during question time! By their own logic, their unfunded commitments will push inflation up, deficits up— (Time expired) Economy 31 15:03 Mr FARLEY 62329 Farrer My question is to the Treasurer. Treasurer, I have been reading and studying page 259 of your budget. Given the heightened global economic uncertainty, do you accept that the Commonwealth debt has a point beyond which it becomes unsustainable—yes or no? If yes, what gross-debt-to-GDP ratio, or what gross debt level, would trigger that concern with you? 15:04 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin Thank you to the honourable member for his important question. I think right around the world and certainly in Australia, when you see what's happening with bond yields on global debt markets, this issue is attracting a lot of attention. I think it's fair to say around the world it's also attracting its fair share of concern. What I was saying in my earlier answer to my colleague's question, which was along similar lines, is that it's really important right now that Australia's debt position is much, much stronger than our peers'. We have lower gross debt to GDP than any major advanced economy. In fact, it's much lower—less than half—than in the US, the UK and Canada. It's less than a quarter of Japan's. That's really important because, to go to the core of his question, there are other countries where debt is approaching unsustainable levels, but not Australia. Even if you consider that trillion dollars of debt in our budget, the fact is that almost two thirds of it was racked up by the former government. We've actually made a lot of progress together as a country in the last few years getting that gross debt-to-GDP trajectory down. If you look in the budget papers, there is a graph that shows—if you compare the 2022 pre-election fiscal outlook with the debt position that we're in now, we're in about $200 billion less debt than the trajectory that we inherited. That's really important. But we also acknowledge that the task of responsible economic management, the task of budget repair and doing what we can to get that Liberal debt down where we can, is an ongoing— Mr Farley 62329 On a point of order, I'd like to bring it back to the relevance to my question, which was: what is your acceptable debt-to-GDP ratio, your forecast; and what gross debt level would trigger your concerns? Mr Burke DYW To the point of order, the issues that the Treasurer is going to are exactly relevant to those words that have just been quoted in the question. The SPEAKER 53517 The Treasurer is being directly relevant. I know you'd like a specific number and a figure. But, as other members have indicated before, member for Farrer, I can't compel the Treasurer to do that. I can compel him to be directly relevant, and he has been spot on with his relevance regarding the question he was asked. I appreciate you'd like a different answer, but I can't make him deliver what you'd wish. Dr CHALMERS 37998 Respectfully, to the member for Farrer as well, I've gone to debt to GDP. I've gone to Australian levels. I've gone to other levels around the world. The reason that this is especially topical right now is that, if you look at US Treasury bond yields for 10 years, they breached five per cent again today. That is a source of considerable concern for policymakers, decision-makers, governments and the private sector right around the world. It reflects a number of things. It reflects the fact that the war in Iran is dragging on longer than anyone would like from an economic point of view. It's reflecting the fact that a lot of other countries—not Australia, but a lot of other countries—are carrying levels of debt that are approaching unsustainable levels. It reflects the fact that interest rate expectations have gone up around the world in every major advanced economy. They now expect a rate rise. It reflects the fact that the private sector, including the hyperscalers in the AI and technology landscape, are competing more substantially to raise capital on these markets. And it reflects all of the uncertainty in our economy—geopolitical uncertainty and economic uncertainty as well. The question that he asked is a really important one. Australia's position is better than our peers'. (Time expired) Motor Neurone Disease 32 15:08 Mr LIM 300130 Tangney My question is to the Minister for Health and Ageing. How are new medicines being listed on the PBS by the Albanese Labor government helping Australians living with motor neurone disease? 15:08 Mr BUTLER HWK Hindmarsh Thank you to the member for Tangney. I know right now he's thinking a lot about his friend Lindsay, who is in a real struggle, a terrible struggle, with MND right now. Our thoughts to Lindsay and his family. Member for Tangney, please convey them and our best wishes. Lindsay is one of 2,800 Australians, we think, who are battling MND right now. It's the fastest acting of all of the neurodegenerative diseases. Every day, on average, we lose two Australians to MND and two new Australians receive the shocking diagnosis. Australians have come to understand quite deeply the impact of MND. We lost the former Australian of the year Neale Daniher in the year we learned of the diagnosis of Jai Arrow at the age of just 30 years old. Mr Albanese R36 31. Mr BUTLER HWK Just 31. Of course, every individual diagnosis, every family's struggle and every family's loss is equal. But I think we owe a particular debt of gratitude to people like Neale and Jai and their families who turn a private struggle and a private story into a public story, one that lifts awareness of a condition like this and builds support for research, as both of them have been doing. There are two medicines on the PBS to treat MND, both of which slow the progression of the disease: riluzole and edaravone. But usually that slowing is only measured in months, certainly not years. But on Friday I joined the MND community at their annual conference in Adelaide to announce a step change in treatment. From 1 October, a new drug will be listed on the PBS, known as Qalsody. It's only available for a relatively small cohort of patients that have a particular mutation of the SOD1 protein, but the results are quite extraordinary. I was joined by Luke, who's only 34, and his two beautiful young children, who were running around the media conference. Luke has been on Qalsody on a compassionate access basis for 2½ years. He reported that in that extended period of time, for an MND patient, he has experienced no progression of the disease. Indeed, there are some reports of patients on Qalsody actually experiencing an improvement in function. This is a highly effective but very expensive treatment. Without listing on the PBS, it would cost patients more than $28,000 for every single script. It will now be available for $25. Unfortunately, it doesn't work for all MND patients. The cohort is relatively small at 70 patients a year. It's still not a cure, but it is a step change in hope that we are actually making progress in the fight against what Neale Daniher very rightly called 'the beast'. Mr Albanese R36 On that note, I certainly think everyone would associate themselves with the comments of the health minister. I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: ADDITIONAL ANSWERS 33 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: ADDITIONAL ANSWERS Murray-Darling Basin 33 15:12 Ms COLLINS HWM Franklin Yesterday I indicated that I would get back to the member for Farrer in relation to his question and that I would double-check with the Minister for the Environment and Water and his department in relation to the CEO of the Murray-Darling Basin Authority's comments in relation to the review and agriculture. I can inform the member for Farrer that the answer to his question is no. I am assured by the minister and his department and also my own department that nobody gave such an instruction. I'd also advise the member for Farrer that I'm advised that the oversight will be corrected in the final report that is provided to the government. I can confirm that my department continues to work closely with both the minister and the Murray-Darling Basin Authority in relation to the review and that my department made an independent submission to the review. DOCUMENTS 33 DOCUMENTS Presentation 33 15:12 Mr BURKE DYW Watson These documents are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable members earlier today. Full details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings. MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 33 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Energy 33 15:13 The SPEAKER 53517 I have received a letter from the honourable Manager of Opposition Business proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The Government's failing energy policies crippling industry and households. 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— 15:13 Mr TEHAN 210911 Wannon Last night we saw something quite extraordinary. On 7.30, the Minister for Climate Change and Energy declared: … I never quite bought all the hype on green hydrogen … Yet he put $9 billion into green hydrogen! Now imagine if he had bought the hype. Where would we have ended up? $18 billion? $27 billion? Who knows where the taxpayers' largesse would have stopped? On the back of him not buying into the hype on green hydrogen, he also said this on 13 April 2023: Today's release of the annual State of Hydrogen report reinforces that Australia has the foundations to become a global leader in green hydrogen. On 23 May 2024, he said: Now some people might think, oh, you know, is green hydrogen real, is it going to happen? Well, it's already being manufactured right there in Gladstone … I wonder what the member up the back thinks of that. I'm sure we'll hear from him at some stage. On 18 December 2023 the minister said: And if we're going to play our role in decarbonising that is one of the key and essential roles that we can play, developing an Australian green hydrogen industry and exporting it. On 18 January 2024 he said: Firstly, of course, our Government wants Australia to be a hydrogen superpower, a green hydrogen superpower. The list goes on and on and on. If this is what the minister thought not buying in was, what the hell is he doing? What is he thinking—or doesn't he think? This is the worry. It's just all green ideology. It's just pure and utter green ideology. And I say to the minister: have you forgotten your promise to the Australian people for $275 off every power bill? Not only that, have you forgotten your promise to the Australian people that you would support manufacturing jobs? As a matter of fact, the Prime Minister went to Whyalla, and he's quoted as saying he was going to 'secure all those jobs'. That's what the Prime Minister said. Now, should we add this up as another broken promise? He didn't fall of a stage. We know that ripper. He didn't insult the Japanese prime minister. We know that one. The $275 off your power bill wasn't delivered. When it comes to negative gearing, when it comes to capital gains, when it comes to tax on trusts—I think it was more than 50 times. What happened when it comes to looking after our veterans? Was anything said before the last election about hitting veterans with a $750 million cap? No, there wasn't. Was anything said to pensioners in Australia that they'd be hit with additional costs for their private health insurance? That affects 1.5 million pensioners. And then there are those steelworkers in Whyalla—over 600 of them. As the local member said in the first question today, over 600 of them were promised by the Prime Minister that their jobs were safe. He was happy to go to Whyalla, happy to go to Whyalla and stand there with them and say it, yet, once the jobs go, he gets asked a question today in question and he won't even take the question. What a disgrace! What an utter disgrace. He just flicks it. Six hundred jobs—just flicks it. I think this is the worst and greatest insult. We have the Minister for Climate Change and Energy spending $150 million on a pre-COP in Fiji and Tuvalu which is all about his so-called presidency—$150 million and no-one's going. As a matter of fact, what I'm hearing is they're all going to Turkiye, and that's really upsetting the minister for climate change. They're all going to Turkiye and they're not going to his, and that's meant to be really upsetting him. But this is the worst part of it. There is $150 million for that, but what are the workers being offered in Whyalla? So far, there is $10 million after being promised that their jobs were secure forever, that the steelworks was secure forever. The Prime Minister won't even own the question he was asked today. Seriously, where is such arrogance towards workers when you can have a prime minister who will do that to fellow Australians who have lost their jobs? Not only have they lost their jobs, but their families will be impacted and their community will be impacted. I do not think the Prime Minister quite understands what happens when you take that amount of jobs out of a community. We saw the minister he flicked to come up, and what was his response? Mr Birrell 288713 Blame everyone else. Mr TEHAN 210911 Blame everyone else, absolutely. He would not take responsibility. He had not one solution to offer. He was happy to see those 600 million jobs just disappear before our eyes. This has a real impact. That Whyalla steelworks produces a type of steel that is unique to our country. It's the type of steel that you use in buildings. It's structural steel. It's bridges and it's buildings. That steel was used in building this Parliament House. If this Parliament House was built today, guess where we'd have to get the steel from? Mr Hastie 260805 IKEA. Mr TEHAN 210911 Yes, we'd probably have to get it from IKEA or the equivalent. Seriously, that's how bad things are becoming under this Albanese Labor government. And you wonder why the front page of the Sydney Morning Herald on Monday said that Australians are losing trust in this prime minister. Well, they have sadly lost trust, and there is very good reason they've lost trust—because they know that this prime minister just makes it up. He just gaslights. He fibs. He won't tell the truth. He'll do everything other than being honest with the Australian people. Here's a character test for the Prime Minister. I know the local member will front up at Whyalla, because he'll look after his workers. The Prime Minister on Friday should go to Whyalla and face those workers. That's what he should do. If he's got real character, having been there and promised their jobs would last forever, he should front up and tell them: 'Sorry, I've got a problem with the truth. Sorry, I've got a problem with being direct with people. Sorry, I've got a problem with looking people in the eye and being upfront with them.' He should go and do that. That would be the right and honourable thing to do. Yet this prime minister just sits here in question time, dismisses a question about 600 workers losing their jobs, about our industrial capability going offshore. It's like, 'This is all beneath me.' It wasn't beneath him to go to Whyalla and look those workers in the eye, so he should do exactly the same on Friday when he leaves here—go and look them in the eye and apologise. 15:23 Ms THWAITES 282212 Jagajaga The Australian Labor Party is the party of workers, and we will always back Australian manufacturing and Australian jobs. Of course, this is a very distressing time for workers affected at Whyalla, and we absolutely stand with them. But we will not be lectured by those opposite on support for workers, not with their track record. Our message to the people of Whyalla is that we will be working with them. We will be working with the South Australian government towards outcomes that support both the city and the region. We are supporting workers now while creating the conditions for a new owner to invest in a stronger, more sustainable future for Whyalla and Australian steelmaking, and we will be there every step of the way with these workers. But those opposite are never straight with workers. They buy into conspiracy theories rather than outcomes. They take cheap shots rather than back workers. They're never on the side of workers. We certainly will not be lectured by those opposite about our commitment to Australian manufacturing. Those opposite, when in government, sat by when then treasurer Joe Hockey goaded car manufacturers to leave the country, with, when they left, devastating outcomes for workers in South Australia and in my home state of Victoria. Those opposite sat on their hands while those manufacturers left this country. They goaded them to leave. It is absolutely galling that at this moment those opposite would seek to create an ideological fight over the future of workers in South Australia, who this government is backing. It is a reality that, after a decade of delay, dysfunction and denial, the Albanese government is getting on with rebuilding Australia's energy grid with the lowest-cost form of energy, renewable energy. We acknowledge the reality that our coal-fired power stations are ageing and they are becoming increasingly unreliable. Again, those opposite ignored this for a decade, and Australian energy users have been paying the price. As a government we are working towards cheaper, cleaner energy in our system—a better deal for households. We're focused on the long-term changes that permanently cut bills, make the system fairer and keep the lights on. And we are headed in the right direction. Last year we saw a record number of renewable projects given the green light and millions of Australians benefiting from a cleaner, more reliable electricity grid that will lower energy bills for good. We are seeing households vote with their feet as they realise the benefits of cheaper, cleaner, renewable energy for them. Australia has the highest uptake of rooftop solar in the world. Since July last year, more than 540,000 Australian households and businesses have installed batteries through the government's Cheaper Home Batteries Program. I get to visit lots of these households and talk to the people who have installed a battery. They're quick to show me their apps and to explain how they've been able to take back control of their energy use and lower their power bills. I've met with Glen and Amanda from Templestowe, in the member for Menzies's electorate, a retired couple who are making significant savings on their electricity bills through their rooftop solar and their battery. I've met with John from Mill Park, in the member for Scullin's electorate. John has an electric vehicle, a home charger and solar panels, and he's in credit on his power bill. He couldn't speak more highly of the difference that rooftop solar and a battery are making to him. I've met with Elizabeth and Eric from Cranbourne, in the member for Holt's electorate, pensioners who are benefiting from greater energy independence and lower bills. Elizabeth and Eric are among more than 2,400 households in Holt that have installed a cheaper home battery. Again, they've told me it's given them greater control over their energy bills and greater confidence that they're doing their bit as part of our bid for a cleaner future. Andrew from Diamond Creek, in the member for McEwen's electorate, is part of a family of four using solar panels and a battery to power their home and their pool, helping them to keep the pool going while also keeping their energy bills down. Australians get this. They get that the transition is on. Those opposite have missed the memo. Last month, electric vehicle sales overtook petrol car sales in Australia for the first time, as more drivers chose lower running costs and greater choice. More than 27,000 battery electric vehicles were sold, a new monthly record. In some ways this seems remarkable because it's not so long since a former prime minister from that side told us all that electric vehicles would 'ruin the weekend'. Well, Australians know better, and, again, they're voting with their feet. They're voting with their economic interests and their interests in the future. They know that household batteries and EVs are helping them take control of their power bills and drive down their energy expenses. Of course, those opposite are the same government that offended our neighbours in the Pacific, that stepped away from the global efforts to deal with climate change and that ignored the fact that the entry price to be a serious part of the Pacific family is being serious about climate. Those opposite cannot be taken seriously when it comes to this debate. We have acted to tackle energy bills and we know there is more to do. We've acted to help with power bill relief, through gas price caps and investing in cheap renewables, all of which the coalition opposed. We are also fixing the retail energy market to make sure that customers are getting better deals from energy retailers when it comes to this essential service. The 2026 default market offer, which is set by the independent Australian Energy Regulator, is delivering reductions in prices for all residential and small business customers. We know we need to keep going, and in fact the Australian Energy Market Commission has warned: Delaying the connection of renewable generation and transmission into the market would put upward pressure on residential electricity costs. Yet this is exactly what those opposite are proposing. The coalition's costly coal scheme keeps ageing, unreliable generators running long past their use-by date. These plants do break down without warning, and every breakdown means a price spike. When coal breaks down, household bills go up. Their scheme pours billions of taxpayer dollars into propping up clapped-out coal instead of building the modern grid Australians deserve—renewables backed by hydrobatteries and fast, flexible gas. They have a plan for more breakdowns, for higher prices and for wasted money, and Australians will pay for it. Australians know they will pay for it because we have the track record of those opposite. During the coalition's decade in government, 24 of the nation's 28 coal-fired power stations announced they were closing, and they did nothing to secure our energy future. Australians cannot afford to keep paying the price of the coalition's climate infighting, their denial of what is actually happening. Let's be clear. Our government is on the track of protecting Australian industry, of backing Australian industry, of backing the transition to cleaner, cheaper renewables. In fact, research by the Clean Energy Council in March 2025 found that household power bills could rise by $449 per year by 2030 if we had greater reliance on gas and coal and if renewables were built more slowly. Household bills could rise by $606 per year by 2030 if this occurred and a major coal-fired power plant failed unexpectedly. The energy experts agree that renewables are the cheapest form of energy and the lowest cost way to replace ageing coal. Treasury's modelling report from September 2025 states: Not pursuing net zero by 2050 risks lower economic growth, reduced investment, missed export and employment opportunities, and higher electricity prices. The recent International Energy Agency report found: Across many wholesale electricity markets, especially in Europe, a higher share of renewables in the power mix has consistently led to lower prices. That is what those of us on this side of the chamber get. That is what governments who understand, who are serious about governing and the future of this country, get. Those opposite come in here to score political points from workers who deserve to be backed, who deserve to have a government that is on their side. Fortunately for those workers in Whyalla, this government is on their side, and we will remain on their side as we continue to support Australians on the transition to cheaper, cleaner energy. We are committed to a clean, sovereign, renewable energy future where households and industries reap the benefits of cheaper, clean, reliable energy. 15:33 Mr VENNING 315434 Grey I rise in support of this important matter of public importance from the member for Wannon. In February this year, the Prime Minister came to Whyalla and looked the workers in the eye and said, 'I've got your back.' Today that same prime minister was too gutless to answer my question. Also today, this government couldn't even send an assistant minister, let alone Minister Bowen, to talk about this important matter. Today is a day of national reflection. Administrators confirmed that Whyalla's blast furnace will never be relit. More than 600 workers are losing their jobs, and Australia has lost its structural-steel-making capability. Behind those numbers are boilermakers, electricians, riggers and apprentices—people I represent, people who have spent years building their skills and supporting their families. The losses don't stop there. They run through every business—the contractors, the cafes, the sporting clubs, the schools. Labor promised the people of Whyalla an orderly transition from the failures of GFG. They were delivered anything but. It shouldn't have ended this way. Whyalla, up until this week, made 75 per cent of Australia's structural steel. It is the only place in the country that makes rail. More than a billion dollars of taxpayer money has gone into the steelworks since it entered administration. Money was not the problem. The problem was the fundamentals and the ideology. Steel is made with energy—so is aluminium, so is cement. Under this government, South Australia has the highest prices of power and gas in the industrial world. When the default market offer came out in May, the Minister for Climate Change and Energy told us that, because of renewables, prices were coming down in every jurisdiction. Well, he told another mistruth. He forgot about South Australia, the renewable capital of the nation and the only jurisdiction to see power prices increase. Just down the road from Whyalla is the Middleback Ranges mine that supplies the steelworks. When the wind drops and the sun goes down, the energy costs too much, so they stopped the crusher. Rostering a workforce around the weather should not be the reality in Australia. It is not how you run a modern, competitive mine and steelworks. A new furnace will not fix that on its own. An electric arc furnace uses a boatload of electricity and uses a boatload of gas. Unless we get the prices down of both, the next owner will only inherit the same issues. Then there is the carbon tax. The Safeguard Mechanism applies to Whyalla. So, while the government is bailing out the steelworks on the one hand, they are taxing it with the other. Whyalla was promised a green hydrogen revolution. What they were delivered was a hydrogen hoax—$9 billion of taxpayer money invested into a pipe dream across this country. In South Australia, $600 million was poured into a hydrogen plant at Whyalla that was quietly shelved in the shadows of the steelworks administration. It was the great cover up of 25 February. Not one electron was generated, and now we have more than 600 workers in Whyalla without a job. Why is it that Whyalla and regional communities continue to take hit after hit for this minister's green dreams? Why is it that Whyalla Steelworks and other manufacturers continue to lose their jobs overseas because of this minister's green dreams and net zero ideology. In 2023, Minister Bowen had this to say about green hydrogen: Green hydrogen will play a crucial role in our clean energy transformation and will create jobs and spur investment in regional Australia. In 2024, he said: Hydrogen is central to the Australian government's vision for a Future Made in Australia. He also said that he was disappointed and surprised at the Queensland government's decision to pull hydrogen funding. So clearly he's a big supporter of hydrogen. But then we get to 2026, and what do you think Minister Bowen said? Yesterday, he said— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 That is correct. I will ask the member to be very mindful going forward. Mr VENNING 315434 Yesterday, he said that he 'never quite bought all the hype on green hydrogen'. That's a bloody insult to my constituents. (Time expired) Mr Rob Mitchell M3E That was a waste of five minutes. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 Member for McEwen, that was very unhelpful and unnecessary. The member for Solomon has the call. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 I have dealt with the matter, thank you, and I asked the member for Solomon to proceed. 15:39 Mr GOSLING 245392 Solomon I want to acknowledge my good friend the member for Jagajaga and her contribution outlining our solid commitment to Australian workers and, in the case of the topic that's being discussed now at Whyalla, to blue-collar workers. We are absolutely committed, as any reasonable person would know with our track record, to the domestic steel manufacturing industry and to securing the long-term future of those steelworks and the local jobs there. The coalition has no credible plan on supporting Australian manufacturing or Australian workers. I've been around long enough to remember Joe Hockey and the coalition forcing the car manufacturing industry out of this country. Whyalla was well addressed by my colleague, so I'll head north. I've spoken before about Territory Gold, which is the best solar radiation in the world that cuts right through the Northern Territory but also some of our neighbouring states. The Northern Territory is at the forefront of Australia's energy transition as we become a renewable energy superpower. It's through projects like SunCable and Energy North that we'll tap the incredible potential of solar energy to power local industry, and we'll also, one day down the track, help our neighbours in ASEAN with their energy needs, with renewable energy. Data centres are very topical. I think they're a good example, when done right. I commend our Prime Minister on the outlines for the guardrails that we're putting in around data centres and AI. But the reality is, when the communities are going to benefit and when power prices are not going to go up, some big IT players are very interested in harnessing Territory Gold, through solar, to run data centres. But these investments, as I said, must benefit the community and deliver for our national interests. Those Australian standards for AI data centres have made it clear that if you want to build here, you have to make our economy and society stronger—and that will happen with abundant renewables. Proponents are going to need to add to our energy supply, not drain it. They're going to have to strengthen the grid, not weaken it, and they're going to have to use water responsibly and offset impact. Hiring and training Australians will be essential, and our research and development, our sciences, are going to have to benefit. These expectations are important because they put the needs of Australian people first and are possible when you embrace renewables and Australia's clean energy transition. Our federal government is going to work with the states and territories and market participants to implement the expectations, particularly through the Energy and Climate Change Ministerial Council. We all know that data centres will have enormous potential to expand new renewable investment, and it's vital that we work together across jurisdictions and with industry to get those investment settings right so that we can continue to keep our system secure and energy prices low for all consumers. Minister Bowen has stated the Commonwealth will not be standing by and letting it become a race to the bottom of states and territories falling over themselves to attract these data centres at a cost to household bills. At the National Cabinet meeting earlier this month, it was agreed that state and territory owned power can be used if the Commonwealth, via the Australian Energy Regulator, is satisfied it won't push up bills or weaken reliability. If a jurisdiction believes it has state owned energy that is cheaper than renewable energy, it'll be able to make that case to the Commonwealth for consideration by the Australian Energy Regulator on a case-by-case basis. The regulator will have to be convinced, however, that it would put downward pressure on bills and be cheaper than renewables. That's a very high bar that will be set to ensure that household bills don't go up and it doesn't make it harder for other industries to do business. However, the Northern Territory Chief Minister, when asked last week about potential savings on power bills from Beetaloo gas, said: I would love to say yes, unfortunately, that's not going to be the case. Well, there you go. From one jurisdiction— (Time expired) 15:44 Dr WEBSTER 281688 Mallee Last night we saw on Four Corners that the Minister for Climate Change and Energy had the audacity to say, 'I never really bought into all the hype about green hydrogen.' I would suggest to the chamber that he was actually the salesman-in-chief. I would go back to April 2023, where Minister Bowen, the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, said: Today's release of the annual State of Hydrogen report reinforces that Australia has the foundations to become a global leader in green hydrogen. Then, six months later, in January 2024, he said: Firstly, of course, our government wants Australia to be a hydrogen superpower, a green hydrogen superpower. And then a year later, in March 2025, he said: Hydrogen, green hydrogen, is really the only game in town when it comes to ultimately supporting the Australian and international industries as they move in the longer term to get off gas. And Australia is one of the few places in the world which can be home to a serious green hydrogen industry. And he goes on—there are so many quotes that I could provide to the House. The problem is that we now find we have the smelter in Whyalla closing. That was the big promise—that green hydrogen would be able to run that smelter. All of a sudden, what we have instead are 600 jobs gone. While Labor want to declare that they are the government for workers, I don't think losing 600 jobs is the way to be the government of workers. I don't think making bold promise after bold promise, based on ideology and creative thinking, is helping Australia at all. We are seeing more businesses closing and we are seeing fewer people have confidence in this government, and it's for a very good reason. In my electorate alone, we have the renewable rollout under Labor federally and Labor state, and it is all turning to custard. The reason it's all turning to custard is that they don't bother actually checking in with the communities. There is no social licence for all of the renewable that is ploughing through prime agricultural land. That's a problem. That's a problem in my electorate. If Australia wants to know where farmers have risen up and formed a serious protest movement, it started in Mallee, and I am very proud of those farmers. They're there to farm. That's what they want to do. It is the most important thing to them. It has been the most important thing to their grandparents and their great-grandparents, and so I could go on. Sixth- and seventh-generation farmers are now finding it so hard to farm under this government. It's not only the red tape, the green tape and all the biosecurity issues they now have to worry about. We've got carbon tax. We now have renewable energy rolling through their properties and forced acquisitions by the Victorian Labor government. But lo and behold, today we find that the Victorian Premier has made the announcement that the Western Renewables Link is going to go into 'pause mode' until after the election, because maybe they need to do a bit of an inquiry as to whether the funding for it actually stacks up. Well, I don't think it's going to take the Premier very long to find out that the communities don't think it stacks up, let alone the economics. What we are seeing is Australia becoming not a superpower—not a superpower. We are losing industry, we are losing manufacturing, and we are losing farmers who are giving up their passion under this government. It is extraordinary to me that this Labor government is so blind to what they are doing to our nation. Well, I can tell you what, it might be 18 months until the next election, but Australia will not forget. 15:48 Ms COFFEY 312323 Griffith Last Sunday, in my community in West End at the Kurilpa Derby, I had many conversations about the future that people want for our community, and I'll give a big shout-out to Moira, who had a very long chat with me. What I heard, time and again, is that people in my community want ambitious climate action and a clean energy transition that lowers household bills. They also want renters to share in those savings. They expect their government to listen, lead and deliver. As the only progressive party in Australia that can form a government, we know we must lead that debate and also deliver environmental and energy policy. That responsibility belongs to Labor, and it is only Labor that rises to that challenge. Addressing climate change is a moral imperative, is an economic imperative and is what my community wants. Earlier this month we heard some distressing news. For more than a decade the world has been working towards limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees. The United Nations Environment Programme has warned that we will very likely exceed that threshold within this decade. Avoiding an overshoot is no longer a realistic prospect. This is devastating news, particularly for our Pacific island neighbours facing rising seas and threats to their homes. We cannot pretend that climate change isn't real. We cannot ignore it, and we cannot give up and say it is all too hard. Climate change is part of our lives. We must adapt and limit the worst of its effects. Every fraction of a degree we prevent reduces harm. Failing to seize the opportunities of a clean economy would work against Australia's national interests, particularly the interests of those that come after us. I am proud to be part of a Labor government that is rising to that challenge. More than 44 per cent of homes in Griffith have solar panels. Our community is already helping build a cleaner electricity system. Complementing rooftop solar, home batteries let households store electricity generated during the day and use it after sunset when families are cooking dinner and switching on appliances. I was proud that our government announced the Cheaper Home Batteries Program, right in my community, last year—a program that reduces the cost of a typical battery around 30 per cent. Since 1 July last year, it has supported more than 500,000 battery installations for households, small businesses and community groups. Griffith has recorded 2,258 solar batteries, providing more than 68,000 kilowatt hours of usable storage. It's a shame that the member for Wannon has left because in his electorate they have installed 2,253 cheaper home batteries. He's just five short of mine—catching up!—but I've got no doubt that they will get there very soon. We have expanded that program to support an expected two million installations by 2030. For renters, access to benefits requires government actions. A tenant can face high electricity bills without having any control over the roof above them. The Solar Sharer Offer gives eligible households the option of three hours of free electricity usage in the middle of the day. Our Community Solar Banks program has delivered solar installations for more than 5,200 apartments, with renters occupying almost half. We are also investing more than $20 billion through Rewiring the Nation to modernise the grid. Another 15 large battery projects selected through our Capacity Investment Scheme are expected to attract around $6 billion in private investment. These projects will support more than 6,800 jobs across construction, operations and maintenance. Australians are changing how they get around, too. Last month, battery electric vehicles outsold petrol vehicles for the first time, becoming the largest single fuel category in new vehicle sales—more than 27,000 sold in August—accounting for almost a quarter of the market. This is electrification in practice; more Australians are replacing petrol with electricity, reducing their reliance on fossil fuels and cutting their running costs. It's a bit rich for those opposite to talk about failing energy policy. They spent years in government unable to settle on a lasting policy of their own—and then they came up with nuclear. Now the coalition is chasing One Nation and retreating further from the climate action that Australians need. Look at what One Nation senator Malcolm Roberts is saying. At a Senate hearing just this year, he claimed: There is no data at all that shows there's a changing climate, only inherent natural variation in cycles. He's promoted claims of a UN-inspired climate hoax and accused the Bureau of Meteorology of interfering with climate data. Climate change isn't a debate; it is our reality. In my community of Griffith, people tell me every day they want action, not excuses. The Albanese Labor government is showing leadership, setting strong climate targets, investing in renewables and driving down emissions while creating local jobs. That's progress, not politics. 15:53 Mr PASIN 240756 Barker To any steelworkers from Whyalla who might have just been listening to that contribution, that was the member for Griffith. Where is Griffith? Griffith is an affluent inner-city electorate in Brisbane, along the Brisbane River—certainly no steelworkers, or very few, I would hasten to suggest. Unfortunately, what they would have heard was not what they wanted to hear. What they wanted to hear was the once proud Labor Party standing up for them, their industry and their jobs. Instead, what they heard was, 'You're just a casualty of the ideological war we're perpetrating on the Australian people.' That's what they heard—the once-proud Labor Party who stood up for workers now turns their back on workers. These may well be workers in regional South Australia—and that might not matter to you—but it matters to me. It's not in my electorate, but it's significant. The other thing that matters to me is that—in a country where we export phenomenal amounts of coking coal, where we have available to us phenomenal amounts of coking coal and where we have iron ore exports that rival the rest of the world—we will no longer produce structural steel. We have flown the white flag on the capacity to build or create steel. Mr Rob Mitchell M3E You have! Mr PASIN 240756 The member for McEwen says, 'You have.' I would never suggest, Madam Deputy Speaker, that in the chair you would do such a thing. But the truth is that those opposite have done this. And how have you done it? You've done it by pursuing this ideological renewables-only agenda, which has driven up the price of electricity. During question time, we heard from those opposite seeking to blame the former owner of the steel mill, Mr Gupta, about his failure to undertake maintenance on the blast furnace. This was a situation where, quite frankly, in the state that experiences the highest electricity costs in Australia and in turn potentially the highest electricity costs in the world—and again, who do we have to blame for that? It's an agenda that is driven by those opposite, who want to drive up the cost of electricity not just for households but for businesses. We shouldn't be surprised—should we—that the businesses most likely to fail in that setting are those businesses that rely heavily on electricity and the cost of energy. Those really energy-intensive industries are going to fail first. Government members Government members interjecting— Mr PASIN 240756 I can hear those opposite, like the member for McEwen, chattering. But my question to those opposite would be: do you think the world's going to use any less steel as a result of this decision? No. Those opposite need to understand— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 Order! I want less interjections. I ask the member for Barker to direct his comments through the chair. You know well the standing order. Mr PASIN 240756 I seem to encourage interest from those opposite, and I'm pleased. Because—through you, Madam Deputy Speaker—I suggest to the House that, as a result of this really difficult decision that was delivered to 500 or 600 South Australian regional workers by the Premier of South Australia yesterday, there won't be any less structural steel utilised globally or indeed in Australia. But now it'll be produced in jurisdictions who care less about carbon emissions, who care less about workers' safety, who care less about workers and what workers are paid. I want to live in an Australia that makes things. I want to live in an Australia where we don't have the working poor. As the brother of a dead worker who died on the job, I want to make sure people making things can do it safely, but unfortunately those opposite want to live in this utopia where unfortunately you can drive up the cost of energy but heavy industry survives in Australia. It isn't exposed to global competition. That's exactly what's happening. If you don't realise that what you're doing is exporting jobs to the rest of the world, then think again because that's what's happening here. We couldn't build this building today with Australian products, but we could in 1988. 15:58 Ms WITTY 316660 Melbourne For years, everyday Australians watched the other political parties in this place turn energy into a political battleground rather than a responsibility. One side spent a decade denying reality. The other confused protests with progress, slogans with solutions. They created outrage but instead of doing something about it turned that outrage into data harvesting personal information for their own political gain. In the middle are everyday families and businesses who just want affordable energy, reliable power and confidence that climate change is being taken seriously. Australia's energy system was always going to change. Our coal-fired power stations are getting older. The question has never been whether the transition would happen. The question has been whether Australia would be prepared for it. For 10 years those opposite had the opportunity to prepare. What did they deliver? It was a promise of wholesale prices below $70 per megawatt hour but with a reality of prices above $280. It was 10 years in government, 10 years of climate wars and 10 years where more energy left the grid than was added. And now they stand in this parliament pretending they have discovered concern for household and industry. The people I represent in Melbourne are not interested in revisiting the last 15 years. They want to know what happens next. How does Australia get competitive? How do manufacturers get the energy they need? How do households get relief from rising costs? How do we tackle climate change while creating good jobs? That is why, from day one, the Albanese government has focused on building—building renewable generation, building battery storage, building the industries of the future and building a modern energy system that can actually support Australia's future. Since we first came to government, more than 22 gigawatts of renewable generation has been added to Australia's grid. Wind and solar capacity has increased by 60 per cent. That is enough new capacity to exceed five Snowy Hydro schemes. That's not proposed, not announced and not protested; it's built. Unlike those opposite, Labor understands that aspirations don't power homes; infrastructure does. Announcements don't keep industries open; investment does. Slogans don't lower bills; building things does. And delivering for the Australian people is exactly what this government is doing. For households, we are helping Australians participate in the energy transition rather than simply paying pay for it. It's battery discounts, community batteries, solar sharing, social housing upgrades and consumer protections that stop energy retailers taking Australians for a ride. It's practical reforms that make a difference in people's lives. For industry, we are providing what businesses consistently tell government they need most. That is certainty—not another decade of arguments, not another decade of delays and not more protests, but certainty—through Rewiring the Nation, through the Capacity Investment Scheme, through Future Made in Australia and through investments that support manufacturing, clean industry and long-term economic growth. That matters enormously for the people I represent in Melbourne, because in Australia we should not just consume the technologies of the future; we should build them. We should manufacture them. We should design them. Our city is home to world-class research institutions, advanced manufacturing, clean technology businesses and highly skilled workers. The economic opportunities that come with the clean energy transformation are not theoretical; they are real. The only question is whether Australia captures them or watches other countries do it first. That is what is at stake in this debate. It's not just power bills; it's economic leadership, industrial capacity and future jobs. That is why Labor's approach is different. We reject the false choice that has dominated this debate for too long. We reject the idea that Australia must choose between climate action and economic growth. We reject the idea that delay is a strategy. And we reject the idea that saying 'no' is a substitute for governing. The Australian people deserve more than political theatre. They deserve more than culture wars. They deserve more than endless protests. They deserve real outcomes. When it comes to delivering those outcomes, there is only one party with a record and a plan, and that party is the Australian Labor Party. Whyalla Steelworks 41 16:04 Mr BIRRELL 288713 Nicholls I can tell the House that it was with great sadness that the member for Grey had to get up and ask his question to the Prime Minister today—a question the Prime Minister did not have the decency to answer. But you feel very personally when people in your electorates lose their jobs and the business that sustains them, their families, their lifestyles and their communities because it closes down. I can tell everyone with a very heavy heart that the member for Grey is dealing with these particular issues at the moment. I think the causes of these issues need to be taken a lot more seriously by the government, and concern and care for those workers who have lost their jobs need to be taken with a lot more of a sense of responsibility The issue I have with this government is—you can call it ideology; you can call it whatever you want. Sometimes, if you want to believe something enough, you can delude yourself, and the government with its ideology about what renewables can and can't do deludes itself that a grid dominated by renewable energy can sustain heavy manufacturing in this country. It is not the case, and it has been shown around the world—Germany is suffering from this, as are many parts of Europe—that, when you try to run a significant heavy industrial economy using intermittent power as the dominant source, it physically doesn't work. We can argue across the chamber on the politics of this, but it's actually about the physics. It's about the physics of whether intermittent power, which, in moderation and in certain circumstances, is a very good thing, can sustain the sort of manufacturing that is necessary for this country to have sovereign capability? Mr BIRRELL 288713 Deputy Speaker, the member for Calwell is interjecting out of his seat. It's highly disorderly, and I'd ask you to make a ruling on it. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 I actually warned the member for McEwen three times now. You need to stop interjecting. Also, Member for Calwell, I'm noting you as well. Mr BIRRELL 288713 I think the member for Barker made a really good point: the demand for these products that we're making, that we have been making in Australia, such as structural steel, which is basically a combination of iron ore and the energy that we can produce, is not going to reduce globally. We still need to build things made of steel, and structural steel is still going to have a huge demand around the world. The only difference is that, because of the failed energy policies of the Albanese government, these industries and these processes are going to be moved offshore, like so many things. What are we going to do then? We're going to purchase them back. The emissions will leave Australia, but they won't leave the globe. The jobs will leave Australia, but they won't leave the globe. And, as the member for Barker quite rightly pointed out, the conditions, the safety and the energy efficiency of the processes of structural steel, to fill the world's demand, will not go away, but it'll be made somewhere with less efficiency, less worker safety and less worker remuneration. That's happening in so many industries across Australia: we're pushing things offshore, because we're not facing the reality of what type of energy mix and grid is required to sustain heavy industry in a country that has a bounty of iron ore, a bounty of high-quality coking coal, a bounty of gas and a bounty of, yes, uranium. I believe it will not be too long before the Australian Labor Party is going to have to face this folly of being too reliant on intermittently generated power and come to the conclusion, like the rest of the world, that some form of nuclear power is going to be necessary for Australia to continue with the standard of living we have had. 16:09 Mr FRENCH 316550 Moore I rise as the final speaker in this MPI, which gives me one significant advantage: I've now heard the opposition's entire argument, and, after listening carefully, I can report that it has roughly the structural integrity of a flat pack cupboard assembled without the instructions, blindfolded. The member for Wannon asked this House to condemn the government over energy prices. There is just one problem with that argument. I've already seen what the coalition do when they are actually responsible for energy policy. They had nearly a decade—not a week, not a term but a decade. During that time, 24 of Australia's 28 coal-fired stations brought forward their closure dates. Four gigawatts of dispatchable generation left the system. Only one gigawatt came on. That is not an energy transition; that is watching the furniture leave the house and then acting surprised there is nowhere left to sit. Also, they promised wholesale electricity prices below $70 a megawatt hour. By the time they left office, wholesale prices were above $280. There are failed targets, but then there is missing the dartboard, the wall behind it and possibly the building. The member for Hume promised a billion-dollar program to add another 3,800 megawatts of electricity. Three years later on, not $1 and not one kilowatt have been delivered. They even managed to put part of Australia's oil reserve in Texas. Nothing says Australian energy security quite like: 'Don't worry, we've got the fuel. It's just in another continent.' That is Australia-made for the coalition. When electricity prices were about to rise before the 2022 election, did they fix the problem? No, they changed the rules so Australians would not see the price rise until after polling day. Apparently, their preferred form of renewable energy was recycling the bad news until after the election. And that is the record behind this MPI. Coal-fired power stations do not get younger because the Liberal Party gives a press conference. They age, they become less reliable, and they break down, a bit like the LNP membership. And when large generators suddenly come offline, prices spike. The real choice is not between changing the energy system and leaving it as is; the system is already changing. The choice is whether Australia manages that change properly or repeats the coalition's approach of crossing its fingers and hoping power stations achieve immortality. Labor has a plan to replace ageing generation with renewables, backed by storage, gas and hydro and the transmission needed to connect it. Since 2022, more than 22 gigawatts of wind and solar capacity have been added to the grid, and the independent experts have made this clear. The Australian Energy Market Operator says, 'Renewables firmed with storage and backed by gas remain the lowest-cost roadmap.' The CSIRO says, 'Renewables, supported by storage, remain the lowest-cost new generation investment.' The Australian Energy Market Commission has warned that delaying renewable generation and transmission would put upward pressure on residential electricity prices. So what is the coalition alternative? It's to keep ageing plants running longer, slow down replacement generation, or spend years arguing about nuclear reactors that would take another decade to build and somehow insist this will make the next household electricity bill cheaper. That is not an energy policy. It is a very expensive refusal to not buy a calendar. Even Australian business has been pleading for certainty. The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry described the coalition's approach as effectively 'a plan not to have a plan', and that might be the most accurate coalition energy policy document ever written. This is the central problem. They had nearly a decade to plan for ageing coal. They did not. They had nearly a decade to build replacement generation. They did not. They promised cheaper wholesale electricity; they delivered dramatically higher prices, and when those prices became politically inconvenient, they tried to hide them. And now they want Australians to believe the same people who created the policy vacuum have suddenly discovered the answer. Australians are entitled to expect cheaper and more reliable energy. They are entitled to expect this government to keep working until power bills come down. And the coalition cannot spend another decade setting fire to the kitchen, handing Labor the fire extinguisher and then walking back in complaining about the smell of the smoke. They are not the answer to Australia's energy problems. They are the group project that helped create them. Debate adjourned. BILLS 42 BILLS Wage Justice for Early Childhood Education and Care Workers (Special Account) (Extending Support and Strengthening Safety) Bill 2026 42

Wage Justice for Early Childhood Education and Care Workers (Special Account) (Extending Support and Strengthening Safety) Bill 2026

Returned from Senate 42 Biosecurity Amendment (Improving Operational Efficiency) Bill 2026, Wine and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2026, Treasury Laws Amendment (Strengthening Accountability for Tax Adviser Misconduct and Other Measures) Bill 2026 42

Biosecurity Amendment (Improving Operational Efficiency) Bill 2026

Wine and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2026

Treasury Laws Amendment (Strengthening Accountability for Tax Adviser Misconduct and Other Measures) Bill 2026

Assent 42 Knox Class Action (Facilitation) Bill 2026 43

Knox Class Action (Facilitation) Bill 2026

Second Reading 43 16:15 Mrs McINTOSH 281513 Lindsay I rise to speak on the Knox Class Action (Facilitation) Bill 2026. The Knox settlement will compensate eligible group members either through fixed payments or by an individual assessment for a range of economic or non-economic loss types. The bill will amend the NDIS, social security and veterans' entitlements acts to exempt Knox settlements payments from the existing statutory recovery schemes and income testing provisions that ordinarily apply. Under normal circumstances, compensation payments received by a person would be assessed against their entitlement to social security payments. This bill will amend the Social Security Act to exempt any payment made under the Knox settlement from being classified as income or a compensation payment to assess a person's entitlement to social security payments. The same exemption will be applied under the Veterans' Entitlements Act to exempt these payments from being used for a person's entitlement to DVA payments. The bill will also exempt any settlement amount under the NDIS Act so as not to impact a person's NDIS plan for the funding of reasonable and necessary supports. I understand from discussions with the government that an additional bill will be introduced to the parliament by the end of the 2026-27 financial year to also exempt these payments from income tax provisions. The government has requested that this bill pass the parliament quickly to ensure settlement payments can be made promptly and there is no impact to people's payments. The coalition will support quick passage of the bill. I wanted to take a moment, though, to highlight concerns with the Albanese government's approach to using similar automated assessment tools in aged care and now in the NDIS. The Albanese Labor government has created an algorithm driven system used in aged-care assessments that deliberately removes the ability for trained assessors to override the decision even when it produces the wrong outcome. Older Australians and their families across the country are telling us they are being underassessed, receiving inadequate levels of support or being given the wrong priority. This means that older Australians are going without the care that they have been assessed as needing or, worse, they are being assessed incorrectly altogether. This has led to people receiving lower support despite worsening conditions, fear among older Australians about requesting reassessments, and a surge of complaints and requests for a review. Despite the government's rhetoric, they have failed to adhere to the very lessons they preach—that there must be transparency, accountability and meaningful human oversight when using tools like this. The government removed the ability for humans to override outcomes as part of a 2024-25 budget decision with no policy rationale apart from saving money on the budget bottom line. What makes this even more concerning is that the government cannot claim it didn't know there were problems. There have been months of warnings from aged-care clinicians, assessors, peak bodies, older Australians, carers, academics and state and territory health authorities. In February, aged-care workers described the integrated assessment tool as cruel and inhumane, with one experienced assessor telling the Guardian he disagreed with the tool eight times out of 10 and that he ultimately left his job. By March, more than 800 people had already sought reviews of their assessments, while assessors remained unable to override the algorithm even when they believed the result was wrong. One former member of the government's aged-care panel explicitly compared the system to robodebt. The warnings weren't confined to the sector. State and territory health officials were raising concerns about real people being harmed by the system, documents recently released show health staff were compiling lists of concerning cases within days of the tool being launched, including people who had been severely under-assessed and people experiencing delays in receiving appropriate care. Western Australia's health director-general warned of potentially catastrophic outcomes without a discretionary pathway. And the warnings have continued. FOI documents have revealed that assessors were even warning some people with dementia against seeking reassessment, because they feared the algorithm could reduce their existing support despite the conditions worsening. For all the prophesising from the Albanese Labor government about the mistakes of Robodebt, I fear they are repeating history. How many warnings does this government need? How many older Australians have to be underassessed? How many families have to fight the system? How many clinicians have to say the outcome is wrong before the government accepts that the design is wrong? The ABC's investigation found that the integrated assessment tool contained more than 500 questions, yet experts found that much of the information collected does not actually feed into the algorithm. A one-point difference at one point in the decision tree can mean a reduction of $40,000 a year in funding. A person's care needs cannot always be reduced to a neat mathematical formula. Frailty, dementia, carer exhaustion, living circumstances and the interaction between multiple conditions require clinical judgement. The whole point of having trained assessors is that a human being can recognise when the computer has got it wrong. The Senate has already passed legislation to restore human oversight. The government could support that legislation and fix this problem now. Perhaps the most concerning part is that the government appears determined to take the same philosophy into the NDIS. On 18 August, Minister Butler was asked why the government wouldn't simply cancel the aged-care algorithm given the hundreds of complaints and serious cases. His response was revealing. He said that the government was doing 'exactly the same' in the NDIS as it moves to its new framework planning system, with the aim of greater 'equity and predictability' in the level of funding provided. So the question for Australians with disability is: what exactly has Labor learned from the aged-care algorithm? The coalition is not arguing that government should never use technology or data. Technology can assist decision-making. It should not replace it. And yet, Labor appears determined to never learn this lesson, even when another generation of vulnerable Australians will pay the price. 16:21 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs I rise to support the Knox Class Action (Facilitation) Bill 2026 introduced by the Minister for Social Services, the Hon. Tanya Plibersek. This bill is wise, principled and beneficial, but behind it lies one of the most shameful episodes in the history of Australian public administration—the Liberal and National parties' unlawful and punitive robodebt scheme. For years, I and many of my colleagues have spoken in this parliament about the cruelty and illegality of the robodebt scheme. In 2020, I said that the financial cost of robodebt, appalling though it was—I'm quoting myself—'pales next to the toll in human suffering'. That remains true today. Robodebt was not simply a defective administrative program. It was not some technical error buried deep inside government. The Liberal-National government under the then prime minister, Tony Abbott, conceived and implemented robodebt, and the Turnbull and Morrison coalition governments expanded and defended it until legal action forced its abandonment. The scheme used averaged annual income data from the Australian Taxation Office to assert that social security recipients had received money they were not entitled to. It turned an estimate into an accusation and the accusation into a debt, and then turned that debt into a demand for payment. It shifted the burden onto ordinary Australians to disprove debts the Commonwealth had not lawfully established. The Commonwealth admitted, and the Federal Court declared, that more than $1.73 billion in debts were unlawfully raised against about 433,000 people—$751 million of it already taken from 381,000 of them. Those figures are staggering, but the figures do not tell us what robodebt did to people. They do not describe the fear of receiving a letter from your own government demanding thousands of dollars you did not owe. They do not describe the fear and anxiety of being pursued by debt collectors. They do not describe the humiliation of being treated as a cheat or a criminal when you had done nothing wrong—and that humiliation was set from the top. Australians will not forget the blustering, mean-spirited threats of the Liberal minister, Alan Tudge, in the Morrison government. In December 2016, as robodebt notices were being sent out across the country, he went out in the media and said: We'll find you, we'll track you down, you will have to repay those debts, and you may end up in prison. People who had done nothing wrong opened letters from their own government demanding money. The minister responsible—that's Mr Tudge—told the nation they might end up in prison. When the Albanese Labor government came to office in 2022, we were determined that what had happened could not simply be allowed to pass into history unexplained and unexamined. We moved swiftly to establish the Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme. At the time, I was Attorney-General, and establishing that royal commission was one of the key initiatives in my portfolio to repair the damage the former government had done to the rule of law. The Attorney-General's Department undertook the work of establishing and supporting the royal commission, work I have described as being of the highest standard. The royal commission was formally established by letters patent issued by the Governor-General in August 2022. It was given the powers and independence necessary to determine how robodebt was conceived, who was responsible, what warnings were given and ignored, and what it did to people. The royal commission heard of financial hardship, profound distress and lives devastated. It heard evidence from mothers whose sons had died by suicide after becoming caught up in the scheme. They were people entitled to expect that their government would obey the law and treat them with dignity. I've said many times that acting lawfully is the bare minimum of a democratically elected government's obligation to the community. Robodebt failed even that most basic test, and that is not simply my judgement. The commissioner—Catherine Holmes AC SC, a former chief justice of Queensland—examined in forensic detail how this disaster was conceived, implemented and allowed to continue. Commissioner Holmes' conclusions were unsparing and devastating. She described robodebt as 'a crude and cruel mechanism, neither fair nor legal'. She said: In essence, people were traumatised on the off-chance they might owe money. The commission exposed a profound failure of government. It found a scheme rushed into operation without proper regard for its legality or the people it would affect and maintained despite mounting evidence of the devastation it was causing. In her closing observations, Commissioner Holmes named the causes in three words that won't be forgotten, and I'm going to quote them: venality, incompetence and cowardice. That is a damning finding about how public power was exercised in this country. This was a government working against its own citizens. The royal commission showed what can happen when legality is treated as an obstacle, when warnings are buried and when vulnerable people become a line in a budget. That is why the lessons of robodebt cannot be left in the past. They impose an obligation on every government that follows. The first of those obligations concerns legal advice. It cannot be disregarded because it sits in draft, and advice must not be left in draft because its conclusions are unwelcome. Government lawyers must be free to provide frank, fearless and independent legal advice, and governments must be prepared to hear it. What makes this history still more disturbing is that the warnings came early. As Attorney-General, in a speech to a national tribunals conference in June 2023, I asked: How can it be that members of the AAT could say—over and over and over again—that the Robodebt scheme was unlawful only for those decisions, and the obvious implications of those decisions, to be ignored and ultimately buried? The royal commission answered that question. Commissioner Holmes found: The beginning of 2017 was the point at which Robodebt's unfairness, probable illegality and cruelty became apparent. She found that the scheme 'should then have been abandoned or revised drastically, and an enormous amount of hardship and misery would have been averted.' These are also Commissioner Holmes's words: Instead the path taken was to double down, to go on the attack in the media against those who complained and to maintain the falsehood that in fact the system had not changed at all. When our government responded to the royal commission's report in 2023, I said: The Liberal Party's Robodebt scheme was not an innocent mistake. This was a deliberate, calculated scheme. … … … The Robodebt scheme was wrong, the Robodebt scheme was unlawful, the Robodebt scheme destroyed the lives of many innocent Australians. Nothing we do now can give back to those Australians the years taken from them. No court order can erase the anxiety. No settlement can undo every injury. No payment can restore a life that has been lost. But we are obliged to do what justice still permits—and that's the purpose of this bill. On 23 June this year, the Federal Court approved a settlement of the appeal from the original robodebt class action, providing a further $475 million in compensation for eligible group members. It is the largest class action settlement in Australian history. Justice Beach, of the Federal Court, began his reasons this way. Robodebt, he said, 'was a fiasco in public administration and an abrogation of ministerial responsibility and competent oversight'. Those who authored and promoted it acted, in His Honour's words, 'in contumelious disregard of individual rights', and the suffering it produced is 'immeasurable and ongoing'. The legislation before us makes an important and principled change. It amends the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act, the Social Security Act and the Veterans' Entitlements Act so that settlement payments are not treated as compensation and are not counted as income for determining income support. The principle is simple: people harmed by the unlawful conduct of the Commonwealth should not then have that compensation clawed back by the Commonwealth or see their income support cut because they received it. Compensation is intended to compensate. It should reach the people for whom it is intended. The Minister for Social Services, Ms Plibersek, put the principle simply when announcing these measures: People impacted by Robodebt deserve nothing less than every single dollar of compensation they are entitled to. She is right. This bill gives practical effect to that principle, and it is another part of the work this Labor government has undertaken to confront the legacy of robodebt. There is a larger lesson here. The power of government is immense. The discipline of law is not an inconvenience to it; the discipline of law is what makes it legitimate. When the Commonwealth deals with a person who relies on social security, that person is not a problem to be managed or a debt to be collected; they are a citizen entitled to lawful treatment. They have rights, they are entitled to dignity and they are entitled to expect their government to obey the law. Robodebt deliberately ignored that. This parliament must never forget it. This bill cannot undo what was done, but it can make sure that the people harmed by an unlawful scheme keep the compensation they are owed without another arm of government taking it back. That is a modest act of justice. After robodebt, it is the very least we owe them. I commend this bill to the House. 16:33 Dr RYAN 297660 Kooyong In June this year, the Federal Court approved a settlement in which the Commonwealth would pay $475 million as compensation for the harms caused by the illegal and immoral robodebt scheme. This was known as the Knox settlement. It was the largest class action settlement in Australian history. It was a settlement commensurate with the scale of the damage and the ruin caused by robodebt. The Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme found that the Australian government's scheme harmed economically and socially disadvantaged people who are in receipt of income support payments. Robodebt was illegal. In approving this settlement, the Federal Court described robodebt as 'a fiasco in public administration and an abrogation of ministerial responsibility and competent oversight'. It said that the suffering experienced by affected individuals was 'immeasurable and ongoing'. I have heard from people who were damaged by the robodebt scheme of the ongoing hurt and dismay they have experienced as a result of what was, effectively, victimisation by the federal government. The $475 million settlement will compensate eligible members of the Knox class action for the harms caused by robodebt. Without the Knox Class Action (Facilitation) Bill 2026, some of that compensation could effectively be taken back by the Commonwealth. The bill exempts Knox settlement payments from the compensation and income tax provisions that would ordinarily apply under Australia's social security and veterans' affairs systems. It also ensures that payments are not treated as compensation under the National Disability Insurance Scheme. That means that recipients will not have their social security or veterans' affairs payments reduced or diminished entirely because they receive such a settlement. They won't have to repay amounts to the Commonwealth under the relevant compensation provisions, and the settlement payment won't affect their NDIS supports through the compensation provisions. Victims of robodebt certainly deserve to access full NDIS social security and veterans' affairs payments. People who are harmed by an unlawful government scheme shouldn't be penalised again when the government compensates them for that harm. They deserve to stand on equal ground. They deserve to receive compensation for the harm that they experience without that compensation impacting other ongoing supports that they receive and need. And so I unreservedly endorse this bill. But we still have much to do to ensure that such a deliberate distortion of government policy can never happen again. In fact, as automated decision-making becomes more common in government, we are more exposed every day to a potential repeat of robodebt. It's now been more than 10 years since robodebt was introduced and three years since the royal commission found that the Automated Debt Recovery Scheme at its basis was unlawful. But we're still waiting for a government commitment to introduce transparency and appropriate safeguards when automated decision-making tools are used by Commonwealth departments. In 2023, the royal commission made two important recommendations. Recommendation 17.1 called for a consistent legal framework for automation in government services, including clear pathways for review, transparency about where automated decision-making is used and capacity for independent experts to scrutinise the business rules and algorithms behind those systems. Recommendation 17.2 called for a body with the power to monitor and audit automated decision-making, including its technical operation and its impacts on fairness, bias and usability. Those recommendations were based on the acknowledgement that robodebt happened, deaths happened and lives were ruined because an automated system was used by the government without adequate safeguards, transparency and accountability—without responsible human oversight. The royal commission warned that, as automated systems become more sophisticated, and as they are deployed at greater scale, their potential to cause harm will also increase. The government has accepted recommendation 17—a recommendation, let's remember, that was made three years ago. But, as yet, it has made no substantive progress on its implementation. Last week I seconded the member for Curtin's private member's bill, the Automated Decision-Making (Safeguards and Transparency) Bill 2026. That bill implements recommendation 17.1 and 17.2 of the robodebt royal commission. It would a introduce legal framework establishing a set of safeguards and transparency requirements to guide the use of automated decision-making across Commonwealth departments and agencies. It would take a risk based approach, prohibiting automated decision-making where it would produce an unlawful outcome, where the decision requires genuine human discretion, when no explanation of the outcome can be given or where it would have an unjustified adverse impact on human rights. It would establish those circumstances in which additional safeguards are required. It would establish a body to monitor the use of automated decision-making in government, including through publication on a new Commonwealth automated tools register maintained by the Ombudsman. This issue has now become particularly urgent in aged care, where the integrated assessment tool is being used as part of the assessment system that determines the classification, type of care and priority of older Australians who are seeking aged-care services. For the better part of a year the automated tool has now been determining supports for some of Australia's most vulnerable people. Assessors have been unable to override the findings of that algorithm but, for the one in five older Australians who are able to seek a review of the tools decision, the review found that its decision-making was wrong. The minister's rapid review into the integrated assessment tool is now two weeks overdue but it is unlikely to offer human oversight embedded within future iterations of the assessment pathway. I've repeatedly raised concerns in this House that this flawed algorithm could result in robodebt 2.0—robodebt aged care—but, equally, we could soon face robodebt NDIS or robodefence. As the government looks to deliver services more efficiently and more cheaply, automation is only going to grow in influence across government. It is already increasing across the board. In the NDIS, it's being used both to determine eligibility for support and to set the level of support that recipients receive. Automation is being used more and more in social security payments, immigration determinations, environmental assessments and healthcare processes. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but it will prove a false economy if it creates errors and if it harms people at scale and leaves the Commonwealth paying to fix its mess again. The Commonwealth has ultimately agreed to pay $475 million, plus $73 million in administration costs—over half-a-billion dollars—to compensate Australians who have been harmed by robodebt. This is not an argument against automation; it's an argument against automation without safeguards. Last year, 27 civil society signatories joined with ACOSS and wrote to the Attorney-General about the need for further safeguards. So while I commend this bill to the House and I applaud the protections that it provides to victims of robodebt I also implore the government to urgently legislate safeguards over automated decision-making so that we don't end up here again, debating compensation for the victims of robodebt 2.0. 16:42 Ms AMBIHAIPAHAR 315618 Barton I rise to speak on the Knox Class Action (Facilitation) Bill 2026. It's purpose is to amend three particular pieces of legislation: the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act, the Social Security Act and the Veterans' Entitlements Act. This is to exempt Knox settlement payments, from the robodebt class action, from existing Commonwealth statutory recovery schemes and income-testing provisions that ordinarily apply for recipients of lump sum compensation payments. There are some bills that come into this place that deal in the very technical language of statutory recovery schemes, income-testing provisions and rate calculators. And on the surface that is exactly what the Knox Class Action (Facilitation) Bill 2026 does. But underneath the schedules, underneath the subsections, this bill is about something much simpler. It is really about whether this parliament will let a government finish what is broken or whether we'll let one more piece of red tape reach into the pockets of the very people the robodebt scheme already hurt. I want to start, if I may, with a story—not from a courtroom situation or from the royal commission transcript, but from the kinds of conversations I used to have across my desk in my old life as an employment lawyer and also from the kinds of conversations my electorate office still has most weeks in Hurstville, Kogarah, Rockdale and Bexley. Picture a woman in her 60s. She has worked cleaning offices around Kingsgrove for the better part of two decades, on and off, while caring for a parent and, later, a grandchild. One year her hours changed twice; her income averaged out strangely across the financial year. A letter arrived from Centrelink telling her she owed almost $11,000. She hadn't done anything wrong. She hadn't hidden anything. A computer had simply averaged her income across fortnights—in which she had never actually earned that much—and decided she was a debtor. She said she didn't sleep properly for the better part of a year, and she started to avoid the mailbox. She said it felt like being accused of stealing from her own community by the very people who were supposed to have your back. That is robodebt—a real person in a real electorate like mine, Barton, in a lounge room, staring at a letter that told her that the government believed she was a cheat, when in truth it was the government's own scheme that was breaking the law. We know now, because the royal commission told us in the clearest possible terms, that this was not a bureaucratic accident. It was a scheme built on income averaging that officials were advised again and again was not lawful. It was pursued anyway, against people who were disproportionately economically and socially disadvantaged, many of them already vulnerable. The Commonwealth unlawfully asserted more than $1.7 billion in debts against 433,000 Australians. It recovered $751 million of that from people who owed nothing, and it did so using private debt collectors. Ordinary citizens were threatened with the machinery of law over debts that existed only on a spreadsheet. Those opposite, when they were in government, told Australians this scheme would save taxpayers $4.7 billion. Instead it has now cost the Commonwealth more than $2 billion, and an immeasurable human cost besides. When the royal commission was established to get to the truth of what happened, those opposite called it a political stunt, a witch-hunt, a trial by media. We should never forget the words of a former minister, who told Australians: We'll find you, we'll track you down and you will have to repay those debts and you may end up in prison. Those are not the words of a government administering a lawful scheme. They are the words of a government that had lost sight of who it was supposed to serve. I raise this history not to relitigate the past for its own sake but because it is the only way to properly understand why this bill exists in the first place and why the exemptions it creates are so necessary. The first robodebt class action resulted in a settlement approved by the Federal Court in 2021, an acknowledgement that administrative decisions under the scheme were never validly made, alongside $112 million in interest payments to group members. But when the royal commission's findings revealed that Commonwealth officials knew of it or were recklessly indifferent to it—the unlawfulness of what they were doing—an appeal followed. That appeal, brought by Nathan Knox and David Mandell on behalf of group members, led to a new settlement in September 2025, the Knox settlement, which the Federal Court approved in June this year. Under that settlement, the Commonwealth will pay $475 million in compensation to eligible group members on top of everything already repaid or written off in the earlier settlement. Combined with the debts refunded and the amounts already zeroed out, the total value of remedying this scandal now sits at over $2 billion. In its judgement, the Federal Court did not mince words. It called robodebt 'a fiasco in public administration, an abrogation of ministerial responsibility and competent oversight'. It found that the suffering experienced by those affected was in, in its words, 'immeasurable and ongoing'. I think of that woman from Kingsgrove, and I think that is exactly right. Here is the problem this bill solves. Under normal circumstances—and there are good reasons—the system usually works a particular way. A lump-sum compensation payment like this one would be subject to taxation, to income testing and to Commonwealth statutory recovery arrangements. That means a veteran on an income support pension could see their payment reduced. It means someone receiving NDIS support could have the National Disability Insurance Agency claw back the cost of past supports directly from their settlement money. It means a pensioner could be pushed into a preclusion period and lose access to income support they rely upon or find a portion of their long-awaited compensation swallowed up by aged-care fees or an unexpected tax debt they never saw coming because tax is not usually withheld from settlement payments. Let that sink in; without this bill, some of the very Australians who were wrongly treated as debtors by an unlawful scheme could find part of their compensation for that scheme clawed back by the ordinary operation of other Commonwealth systems. It would be robodebt's ghost reaching out one more time to take money from people who have already waited years for justice. This bill makes sure that doesn't happen again. It amends the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 so that the Knox settlement payments are specifically excluded from the definition of compensation that would otherwise trigger cost recovery or reduce a participant's future NDIS plan. It amends the Social Security Act 1991 so that these payments are treated as exempt income and not counted as compensation for the purposes of pension and benefit assessments. And it makes equivalent amendments to the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 so that a veteran who is one of the roughly 168,000 people covered by this settlement will not see their income support pension reduced or subjected to a preclusion period because of the money the Commonwealth owed them in the first place. In practical terms, this bill means the difference between a Barton pensioner receiving the compensation they are owed in full and the same pensioner discovering that a portion of it has quietly disappeared into a recovery scheme or an income test. It really means that a veteran in our community is not penalised twice, once by an unlawful scheme and again by the ordinary machinery designed for very different, very ordinary circumstances. As the Minister for Social Services put it in her second reading speech, this is not about changing how our system usually works; it is about recognising that robodebt was never ordinary and that the 'extraordinary and unique' circumstances of the scheme demand an extraordinary response. I want to be frank with the House about why this matters so deeply to me as a former workplace lawyer. For a decade, I stood in the Fair Work Commission and the Federal Circuit Court representing people—workers, employees and also employers—trying to get a fair and lawful outcome under systems that are supposed to operate by the rule of law. What made robodebt so corrosive was precisely that it inverted that principle. It was the government itself acting outside the law, against people with the least power to fight back. When you have spent years in rooms where the stakes for ordinary people are entitlements, wages and dignity, you develop a low tolerance for systems that get this wrong and an even lower tolerance for governments that know they have got it wrong and delay putting it right. This bill is this Albanese Labor government putting it right methodically and completely. We established the royal commission. We agreed or agreed in principle to all 56 of its recommendations. We are delivering the largest class action settlement in Australian history, and, with this bill, we are making sure that settlement is not diminished by the very Commonwealth systems it was meant to remedy against. The government has also flagged that complementary exemptions relating to Medicare and aged care will follow through regulation and that a full exemption from income tax on these payments will be legislated before the end of the 2026-27 tax year. This bill is not the end of that work. It is the next necessary step in it. To the woman from Kingsgrove and to the tens of thousands of Australians like her across this country and across Barton, in Hurstville, Bexley, Rockdale and Carlton, this bill says something very simple. We see what was done to you. We are not going to let one arm of government quietly undo what another arm of government has finally agreed to make right. You are owed this in full, and this parliament intends to see that you receive it. 16:54 Ms CLUTTERHAM 316101 Sturt I rise today to speak in support of the Knox Class Action (Facilitation) Bill 2026. I begin by thanking the member for Barton for her contribution—in particular, the way she highlighted the story of her constituent from Kingsgrove. I know that she has deep levels of empathy and concern for that lady and indeed for all Australians who were affected by the illegal and immoral robodebt scheme. This bill operates to exempt settlement payments received by members of the Knox class action, which compensates for the harms caused by robodebt from existing Commonwealth statutory recovery schemes and income-testing provisions that would ordinarily apply for recipients of a lump sum compensation payment. The settlement payments will be made to eligible Knox class action members through the settlement distribution scheme approved by the Federal Court in Prygodicz v Commonwealth of Australia. In particular, the bill exempts these Knox settlement payments from the application of the compensation provisions in the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 and from the application of the compensation and income-test provisions in the Social Security Act 1991 and Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986. These exemptions ensure that settlement payment recipients will not have to repay any amount to the Commonwealth in accordance with the compensation provisions in those acts and that their receipt of their settlement payment will not be counted as income for the purposes of any income-support payments they are currently receiving. What was Prygodicz v Commonwealth of Australia about, and what was the Knox and others v Commonwealth of Australia class action? Firstly, in the matter of Prygodicz, six applicants sought approval from the court for the settlement of a class action brought against the Commonwealth for its use of the automated debt collection system between July 2015 and November 2019, which we now refer to as robodebt. The applicants submitted that the requested settlement would address their claims for unjust enrichment from the Commonwealth in respect of the invalid debts it had raised against them. Robodebt, as we know, was the automated debt collection system which was intended to recover social security payments that had allegedly been overpaid. The robodebt system sought to identify overpayments of social security benefits in a particular period of time through a process called data matching. The process of data matching was carried out automatically using pay-as-you-go income information of social security recipients kept by the Australian Taxation Office and then evenly apportioning that income over fortnightly increments in the review period. This was known as income averaging, and it was used to determine that person's notional or assumed fortnightly income. Data matching also involved the comparison of the notional or assumed fortnightly income of the person with the actual fortnightly income information provided by that person, which was the basis upon which the level of social security payments had been assessed and paid. This process then determined whether a person had been overpaid and what the alleged debt was. In this matter, two claims were prosecuted against the Commonwealth. The second, which I raise only as a matter of completeness, was a common law tort claim in negligence for economic loss as arising from the Commonwealth's alleged breach of its duty of care in raising and recovering debts that had no foundational basis, in addition to damages for stress. The first claim against the Commonwealth, which is relevant to this bill, was a restitutionary claim for unjust enrichment, alleging that the Commonwealth was unjustly enriched by its receipt or recovery of wrongly asserted debts from the applicants and group members. In the judgement, Justice Murphy noted that during the proceedings the Commonwealth had conceded that it had had no proper legal basis to raise, demand or recover the asserted debts, which were based on the income averaging from ATO data. Evidence put before Justice Murphy illustrated that the Commonwealth had unlawfully asserted debts totalling at least $1.763 billion against approximately 433,000 Australians. Then, including through private debt collection agencies, the Commonwealth pursued people to repay these wrongly asserted debts and recovered approximately $751 million from about 381,000 of them. Justice Murphy's summary of robodebt is articulate, direct and entirely appropriate. Justice Murphy said that the matter of Prygodicz had 'exposed a shameful chapter in the administration of the Commonwealth social security system and a massive failure of public administration.' He said: It should have been obvious to the senior public servants charged with overseeing the Robodebt system and the responsible Minister at different points that many social security recipients do not earn a stable or constant income, and any employment they obtain may be casual, part-time, sessional, or intermittent and may not continue throughout the year. Where a social security recipient does not earn a constant fortnightly wage, does not earn income every fortnight, or only works for intermittent periods in a year, their notional or assumed fortnightly income based on income averaging is unlikely to be the same as their actual fortnightly income. It should have been plain that in such circumstances the automated Robodebt system may indicate an overpayment of social security benefits when that was not in fact the case. Yet, in the absence of further information from social security recipients, that is the basis upon which the automated Robodebt system raised and recovered debts for asserted overpayments of social security benefits. To summarise that, robodebt was an illegal, immoral but deliberate case of maladministration knowingly perpetrated by the former coalition government. The financial hardship, the anxiety and distress, the suicidal ideation and in some cases suicide that people suffered because of robodebt is truly unforgivable, and the shame that people felt for wrongly being designated as welfare cheats cannot be underestimated. The Knox class action that this bill has regard to is an appeal from the original 2020 robodebt class action settlement, which was launched after a royal commission exposed fresh evidence that Commonwealth officials who ran the debt-raising scheme knew it was unlawful but proceeded anyway. The royal commission concluded that the scheme was a malicious and spiteful mechanism neither fair nor legal. The government has agreed, quite rightly, to all 56 of the royal commission's recommendations, 52 of which have now been fully implemented. The Commonwealth reached agreement in the Knox class action in September 2025 for the harms caused by the robodebt scheme, with a cohort of approximately 168,000 class action members. The settlement makes $475 million available to compensate eligible group members, which can be paid as either fixed payments or by individual assessment. The payments are intended to compensate those eligible individuals for a range of economic and non-economic loss types. The settlement was approved on 23 June this year and is the largest class action settlement in Australian history. What this bill does is ensure that those who are eligible to receive a payment pursuant to the Knox settlement receive that payment in full. Typically, lump sum compensation payments like these might be subject to taxation, income testing arrangements and Commonwealth statutory recovery schemes. That means amounts may be withheld and entitlements to benefits like social security or veterans payments, NDIS supports and aged-care contributions could be impacted. The general principles of that approach are not changing. But, in recognition of the extraordinary—and, frankly, uniquely terrible—circumstances of the robodebt scheme, an exception is being made. What this government is doing is making that exception because of these circumstances. It's also an acknowledgement that the system that inflicted harm on people, being interaction with the government social safety net, may lead to retraumatisation if people are required to interact again in order to manage the payments to which they are entitled under this settlement. To take effect, the bill will amend the National Disability Scheme Act of 2013 to exempt Knox settlement payments from recoveries and reductions to the funding of reasonable and necessary supports in participants' plans under the National Disability Insurance Scheme. It will also amend the Social Security Act of 1991 and Veterans' Entitlements Act of 1986 so that the Knox settlement payments are not classified as income or compensation for the purposes of those acts. Other exemptions will follow, including an exemption from income tax, to be legislated before the end of the 2026-27 tax year. To say that robodebt was a gross failure of public administration is plainly an understatement. It was a catastrophic failure. Its design and implementation meant it was always going to be a catastrophic failure because of the lens through which it was created. It always considered the social safety net to be a burden—a burden on the economy and thus something to be eliminated. It also always considered those who used the social safety net as 'rorters': people who were lazy, actively avoiding work and looking to take advantage of public funds, just because they could. Like new mothers who were accused of being 'double dippers', people using the broad social safety net in this country, and who were victims of robodebt, were treated like criminals. Budget control and debt reduction are important, but there are ways to achieve this without grouping together individual Australians using the social safety net under the umbrella of rorters or dodgy welfare recipients or bludgers. Finding savings in the budget doesn't have to exclusively mean cutting services, reducing support and targeting vulnerable Australians in the hope that they lack sufficient agency and resources to challenge what is happening to them. That is what robodebt did. It was lazy budget control. No other ideas to reform the budget? No problem. Vulnerable Australians are available. Robodebt found a group of vulnerable people that they considered easy targets, and the architects of the scheme hoped that they wouldn't say anything or speak up. Well, some of them can no longer speak up because they're no longer with us. People's lives have been destroyed, in many cases, irreparably. The human impacts of robodebt: families struggling to make ends meet receiving a debt notice at Christmas, like the lady from Kingsgrove that the member for Barton told us about. There are young people being driven to despair by demands for payment and, horribly, an account of a young man's suicide. This can never happen again, and thanks to many stakeholders, especially the countless victims who did speak up and tirelessly advocated for themselves and others, it won't. And thanks to this bill, those entitled to payment through the Knox class action will receive that payment in full. I commend the bill to the House. 17:08 Ms WITTY 316660 Melbourne I rise to speak on the Knox Class Action (Facilitation) Bill 2026. This bill deals with the final consequences of one of the worst failures of public administration in modern Australian history. It deals with everyday Australians who were caught up in robodebt—people who were wrongly sent debt notices, people who spent years fighting decisions that were later found to be unlawful and people who carried the stress and uncertainty of those decisions long after the notice arrived in their letterboxes. And it deals with a simple principle: when compensation is awarded to people who have been wronged, that compensation should reach them in full. This bill before the House helps make sure that happens. I would like to share a story of one of the constituents from Melbourne. He was a student who, like many young Australians, balanced study with work. At one point he took on two jobs to help support his family while also covering his own living expenses. He was not trying to game the system. He was doing exactly what we encourage young people to do. He was studying, working hard and taking responsibility for himself and his family. Despite having stopped claiming income support once he was working, he later received a robodebt notice based on income averaging. A year that included periods of study, casual work and changing circumstances was reduced to a spreadsheet calculation. The reality of this situation was ignored by robodebt in a way that a human overlooking it would not have. Then, two years later, the debt resurfaced. By that point, he had finished studying and was working full time. Rather than being reassessed fairly, the amount claimed against him increased. The total debt eventually exceeded $10,000. He was working full time in retail and trying to find a pathway back into study. Instead of focusing on his goals, he was trying to work out how he could repay a debt he did not believe he owed. Eventually, luckily, the debt was wiped because it should never have been raised in the first place. But the stress, uncertainty and lost time could not simply be erased. His story is not unique. Across Australia, hundreds of thousands of people found themselves in similar situations—different lives, different circumstances and the same experience of receiving a debt notice that was generated not by the truth of their circumstances but by a flawed process that should never have been the basis for raising debt in the first place. That is why parliament is still dealing with the consequences of robodebt today. The robodebt scheme has rightly become one of the clearest examples of what can happen when government loses sight of the people affected by its decisions. The royal commission into robodebt found that the scheme knowingly inflicted harm on economically and socially disadvantaged Australians, many of whom were already vulnerable. It was a shameful failure of the government of the time, and it caused real harm to people who were looking to the system for support. The Federal Court, when approving the Knox settlement, described robodebt as a fiasco in public administration. That is an extraordinary observation. It is also a reminder of how serious this failure was. This was not simply a policy that did not work as intended. This was not a program that produced disappointing results. This was a scheme that was ultimately found to be unlawful. It caused harm. It created fear and uncertainty. And it damaged confidence in the way that government interacts with citizens. The fact that parliament is debating this bill today tells its own story. Robodebt began as a scheme that was supposed to recover money. Those opposite claimed it would save taxpayers $4.7 billion. Instead, it became one of the most expensive failures of public administration in Australian history. It harmed hundreds of thousands of Australians. It led to years of litigation. It required a royal commission. And, years after the scheme was dismantled, parliament is still dealing with the consequences. That is because the damage did not simply disappear when robodebt was declared unlawful. For many Australians, the fight continued. People challenged debts. People fought through the courts. People spent years seeking answers about how something like this could have happened. The royal commission exposed a reality that many Australians already understood from lived experience: the harm caused by robodebt was not accidental. The warning signs were there. Concerns were raised. Questions were asked. Yet the scheme continued. Australians were expected to carry the burden. They were expected to prove that the government's calculations were wrong. They were expected to defend themselves against a debt that often looked nothing like their actual circumstances. Many Australians will never forget the language that surrounded robodebt. They will never forget being treated with suspicion. They'll never forget being made to feel as though they had done something wrong. And they will never forget hearing a former minister declare: We'll find you, we'll track you down, you will have to repay those debts, and you may end up in prison. That statement captured something about the culture that sat behind the scheme. The presumption was not fairness, not understanding; the presumption was that ordinary Australians had done the wrong thing and needed to prove otherwise. That approach caused immense damage. The Albanese Labor government has taken a different approach. We established the royal commission. But accountability is not only about understanding what went wrong; it's about making sure it cannot happen again. Since the royal commission reported, the government has implemented 52 of the 56 recommendations. That work has included strengthening oversight across government, improving administrative review processes, enhancing the Ombudsman's powers and putting greater emphasis on transparency, accountability and proper legal advice in public administration. Importantly, we have also taken steps to make debt management fairer and more responsive to people's circumstances. Changes have expanded access to debt waivers in special circumstances. The government has also increased the small debt waiver threshold so people are not burdened by debt recovery processes where pursuing a debt serves little practical purpose. These reforms are about restoring trust—trust that government decisions are lawful; trust that vulnerable people will be treated fairly; and trust that systems exist to support Australians, not overwhelm them. The lessons of robodebt extend beyond one failed scheme. The lesson is that people must remain at the centre of government decision-making. The lesson is that technology can never replace fairness. The lesson is that governments must never lose sight of the real-world consequences of administrative decisions. This bill is another important step in that process. The Commonwealth reached an agreement in the Knox class action in September 2025, with approximately 168,000 class participants affected by robodebt. The Federal Court approved that settlement in June this year. It is the largest class action settlement in Australian history. It recognised that harm had occurred, that Australians who were affected by robodebt deserved compensation and that the consequences of this scheme extended far beyond the debt notices themselves. But there is a cruel irony at the heart of this legislation. After all the court proceedings, after all the inquiry's findings and after compensation was finally secured, some Australians affected by robodebt could still face new financial consequences if parliament did nothing. Without this legislation, Knox settlement payments would be treated in the same way as other lump sum compensation payments. In some circumstances, it could even leave recipients facing unexpected financial liabilities. Think about that for a moment. Australians were wrongly targeted by robodebt. Many spent years dealing with debt that should never have existed. Many fought lengthy legal battles. Many carried enormous stress and uncertainty. Then, when compensation was finally secured, they were potentially facing further consequences because that compensation had been paid. This government does not believe that should happen. If compensation is being paid because harm occurred, that compensation should remain with the people who suffered the harm. The purpose of compensation is to provide redress, not to create another administrative obstacle or to create another debt. And the purpose is certainly not to force people back into the system that caused so many problems in the first place. That is what is at the heart of this bill. It recognises that robodebt was not an ordinary situation. The measures in this bill ensure that Knox settlement payments are exempt from a number of arrangements that would ordinarily apply under the Social Security Act, the Veterans' Entitlement Act and the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act. The government will also progress complementary exemptions relating to other Commonwealth systems. The objective is straightforward: we want people to receive the compensation that has been awarded—not part of it, not most of it, but the compensation they are entitled to receive. We want to close this chapter properly, and that means ensuring robodebt victims receive the full benefit of the settlement. Ultimately, this bill is about people. It is about recognising the consequences of decisions made in this place and in government offices. It is about understanding that, when government gets something badly wrong, the responsibility to fix that mistake does not end with an apology. It requires action, and that is what this legislation provides. Earlier I spoke about a Melbourne constituent whose robodebt claim eventually grew to more than $10,000. The debt was ultimately wiped because it should never have existed. But for years he carried the burden, he carried the stress, he carried the uncertainty. He carried the responsibility of trying to prove that the government's calculations were wrong. At a time when he should have been focused on his studies, his work and building his future, he found himself dealing with a problem that should never have been created. This history helps explain why this legislation is before us today—not because it changes the past, not because it erases what occurred, but because it recognises that Australians who have already been harmed should not be disadvantaged again. The Australians affected by robodebt did not ask to be part of a class action. They did not ask to be part of a royal commission. They simply expected government to treat them fairly, lawfully and with respect. Many were let down. This bill will not undo the stress and the hardship that people experienced. It will not return the years they spent dealing with a scheme that should never have been operated. But it will help ensure that, when compensation has been secured, the compensation reaches the people it was intended for. That is fair. That is responsible. And, after everything Australians affected by robodebt have been through, it is the very least they deserve. For those reasons, I commend the bill to the House. 17:21 Mr HOLZBERGER 88411 Forde In this tragic tale, there are many heroes. They are not victims. There are two heroes in particular who I want to talk about in this my second contribution on robodebt that I'm privileged to make to this place. The first contribution was when I recounted Kath Madgwick's evidence to the royal commission into robodebt. She relayed the events that led up to her son's suicide and how she had turned that personal tragedy into a crusade—a crusade to find justice for her son but also to make life better for other people. After I read her testimony to this place, Kath Madgwick, on the Facebook post that I'd made, commented: Thank you Rowen Holzberger MP for that accurate account of what happened. This post means the world to me and I cannot express my gratitude to you! If you are up for it I would love the opportunity to come and meet you in Beenleigh? We still haven't organised that, Kath. If we get a chance, let's do that soon. I know you have a sister in arms, Jennifer Miller, who you have, through these awful circumstances, joined forces with to shed light on what was an unspeakable failure of government policy. I know that because I've seen the media reports of you and Jennifer Miller together. So I went looking and I found Jennifer's testimony to the royal commission, and her words sum up what this bill is all about much better than I can. Jennifer Miller gave her testimony to the royal commission on 17 February 2023. She said: 'My name is Jennifer Miller. This statement made by me is to give a voice to what Rhys went through, since he is no longer here to speak for himself.' The statement went on: 5. I am a mother of two boys. My eldest … was born in 1983 and my youngest … was born in 1988. 6. On 26 January 2017 Rhys took his life. I believe that the pressures placed on him by Centrelink and Dun & Bradstreet due to his Robodebt largely caused his death. 7. Rhys was a creative and quirky child. He saw the beauty in things and was a very gentle soul. He was interested in artistic expression, and as Rhys got older his interest in music and art grew. 8. He was funny and sweet and had a terrific group of friends in Cairns, where our family lived on and off for many years. He and his friends would always be getting together and making music with their band, doing live shows, or making up silly skits and having fun. 9. I had separated from Rhys's father in 1990. It was a bitter breakup and I know that this did affect both of the boys. When Rhys was about three and a half years old, I met my current husband and the boys grew to have an enormous amount of respect and love for— him. It goes on: 10. When Rhys started to show signs of experiencing panic and anxiety towards the end of his high schooling it was worrying, but we managed it as best as we could, and he finished high school in 2005. 11. During his high school years, Rhys worked casually in Cairns. He continued in casual positions after graduating from high school. He was only able to secure casual work, as the roles he was interested in fluctuated with seasonal demand. For a time, Rhys worked in customer service at a local photography store. I knew that he was living with anxiety, and that he had his struggles with depression, but he was also excited about his future. We always supported him pursuing his passions and living his life on his terms. 12. It was around early 2009 that Rhys and a group of his friends decided to move to Melbourne. Once they had made the move, the boys often had to couch-surf until they were able to establish accommodation and work. In that first year Rhys continued to couch-surf, and at times he was homeless. Ultimately though, Rhys found his feet and settled into Melbourne's music and art scene, playing in two bands. Rhys was receiving some Centrelink payments but found a job doing photography for the Museum of Melbourne and he later worked at a florist in Prahran Market. Later, Rhys found a job at … Florists. Rhys was very talented with floral designs and he was highly regarded … All of the jobs that Rhys had in Melbourne were on a casual basis or involved seasonal work. 13. He devoted himself to his work, but always made time for friends and other commitments. From 2014 Rhys was in a relationship with his partner … who he had met in Melbourne. … was a big support to Rhys, and they were together until he passed away … 14. When Rhys moved to Melbourne his anxiety did increase, but he would call me and let me know when he wasn't feeling right. … If he needed anything I would help him out, as would his biological father and his brother, but I know I was the only one in the family that he felt like he could talk to about his mental health issues. 15. … I know that despite working as much as he could he struggled to keep his head above water, and that anything financial was a major source of stress for him. 16. Towards the end of May 2016 Rhys rang me. He was extremely stressed and scared of his suicidal thoughts. He told me that he had large debt from Centrelink and was worried about it. … 17. I flew down in the first week of June 2016 and stayed with Rhys for a week or so. Rhys told me about the debt and said it was over $10,000. I didn't think that he could have a debt that large, and I said to him words to the effect of that it was rubbish, and that we would sort it out together. I was of the view that since he had been couch-surfing and not working much in the 2010-11 financial year, the … debt did not add up. 18. I suggested that we go to the Centrelink office … in Melbourne … But when we were served, the customer service officer did not look at Rhys' file at all and told us to ring a 1800 number. We could not understand why they were not able to tell him anything … We left feeling frustrated … 19. I remember Rhys being very overwhelmed and anxious about the whole process. … Rhys … did ring the 1800 number he was on hold at length. I believe that this added to his feelings of frustration and helplessness, as he was doing as he had been told but still faced difficulty getting answers about his debt. 20. … Once I returned home, I was unaware how frequently he was being contacted by Centrelink, and then by Dun & Bradstreet … 21. At the time of his death, Rhys was living with … and another friend. … did her best to help Rhys by shielding him from the letters that he was receiving. She told me how she would take the debt letters from the mailbox and put them somewhere out of the way, so that they were not the first thing he saw upon arriving home from work. She would show them to him at a time when she thought he might be better able to deal with the stress the letters caused. When I was talking to … after Rhys had passed, she told me about his first suicide attempt in May 2016 … when the Centrelink pressures commenced. Rhys had not told me about this. 22. … despite his struggles, he would have wanted to protect me from his troubles. I believe that this is why he did not share what he was going through with Centrelink … 23. At the time immediately following Rhys' death I requested access to his file from Centrelink. This was not granted. … but I was barred from accessing Rhys' information despite numerous requests for his information. This position was maintained until I was able to access certain documents by virtue of this Royal Commission. Only very recently have I been able to review the correspondence sent to him. … … … 26. … I also recall that Rhys said he did not have the payslips or information Centrelink was asking for to confirm whether the debt was correct or not. Rhys had made a post on Facebook on 25 May 2016 that he had a debt, but that his proof—being pay documents—were "long gone". … … … 28. … 20 May 2016, Centrelink had finished the first review and a debt of $10,876.23 had been raised against him. … I know that Rhys was sent four individual letters; each dated 20 May 2016, which contained the amount and period of each debt and had a due date of 20 June 2016 for the payment of these debts. 29. From 21 June 2016 Centrelink started withholding money from Rhys' Newstart payments … 30. After he had passed, I spoke with … about Rhys he had been feeling during this time. She told me that he had felt helpless. She told me how, despite trying to do his best to get ahead, he felt powerless against a system that he felt was doing its best to crush him. At this point, let's take a break from Jennifer's testimony for just a minute. Between June 2016 and 30 October 2016, there were various interactions with Centrelink. Newstart was cut off, restored and cut off, and there was correspondence about the debt. Then, on 17 October, the second review into Rhys's income for the 2013 financial year came up with an additional debt of $7,035. I break here because at this point what she says could be viewed as mechanical. But, when you think about it and actually read it, you realise it that is nothing short of hounding somebody to their death. She continues: 43. On 18 October 2016 Centrelink sent Rhys a letter (which was also delivered to his MyGov account … notifying him of the additional debt and giving him a due date of 15 November 2016— less than a month later, mind you— 44. On 20 October 2016— two days later— Centrelink sent Rhys a letter notifying him of the balance of the first review, requesting that he contact them to enter a payment agreement, and letting him know that if he did not repay the outstanding amount or contact them, they may reduce his Centrelink payments, refer the account to a debt collection agency, garnish his wages or tax refund, or refer the matter to solicitors for legal action. 45. On 7 November 2016, because Rhys was no longer receiving an income support payment from Centrelink and had not contacted Centrelink to establish an alternate payment arrangement, Centrelink referred the first review amount to Dun & Bradstreet. 46. On 8 November 2016 the first demand letter was sent to Rhys by Dun & Bradstreet with a total outstanding amount of $10.283.81. A text message was also sent to Rhys' phone. 47. On 12 November 2016 Dun & Bradstreet called Rhys and left a message on his phone. 48. On 15 November 2016 Dun & Bradstreet sent Rhys a final demand letter in relation to the first review amount. 49. On 16 November 2016 Dun & Bradstreet called Rhys and left a message on his phone. 50. On 19 November 2016 Dun & Bradstreet called Rhys and left a message on his phone. 51. On 23 November 2016 Dun & Bradstreet called Rhys and left a message on his phone. 52. On 24 November 2016 Dun & Bradstreet called Rhys and left a message on his phone. 53. On 26 November 2016 Dun & Bradstreet called Rhys and left a message on his phone. 54. On 28 November 2016 … Centrelink referred the second review amount to Dun & Bradstreet. 55. On 28 November 2016 Dun & Bradstreet sent Rhys a "Centrelink Consolidated Invoice Letter" which combined the first and second review amounts into a total demand amount of $17,319.58. A text message was also sent to Rhys' phone. 56. On 29 November 2016 Dun & Bradstreet sent a first demand letter to Rhys seeking the total demand … 57. On 6 December 2016 Dun & Bradstreet sent Rhys a final demand letter … 58. On 8 December 2016 Dun & Bradstreet called Rhys but there was no answer. 59. On 12 December 2016 Dun & Bradstreet called Rhys and left a message on his phone. 60. On 14 December 2016 Dun & Bradstreet called Rhys and left a message on his phone. … … … 62. On 16 December 2016 Dun & Bradstreet called Rhys and left a message on his phone. 63. On 31 December 2016 Dun & Bradstreet sent a letter dated 3 January 2017 with the header "Urgent Attention Required" to Rhys' address. 64. On 4 January 2017 Dun & Bradstreet called Rhys and left a message on his phone. 65. On 4 January 2017— again, on the same day— Dun & Bradstreet called Rhys and left a message on his phone. 66. On 6 January 2017 Dun & Bradstreet called Rhys and left a message on his phone. 67. On 26 January 2017, just after 8pm, Rhys took his own life. 68. Rhys received 12 letters from Centrelink between 12 May 2016 and 20 October 2016. He was phoned by Centrelink between five and six times. 69. When the debts were referred to Dun & Bradstreet, he received six letters, two text messages and 13 phone calls between 7 November 2016 and 6 January 2017. 70. I know from reviewing documents provided to me by virtue of this Royal Commission that Rhys had been assessed for a Disability Support Pension (DSP) on 18 September 2015. This assessment identified that Rhys had a permanent psychiatric disorder which was identified as anxiety and depression and that he suffered from anxiety and panic attacks. I just want to—I don't have enough time. I don't have enough time, because the thing that I really wanted to spend time on is just to remember that Rhys is not a victim. That's why I want to return—it's so easy, when we're in this place and we've got examples, to look at what happened rather than who it happened to. So I want to read just this beginning: Rhys was a creative and quirky child. He saw the beauty in things and was a very gentle soul. He was interested in artistic expression, and as Rhys got older his interest in music and art grew. … … … Rhys found his feet and settled into Melbourne's music and art scene, playing in two bands. Rhys was receiving some Centrelink payments but found a job doing photography for the Museum of Melbourne and he later worked at a florist in Prahran Market. Later, Rhys found a job at … Florists. Rhys was very talented with floral designs and he was highly regarded … I commend this bill to the House. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265979 I thank the member for Forde. It was a very moving speech. I understand the member for Pearce would like to present a copy of her speech for incorporation into Hansard, in accordance with the resolution agreed to on 6 November 2025. 17:37 Ms ROBERTS 157125 Pearce The incorporated speech read as follows— I would like to speak to the Knox Class Action (Facilitation) Bill 2026, which is legislation that delivers on a solemn promise to the victims of the robodebt scandal—that the compensation they are owed will be received in full, without penalty, without reduction and without retraumatisation by the very system that harmed them. This bill is not about creating a precedent. It is about recognising an extraordinary and unique injustice—an illegal government scheme that the royal commission found was 'crude and cruel' and 'neither fair nor legal' and which knowingly inflicted harm on economically and socially disadvantaged Australians, many of whom were vulnerable. The robodebt scheme was a shocking and deliberate case of maladministration, perpetrated knowingly by ministers of the former coalition government. It caused pain and trauma for more than 400,000 people across Australia. Former ministers boasted they would save taxpayers $4.7 billion. Instead, it has cost the Commonwealth more than $2 billion and, far more importantly, it has cost lives, livelihoods and trust in government. We cannot forget the rhetoric that accompanied this scheme: We will find you, we'll track you down, you will have to repay those debts and you may end up in prison. That was the tone of a government that saw vulnerable Australians not as citizens to be served but as targets to be pursued. When the Albanese Labor government came to office, we made establishing a royal commission one of our first priorities. That commission heard countless tragic stories of people being hounded by their government to repay debts they didn't even owe. Its conclusion was unequivocal: robodebt was a fiasco in public administration and a lack of ministerial responsibility and competent oversight. The human cost of this scheme cannot be overstated. The royal commission linked the scheme to at least three suicides and identified a significant number of additional deaths that may have been connected, though aggregate suicide figures could not be reliably established. People reported feeling like criminals, traumatised on the off-chance they might have owed money. The psychological costs included stress, trauma, depression and suicidal ideation. Many wrongly accused citizens reported mental health problems, such as anxiety and depression. Victim testimony before the commission included accounts of suicidal ideation, with one person describing driving home in despair thinking they could drive their car into a tree. The experience left lasting trauma, leading many to distrust the welfare system entirely. This government has a strong record of ensuring justice for robodebt victims. We accepted, or accepted in principle, all 56 recommendations of the royal commission. To date, 52 of those 56 recommendations have been fully implemented, with implementation of the remaining four measures ongoing. Key reforms include delivering a new debt-management program for Services Australia and ceasing the use of external debt collection agencies; introducing mechanisms to ensure all new programs and schemes are developed with a focus on the real people affected by policy changes; passing legislation last year to make social security debt fairer, including raising the small debt waiver to $250 for the first time in 30 years, resulting in around 1.2 million debts waived or not raised in 2025-26; and expanding the special circumstances debt waiver to better protect victims-survivors of family and domestic violence from coercive social security debt. In September 2025, the Commonwealth reached agreement in the Knox class action for the harms caused by robodebt, covering a cohort of approximately 168,000 eligible class action members, with around 125,000 registered claimants. The settlement makes $475 million available to compensate eligible group members, which is the largest class action settlement in Australian history. The Federal Court approved this settlement on 23 June 2026. Payments can be made as either fixed payments or by individualised assessment, compensating eligible individuals for a range of economic and non-economic losses. Eligible participants include those who received robodebt notices between 2015 and 2019 and meet specific criteria related to the harm suffered. This covers Centrelink welfare recipients who had debts incorrectly raised via automated income averaging, were forced to repay debts they did not owe, experienced suspension or cancellation of payments due to disputed debts or were part of the original Knox v Commonwealth or Prygodicz v Commonwealth class actions. Under normal circumstances, lump sum compensation payments like these may be subject to taxation, income testing arrangements and Commonwealth statutory recovery schemes. That means amounts may be withheld and entitlements to benefits like social security or veterans' payments, NDIS supports and aged-care contributions can be impacted. Let me be clear: we are not changing the normal operation of this system with this bill. There are good reasons for it generally to work this way. What we are doing is making an exception because of the extraordinary and unique circumstances of the robodebt scheme. We could not accept a circumstance where someone lost their pension because they were being compensated as a robodebt victim. We will not allow a situation where a robodebt victim has a debt raised against them because they have received a compensation payment through this settlement scheme. We will not have people retraumatised by the system that inflicted harm upon them in the first place. Consider the situation we would create if we did not pass this bill. A person who suffered through the terror of being pursued for a debt they did not owe—who may have lost their home, their relationship, their mental health or, in the most tragic cases, their life—would receive compensation for that harm. But then, under normal rules, that compensation could be treated as income. Their pension could be cut. Their NDIS supports could be reduced. They could be told they now owe money back to the Commonwealth because they were finally given some measure of justice. That would be unconscionable. It would compound the original injustice with a new one. It would tell victims that their suffering matters but only up to a point—only until the compensation triggers another round of means testing, another letter from Services Australia and another sleepless night wondering if the government is about to take back what it just gave. This Albanese Labor government says enough—no more letters, no more threats and no more trauma. This bill amends three key pieces of legislation to ensure Knox settlement payments are treated fairly. It amends the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 to exempt Knox settlement payments from recoveries and reductions to the funding of reasonable and necessary supports in participants' plans. It will also amend the Social Security Act 1991 and the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 to prevent Knox settlement payments being classified as income or compensation for the purposes of those acts. Additional exemptions, including an exemption from income tax, will follow and are to be legislated before the end of the 2026-27 tax year. The compensation payments are set to be paid out to victims before the end of 2026. For many recipients of these settlement payments, interaction with the social security system was itself a source of distress during the operation of robodebt. It is not appropriate that people should be required to re-engage with those systems, navigate complex assessments or face uncertainty about the treatment of compensation paid in recognition of harms caused by robodebt. This bill removes that uncertainty and the potential for further distress. Gordon Legal has been appointed as the scheme administrator, responsible for assessing claims, calculating individual entitlements and overseeing distributions. Registration for the enhanced settlement closed earlier in 2026, with provisions for late applications considered on a case-by-case basis by the court. Payments are anticipated to commence in the coming months, though the exact schedule depends on the volume of claims and verification requirements. The circumstances surrounding robodebt and the royal commission process set this matter apart from other cases in which the Commonwealth may be found liable. This bill should be understood in that context. It does not create a precedent. It is important that this bill passes quickly through both houses of parliament to ensure settlement payments to robodebt victims are not delayed. It is a duty of this parliament to do all it can to address the toxic legacy of robodebt and ensure that nothing like it can ever happen again. We have to ensure the victims of robodebt get what they are owed as part of this historic settlement process. The swift passage of this bill will demonstrate the parliament's commitment to ensuring that those affected by robodebt receive fair, meaningful and lasting redress and that the toxic legacy of robodebt is banished for good. This bill is about more than money. It is about dignity. It is about saying to every person who was terrorised by robodebt, 'We see you, we hear you and we will not let the system hurt you again.' It is about acknowledging that the harm done was not only financial but also human, personal and profound. Some will say this is unusual legislation. They are right. The robodebt scheme was unusual in its cruelty, unusual in its illegality and unusual in the scale of its failure. Ordinary rules do not apply to extraordinary wrongs. To the victims of robodebt: this parliament stands with you. This government will not rest until every person who was harmed receives the justice they deserve. And, when the compensation payments arrive, they will arrive in full because you have already paid enough. I commend the bill to the House. 17:37 Ms COFFEY 312323 Griffith I first start by acknowledging the contribution that the member for Forde shared—the testimony from Rhys's mother. I don't think anyone could listen to that and not be moved. I'm very appreciative of the member for Forde for sharing that with us. The robodebt scheme created by those opposite caused pain and trauma for more than 400,000 people across Australia. It was a shocking and deliberate case of maladministration perpetrated knowingly by ministers. The royal commission heard countless tragic stories, like the one we've just heard now, of people being hounded by their own government to repay debts they did not even owe. A demand for money carried the authority of the Commonwealth. People questioned themselves. They, at the same time, worried about paying their rent. They faced accusations that cut deeply into their sense of worth. As we have heard, some lost their lives. We must keep their families—the families of Rhys and others—in our thoughts today. Clearly, I and many people in this House here this afternoon, from both sides, find it deeply upsetting that Australians who were seeking help were made to feel frightened of the very system established to support them. There is no shame in needing income support—none. In fact, reaching out for support must be encouraged. Any one of us can lose a job, become unwell or need help through a difficult period. People must be able to turn to their government at those moments. Robodebt shamefully instilled fear in people for doing so. This bill, the Knox Class Action (Facilitation) Bill, deals with the treatment of settlement payments, but its purpose reaches into people's daily lives. It protects compensation from rules that otherwise risk reducing income support or recovering money from the people the Commonwealth has harmed. I support this bill, and I want to begin with the people whose experiences explain why it's needed. Tory Burdett was 29 when he took his life in 2018. He had received a Centrelink demand for $7,000. His mother, Cherie, said it seemed like just a normal everyday day: 'He was ready to go to work in his work clothes. He'd gone to McDonald's that day.' Cherie remembers a loving son and a caring big brother. She estimated that more than 400 people attended his funeral. 'Everyone adored him,' said his mum. She said several pressures contributed to her son's death, and the debt was a large part of what he carried. Jarrad Madgwick died by suicide in 2019, three weeks before his 23rd birthday. His mother, Kath, said that he had spoken about his future shortly before his death and about a $2,000 Centrelink debt. She welcomed compensation for victims and called for change to prevent that cruelty from ever happening again. These mothers—and the mother of Rhys, who we have just heard from—have shared experiences no parent should ever have to describe to a royal commission or to a journalist. They have asked the country to listen to their children's stories. We owe them the care to listen properly. I cannot know the grief of Kath or Cherie or Rhys's mother—the grief that they live with every single day—but I hear their determination that their sons be remembered as people who were loved, with lives that reached far beyond a debt notice. They should never have had to fight to make their children's humanity part of this debate. A settlement cannot return a son to his mother and cannot give a family the years together that they expected to share, but we can, as elected members of this place, accept our responsibility to act. We can recognise the harm and change the systems that inflicted this distress. That responsibility remains with us long after today's debate. The damage from robodebt entered people's homes and affected their sense of safety. For someone already counting every dollar, a demand for thousands of dollars can make an ordinary week feel impossible. Rent is still due. There is still food to buy. The debt demand sits alongside expenses that cannot wait and the fear can follow a person through the day, making it harder to concentrate at work or be present with family. An accusation from government can make someone doubt their own integrity. It can leave them embarrassed to ask for help, worried that others will believe they have done something wrong. No-one should have to be made to carry the shame for an unlawful debt. We must recognise the damage to trust, too. Telling someone that a scheme has ended does not automatically make the next government letter feel safe. The person receiving it still remembers what happened last time. They still have to decide whether to trust the information in front of them. Repairing that relationship takes time and consistent, respectful treatment. I want people harmed by robodebt to hear this clearly: there is no shame in needing support. You deserved lawful decisions and decent treatment. Your government failed in its responsibility to you. Robodebt caused pain and trauma for more than 400,000 Australians. The former coalition government used the power of the Commonwealth against people who needed support, including people already facing severe financial and personal pressures. The scheme was illegal and immoral. The royal commission found that harm had been knowingly inflicted on economically and socially disadvantaged people. These were people entitled to fair treatment and lawful decisions. Their income did not diminish those rights. Their need for support did not make them less deserving of respect. A person seeking help after losing work should receive a fair assessment. A student relying on income support should be able to focus on their studies. Someone living with illness should be able to ask for assistance without feeling accused of wrongdoing. Robodebt violated the basic understanding between government and the people it serves, and the language from the former government made that threat unmistakeable. After hearing what the member for Forde shared, this is even harder to read. Former minister Alan Tudge said, 'We will find you, we'll track you down, and you will have to repay those debts and you may end up in prison.' Consider the fear those words created for someone already struggling to understand a debt demand. Consider the imbalance of power between a minister delivering that threat and a person wondering how to challenge the Commonwealth. That person deserved an explanation grounded in law. They deserved a government willing to hear that it had made a mistake. Instead, they faced a scheme that caused illegal harm and left them carrying the consequences. Those opposite claimed robodebt would save taxpayers $4.7 billion. It has cost the Commonwealth more than $2 billion. That financial cost is substantial, but it is the social cost that is unforgivable. I'm angry that people with so little financial security faced such an abuse of power. I am angry that families had to spend years asking their government to recognise the suffering it caused. Holding public office brings a duty of care in the exercise of power. Labor committed to a royal commission into robodebt, and we established it after coming into government. Victims deserved answers about how this happened. Australians deserve to know how their government had allowed such harm to continue. The royal commission gave people an opportunity to describe experiences that had too often been dismissed. It examined the decisions behind the scheme and the failures that allowed it to operate. I thank the people who gave evidence, including those who spoke about some of the most painful periods of their lives, including the mother of Rhys, as the member for Forde shared, and the other mothers that I have mentioned. Giving that evidence required courage. It required people to return to events that they had every reason to want to put behind them. Their willingness to speak helped establish the truth. The Albanese Labor government agreed or agreed in principle to all 56 recommendations. Fifty-two have now been fully implemented, and work is continuing on the other four. We have introduced a new debt-management program at Services Australia and ended its use of external debt-collection agencies. We have introduced processes that put the people affected by new programs at the centre of their development. We have strengthened consultation with recipients, advocates and frontline staff and improved processes for recognising and responding to vulnerability. We have strengthened ombudsman powers and improved administrative review, legal practice and Public Service accountability. The practical test is straightforward. Government must understand how a decision will affect the person receiving it, including someone experiencing financial hardship or distress. A process can look orderly inside a department and feel impossible to the person trying to use it. Listening to that person must be part of the work from the beginning. Our government has taken further steps to make social security debt arrangements fairer. Last year, we raised the small-debt waiver to $250, its first increase in 30 years. Annual indexation lifted that threshold to $260 on 1 July, and that amount will continue to rise. Around 1.2 million debts will be waived or no longer need to be raised in the last financial year. We've expanded the special circumstances debt waiver to better protect victim-survivors of family and domestic violence from coercive social security debt. A perpetrator's lies or statements made under coercion or duress should not prevent a victim-survivor from accessing that waiver. These changes recognise that debt recovery decisions have consequences inside people's homes. They can affect a person's financial independence and their ability to regain stability. Governments must take those consequences seriously. The royal commission's work helped bring new evidence to light. The Knox class action appealed the earlier robodebt settlement, with the applicants bringing a further claim for misfeasance in public office. The Commonwealth reached agreement with the Knox class action in September 2025, which was approved by the Federal Court in June this year. Approximately 168,000 robodebt victims are expected to be eligible for payments, with $475 million available to compensate eligible group members. Payments can take the form of fixed amounts or individual assessments. They recognise economic and non-economic losses arising from robodebt. For someone harmed by this scheme, compensation is an acknowledgement that the wrong was done to them. They should be able to receive their payment without Commonwealth recovering part of it under compensation recovery rules. For a survivor, that money can offer some room to recover financially and make decisions about their own needs. That choice belongs to them. They should not have to defend their entitlement to redress against the institution responsible for that harm. Under the usual rules, a lump sum compensation payment can affect income support, recovery arrangements can require money to be returned to the Commonwealth, and tax can create a further problem. The usual tax treatment depends on what the payment compensates for. Compensation for lost income can be taxable. Compensation for personal injury is usually not taxable. Without a specific exemption, some recipients risk an unexpected tax bill. Without these protections, receiving compensation from robodebt can itself create a fresh financial pressure. That is unacceptable. Consider a person who relies on a pension to meet regular expenses. Their settlement payment recognises harm they suffered. Receiving that payment should not in itself count as income and reduce the pension they rely on for their everyday needs. Consider an NDIS participant. Compensation for robodebt should not reduce the funding for the reasonable and necessary supports in their plan. People have waited years for redress. They deserve clear information about how these protections work and the ordinary rules that still apply. Passing this bill quickly will help put these protections in place and avoid unnecessary delays for compensation. For someone waiting for compensation, another delay means more uncertainty about the money that they are owed. We have an opportunity to give people greater certainty about the treatment of their compensation. The Albanese Labor government promised to investigate robodebt. We delivered the royal commission. We are acting on its recommendations and protecting compensation for the people harmed. There is more work to finish, and we will keep doing it. But no member of this House should lose sight of why we are here. People trusted their government to administer the law fairly. That trust was violated. Families have lived with the grief of an empty chair at family gatherings. Survivors have carried distress long after the scheme ended. They deserve justice expressed through the decisions we make and the decisions we put into law. For Troy, for Jarrad, for Rhys and for every person harmed by robodebt, our responsibility is to act with the care they should have received from the beginning. The government that caused this harm cannot undo it. This parliament can ensure people receive the compensation they are owed and demand a system that treats every person with dignity. That is our duty, and this bill is part of fulfilling it. 17:52 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney I want to thank members who have spoken on this bill. I thank the member for Lindsay for informing us that the opposition will be supporting the bill, and I thank the members for Isaacs, Barton, Sturt, Melbourne, Forde, Pearce and Griffith for the extraordinary way they have spoken, with the compassion that they have spoken with, today, about the victims of robodebt and about the families of those victims, especially the mothers who have lost their children to robodebt related suicide. They are the constituents of these members. They are Australian citizens who have been impacted by robodebt. Today, this legislation is designed to, in a small way, right one of these most profound wrongs. I want to thank members for their cooperation on the swift passage of this important bill through the House, which will ensure victims of the illegal and immoral robodebt scheme receive the compensation owed to them under the Knox class action settlement in full. It bears repeating that robodebt was a shocking and deliberate case of maladministration perpetrated knowingly by ministers of the former coalition government. It caused profound pain and trauma for more than 400,000 people. This must never happen again, and it's up to us to ensure that those who suffered because of robodebt are not retraumatised by the system that caused them harm in the first place. In recognition of the extraordinary circumstances surrounding robodebt and the findings of the Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme, the government has resolved to exempt Knox settlement payments from the tax income testing and statutory recovery arrangements that ordinarily apply to lump sum compensation payments. We could not accept a circumstance where someone loses their pension because they're being compensated as a robodebt victim. We also will not allow a situation where a robodebt victim has a debt raised against them because they have received a compensation payment through the settlement. The government will progress complementary exemptions relating to Medicare and aged care through regulations, and an exemption from income tax will be included in separate legislation before the end of the 2026-27 tax year. Together, these measures will ensure recipients receive the full benefit of the compensation intended for them under the Knox settlement and are not disadvantaged through interactions with other Commonwealth laws and programs. This bill is another important step in the process to deliver justice for those affected by robodebt. I hope all parties will continue to demonstrate their commitment to the speedy passage of this bill, ensuring that robodebt victims get the compensation that they deserve. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. Third Reading 60 17:56 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Private Health Insurance Amendment (Modernising the Private Health Insurance Rebate) Bill 2026 60

Private Health Insurance Amendment (Modernising the Private Health Insurance Rebate) Bill 2026

Second Reading 60 17:57 Dr RYAN 297660 Kooyong This is punching down on vulnerable Australians rather than finding savings in legitimate places in the budget. I'm proposing that the government carves out recipients of the age pension from this bill if it's serious about delivering on Australian values. I support funding aged care. I support reforming the private health insurance system. But more than three million older Australians are being asked to pay more for their private health insurance without the government demonstrating to anyone's satisfaction and with appropriate transparency that this measure is a net positive for the health system as a whole and that it has a plan if its assumptions prove wrong. The government has not done that, and so I move the second reading amendment as circulated in my name: That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: "the House declines to give the bill a second reading and: (1) notes that the Government developed this reform without adequate consultation with industry or state and territory governments and has failed to publish its full net fiscal impact, including the cost of increased demand on public hospitals and the potential impact of downgrades to private health insurance cover; and (2) calls on the Government to: (a) publish the net fiscal impact of this measure, including forgone Medicare Levy Surcharge revenue and the projected cost shift to state and territory public hospital systems, rather than relying solely on the gross $2.994 billion rebate headline saving; and (b) exempt Age Pension recipients from the removal of the age-based rebate uplift, noting the Parliamentary Budget Office's budget analysis that Age Pension recipients will account for $1.563 billion, or around half, of the $2.994 billion in projected savings to 2029-30". The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265979 Is the amendment seconded? Ms Chaney 300006 I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265979 The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Kooyong has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The question therefore now is that the amendment be agreed to. 17:58 Ms McKENZIE 124514 Flinders Imagine paying for private health insurance for 40 years, 50 years, even 60 years only for the government to wait until you really need it and then smash your ability to hold on to it. That is exactly what the Albanese Labor government is proposing to do to older Australians with this legislation, the Private Health Insurance Amendment (Modernising the Private Health Insurance Rebate) Bill 2026. The people who live in my electorate who have saved and planned to provide for their own healthcare costs in old age have now had the carpet ripped out from under them by this cruel, cold and cynical move by the Prime Minister and his grinning health minister. Over the weekend, I attended the opening of the Dromana Bowls Club season. I had a chat to the 100-odd people who were there on a beautiful southern peninsula spring day, and two topics came up over and over again: the callous cap of $5,000 in allied health care support for our returned service men and women and this snatching of support from those over 65 as they approach their hour of need for the healthcare system. But this particular move really got their goat, because this one literally makes no sense from a budgetary perspective. These insurance holders aren't rich; they make huge sacrifices to be able to sustain private health care. For decades, my constituents have been encouraged to take responsibility for their own health care, to find the means to pay thousands of dollars each year in private health insurance premiums, and they have done exactly as society asked of them. I have one of the highest incidences of private health insurance in Australia, with over 33,500 of my constituents holding private health insurance. Insurers also contribute massively to covering the cost of the delivery of health care in my electorate, funding some 41,000 individual hospitalisations for older Australians in the Flinders electorate—the third-highest usage rate in the nation. In maintaining private health insurance, so many of my older constituents have relieved pressure on Medicare and our public hospitals. And it is just as well that they do that, because, over its 12 years in power, the Labor government in Victoria has refused to fund an upgrade of the Rosebud Hospital in my electorate. Today, it remains a hospital which is high on human care but low on fit-for-purpose infrastructure, with roofs collapsing, doors too narrow for a standard hospital bed to be pushed through, no surgery and no maternity services. When my constituents give up their private health care, as so many of them are now facing the prospect of doing, our public healthcare system will be swamped. My community of Flinders is older than most; 27.8 per cent of residents in Flinders are aged 65 or over—almost double the national average—so the measure to crush private health insurance rates among the over-65 cohort will hit my community harder than almost anywhere else in the country. A few months ago, I asked my community what this change would mean for them, and more than 1,200 people responded. Tonight, I want to use their words because they say it better than any politician could here. Rowan, from Mount Martha, wrote: My wife & I married in 1979 and have paid private health continuously without any claims. I now have serious cancer, and quite frankly cannot risk being without it. I have had major surgery, in Feb 2022 9 and half hours, then radiation, and other ongoing treatments . Since then I have had 6 further surgeries. I consider we paid private health for many years & now is when we need it. Labour in the last budget hitting us with this extra cost, is a real kick in the teeth We also ran a local business for many years employing people and paying our taxes considering we would be looked after in our later life. I worked from the age of 18 till 68 when the cancer struck me down. I consider I cant afford to cancel it.. because I cannot go into the public system .. it would to much of a risk for me & to my life My wife also has some health issues Thank you for listening This is what this policy looks like in the real world. In respect of the likely increased premiums, Gwendoline from Rosebud said: Yes I could not afford it. I have just changed my long time health insurance to a cheaper one, which is still hard financially for me. I have to be insured as I have had 5 major opps in past 15 months and need another three.—does Labor want us to die!!! With other insurances; electricity (even with solar), house, car insurance and rates going up each year—I now live off $100.00 per week even though I own my own modest 1970 ish house. And I do not have much super left as I have spent over 30 thousand $ over the past 3 years on my health, of out of pocket expenses. Thank you for asking. Let me repeat what she just said. She's living on $100 a week after spending more than $30,000 on her health over three years. Virginia from Rye wrote: We have had private health insurance for over 60 years, and now we are at that stage in life where having choices and immediate health support is so important and necessary. Over the years, we have made sacrifices just to stay in private cover and even have just recently changed from our long time provider to one that was more flexible. Virginia added: Now we are seriously going to have to consider our options if it means the government implements these changes, and that really hits home. As usual, it is those with the most to lose who are going to suffer. My husband is due in hospital next Friday for a surgery that will involve an overnight stay. If we hadn't had private insurance, he would be on a waiting list and in a lot of discomfort for goodness knows how long. Stephanie from Mornington said: I have had private health insurance since I started work in the 1960's. Like so many of my generation, in the last 10 years I have experienced my first cancer. I fractured my spine in the 1990's and although recovered, this has ongoing associated problems requiring physiotherapy. Both medical conditions require constant imaging and monitoring. I will no longer be able to afford the high level of cover on hospital and extra's I need. This is an appalling decision literally discriminating against older Australians who have paid their way. My insurers are financially well in positive territory given I have lived a relatively able bodied, healthy life. Please do your utmost to have this budget proposal defeated. There is a phrase in there that the government needs to hear: 'older Australians who have paid their way'. This is who the policy hits. Susan from Portsea wrote: I will have to forgo other things that I have a right to expect after a lifetime of work, (I am 79 and still work a little), paying taxes and private health insurance. I have fortunately always had good health insurance, claiming only during pregnancy and a knee reconstruction. However, I am now seeing a cardiologist, And needing much more health maintenance.. I consider my health a priority, so will pay for that over holidays or home help. I feel as though my lifetime investment is being stolen from me. Thank you for your care Zoe. This response is especially important because Susan answered that she might be able to afford the increase, but affording that means giving up on holidays, giving up on home help. It means sacrificing the very things a 79-year-old who has worked all her life should be able to enjoy after a lifetime of contribution. So when this government says older Australians can absorb this cost, I ask: at what cost? Monique from Mornington wrote: I have held private health insurance for 47 yrs since my first job. Thought about cancelling at one stage of my life & then the government introduced the age-based supplement if you were entering or re- joining private health insurance & decided this would cost me excessive $$$ for many years. So I have continued to keep this private insurance to the cost of other things I cannot do.. I've only ever made I major claim in my entire life so far. I am a healthy, fit 69 yr old now & this is when I will possibly need it. So here I sit terrified I will not be able to sustain this insurance & become a statistic waiting on hospital lists for years to have a procedure I need but will not necessarily be deemed life threatening. My insurance keeps me out of the public system & allows more needy people to gain more to access public health. As a part pensioner now this is not viable for me to incur. I hope we can see a turn around on this decision. My retirement years do not look so great now on top of general cost of living increases, as well as not earning an income any longer & that's so tragic for us. Roy from Bittern put it even more simply: We can't afford not to have private health at our age as we are both going through treatment. We have had private health cover for 50 years and at 79 and 81 years old we need it more than ever. They cannot afford the increase but they cannot afford not to be insured. Angela from Capel Sound wrote: I feel that older Australians are being squeezed into poverty. Increased health insurance, more tax on capital gains. Increased cost of living. I have no superannuation so I am trying my best to preserve any funds that I have or try to get some capital gain to live on. I am a part pension so have to dip into my funds every month. Even if you are on a full pension it doesn't pay the bills. I have worked hard and feel totally depressed by what the government is doing to the older Australians who are invisible and a 'burden on taxes' Increased health insurance squeezes us into an overcrowded and underfunded public hospital system. This also leads to elderly people clogging up hospital beds and unable to afford aged care And another respondent from Mornington wrote: Why are we being penalised when we aren't posing a burden on the public health system, which is already struggling. Whatever money is saved by this will have to be found to cover the extra people switching to public and we don't have many hospitals on the Mornington Peninsula as it is! My constituent Barry commented on Facebook from his hospital bed: Keep up the pressure Zoe! I'm typing this from Beleura Private Hospital, where I've just had a knee replacement, using my private health fund. I shudder to think of the waiting list under public system if I didn't have the choice. Seems to me a classic 'Rob Peter to Pay Paul' situation, if those of us on private have to switch, all at once to the already overburdened public system! James, on Facebook, wrote: For over 50 years I have had private health, mainly funded from my savings in my senior years. I haven't used the public health system in all that time, but will now need to use it after I cancel my private health insurance, due to the $1600 annual increase, plus the usual annual increase in April. After a lifetime of doing the right thing, older Australians should not receive a bill from Canberra for the privilege. The government needs to scrap this cut. It needs to keep the over 65-year-old cohort in private health insurance. Respect their hard work. Respect their sacrifice and their deferral of other costs, other choices and other opportunities to maintain their health insurance and lessen their dependence on the public system at a time when their health needs start to grow. Respect older Australians. Respect my electorate. 18:11 Mr REBELLO 316547 McPherson This bill that we are asked to debate right now, the Private Health Insurance Amendment (Modernising the Private Health Insurance Rebate) Bill 2026, goes to the essence of the kind of country that we want to be, because we have a choice. The government has a choice, and it's still not too late for them to make the right choice. But we need to make sure that we understand exactly what that choice is that we are being asked to make and what this government is putting us through, and it is a choice that is asking the government whether we're going to reward those Australians who have not just done the right thing but done what the government has asked them to do. If we start to unpack what these changes mean and what this bill is actually asking this parliament to consider, many years ago, under the Howard government, John Howard and that government implemented this higher rebate for older Australians—65 plus. The purpose of this was to incentivise those people who at the time were not older Australians. They were younger Australians who were in the workforce and probably trying to manage their finances quite prudently. He was asking them to save a bit extra and invest that into private health insurance not just for them but for the country. If they did so, they'd be doing two things. Firstly, they'd be easing the burden or guaranteed easier access to private health insurance when they got to those years, 65 plus, when they would need to rely on Australia's health system and our private health system. But they would also do a second thing: take pressure off the public system. Those on that side of the House—and I think it's really telling. I know I've listened to some incredible contributions from some of my colleagues, including the member for Flinders just before. It's telling that in this place the government talks about their love of Medicare, their love of what they're doing for the Australian people and fairness in terms of health care but there are very few government speakers on the speaking list for this. I think that's telling because at the end of the day this motion or this bill goes to the heart of making sure that we have not just a sustainable private health system but a sustainable public health system. When we look at who this is actually going to affect—yes, it's going to affect older Australians. But there is a misconception here that the government is trying to play on. It's not affecting the top end of town, not at all. It's affecting those who are most vulnerable. Not only are they most vulnerable because they're at the stage of their life where they actually need to rely on these health services—you can look at the facts. There was some modelling done by the Parliamentary Budget Office as recently as this week. It says that around 1.5 million people received the age pension, and they're the ones who are involved in the private health insurance schemes. It's actually affecting those who are most vulnerable and who are quite frankly in a desperate situation that this government has put them in. Like I said, it goes to the kind of country that we want to be. In my view—and I said this in my first speech in this place—we want to be a country where we incentivise people who are going to do the right thing to not only secure its own future but also take the pressure off the government to make sure we reward aspiration and reward people who are going to be self-reliant. All of these people have done that. They've proven themselves. They've done exactly what the government asked them to do. Now we've got a government that wants to change the rules. I, like many of my colleagues, ran a survey in my electorate on this matter. We run surveys on a whole range of different topics, but the response to the changes to the private health insurance rebate was insane. We had thousands of people write to me to tell me not only their stories and their experiences but also whether they will be able to deal with the consequences of these changes and afford the cost. We saw a situation where the majority said very clearly that they were not going to be able to afford these changes. I've shared with this place many times in the past some of the contributions of members of the community in McPherson, but I also want to talk about a forum. We invited a lot of older Australians aged 65-plus to meet with me and with the shadow minister for health and aged care, Anne Ruston. We met at the Currumbin RSL. It was an opportunity to bring people together to understand and unpack what these changes mean for them. Not only that, but it was the week before a sitting week, so I was able to say to a lot of these older Australians, 'If you'd like me to send a message to the Prime Minister in Canberra about this, please let me know.' So we had a number of those people write down some messages. The forum was quite interesting and quite concerning. We saw a lot of Australians from different backgrounds and with different past professions. Some of them had done incredible things. They've contributed to society. They've built this country. And they came to this forum because one vulnerability bound them together. That's the situation that this government has put them in as a result of this bill. We heard people sharing their stories. We heard people sharing their frustration. We also heard people share their lack of belief that we would have a government that could be so cruel. What was interesting was that it wasn't just about these older Australians. People shared stories about how they felt that this was yet another example of government pitting them and their generation against the generation of their kids and the generation of their grandkids. We had people contributing to the conversation who were saying that as a result of this the financial situation will be worse for their kids and their grandkids. I think it's a cultural thing. In Australia, we believe in the importance of the family unit. We stick by each other. We stick by our mates. We stick by our family. When government is making lives more difficult for older Australians, somebody is going to have to foot the bill. At the moment, older Australians are not able to do so. These older Australians said to me that, in many cases, it will be their kids and their grandkids who will have that responsibility and will have to cover that cost. This is in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis that this government has perpetuated. On top of that, they're adding salt to the wound by putting forward this legislation. I said something very clear to the people in the room. I asked them what their message is to the Prime Minister. Their responses were honestly quite telling. I'll read out a few for you for the benefit of this place. We heard people say, 'Don't be cruel, Prime Minister; respect the seniors of Australia.' Another said, 'I've been in the private health system for over 45 years. All you're doing is hindering us and causing more people to drop out, thereby putting additional pressure on the public system. It's about time you took responsibility for your government's actions. We don't all want to live in a socialist country.' Somebody else said, 'Never in my wildest dreams or my 76 years would I feel never supported by the Labor government. Australia has certainly changed since growing up. Older Australians feel deserted and obviously let down only by growing old. Where is the Australia I loved so much—gone. I know it has gone down the drain.' These are the words of people who attended my forum and who shared their stories. But we're seeing it time and time again. It's coming through in the emails. It's probably why those opposite don't want to be in this place—because they know that the tide is against this. They know that they're doing the wrong thing by Australians—by the very people that they are supposed to represent. I had someone named Rosalind, from Burleigh, who said, 'I was most interested to receive your survey. It seems to be the only avenue to express my extreme disappointment regarding this proposal. It is absolutely disgraceful to crush older people, and younger people who will become older one day, in this horrible way. The Labor Party's treating the older sector with absolute contempt and disdain, as would be expected from a ruling class who stamp all over those beneath them—in this case, grinding them to dust.' I'm going to skip to the last part of this contribution, which I think was very revealing. 'Please listen. Provide a strong opposition. Be our avenue for protection and trust and not some easy target. It's not just me but anyone who has tried to lift themselves out of welfare dependence into a new, unexpected kind of poverty.' This is the situation that people in my community are facing. They are now finding themselves, at the most vulnerable stage of their life, in that unexpected kind of poverty. I started this contribution speaking about the kind of country we want to be and why this bill is fracturing everything that I and the people that I represent have in our minds when we think of the country that we want to be. We have people who have done the right thing, who have worked hard, who have saved and who have invested. They've sacrificed, and what this does is it punishes that sacrifice. It doesn't even make sense from an economic perspective, and this is what I don't understand. We're not just taking people out of private health insurance, all of those who can no longer afford it, and saying, 'Some magical creature's going to come and fund your health system.' We're actually pushing them onto the public system, which is already buckling under pressure. We see it every single day. Every member on this side of the chamber and, I'm sure, every member on that side of the chamber would be receiving complaints and hearing from people about their experiences in accessing health care—and older Australians need it more than anyone else. The fact that this government is being rock solid in its determination to continue with these changes to the private health insurance rebate and with this proposal to crush Australians at the most vulnerable stage of their life is telling in terms of the character of not only the Prime Minister, not only the Minister for Health and Ageing, but all of those opposite who sit idle and support this going through. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265979 Order! I think the speaker has already made aspersions on the character of members, and I think you probably should withdraw that comment. Mr REBELLO 316547 Sorry, what was the comment you'd like me to withdraw? The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265979 You're reflecting on the character of members. Mr Pasin 240756 I seek the call. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265979 Sure, Member for Barker. Mr Pasin 240756 Earlier today during question time a member opposite said the words 'walking on the graves of those workers'. 'Rejoicing', I think, was the word—'rejoicing in standing on the graves of those workers', talking about the Whyalla workers. If that's permissible during question time, surely my friend's contribution is also. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265979 Well, it's up to your friend. But I do think that that comment was not appropriate. Mr REBELLO 316547 Thank you, Deputy Speaker. So— Mr Hill 86256 Can't be bothered; nobody listens to you anyway. Mr REBELLO 316547 I'm going to take that interjection from the minister opposite, who just said that he 'can't be bothered because nobody listens to you anyway'. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265979 Minister? Mr Hill 86256 I wasn't going to contribute, because I was making the point that you can make whatever character smears you want at this time of the night, as you did, on the entire government—attributed improper motives to us. You know there are other forms of the House to do so. The member should also know that debate in question time has a greater degree of elasticity and robustness, which is also well established by practice. But I'd ask the speaker then not to verbal me and encourage him to reflect further on the Deputy Speaker's polite request that you make a withdrawal for the imputation that you made. The point was that, at the end of the day, I don't think people are here listening to your antics, but it was an improper set of imputations on the character of the entire government, and you should withdraw. Mr REBELLO 316547 I'm going to continue my contribution, but the interjection that we saw from the minister opposite is indicative not only of the level of contempt that they have for those on this side of the chamber but of their lack of reverence for this issue. It is an important issue. It's something that affects all older Australians. It's something that so many people have spoken to me about. If those opposite are going to get touchy when it comes to hearing the truth on these matters then that's not my problem. This is something the government should be ashamed of. This bill should not be supported, because of the effect that it's going to have on older Australians in my electorate and across the country. 18:26 Mr TIM WILSON IMW Goldstein I'd like to begin where the member for McPherson finished off, which—apart from his excellent speech—is the contempt and disdain that this government has for older Australians who are simply saving and sacrificing to, according to this government, do horrific things: take care of their health and wellbeing and make sure they have security in their retirement. We just heard from the member for Bruce, the minister. He said that he was dismissing commentary and that he didn't mind criticism because no-one was really listening to it anyway. I remember this experience in the lead-up to the 2019 election. I remember when we continually reminded Labor how their policy around refundable franking credits would push older Australians down the financial stairs. And the response, of course we all remember, from the then aspirational treasurer was, 'Well, if you don't like it, you're perfectly entitled to vote against us.' And boy oh boy did the Australian people send them a message. The problem is that this government doesn't listen. They don't care. They're not interested in the health and wellbeing of the Australian people. And, even worse than that, the thing they want to target most is the private health insurance of Australians. If we have a strong competitive private health sector, not only does it provide health security for Australians; it improves access and improves excellence. Their view, in their sort of zero-sum binary context, is that it leads to an outcome which means worse public health, which is a form of delusion that only a mad socialist could believe—or, of course, a member of the Australian Labor Party. The problem we've got is a government that is not interested in listening to Australians. When we have 60-year-olds, 70-year-olds, 80-year-olds and 90-year-olds saying, 'What this government is doing is directly attacking my financial and health security,' the response of the government is simply to turn around and say, 'We see nothing, we hear nothing and we certainly aren't going to be speaking about it.' In fact, what we're seeing from all of the Labor members who are signing up to the minister for health's plan is them betraying their own voters. They're selling out their communities for their own political benefit. The Minister for Health and Ageing should be aware of this. I know he's deputising and getting ready for his run to the prime ministership once and as soon as, of course, the Prime Minister's run—God help us!—is over. But, as soon as it's over, he is racing towards that job. Well, I've got a message for the minister for health: attacking older Australians and their private health insurance isn't a good audition for getting into a position to one day become Prime Minister. But that's not going to stop them. What the member for McPherson has done is bring the stories of real Australians being attacked by this government—that the government does not want to hear—into this chamber. Of course, he is not alone; every electorate around the country has people. The only question is whether the Labor MPs are listening—whether Labor MPs are bothering to read the emails from their constituents. I'm quite sure the member for Bruce would have some too. I'm quite sure he'd shred them or not pay any attention to what's being said. But we know that this is happening across the country. And what are the stories? The stories are of people who have saved and sacrificed their entire adult lives so they can be in a position in retirement to have security. I don't know about you, Deputy Speaker—I would have thought having older Australians in a position of economic security was a good thing. Don't you think, Deputy Speaker? I'd certainly hope you'd think so. In fact, we want economic security, I would have thought, as much as possible for people at all stages of life—but not under the Albanese government. They only look at the Australian people as a honeypot to raid, because they cannot control their spending or inflation addiction. Let me tell you some of the stories from the Goldstein electorate of what we've got. One says: My wife and I are on the full pension. I'm 90 years old, my wife, 84 years … We have been members of HBA/Bupa for 65 years. My super has two months before running out and our cash reserves are not great but I have always saved to pay our Bupa premium. I have just been diagnosed with stage 4 lung cancer and I've had two hospital visits this year, my wife has had one … If we did not have private health we would not receive this prompt attention in a public hospital. What's the response the Albanese government? It's not to listen to that story. It's to dismiss their concerns and their health and wellbeing. We'll never take lectures from this government about health care and delivery for the Australian people, because the Labor Party only sees health care through the prism of what they can control and what they can deliver, and they like to ration it out to people so that they can keep people under control. Another constituent says: I'm an 80year old non-earning part-pensioner, relying on a modest super balance, a small share portfolio and some Centrelink payments. Labor is going after Centrelink recipients, now. We have recently upgraded our health insurance policy in view of advancing age and health needs. In so doing we have reduced not only our dependence, but also any pressure on public hospitals services … Amen! Now, with the Government's proposed reduction in rebates, we will be hit with about 8 per cent increase in out-of-pocket premium costs. This is basically is a tax-hike of 8 per cent for us. That’s for 80-year-olds. Where does the government get its priorities from? This works out on our current premium an increase of approximately $618.00 per year. Add this to the 4 per cent annual increase announced for 2027. On our current rebated premium amount this works out to another $208.54. A total tax levy of $816.00 on non-earning pensioners. Great job, well done and fantastic move, Prime Minister. Here's another story. With the new increases, another constituent writes that they'll be paying $823 a month in private health insurance. The self funded retiree believes this is going to put a huge strain on the public health system. Yes! And, of course, we have so many others. Another woman who wrote to us said: I started work in 1966 at the age of 15 1/2 and have worked continuously until my retirement at the age of 68. They've worked for the last 40 years in the law as a personal assistant and conveyancing clerk. They took out private health cover at age 21, and they've worked consistently since then and continued to have private health insurance since then. They were at the top level of their cover, and it was costing them $239.45 per month. Not shockingly, they've paid their taxes. They've done the right thing. And they thought that, with superannuation, they'd be in a position to be stable. I quote: I am absolutely horrified that Mark Butler MP has decided—with the Labor Party—to throw our aged citizens to the kerb and remove the private health insurance rebate. The effect on our struggling and overwhelmed general hospital … will have catastrophic outcomes for many people. It will have a direct impact on the quality of care. But what is really being shouted and screamed out on behalf of many elderly Australians who will be affected by this change is that it was done sneakily before the budget was delivered and, no doubt, in the hope that the Australian people would forget. So, yes—in the lead-up to the budget, the government decided they were going to punch down on small businesses. They were going to punch down on innovators. They were going to punch down on Australians who are backing themselves, working hard to get ahead. And they've decided to punch down on older Australians who simply want to take care of themselves and make sure they have health security. Here's another story: We are a retired couple—69/68 years of age—living on a fixed income and receiving the Commonwealth Low Income Health Care Card. How proud the Labor Party must be punching down on people on low-income healthcare cards. We have no assets other than the family home and find it difficult to pay increasing costs— of course, because the government continues to stoke inflation and undermine and kneecap every Australian to be able to afford basic costs. As a consequence, they maintain private health insurance because their personal health circumstances require it. They've undergone a number of surgeries and medical procedures, and they need timely medical intervention at times. At a time when the cost of living remains high, the single most pressing issue for most older Australians is to make sure that they can address their significant health needs so they can have a decent quality of life. They fundamentally disagree with the approach that government is taking and how much they have been pushed aside. This is the problem, because the quiet promise of the Australian way of life was that, if you worked hard, looked after yourself and took some responsibility, you'd never be a burden on anyone and, in return, the government wouldn't punish you for doing the right thing. But we know that isn't what this Albanese government is doing. Millions of older Australians kept their side of the promise for more than 50 years, but the government has broken its promise, because the Albanese government can't control its spending and inflation addiction. This bill is not about the budget; it's about people—particularly those people in places like Bayside, Glen Eira and Kingston—who have done the right thing. They are not necessarily wealthy, and they're certainly not gaming the system. They held on to the cover throughout their working life for a simple reason: they wanted to stay off the public waiting list and they wanted to have control and choice over their health care, particularly as they moved to the later stages of life. It's couples like so many that I've outlined already, where they're in a vulnerable situation and they need security. The government has tried to kick the Zimmer frame effectively out from beneath them. It is the widow down the road on a single pension who keeps her extra cover so she can make sure she can get physio. It's the man who retired from the trades and never once made a claim he could avoid and, of course, in the latter stage of life needs higher levels of care. They did the right thing. In Goldstein we actually have even more private health insurance policies than we do voters. That's how important it is for communities—not that Labor, of course, ever cares about electorates like mine, because it represents the beating heart of aspiration across this country. This is the problem. This is who the government is now taking from. They are the people that Labor has decided they want to target and—I think we need to be honest—attack. The government is stripping back the private health insurance rebate that older Australians have relied on to make sure that they can make decisions and control their own health care. They're taking it away, and the government's own minister admits the change will hit about 3.2 million Australians aged 65 and over. On the government's own numbers, the average hit is at least 250 bucks a year, but for many people it could be substantially higher. The government has a word for all of this. It calls it 'modernising'. It talks about it in the context of the budget and the rubbish narrative that it's pushing out there, which is doing nothing to improve the welfare of the Australian people and in fact is destroying the wealth and wages of the Australian people—particularly young Australians. This is the cruelty of it. This change forces a genuinely difficult choice on people at the most vulnerable stages of their lives. Do they make a choice to cut back on essentials—food, gas—or do they downgrade their health cover or drop it altogether? No moral government would turn around and make the case that they should punish older Australians like this—particularly those who've made decisions about their long-term financial wellbeing and their health care. Unsurprisingly, National Seniors Australia has found that as many as 45 per cent of people whose sole source of income is the age pension still also hold private health insurance. Let's think about that. Forty-five per cent of people whose sole source of income is the age pension still hold private health insurance. This is how important it is to economic security and for health security for older Australians. Former Australian Medical Association president Dr Michael Gannon put it plainly: 'This will hit people who choose to put their health above their holidays and their leisure pursuits.' These are people who went without so they could not be a burden, and Labor's answer is to make them pay more, make choices and live a lower quality of life, including potentially in pain. This is part of something the government doesn't want to talk about: when people drop private health cover, the costs don't disappear. We know they get pushed onto the state system. Increasingly, state governments are turning around and saying: 'We're calling time on the federal government's assault on older Australians. It'll push up costs. It'll make it harder to get health care for every Australian.' Let's be honest about what this policy actually is. It does not cut costs; it shifts costs onto states and means lower-quality health outcomes for Australians. This is why we'll never take a lecture from Labor again. To all those people across the country who need private health insurance: we get it and we're on your side. We understand that Labor's intention is to make sure you live a lower quality of life, particularly in the latter stages of your life. We have a plan, and we are going to make sure that we fight for your capacity to access private health insurance and that we don't again face a Labor government that assaults directly the economic security and the health security of older Australians. This government is not interested in listening to the Australian people. 18:41 Mr RICK WILSON 198084 O'Connor I rise today to speak against the Private Health Insurance Amendment (Modernising the Private Health Insurance Rebate) Bill 2026. Behind the government's modelling, talking points and proposed budget savings are real people. They are older Australians who have worked hard, paid taxes, contributed to their communities and done exactly what governments have encouraged them to do for decades—taken responsibility for their own health care. Instead of rewarding that responsibility, the Albanese government is proposing to reduce the private health insurance rebate for older Australians. Australians aged 65 to 69, and those aged 70 and over, currently receive a higher rebate because the government has long recognised a simple fact: as people age, healthcare needs increase and the cost of maintaining private health insurance on a restricted income becomes harder and harder. This bill takes that support away. Independent analysis suggests around three million Australians aged 65 and over will be affected, and the government is booking savings of around $3 billion. Many will face an effective premium increase of hundreds of dollars a year, and in some cases increases exceeding over $1,000 annually. Importantly, around 70 per cent of those impacted are on incomes below $55,000. These are not wealthy Australians; these are pensioners, self-funded retirees and seniors on fixed incomes. The government argues this is a sensible reform. But I ask: sensible for whom? Certainly not the 23,000 seniors of my electorate who have private health insurance. The health insurance cover has delivered almost $50 million per annum in health rebates for hospitalisations that would otherwise be the remit of the state. I'm in the process of collating the results of my O'Connor Seniors Survey, designed to give a voice to the older constituents of one of Australia's most vast and varied electorates. We've had an overwhelming response, with nearly a thousand people responding to the survey. Nearly nine out of 10 said they either could not afford the proposed increase to their private health cover or were uncertain whether they could afford it. Almost three-quarters indicated they would either cancel their cover or downgrade it, or were unsure if they could keep it up. These are not just statistics; these are real people. These are the voices of O'Connor's senior citizens, and they deserve to be heard. One respondent, Irene, from Southern Forests, told me: I feel I will have to drop my private health cover that I have had for the last 60 years … this additional proposed cost is mean-spirited and very short sighted. Sixty years! Imagine paying into a system for six decades, only to be told at the stage of life when health care becomes more important that government support is being withdrawn. Elizabeth, from Albany, wrote: We have been in HBF for 58 years and have just cancelled it as we cannot afford to stay in it, plus cost of living. That should alarm every member of this House. Once people like Elizabeth leave private health insurance, they do not simply disappear from the healthcare system. They enter the public system, and they join already lengthy waiting lists. They place additional pressure on public hospitals, like the Albany Health Campus, and nowhere is that pressure felt more acutely than in regional Australia. Roslyn from Collie put it perfectly: What happens if all the elderly cancel their private health insurance? Our hospitals are on the brink of collapse now. That is the question the federal government has failed to answer. State government leaders of all political persuasions have raised concerns about this policy because they understand where these patients will go. Even Labor state governments have questioned the wisdom of shifting costs from the Commonwealth to the already strained public hospital systems. The irony is breathtaking. The government claims this policy will save money, but, if tens of thousands of older Australians leave private cover, the burden simply shifts to taxpayers through the state funded public hospitals. That's not reform; that's just cost shifting. Regional Australians know what happens when the public health system comes under further pressure: longer waiting lists, more travel, more delays and more uncertainty. Jennifer, another respondent to my survey, captured the main concern many seniors feel: Changes to the Private Health Care rebates will make Private Health Care too expensive for retirees, who will then be forced to use the public health care system, which is already overloaded. In Perth, additional pressure on an already overloaded public hospital system is a serious prospect. In O'Connor, this will become a crisis of epic proportions. Regional Western Australians already travel hundreds of kilometres for treatment. They already face higher costs simply because of where they live. David from Albany told me: If we want to use our private cover we need to go to Perth which means accommodation and travel costs. Why are the regions missing out? Philip from remote WA, who is battling cancer, said: I have nearly exhausted my superannuation just to get treatment in Perth. The senior citizens of O'Connor are already paying for fuel, accommodation and specialist appointments simply to access care. Now the government wants to increase the cost of maintaining private cover as well. It's impossible to understand how anybody could view that as fair. This survey also highlighted the growing burden of out-of-pocket medical costs. Pamela told me: Daily healthcare fees are more than I can afford. Her solution is, 'I just don't see a doctor.' Think about that. When seniors like Pamela choose cost savings over care, that should horrify every member in this chamber. Robyn described her life under the current cost-of-living crisis as 'treading water just to keep my head above water'. This is the unfortunate reality for many retirees on fixed incomes. Power bills are higher. Insurance premiums are higher. Groceries are higher. Fuel is higher. And now this government wants to increase healthcare costs as well. The seniors responding to my survey repeatedly made the same point. They're not asking for special treatment. They are asking for fairness. Kaye from Esperance said: I have paid Private Health Insurance since 1983 … why am I being penalised for acting in a responsible way? That sentiment was repeated over and over by people who saved, by people who brought private health insurance precisely because successive governments encouraged them to do so. And now those same Australians feel betrayed. Beyond health care, there is another element that should concern us all: home support and ultimately aged care. I back the older Australians in my electorate who want to remain in their homes and the communities they have contributed to all their lives. My survey found that only 19 per cent of respondents were currently receiving or eligible for Support at Home packages, while hundreds provided feedback about service shortages and waiting lists. Back to the challenges of health care in the regions, Judith from the south coast said: Living in the country 5 hours from the city and my age makes travelling more and more difficult. Kathy summed up many concerns regarding the public system by saying: The wait for treatment is long and you would probably die before getting well. Whether members agree with that statement or not, it reflects a genuine fear many seniors have about their access to care. When seniors lose confidence in the system, that in itself becomes a problem. The federal government should be reassuring older Australians. Instead, it's creating anxiety. The coalition believes in choice. We believe that Australians who have spent decades paying for private health insurance should be encouraged, not punished. We believe that people who have worked hard to provide for themselves should not be treated as a convenient source of additional revenue. We believe regional Australians should not be forced into even longer public hospital queues in the regions and in Perth because of decisions made in Canberra. More importantly, we believe older Australians deserve respect—respect for their contribution, respect for the taxes they've paid, respect for the sacrifices they have made and respect for the choices they have made to reduce the pressure on our public health system. This bill fails that test. My survey demonstrated clearly that seniors across O'Connor are worried. They're worried about affordability. They are worried about access to health care. They are worried about hospital waiting times. They are worried about the future. The Albanese government should listen to them. Listen to Irene in Manjimup. Listen to Elizabeth in Albany. Listen to Roslyn in Collie. Listen to Kaye in Esperance. Listen to the hundreds of regional Western Australians who have said overwhelmingly that this policy will hurt them. Ultimately it will hurt the public health system as well. I urge the government to withdraw this misguided measure and abandon their attack on older Australians. Older Australians deserve better, and it's not just me who feels this way. You have heard the impassioned pleas from my colleagues and now me. But, if the parliament won't listen to us, perhaps Labor should look at their own modelling—modelling that revealed this cut to the private health insurance rebate for older Australians will place financial pressure on around 1.2 million pensioners. By its own admission, the department still does not have a reliable figure despite health minister Butler's announcing this $11 billion tax grab in April. Medibank, Australia's biggest private health insurer, has also disputed the government's modelling. Where the government projects around 44,000 seniors will drop their cover, Medibank points to external modelling which suggests the figure could be more than double that at up to 91,000. Medibank HCF and Bupa have jointly warned that any change will fall hardest on poorer retirees and older Australians in the region and that a resulting shrinking pool of privately insured people will push higher premiums for everyone who remains. The Australian Medical Association says it's unconvinced that the measure will deliver genuine net savings once the flow and pressure to public hospitals are accounted for. Finally, maybe the Prime Minister should listen to his state government counterparts, the majority of whom are lined up against this measure. Even South Australia's Labor government in health minister Butler's own state has joined the Labor governments of New South Wales and Victoria and the coalition governments of Queensland and Tasmania in opposing this change. When the very state governments that actually run our public hospitals are all telling the Commonwealth that this policy shifts costs and they don't listen, the federal government has run out of people to blame. There has been a recurring pattern of the Albanese government not doing their homework, and every single time it is older and more vulnerable Australians who are left to pay for the government's mistakes. So, while I stand here stating irrefutable facts that defy logic, I close by re-emphasising my defence of the seniors of O'Connor, on whom there will rain all manner of pain should this ill conceived private health insurance amendment pass this House. I vehemently oppose this bill. 18:53 Mr TEHAN 210911 Wannon I support what the previous member has said. There is just no justification for this—none whatsoever. It is hard to believe that the Albanese Labor government would want to do this to 1.5 million pensioners. Mr Pasin 240756 Like veterans. Mr TEHAN 210911 It is! It's sort of similar to taking $750 million off our veterans, who have served us so well. I wonder who they'll go after next—$750 million ripped out of our veterans, $1.5 million ripped from pensioners. Who else will they go after? Mr Rick Wilson 198084 The NDIS—they'll go after disabled people. Mr TEHAN 210911 Well, yes! It's just like—I don't know. Do you reckon it's the arrogance of the Prime Minister? It's— Mr Rick Wilson 198084 Hubris! Mr TEHAN 210911 It's the hubris of the Prime Minister. He just doesn't seem to care, and I think a few of his other ministers are a bit the same. It's like, 'Priorities? What are priorities? As long as I can have my $150 million presidential pre-COP conference, I'm alright. I don't care if the money comes out of 1.5 million pensioners' pockets.' It beggars belief. 'I don't care if $750 million comes out of veterans as long as I can keep doing what I want to be doing.' We saw it today. The hubris from the Prime Minister was quite extraordinary. He got a question on the 600 workers in Whyalla who had lost their jobs. Would he front up and answer it? No—just flick it. Mr Pasin 240756 The once proud Labor Party. Mr TEHAN 210911 Yes, this is Labor. This is the Labor Party. They're meant to stick up for workers, and yet they'll do this. I say to the 1.5 million pensioners who are going to be hit by this private health insurance change—I'm apologising to you from the Albanese Labor government. First of all, at the Expenditure Review Committee of cabinet, they would have said, 'Jeez, the budget's in a bit of trouble. We haven't been able to turn things around. We're heading towards a trillion dollars. We need money so we can keep our pet projects going. Who should we go after?' I don't know whether we'll hear it from any of the speakers on the other side; there don't seem to be many. But someone must have arced up and said, 'Let's go after the pensioners.' Mr Pasin 240756 They vote Liberal! Mr TEHAN 210911 Yes. I wonder who it was, because the Prime Minister has told us he chairs the Expenditure Review Committee of cabinet. So I wonder whether it was him. I wonder if it was the Treasurer. I don't know. Mr Pasin 240756 The next prime minister—the health minister? Mr TEHAN 210911 Yes. Well, the health minister would have had to be there because he would have had to put the submission in. I'll tell you what; if I was thinking about being the next prime minister, I don't think I'd be wanting to say, 'I'm going to take,' what is it, $800-odd— Mr Pasin 240756 For a single. Mr TEHAN 210911 for a single—from pensioners. 'Here, I've got a good idea, Expenditure Review Committee. Let's take 850 bucks off pensioners.' I'm sure the Prime Minister would have sat there and thought, 'This is the bloke who thinks he's going to be the next prime minister,' and said, 'Yes, that's a good idea, Minister for Health; you do that,' thinking, 'Because that'll keep you at bay for a little while.' Mr Rick Wilson 198084 The bus driver! Mr TEHAN 210911 Yes, the bus driver! 'You get hit by a bus; I think that might be the end of you.' And the Treasurer would have sat there and thought, 'I need my budget balanced. My opponent here, the minister for health'— Mr Rick Wilson 198084 The competition. Mr TEHAN 210911 Yes. 'My competition is going to cop it, so I'll let that go.' I mean, seriously. I don't know who else is on the Expenditure Review Committee of cabinet, but, whoever was there, someone should have said something. Then, of course, it would have gone to cabinet because cabinet would have had to give it the final tick. Do you reckon anyone would have stood up for pensioners in that cabinet? I don't know. I'm trying to think who would have said, 'What about the age pensioners who are doing it tough in a cost-of-living crisis?' Do you think someone would have done that? It doesn't seem like they did, sadly. Can I say to all those pensioners in Australia, 1.5 million of them, I'm sorry for you. I'm sorry that the Albanese Labor government is doing this to you. But I give you a commitment. We will fight it all the way. The coalition think this is appalling public policy, and there are two reasons why we think it's appalling public policy. The first is they're hitting those who are doing it the hardest. They are hitting, and hitting hard, those who the cost-of-living crisis is really impacting. As I've said, for a single, it's about $800; for a double, it is more—it is over a thousand. Now, when you've seen your electricity bill go up by 40 per cent, when you've seen your gas bill go up by way over 20 per cent, when you've seen your insurance go through the roof, when you've seen a basket of groceries go through the roof, the last thing you need to see is your private health insurance rebate hit. But that is what is happening here. It's bad, because this isn't a cost-of-living relief measure. This is an adding to the cost-of-living measure. In a cost-of-living crisis, what's the Albanese Labor government's big brainwave? It's to add to the cost of living even more for 1.5 million pensioners. Then there's the other bad public policy aspect of this. The public health system is stretched to near breaking point. People can't get in to get treatment, and the Albanese Labor government have been warned about this. Who have they been warned by? The Western Australian state premier, who's Labor; the Northern Territory leader, who is coalition; the South Australian premier, Labor; the Queensland premier, LNP; the New South Wales premier, Labor; the ACT leader, Labor; the Victorian premier, Labor; and the Tasmanian premier, Liberal. Every single state and territory leader across the board has said this policy is nuts. As a matter of fact, at the state and territory leaders meeting with the health minister every single one of them tore him a new one. They said this is madness. And what's the government's response? We're still here tonight and we're still debating this bill. You'd think they'd listen when every single one of them, one after another, lines up— Mr Pasin 240756 No speakers here. Mr TEHAN 210911 Oh, there are no speakers on their side. They're courageous as well, aren't they? Every state and territory leader said: 'This isn't good. This isn't smart. This is bad. This is going to just cost-shift from your budget onto ours. This is madness.' Yet, do they listen to every single one of these state and territory leaders? No, they don't. I hadn't realised this. Here's the speakers list for the House of Representatives. It says, 'Tuesday 15 September 2026, Private Health Insurance Amendment (Modernising the Private Health Insurance Rebate) Bill'—that's what they called it! Oh, this is 'modern' Australia, hitting 1.5 million pensioners in a cost-of-living crisis with $800 if you're a single and over $1,000 if you're a double! This is 'modernising' Australia. Well, I'll tell you what: I don't want to be a part of modern Australia under the Albanese Labor government. This is not modernising. It's funny because I thought that all of them would be in here defending their 'modernising' of the private health insurance rebate. I thought they would all be in here defending this, because this is obviously really important. If you truly believe that you're modernising the private health insurance rebate, you'd be singing from the rafters about it. I wonder how many of them have put out in their electorates that they're doing this. Do you reckon they've had direct mail-outs to over-65s saying, 'We're about to hit you with an $800 extra fee for your private health insurance and, if you're a couple, over $1,000'? Do you think they've done that? I wonder whether the member opposite, the member for Bruce, has let all his— Mr Pasin 240756 He's a good communicator! Mr TEHAN 210911 Oh, he is, just ask him. Do you reckon he's let all his constituents know? I don't think so, somehow. Even though this is all about modernising Australia, I've got a funny feeling that he would not have communicated with all his constituents about this. I wonder why! This list says it all. You're all embarrassed by this. You're all absolutely embarrassed about this. I get it. If I was ripping that money away from 1.5 million pensioners during a cost-of-living crisis, I'd be embarrassed as well. I'd be so embarrassed that I wouldn't even want to come to the chamber and speak. And the funny thing is—have a look—none of them are here to speak. Have a look at the one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 lining up to oppose this. Who's for it? Mr Pasin 240756 Silence. Mr TEHAN 210911 Silence. And yet this is modernising private health insurance. The great modern Labor Party—1.5 million pensioners. They're unbelievable! The funny thing about this was that they didn't even know what their policy had changed or what their modernising of Australia was going to do. Not only is this bad public policy, but no-one did the work. No-one actually thought about what this was going to do. The sad thing for the 1.5 million pensioners of Australia is that, not only are they going to be hit with this extra cost to their private health insurance; sadly, if they have to give their private health insurance up—which some of them will be forced to do, and the modelling says that—guess where they have to go, then, to get the treatment they need? They have to go to the public hospital system. And guess what every leader in the state and territory has said is going to happen? That's going to be stretched even further, and those poor pensioners won't be able to get the treatment that they need when they need it. I hope all of you are really proud of this; I really do. I hope you all think that this is what you got into government for—to do this to pensioners. I hope tomorrow, when you walk back into this chamber, you all say, 'Oh, isn't this great how we're modernising Australia? We're ripping money out of pensioners' pockets.' When those poor pensioners have to give up their private health insurance, they're going to have to go to an even more stretched public health system because all you've done is cost shift from the federal government onto every state and territory. It's hard to believe how we got here. But, sadly, there is nothing about this Albanese Labor government now that I don't find appalling. 19:08 Mr PASIN 240756 Barker This is probably one of the most mean-spirited approaches to public policy that I've seen in my time in this House. Let's be clear. We heard from the member for Wannon. We're talking about 1.5 million older Australians, with a measure which will ultimately 'save', if we accept what the Minister for Health and Ageing says repeatedly during question time—be rediverted to other services but 'saved'—or, as I would like to say, cost those 1.5 million older Australians $3 billion. Mr Tehan 210911 $3 billion overall! Mr PASIN 240756 $3 billion. Mr Tehan 210911 That's what they're ripping off pensioners. Mr PASIN 240756 Correct—off the 1.5 million pensioners that this is slated to impact. So I'm not surprised that those opposite aren't clamouring to make contributions. Those opposite have a hypermajority. They could spend a lot of time in this place extolling the virtues of this particular provision and this Private Health Insurance Amendment (Modernising the Private Health Insurance Rebate) Bill 2026, but, instead, they're hunkered down in their suites, very keen for this debate to be over and over quickly. The bad news for those opposite, particularly those who are perhaps standing on the green carpet of the House of Representatives for the first time, in this their first term, is that, whilst this debate might soon end in this place, I can assure those opposite that we will spend a good part of the next 12 to 16 months telling older Australians about this change. What's worse for those opposite is that at some point over the next 12 months these pensioners will be introduced to this change—because it doesn't come into effect, of course, until next year. Not only will they find themselves out of pocket an additional $800 for a single and $1,600 for a couple should they wish to continue their private health insurance, which we'll talk about in a minute; they'll also be dealing with another round of cost increases from the private health insurers. And, courtesy of those opposite and their inability to manage the economy and hold on to the levers of expenditure, that, of course, will go up by a factor that's not insignificant because, as you'd be well aware, Deputy Speaker Scrymgour, inflation is out of control. The member for Wannon put it well, because this would be mean spirited enough if all it was was an exercise in cost shifting from the private individual to the state, in the sense that, if pensioners are forced into the public health system, then that bill is picked up by state governments. But the problem here is it's not just a simple transfer, because these public health systems are under incredible pressure. The truth is that, in electorates like the one the member for Wannon so well represents and the one I represent as the member for Barker, our constituents disproportionately, unfortunately, do not have the survivability rates from serious illness that are enjoyed by people who live in metropolitan settings. Let me paint you a picture. In my electorate, one takes out private health insurance not because one will get access to private hospital services in my regional electorate, because there aren't any, but simply so that when you make the decision, or are required or forced, to travel to Adelaide, you might be able to be in a private hospital—get there a little earlier, be serviced more quickly—not be on public health waiting lists. For many people in my electorate, the choice between private health insurance and no private health insurance is the choice between life and death. You might say, 'The member for Barker is catastrophising,' but I'm not, because, unlike many, when individuals in my electorate are forced to travel to metropolitan settings for health treatment, they need to meet their own costs associated with these things, and, too many times, whether it comes to radiation therapy or other forms of treatment, they decide, in effect, that they're not going to have that treatment. That's why people who are diagnosed with cancer in my electorate die much sooner than those metropolitan people, sadly. It's a shocking statistic in a First World country like ours, but it is real. Rather than wax lyrical about the pressures that are on the public health system or perhaps refer to the South Australian Minister for Health and Wellbeing, Blair Boyer, who called on this government, and indeed his colleagues in the left of the Labor Party from South Australia, to reverse this decision—rather than talk about those things, I thought I might, as the radio jocks refer to it, open the lines up. So what I've done, unfiltered, and perhaps unlike those opposite, is I have written to everyone in my electorate above the age of 65, all 23,800 people, to tell them about this situation—this impending challenge to the maintenance of their private health insurance. What did they say in response? I thought I might share that with the House. It might be of interest. Grant responds: 'Hi there, Tony. Stay with it. My wife and myself will be hit if it goes through. Several of our elderly neighbours are thinking of ditching health cover and going on the public system. We've had private cover for as long as I've been married, and we got married in 1983.' This is no small thing—1983. They maintained private health insurance during that period and, I expect, enjoyed reasonably good health. But now, when Grant and his good wife need it the most, those opposite have decided to make it unattainable. Valma writes: 'My only income is the age pension. I'm almost 88 and pretty fit, but I think I'm going to have to drop my private health cover.' The member for Wannon talks about who around the Expenditure Review Committee, who around cabinet, made these decisions. I'm not as generous as the member for Wannon. I think the member for Wannon is too kind when he says that people sitting around that table, perhaps in an act of negligence or oversight, didn't think of the pensioners of Australia. I think individuals opposite, sitting around those important committee tables, are a bit more deliberate about how they go about these things. Mr Tehan 210911 Do you think they deliberately targeted the pensioners? Mr PASIN 240756 I think what those opposite do is participate in the politics of punishment. That means they sit around and consider which cohort of Australians don't vote for them. How else could you explain why they would seek to recover $750 million from Australian veterans other than perhaps the suggestion that people who have served this nation in uniform disproportionately vote for centre-right candidates, the Liberal and National parties? Why else would you look to save $3 billion—billion with a 'b'—from the 1.5 million pensioners other than if perhaps you had coldly calculated that, disproportionately, those 1.5 million Australians vote for centre-right political parties? You can see it in the polling. You don't have to take my word for it. Over a long period of time, older Australians have tended to lean Right. Mr Tehan 210911 But I thought the Prime Minister wanted to govern for all Australians! Mr PASIN 240756 I said in my maiden speech, Dan, that, between the saying and the doing, there's the ocean between. Often, I think, the Prime Minister says one thing but does the other. Mr Tehan 210911 No! Mr PASIN 240756 That's true. But let us get back to these responses. Julie says: 'Absolutely disgusting, and most people don't even know about it. I've lost my husband, so, for one, will not be able to afford private health insurance. We've had private health insurance for nearly 40 years, and it's been a real struggle financially to continue over the last couple of years. This kind of legislation will force a whole lot more people into the public health system, which is clearly way overstretched. It doesn't make much sense.' Julie, I wish you had been elected to a seat in this place, perhaps over on the other side, or had been a member of the ERC or cabinet, because that kind of insight might have been helpful. I'll continue. Ian says: 'This is madness. A lot of people over 65 will struggle to pay the extra premiums if it takes effect and put even more pressure on the public hospital system, which in the end will mean more money will have to be spent on the health outcomes for people that really need care. It'll be diminished, and there'll be less resources to go around again.' Ian gets it. Chris says: 'Thank you for this info. Life under federal Labor is Albo-not-so-easy! This guy'—presumably he means the Prime Minister; I'll use his correct title—'surely will go down in history as Australia's worst prime minister. He's so far out of touch. Old-school Labor pollies must be turning in their graves.' I think what Chris is trying to say is the once-proud Labor Party has turned on older Australians. 'Hi Tony. Thank you so much for trying to help pensioners. It means so much to us. Keep up the fight.' Wayne's contribution—'Hi Tony. Signing a petition, which I've just done, I feel is a waste. The socialists control the system and don't like those of us who have operated outside their control for many years to accumulate funds to pay for private health cover, which the socialists want to abolish so that they can control us when we need health care. This won't change until socialist supporters realise the error of their ways and return the government that the voters lost big time.' Glenda said, 'Thank you for your concern about the unbelievable issue confronting us as pensioners who just survive fortnight to fortnight.' I don't think Glenda is someone who's well heeled. She's talking about living fortnight to fortnight. 'How would the Prime Minister manage for 14 days on what we get and the bills we have to pay? No idea, I guess.' I'm reading some of these to make the point that Australians get this. Australians understand how mean-spirited this approach is. Australians understand this is a product of the politics of punishment. I just wonder whether those opposite get it. Unlike the member for Wannon, I'm encouraged by the fact that the Labor Party and members of the backbench are either embarrassed or unwilling to make contributions to this bill. That tells me that not the current alumni, the current leadership cohort that luxuriate on the frontbench during question time and occupy the ministerial suites, but perhaps those that sit behind them are still devotees of a Labor Party that cares about older Australians. Perhaps today, on world democracy day, those people who are too embarrassed to come in here and defend the position that's been determined by others, the exalted few that sit on that frontbench, understand that their responsibility in being in government is not just to govern for those Australians that voted for them but rather to govern for all Australians, including those that perhaps the pollsters tell us disproportionately don't vote for them. I might end with this, a final contribution from Malcolm, living in the Riverland. 'I often wonder about the intelligence of those that voted for those opposite. Not many of the federal Labor politicians that I can see have ever held a real job in their lives. In my instance, I've wanted to be completely independent of government, and I've had private health insurance for 60 years.' Those opposite are driving Malcolm and others like him out of private health insurance. (Time expired) 19:23 Ms PRICE 249308 Durack I rise to speak on the Private Health Insurance Amendment (Modernising the Private Health Insurance Rebate) Bill 2026 and state my absolute opposition to the changes from the outset. These changes will have very real consequences for senior Australians, particularly for those living on fixed incomes. At the centre of this is a debate about choice, and it is a debate about fairness for 1.5 million Australians. The issue is whether Australians who have worked hard throughout their lives, paid their taxes, planned for retirement, done what they were told to do and taken out private health insurance should be punished now for doing so. It is also a test of whether the government understands the pressure that senior regional Western Australians are already facing with the rising cost of living. The government's cruel decision to strip back the private health insurance rebate will leave many older regional Western Australians facing extremely difficult choices. They will have to decide whether to stop paying for essentials such as heating, downgrade their private health cover or drop it altogether. This discussion is not an abstract policy debate. If those opposite have their way and these changes pass, there will be thousands of regional Western Australians choosing between maintaining their health insurance and paying for other necessities of life. Beyond this, there is a consequence that every Australian and the government will feel. If Australians over the age of 65 years drop their private health insurance, there will be greater pressure placed on our public health system. The last thing we want in regional Australia is to push older Australians onto the public health queues. Whether you have private health cover or not, you will also be paying for this cash grab from those opposite. The health minister has said that there is 'no good policy reason' to give over-65s a higher tax rebate on their private health cover. What? Minister, really? Private health insurance plays an important role in helping take the pressure off our public hospitals and health services. As people get older, they are more likely to require health care. That is one of the reasons that seniors receive a higher rebate on their private health—to encourage them to continue to pay for their private health cover. This isn't about giving seniors some special privilege; it recognises the reality that the need for health care increases with age. It doesn't decrease. And, if we maintain a strong private health system, this helps to take pressure off our public system. This is a good policy reason for all Australians. National Seniors Australia has found that as many as 45 per cent of people whose sole source of income is the age pension hold private health insurance. That shows just the sort of demographic that is being targeted by this government's changes. They're not wealthy Australians with enormous disposable incomes, off to Europe every year, living large; they are pensioners who have made the decision to prioritise their health and maintain their private cover. I, like many of those on this side, have heard from numerous people who have been paying their cover for decades. They were told to invest in it, and now they would just feel like the rug is being pulled out from underneath them. Former Australian Medical Association president Dr Michael Gannon has described those people as 'individuals who have decided to put their health above the holidays and their leisure', and I think there are literally hundreds of thousands of Australians out there who have done that. That observation tells us everything: we should not be treating this group of Australians as an easy source of additional government revenue. People who have made responsible decisions about their health should not be punished for doing so. This issue matters deeply to people across Durack. Following the budget in May, I created a survey which was sent directly to all those 65 years and over in Durack asking if they could or could not afford the extra costs and if the changes to the rebate would force them to cancel their private health cover. I want to firstly thank all of those who took the time to complete the survey and return it to my office. The response was significant. At the last count, we had received 2,355 responses from Durack constituents. Out of the responses, there were 2,312 who said they cannot afford the extra and either will or may cancel their private health cover. Just 43 told me they can afford to pay extra for their health insurance. With the time remaining, I would like to give a sample of some of the comments that people made. Stephen, aged 69, from Warrnambool, said: 'Private health costs increase every year, and this alone is difficult to afford. Every year we have to assess if we can afford to keep paying for private health.' Norman, aged 79, from Moora, said, 'Get rid of Labor!' Thomas, aged 94, from Geraldton, said, 'My bank balance goes south very fast.' And John Anderson, aged 69, from Drummond, said: 'The government's mishandling of the economy and the NDIS means they are looking at ways to save money and raise more taxes with their capital gains changes. As usual, Labor has stuffed up again.' Let's finish on Annette, 72 years, from West End, Geraldton. She said: 'Absolute disgrace that over-65s are being penalised with reduced rebates—generally, over-65s have less income from employment, and this reduces again as they age, as opposed to younger private health participants, who have greater access to employment opportunities.' I thank you all for taking the time to complete the survey—and it's not too late to complete the survey. We need to send a message to this government that their mean and nasty changes to people over the age of 65 have not gone unnoticed, and this government will be punished. Debate interrupted. ADJOURNMENT 76 ADJOURNMENT Calare Electorate: Sport 76 19:30 Mr GEE 261393 Calare The arrival of spring in the Central West means it's footy finals time. We just love our country sporting derbies, and today I recognise three outstanding sporting clubs from the Calare electorate whose achievements this season have made their communities enormously proud: the Orange City Rugby Club, the Cargo Blue Heelers and the Oberon Tigers. Country sporting clubs are about much more than what happens on the field; they bring people together where lifelong friendships are built and they provide a place where everyone belongs. This year, these three great clubs have certainly given their communities plenty to celebrate. First, congratulations to the Orange City Lions, who won the Blowes Cup men's third-grade premiership, defeating their local crosstown rivals, the Orange Emus, 15-12. Congratulations to coach Mike Smith and the grand final team, including captain Josh Tremain, Keith Lawson, Mike Smith, Mitchell Pearce, Harrison Starr, Tom Bray, Gus Smith, Alen Varghese, Barton Young, Joe Lasagavibau, Noa Fraser, Sia Nemani, Jordyn Hogden, Moses Rewais and Harry Grant. A special mention goes to halfback Barton Young, who reached an extraordinary milestone this season, playing his 300th game. Three hundred games for one club is an enormous achievement and speaks volumes about Barton's loyalty and dedication to Orange City Rugby. Well done to the mighty Lions. From Orange, we head down the road to the vibrant community of Cargo, where the Cargo Blue Heelers women's league tag team completed an extraordinary undefeated season—that's right, undefeated. The grand final was an absolute thriller. Trailing 10-4 at half time, the Heelers refused to give in, and two late tries saw them storm home to claim a nail biting 14-12 premiership victory over the Manildra Rhinos. Both the Heelers' semis had gone into extra time, including one that was decided in golden point. This is clearly a team that knows how to dig deep when the pressure is on. Congratulations to coach Anthony Regan, who grew up in Cargo, played first grade for the club in the 1980s and has now coached the league tag side to their fourth premiership. Congratulations also to captain Ebony Madden, Sophie Fardell, Chelsea Colgan, Hannah Madden, Emma Swallow, Eadie Brown, Ava Thornberry, Holly Willson, Rachel Kuczynski, Sarah Kirkness, Jorja Lees, Adelaide Pittis, Rhiannon Lamb, Taylah Guyer, Tori Ryan, Ashley Johnston, Sally White, Theika McNaught, Lily Vardenega, Jenna Young, Holly Jones and Caitlin Brand. A number of these players were also members of Cargo's first premiership-winning league tag side in 2018. For a small community, this is something to be incredibly proud of. I also acknowledge president Ashley Brown, a lifelong Cargo local who pulled the Blue Heelers jersey on from the age of 16 into his late 40s—what a legend. Congratulations to the Heeler girls. Finally, to Oberon, where the mighty Oberon Tigers first-grade side have gone back-to-back as Woodbridge Cup champions, defeating the mighty Blayney Bears 24-14 to claim the premiership for the second year running. I make mention of this wonderful grand-final-winning team; it is their second premiership in two years under captain-coach Nic Barlow. Congratulations to the team, including not only Nic but Callum Limon, Abel Lefaoseu, Jayden Fagg, Bob Lefaoseu, Blake Fitzpatrick, Dave Sellers, Jack O'Neill, Ryan Jervis, Luke Christie-Johnston, Nathan Barlow, Matt Ranse, Blake Rigelsford, Wil Melchers, Tyler Young, Sam Manatua, Shannon Hodgson, Jamie Arriola and Jae Malaulau. I also acknowledge team manager Brian Moss, sports trainers James, Tee-Jay and the mighty Chilli, and first-grade sponsor Andy Adams Constructions. First-grade rugby league in Oberon dates back to 1957, and this team is writing another proud chapter in that history. The Oberon Tigers also demonstrated what country sporting clubs are truly about through their annual Can Assist Day. This year their auction raised an extraordinary $80,000, while over the past nine years the club has raised more than $420,000 for Can Assist Oberon. What an effort! And well done to the under-18 Youth League side this year. Under coach Abel Lefaoseu, manager Pip Honan and captain Jed Ryan, the young Tigers made the grand final. While they went down to a strong Cowra Magpies side, they should be enormously proud of all they have achieved. Congratulations to the Lions, the Heelers and the Tigers! Teachers 76 19:35 Dr FREELANDER 265979 Macarthur Let's celebrate teachers! Throughout our lives, we come across several people who leave an impression on us, who guide us and instruct us towards becoming better people. Each of us will have varying individuals in mind from our own unique experiences. However, I'm certain that we all at some point think of that teacher or teachers who left an incredible mark on our lives, a teacher who delivered motivation or inspiration in times of difficulty, or who shaped a tedious subject into something enjoyable and manageable or who simply helped steer us throughout our school journey. No matter what the reason, we all have those special teachers who helped us turn into what and who we are today. With World Teachers' Day approaching, I'd like to say to the teachers of Australia, and particularly to those in my electorate of Macarthur where we have 80 schools, two simple but meaningful words: thank you. Thank you for being the mentor, the coach and sometimes the parental figure that young people need now more than ever. We know that many students have their own personal battles they are dealing with each day they attend school, from mental health difficulties, anxieties over their academic performance and their professional futures to issues at home. These are issues that teachers seek to help them with every day. These issues are also true for teachers who must manage their own personal matters. It's a heavy burden to carry, however, for many students and their families. It's not immediately visible what their teachers are going through. That is why I believe it's important to say thank you to our teachers for everything they do. As someone who spent much of their professional life working in health care, I understand the profound effect and impact that education has on the trajectory of people's lives. I've cared for many, many young people in my electorate of Macarthur. Education gives people opportunity. It gives them confidence, and it provides them with the skills to participate fully in society and to be productive members of society. Behind every student who succeeds is a family and very often a teacher who believed in them and supported them. I'd like to take this opportunity to celebrate Mrs Tammy Anderson, the principal at Briar Road Public School in my electorate of Macarthur, who has received national recognition for her work—and rightfully so. Through her determined efforts to analyse and improve NAPLAN results in literacy in her school, attendance rates and learning outcomes have soared for both teachers and students. Tammy has helped to deliver an astonishing turnaround for the Briar Road community. Just this evening, Tammy received a teaching fellowship at the 2026 Schools Plus Teaching Awards here in Parliament House. Congratulations to her for all her hard work. She's developed a team at Briar Road Public School that believes in what they're doing. They're profoundly changing the lives of the kids in the school and also their families. I support her and congratulate her for that. Both Minister Clare and I have met with Tammy, both here in Parliament House and at a visit to Briar Road School last week. We congratulated Tammy and we thanked her for the incredible work she is doing. We also thanked her team for the incredible work they are doing with kids from often very disadvantaged backgrounds. They work in the best possible way to get the best possible results. Tammy and her wonderful teachers and staff at Briar Road Public School are a beacon of educational excellence and opportunity. I'm very proud and grateful for their work in Macarthur. I'm also proud of the work that our federal Labor government has done and continues to do across the educational spectrum and particularly for Macarthur schools. I thank Jason Clare, the Minister for Education, for his incredible leadership in this space. Macarthur region schools have benefited from our Capital Grants Program funding, which has delivered over $15 million in capital investment for many schools in the Macarthur region, and from the Schools Upgrade Fund, which has delivered over $3.5 million for upgrades to outdoor learning spaces, sports equipment and repairing school facilities across 11 Macarthur schools. I continue to work with the federal and New South Wales governments and their respective departments of education to advocate for better outcomes for our schools, which in turn means better outcomes for our students and for our teachers, and also better productivity in our communities. I support our teachers. I am very grateful to have had wonderful support from teachers in my own life, and I support teachers across the country for the excellent work they're doing in improving the lives of our students. Veterans: Health Care, Housing 77 19:40 Mr REBELLO 316547 McPherson This government has put a $5,000 figure on a promise that should never carry a price tag: our obligation to care for those who served Australia. Labor calls the measure a review threshold and says that clinically necessary treatment will continue beyond it. But veterans should not have to face another approval hurdle just to get the care that they need. Last month, veterans travelled to Canberra to challenge it. The minister initially refused to meet them. Only after pressure did he sit down with them—and veterans say that he would not even shake their hand. These veterans answered their country's call. They should not have to fight to get their minister to answer theirs. This government presides over billions of dollars that are lost through NDIS fraud, errors and misuse. It has spent and earmarked billions upon billions for its net zero obsession, and it's blown more than $400 million on the failed Voice referendum. Yet when Labor wants savings, wounded veterans find themselves on the chopping block. What a disgraceful set of priorities. Yesterday, Labor voted to postpone consideration of the Senate's amendments to scrap this cap. This government does not understand the promise that we make. When Australians put on our uniform they accept risks that most of us will never face. They risk their lives, their safety and their long-term health to protect our country and our national interests. That sacrifice is not a budget saving. Our obligation does not expire when the uniform comes off. It means standing beside them when the parade is over, when the cameras are gone and when the consequences of service follow them home. These Australians are not asking for a favour; they're asking us to honour our side of the bargain. No veteran should ever be made to feel that injuries sustained protecting Australia are an inconvenience to its government. Minister, their sacrifice is not your saving. Our veterans did not put a cap on their sacrifice. This government has no right to put a cap on our promise. Scrap the cap. Labor has delivered a trifecta of failure on housing—fewer homes, higher rents and shattered confidence—and Australian families are paying for every part of it. Treasury says Labor's housing taxes will push rents higher and leave 35,000 fewer homes over a decade than otherwise. Labor is claiming that other measures will offset that damage. But renters cannot pay the rent with another Labor promise. Rents have risen 24.8 per cent since Labor came to office, while wages have grown by just 16.1 per cent. That gap comes straight out of the family budget. Industry-commissioned modelling warns that these changes could wipe $1 billion from economic activity over four years, costing 4,700 construction jobs—fewer homes, fewer jobs and more pressure on families. Almost 13,000 construction businesses have become insolvent since Labor came to office. At the very moment, Australia needs more homes, but while this is happening we're losing the businesses that build them. Meanwhile, homeowners are watching property values slide. For working Australians, that's years of saving and sacrifice that's going backwards. What about the first home buyers that Labor claimed it would help? The Financial Review reports a fivefold jump in the number of buyers in negative equity under the five per cent deposit scheme in just one month. They finally got the keys, and, now, some owe more than their home is actually worth. Labor promised them a leg-up. Instead, they're watching their deposit disappear while their mortgage remains. Nor are new buyers flooding in. New home lending has fallen 5.4 per cent in the June quarter. Labor is stripping security from homeowners without delivering opportunity for buyers. Behind it all is just 173,000 homes completed annually. That is against the 240,000 target that's needed to meet Labor's promise. This is what failure looks like: renters squeezed, buyers exposed and confidence crushed. There's a better way: you tie migration to housing completions, invest in the infrastructure that unlocks new homes, cut unnecessary construction red tape and axe Labor's housing taxes. We on this side all know that you cannot tax your way out of a housing shortage; you have to build your way out. Labor calls it reform. Australian families call it going backwards. This government owns the budget, it owns the consequences, and it cannot keep making Australians pay for its failures. Cybersafety 78 19:45 Ms FRANCE 270198 Dickson When I read Nineteen Eighty-Four by George Orwell in my teens while having to make phone calls from a phone that was literally connected to the wall, I never imagined a world where cameras or computers would literally monitor my every move. But here we are. Social media platforms and big tech track browsing habits, location, contacts and purchases. With that information, they build detailed behavioural profiles, which they then monetise for targeted advertising—deciding what we see, shaping opinions, moods and behaviour that we know spills out into the real world with real-world consequences like suicide, the abuse of women, eating disorders, vaccine hesitancy, porn, addiction, the glorification of crime. We know that, if a young man who loves rugby league gets online, the algorithm will serve toxic manosphere content encouraging that young man to see women as the enemy within 23 minutes, whether they sought it out or not. Social media platforms are also engineered to be addictive, and they especially target young people who are still figuring out their place in the world. This week, the Albanese Labor government took the first step towards reining the algorithms and big tech firms in with draft digital duty of care laws. We released draft legislation for consultation last week—My Feed, My Way—giving Aussies the choice to opt out of algorithms while putting the onus on big tech to provide a safe online environment for under 18s. These are minimum standards. It's not just social media. Games, apps, chatbots and online forums will be covered by these laws, providing eSafety with the power to issue removal notices for nudify apps and websites that stream cyberbullying and abuse. Where the platforms breach their duty of care to young people, they will pay penalties of nearly $110 million, enforced by an independent eSafety Commissioner—My Feed, My Way. Tech companies must be held accountable to basic safety standards just like real-world product manufacturers. I don't know anyone that doesn't want the choice to opt out of social media platforms and algorithms. I don't know anyone that doesn't want big tech to take responsibility for the real-world impacts of the content that they push and platform—real-world impacts that mean female teachers are copping more and more abuse from young boys; young people committing suicide as a result of online abuse and/or encouragement; religious and/or political radicalisation; increased rates of anxiety, depression and body image issues. That is why Labor will introduce new social media duty of care laws. Giving people the choice of what they consume, see and hear has literally sent the opposition and One Nation into an absolute spin. Orwell would be baffled. The Liberal and National parties, along with One Nation, have decided that big tech and the algorithms are not the problem. In their infinite wisdom, they have decided that the government giving people the option to opt out of the algorithm is Big Brother. It's censorship, apparently. Right now, big tech has a big blank cheque to shovel as much garbage down our throats as they like, even if it encourages our young people to hate women, commit suicide, starve themselves, hate their bodies. So now, as the government, we say enough. People should be able to choose whether they want to swallow garbage or opt out. Let me be clear: if you want to continue to swallow garbage, you can do so, as much as your stomach can take. But, for those of us who think that the garbage is making us sick or our kids sick, we feel it's important to give people the choice to opt out of it. The coalition and One Nation seem to be saying: 'Hell, no. You must swallow the garbage.' I beg them: while the consultation is on, please try to be normal and constructive. If Orwell was here, he'd ask the members of the Liberal Party, the National Party and One Nation to actually read the book. Albanese Government 79 19:50 Mr SMALL 291406 Forrest Australians opening the Sydney Morning Herald this morning were confronted with a truly alarming front-page story. Apparently, crime only happens in Labor seats these days. According to the Albanese government, the $20 million Strengthening Communities Program was supposed to 'strengthen community safety by deterring criminal activities and providing real-time surveillance and evidence for law enforcement'. I think we'd all agree it's a worthwhile goal. But today's reporting raises very serious questions. Was this program designed to install CCTV cameras across our country or pork barrel Labor held seats? Of the 20 projects in the program, some 17 were in seats already held by Labor before the 2025 election, and much of the remaining funding went to—you guess it, Mr Speaker!—seats that were in Labor's crosshairs. There was $1½ million for projects in Dickson and Petrie, coalition held before the election, whilst another $600,000 went straight into projects in Deakin and Menzies. Under the Strengthening Communities Program, 93 per cent of funding has gone to seats held today by the Labor government. It's clear that this government thinks that crimes are only committed in seats that Labor holds or in seats that Labor thinks it can win. It would all be comical if it wasn't $20 million of your taxpayer money. Nothing about this program passes the pub test. If it was genuinely about community safety, grants would be awarded based on need across our community, not based on the seats which Labor wants to win. I've got a newsflash for the Prime Minister: criminals don't check which seat they're in before they rob people. We know this government has some form when it comes to these types of programs, despite what it used to say in opposition. The Supporting Multicultural Communities Program saw around 85 per cent of funding directed to—you guessed it!—Labor held seats, taking hard-earned money off hardworking Australians and using that money to fund the ghettoisation of Australia, as I said to the Sydney Morning Herald some weeks ago. Then, of course, what has garnered some serious attention across the country now is the $560 million Major and Local Community Infrastructure Program—for which the Greens are now on the bandwagon—after revelations that almost 90 per cent of funding flowed to Labor held seats. The Centre for Public Integrity went through the program, and its chair said: Prima facie, it looks like the misuse of public money or serious pork-barrelling, as it's sometimes called— which is a rather extraordinary assessment. On top of that, it was recently revealed that $6 million was awarded to the Marrickville golf club, in the Prime Minister's own electorate of Grayndler. This is the club the Prime Minister has had a decade's long association with, the club that listed him as an honorary member. It is, of course, the subject of some serious debate across the country, because, miraculously, the Marrickville golf club was the only golf club in the entire country to receive funding under this program. It is extraordinary, but perhaps more extraordinary still is Labor's hypocrisy. In 2020, when an undeclared honorary membership was connected to a grant of $36,000, the Prime Minister called it 'red hot' and demanded that the minister resign because it failed the pub test and it failed every test. Well, Prime Minister, if $36,000 was red hot, what do you call $6 million, or some 170-odd times more, taxpayer money? But the hypocrisy doesn't end with the Prime Minister. The infrastructure minister, Catherine King, who I've crowned the new queen of pork-barrelling, has spent years condemning exactly this sort of behaviour. In 2020, she called coalition grants programs—or delivering election commitments, as the member for Bruce would like to call it—'industrial scale pork-barrelling' and 'rorting on a nuclear scale'. But wait for my personal favourite. In 2023, the minister posted on X that there'd be no more colour coded spreadsheets and no more pork-barrelling. Well, it turns out under this government the colour coded spreadsheets are just all red, because the pork-barrelling practices on the government benches are alive and well. (Time expired) The SPEAKER 53517 Order, the member for Bruce! Onam, Holt Electorate: Sport, Janmashtami 80 19:55 Ms FERNANDO 299964 Holt Over recent weeks, Malayalee families in Holt and across Australia came together to celebrate Onam. Holt is home to a strong and vibrant Malayalee community. This festival holds a particularly special place for many families I am proud to represent. Onam celebrates the story of King Mahabali and the hope of a society where people lived as equals. No-one was left behind, and prosperity was shared by all. It is a story grounded in generosity, dignity and care for one another—values that speak to all of us, regardless of where we come from. Onam is also about family and belonging. It is grandparents sharing stories, parents passing on traditions and children growing up in Australia learning about their heritage through traditional music, dance and the Onam sadya. For many families, it is a chance to spend time together and enjoy the celebrations they look forward to each year. Having migrated to Australia at the age of 11, I deeply understand the importance of maintaining that connection. We can honour the places and traditions that shaped us while proudly contributing to the country we now call home. I was delighted to join the Malayalee Association of Victoria for its Onam celebration this year. Thank you to the president, Madanan, the MAV Committee and the many volunteers who made the celebration possible. Although this year's festivities have ended, Onam's message of equality, generosity and hope continues. To everyone who celebrated, Happy Onam. Sometimes a young person just needs something that makes them want to turn up, have a go and believe in themselves. For students across Melbourne's south-east, football is helping provide that spark. I recently attended the Melbourne City Futures cup at Casey Fields, joining students as they represented their schools and celebrated a year of hard work. It was especially good to see students from Narre Warren South P-12 College taking part. Through the City Futures program, students build confidence, form friendships and stay connected to their education through a sport they love. Coaches work alongside them throughout the year, combining football with lessons in leadership, respect and teamwork. For a young person struggling to find their place at school, having a team that counts on them and a coach who believes in them can make a real difference. That is why this work matters to our community. I want to thank Sunil, George and the entire community team who make it possible. And I congratulate every student who took part. Your effort deserves recognition, and I am pleased to recognise it here in Parliament House. I recently had the pleasure of joining nearly 8,000 people for ISKCON Southeast Melbourne's Janmashtami celebrations. Families gathered for an evening of prayer, music and celebration to mark the birth of Lord Krishna. For millions of Hindus around the world, Janmashtami is a time of devotion and reflection on Lord Krishna's teaching of love, compassion and service to others. It is also a chance for families to share those teachings with their children, keeping traditions alive across generations. I want to thank Nitin, Nadia and the ISKCON Melbourne team for bringing our Hindu community across Melbourne's south-east together for this very special occasion. Many thanks also go to the volunteers who work so hard behind the scenes preparing meals, welcoming families and making sure everyone was looked after. To our Hindu community in Holt, thank you for making me feel so welcome and for sharing a celebration that means so much to you and your family. I wish everyone who celebrated a happy and blessed Janmashtami. Hare Krishna. House adjourned at 20:00 NOTICES 80 NOTICES Presentation 80

Tuesday, 15 September 2026

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Payne ) took the chair at 12:30.

GRIEVANCE DEBATE 85 GRIEVANCE DEBATE Australian Society 85 12:30 Mr WILKIE C2T Clark Many people are aggrieved right now or are at least anxious about the state of things. This is manifesting itself in all sorts of ways including politically, where loyalty to the major parties is breaking down and where interest in minor parties and Independents continues to increase. This heightened unease in the community hasn't come about suddenly, nor can it be attributed to anything in particular. Instead, it has come about over time, as described ably at the macro level by Waleed Aly, who wrote in the Guardian last week: … September 11 and the "war on terror" placed security front and centre. The 2005 London Tube bombings raised the spectre of homegrown terrorism, triggering all sorts of social anxieties. Wars in Afghanistan and especially Iraq revealed the limits of western military power and undermined trust in governments that either imagined or invented weapons of mass destruction. Then came the urgent awareness of climate change, which variously evoked existential dread and threatened to phase out entire industries on which depend economies and communities. Soon followed the global financial crisis, which caused millions around the world to lose their homes and life savings and revealed the edifice of our global economy to be more a house of cards than a cathedral. Then came Islamic State, reviving the spectre that began the century in the crudest, most brutal form. Next, Brexit and the election of Donald Trump—both previously unthinkable, both smashing all manner of orthodoxies, thrilling or terrifying according to taste. The dust hadn't even settled when Covid-19 arrived, shuttering economies and lives, inflicting psychological torment, radically expanding state power. It drove us into isolation and on to our phones, where we argued over lockdowns and masks and vaccines—seeding growing suspicion of authority, whether political or medical. Social media became ever more present and polarising. Covid abated but inflation took off. Then Hamas slaughtered Israeli civilians on 7 October 2023, and Israel annihilated Gaza in response with relative impunity, yielding unfathomable human suffering that ricocheted through cyberspace and into visceral local antagonism in societies around the world. Trump was re-elected and launched a trade war on the world which he called "Liberation Day". Then, in Australia, came Bondi. And while all this was happening, artificial intelligence emerged exponentially, developing faster than we could comprehend and threatening everything from swallowing up jobs by the million to unleashing killer robots. No wonder people are rattled, somewhat aggrieved and unhappy, frankly. Because in the face of all this governments, state and federal, have been swamped and have often taken their eye off the ball of progress or in some cases have actively allowed backsliding. So that's very much at the macro level. Now let's get down into the weeds and think about the things that are making people anxious and even angry in order to help in some way to explain the changing political dynamic at the moment. First and foremost, I think, is the escalating housing crisis, which is undermining the ability of Australians to access one of the most fundamental needs they have: a place to call home. Heavens, I know of people in my own electorate, people with jobs, that are living in cars. We probably are all aware of the thousands of people that are the hidden homeless, who are couch surfing at a friend's place, in the spare room or even in the shed out the back. In Hobart, there are beggars on the streets—in a rich place, in a rich country. In Tasmania, again, there are thousands of people on the public housing waiting list. There's the prolonged cost-of-living crisis, which undermines other fundamental needs, including putting food on the table three times a day. Of course, this is being driven by inflation, low real wage growth and cartel-like behaviour from some in the corporate sector. I know of constituents who regularly go without medicine because they can't afford it. I know of constituents who have dropped or reduced insurance on their property, their belongings or their car or their health insurance because they can't afford it. People are dropping Support at Home services which they're entitled to because they can't afford their contribution. More broadly, we see deteriorating public services—for example, the cuts to face-to-face supports like what used to be provided by the Australian Taxation Office. There was robodebt, which really affected the confidence that many in the community had in the government and the bureaucracy. We're still seeing, despite claims to the contrary by the government, the declining value and availability of Medicare, the outsourcing to contractors and consultants, taxes going up, increased means testing and reduced universal service provision. In Tasmania, again, the public health system is stretched to breaking point. Public transport in Tasmania, including Hobart, is flimsy at best. No wonder people are unhappy, because all of these issues are piling on top of each other. There have been the questions over integrity, which help to explain the declining trust in government. Just in recent weeks, we've had the revelations that the so-called Major and Local Community Infrastructure Program, which was worth about $560 million, was invite only, and three-quarters of the $560 million went to Labor seats. I accept the explanation by the Prime Minister that it's delivering on election promises, but still we see three-quarters of an invite only program going to Labor seats. No wonder people are cynical. No wonder there is something bordering on a collapse of trust in what I'll call the political class. Then there are the misguided priorities: insufficient increases from the government to income support, insufficient family and domestic violence funding, no effective tax on gas exports, and no effective gambling reform, despite all the hoopla several weeks ago—all while the community is witnessing billions spent on fossil fuel subsidies, nuclear submarines and so on.. Just yesterday, we had in the parliament a two very telling issues: the passage through the lower house of the legislation for the $5,000 cap on allied health services for veterans, and then the debate about the cut to the private health insurance rebate for Australians over 65. These are people with no financial room to move. No wonder they're unhappy. They have a grievance alright. I could go on. I think we all understand, as well as or better than I do, why people are unhappy. Some are angry. Politicians are not in favour. Political parties are not in favour. People are looking around for some way through this—some alternative. I think it's reflected in the polling—not that some of the people or parties in the polls offer any solutions, other than that they're just not us. I think that is part of the appeal of some of these other parties and candidates. But, of course, every problem has a solution. If the political class recognises there's a problem and has the vision to solve it and to get cracking, we as a country can certainly afford to solve these problems that I described. We can reinvigorate public services and supports. We can strengthen integrity institutions and the guardrails. For example, we can give the National Anti-Corruption Commission more teeth, let them have public hearings, shine a light, and bring into the spotlight or into the daylight the problems that people are concerned about. We can reform whistleblower protections and FOI and secrecy provisions; improve ministerial and parliamentary standards; undertake more political donation reform and more electoral reform; have a more independent and transparent government grants program; and undertake lobbying reform. But do you know what we need to do more than anything else? We—everyone in this place, myself included: all the political parties, all the crossbenchers and all the senators—need to remember our job is to work in the public interest every minute of every day and to put aside our political self-interest or the political self-interest of our party, if we're in a party. I reckon that's the way ahead here. If the public know we are working in their interests at all times and we're giving it our best shot, they'll be more forgiving when we stuff it up. But the way things are at the moment, they think we work in a bubble. They think we work only for ourselves and that we're completely out of touch with them. You know what? To some degree, they're right. And they'll get it right at the next election when they pass judgement on all of us. We'll see how they go with their interest in other emerging politicians and political parties. Whitlam Electorate: Tourism 86 12:40 Ms BERRY 23497 Whitlam I rise today to talk about the importance of the visitor economy across my electorate of Whitlam. This is particularly important for the Southern Highlands part of my electorate. I would like to thank the tourism and hospitality businesses, producers and community leaders who make the Southern Highlands region one of Australia's most distinctive destinations. The Southern Highlands has always offered something special. It sits within easy reach of Sydney, Canberra and the Illawarra and offers visitors something unique: authentic regional experiences, beautiful landscapes, thriving villages with historical charm, world class food and wine, a renowned equine sector and a strong sense of community. I want to talk briefly about why the future of Australia's visitor economy is increasingly a regional story and why the Southern Highlands is uniquely placed to benefit. Australia's visitor economy continues to show its appeal and resilience. The government's THRIVE 2030 strategy is in place to help grow visitor expenditure to $230 billion by 2030, with some $95 billion to be spent in regional Australia. Last year, Australia's visitor economy continued to show strong momentum. Total visitor spending reached over $190 billion, up 6.5 per cent from 2024. This was driven by solid domestic travel activity and, encouragingly, a rising international spend. While domestic overnight trips remained relatively stable at 113 million, domestic day trips grew strongly and were a major contributor to tourism in 2025. This highlights the ongoing desire of Australians to travel, with a preference for lower cost and shorter length travel options at the current time. Many Australians continue to travel to regional Australia, where nearly half of the domestic overnight spend occurred in 2025. In addition, international arrivals increased to nearly nine million people in 2025. There was strong growth in arrivals from many international markets, with particularly strong growth from the United Kingdom and China. International visitors to Australia last year typically stayed for longer and spent more than in previous years. This resulted in a record $39 billion international visitor spend in Australia in 2025. Travel to Australia for holiday purposes, major events, education and to visit friends or relatives all contributed to growth. On the supply side, industry capability also grew. Accommodation room numbers, flight route connectivity, tourism employment and tourism business numbers all increased last year. Investment in tourism infrastructure also grew, signalling confidence to invest in the sector's long-term growth. Key milestones facilitating growth include the opening of the new Western Sydney International Airport, increased aviation capacity through key ports, specifically from the Asia-Pacific, and investment in hotels and accommodation. Forecasts point to a positive outlook in growth of international arrivals and visitor spend over the period to 2030. Importantly, regional tourism has outperformed expectations. That matters for communities like the Southern Highlands because regional tourism is so important for our local economy. Our visitor economy supports local jobs, creates new businesses, drives investment and keeps young people building their careers here in our local community. This year in the Southern Highlands, annual visitor numbers are expected to be close to two million, which is an extraordinary number. To put this in perspective, this is the same number of people that visit Byron Bay each year. Australians are increasingly choosing shorter trips, destinations closer to home and experiences that offer value and quality. That trend is particularly encouraging for the Southern Highlands. The proximity of the Southern Highlands to Sydney, Canberra and the New South Wales South Coast places this part of my electorate in the sweet spot: close enough for day visitors, yet diverse enough to encourage overnight stays and extended weekend escapes. With the new airport in Western Sydney, the Southern Highlands is well positioned to receive more arrivals from this nearby major transit point. The Southern Highlands Destination Strategy identifies tourism, in addition to agribusiness and the equine industry, as priority growth sectors capable of creating jobs, attracting investment and strengthening regional prosperity. Visitors may arrive for business, family gatherings or an equestrian event, but they leave having also visited a cellar door or enjoyed a local brewery, purchased regional produce and spent time exploring local villages and attractions. That interconnected visitor journey is where the greatest economic value lies for regional economies like the Southern Highlands. Visitors increasingly want experiences, not transactions. The region's wineries are a great example. Visitors want to meet winemakers, see where the produce is grown, participate in tastings, attend seasonal festivals and understand the story behind the product. The farm, vineyard, brewery and paddock are increasingly part of the visitor experience itself. The wine industry delivers significant benefits across the Southern Highlands, strengthening tourism, supporting businesses and creating local jobs. It's an important part of what makes our region so attractive. The Southern Highlands has built a reputation that many regions would envy. We're recognised for producing elegant, cool climate wines with real character. Our altitude, our climate and our unique growing conditions give us a point of difference that can't be replicated elsewhere. The vineyards of the Southern Highlands benefit greatly from the region's cool climate, allowing production of unique wines that are appreciated across the country and across the world. I was pleased to attend a Southern Highlands wine industry roundtable at Bendooley Estate recently, where a range of stakeholders and local winemakers came together to discuss the future of this growing sector. It was incredibly valuable to hear firsthand some of the challenges being experienced by our local winemakers, as well as where the opportunities for this important part of our tourism sector may lie. Collaboration between businesses and stakeholders is an important factor, which will continue to ensure the ongoing success of our local visitor economy. Local businesses and stakeholders in the Southern Highlands place a high value on the local natural environment. Environmental protection is not simply a conservation issue; it's an economic issue. Visitors come to places like the Southern Highlands precisely because of our local natural environment. We also know that many travellers look for sustainability options. In Southern Highlands businesses, sustainability is already being embraced as a competitive advantage. This is part of building a destination reputation that stands out, and there are so many ecologically grounded examples here to mention, whether that's riding and bushwalking trails, wellness retreats and farm stays, or picking and tasting produce straight from its natural source. These sustainably minded offerings are also meeting a real interest in immersive experiences. The key challenges are scale, collaboration and innovation. These can be and are being met by building partnerships across sectors—for example, wineries working with accommodation providers, equine businesses partnering with restaurants and transport providers, and producers collaborating with event organisers and entrepreneurs packaging experiences that encourage visitors to stay an extra night and spend a little more overall by coordinating the message and knowledge about what each business offers. The visitor economy presents an enormous opportunity across my electorate. It's important to me to continue to support the growth of the visitor economy because it creates jobs, supports local enterprise, protects our environment and strengthens the unique character of our remarkable region. The Southern Highlands attracts visitors throughout the year with our beautiful countryside, historic villages, gardens, wineries, restaurants, galleries, markets and unique local experiences. Destinations such as Bowral, Berrima, Mittagong, Moss Vale and Robertson offer visitors a diverse range of attractions and help make the region a popular weekend and short break destination. Accommodation providers, cafes, restaurants, wineries, retail businesses, tour operators and local producers all share in the benefits. This supports employment and helps sustain small and family owned businesses. Importantly, tourism activity creates opportunities for young people to work and live in their local community. Tourism also strengthens the broader community by encouraging investment in local infrastructure, events and attractions. By valuing the Southern Highlands' natural beauty, heritage and food and wine culture, the region can continue to attract visitors, support local jobs and ensure tourism remains an important pillar of the Southern Highlands economy. Casey Electorate: Acknowledgements, Liberal Party of Australia, Veterans: Health Care, Telecommunications 88 12:50 Mr VIOLI 300147 Casey It's been another great season of local football and netball in our community in the Outer East and Eastern football netball leagues. Thank you to all the presidents, committees, volunteers and coaches who put so many hours into making sure our young men and women can play the great games of football and netball. Congratulations and commiserations to the Seville senior men's team, who made the grand final but, unfortunately, didn't come away with the win. But it was a proud day for Seville, with all five netball teams bringing home the flag, as well as the under-18s footy team winning the premiership. So the future is bright for the Seville footy club. Congratulations also to the Mount Evelyn senior women, who won bragging rights as back-to-back premiers against Warburton-Millgrove. However, it was a successful season for both sides, and congratulations to Warby Millgrove for coming up a division. Winning the flag and then making the grand final is a significant achievement. Congratulations also to my daughter, who happened to win her under-13s AFL grand final in her first season. She was very proud. The Montrose division 2 women won their flag over Heathmont in the Eastern footy league, so well done to the Montrose women's team. So many other teams made grand finals. Congratulations to you all—including the Monbulk veterans, who had a great result for the season even though they couldn't get the win against Gembrook. It's a great weekend of footy this weekend. I'm looking forward to being out there as the Wandin seniors take on Mount Evelyn in the premier division grand final of the outer east. The Mount Evelyn faithful have waited 28 years to get back into the grand final, while Wandin are looking to go back to back. It's going to be a cracking game. Good luck to both teams. I look forward to seeing everyone out at Healesville this weekend. Australians have experienced the worst collapse in living standards in the developed world under Labor, and they feel it every time they go to pay their mortgage, rents, energy bills, groceries and insurance. Your money simply doesn't go as far as it used to, and that's a direct result of Labor's inability to manage the economy and the federal budget. Our country needs change. Only the Liberals have a plan that's going to fix the economy and protect our way of life. Our priorities are straightforward: lower taxes, cheaper power, less migration, more housing and putting Australians first. We have the strong leadership, strong team and strong plan to restore Australians' standard of living and protect your way of life. Under Labor, we are seeing fewer homes built and higher rents. Since Labor's disastrous budget, confidence has been smashed. If you own a home, it's worth less today; if you pay rent, you're paying more rent today; and, if you're wanting to get into your own home, it's harder than ever and you're no better off. Even Jim Chalmers, a doctor of political spin, can't talk his way out of this one. The Liberals have a real plan to deliver more homes. We will axe Labor's housing taxes. We will link Australia's migration intake to the number of new homes built. We will establish a $5 billion housing infrastructure fund to unlock up to 400,000 new homes by funding essential last-mile infrastructure such as water, sewerage, power and access roads. We will simplify the National Construction Code while preserving core safety standards to cut the cost of building a new home by up to $70,000. We will reserve the first home buyer's deposit scheme for Australian citizens. Only the Liberals have a plan to put Australians first and deliver more homes. The Liberals have a plan to let Australians keep more of what they earn. Our tax-back guarantee will put an end to bracket creep. When you earn more just to keep up with inflation, you end up then being taxed at a higher rate, leaving you worse off. Instead, we'll index the tax thresholds, providing relief of around $250 in year 1, $500 in year 2 and $750 in year 3. It will then hit $1,000 in year 4 and grow every year by $250 on average. When your wages rise just to keep up with inflation, you're no better off, and you should not pay higher taxes as though you are. Under this plan, you will be better off. Australia has been blessed with extraordinary natural resources, and they can only be extracted and sold once. High commodity prices deliver a temporary windfall to the budget, but a temporary windfall is not permanent income. Labor treats windfall revenue from one-time resources as though it will last forever, leaving the country with unfunded permanent spending, higher debt and fewer choices into the future. This is not responsible. Under a Liberal government, 80c of every dollar of windfall resource revenue will be saved into a future generations fund. We'll use the fund to pay down Labor's trillion dollars of debt and invest in long-lasting, nation-building infrastructure—roads, ports, energy and water. And 25 per cent of funding will be put into the regions that fuel, feed and power our nation. We will table a future generations statement to the parliament each year accounting for every windfall dollar. Australia is the lucky country, but we should not waste our luck. Only a Liberal government will put Australians first by establishing a future generations fund. Under Labor, as you all know, power prices are far too high. Bills have skyrocketed by nearly 40 per cent, and nearly a quarter of a million households have been forced onto hardship or payment assistance. The Liberals will deliver cheaper power and energy abundance. We will back any technology that can deliver affordable and reliable power for Australian households and businesses, and we will lift the ban on nuclear power. We'll end the net zero mandate and scrap Labor's carbon taxes, and we will lower emissions as quickly and responsibly as technology allows, without imposing additional costs on Australian families and Australian industry. When Australia runs out of fuel, our economy grinds to a halt, and our national security is put at risk. That's why we'll double fuel reserves to 60 days and support more than one billion litres of new fuel storage with an Australian fuel security facility. That's part of the Liberal plan to deliver cheaper power and put Australians first. The Prime Minister's $5,000 annual cap for veterans who require allied health treatment— A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 12:58 to 13:11 Mr VIOLI 300147 Prime Minister Albanese's $5,000 annual cap for veterans who require allied health treatments shows just how out of touch Labor is, and risks veterans missing out on care and support. They put their own health and safety on the line to protect our country, and there is a clear reason the Department of Veterans' Affairs exists: to help and support our veterans when they return from service. Many return with complex trauma, chronic injuries and illnesses, and the proposed $5,000 annual cap does not stretch far enough for the treatment of these conditions. Our veterans have served our nation and they shouldn't have to beg for the care and support they need and deserve. Prime Minister Albanese, it's time to scrap the cap. In my community, reliable telecommunications are essential in keeping our community and region connected and safe, and, like so many residents across Australia, I know the heart stopping feeling of not having phone service when you need it most. I've witnessed the impact of communications going down during the 2009 Black Saturday bushfires and again during the June 2021 storms that ravaged my community and the Yarra Ranges. During the evening of that storm event, more than 10,000 requests were made for assistance, and after the first five hours the need for assistance didn't stop—it was residents' ability to call for help that did. The former Liberal government funded local mobile towers improving our local connectivity. But now Labor has cut the program and we risk going backwards. Under Labor, we're not getting new mobile towers in black spots where we need them most. We deserve better. We deserve to stay connected and have stronger communications all through our region. Superannuation, Domestic, Family and Sexual Violence 89 13:12 Ms BELYEA 309484 Dunkley Over the past few weeks we've continued to hear from One Nation the proposition that raiding the retirement savings of working Australians is somehow a solution to the cost-of-living pressures people are facing today. It isn't, because the people who will pay the price are not the people sitting comfortably with multiple assets and financial advisers; they are the people I represent in Dunkley—nurses working double shifts, tradies whose body won't last forever, teachers helping shape the next generation, young families trying to keep up with rising bills, the renter wondering if they will ever own a home, and the single mum stretching every dollar just to get through the week. One Nation wants Australians to believe this is about choice, but, let's be honest: if someone is struggling to pay the rent, put food on the table or keep the lights on, that is not a real choice. We should never build public policy around asking people to sacrifice today just to survive tomorrow. Superannuation is not a government handout. It's not a political piggy bank. It is not money waiting to be raided whenever politicians run out of ideas. It is the hard-earned money of Australian workers, money set aside over decades so people can retire with dignity, independence and security. For many Australians, particularly renters, superannuation may be the only substantial asset they ever have—that makes it even more important to protect, not weaken. Under One Nation's proposal, workers could divert part of their compulsory superannuation contributions into their weekly pay packet. For many Australians, that amounts to around $44 a week. Let's put that into perspective: $44 a week might fill part of a fuel tank or a few bags of groceries or help cover a bill this week. But what is the cost? Experts have warned that workers could retire at least $25,000 worse off because of the loss of compound returns. The real cost doesn't arrive next Friday; the real cost arrives decades later when someone reaches retirement age and discovers the nest egg they spent their whole working life building isn't there. Here's what Australians deserve to know: it will leave Australians with less money in retirement and less security when they need it most, and then the very politicians encouraging Australians to raid their super today will be asking why people do not have enough savings tomorrow. I know what financial insecurity feels like, because I have lived it. I have spoken before in this chamber about my experience of domestic and family violence. For much of my 20s and 30s, life was marked by instability, trauma and uncertainty. Like many women, I worked hard to rebuild my life. My work was my safe place. During that time, one of the few things that gave me peace of mind was knowing that every pay packet was helping me build something for my future. My superannuation represented security, independence and hope. No-one could take away the fact that every week I was building a more secure future for myself. I know there are countless women across Australia, including in Dunkley, who feel exactly the same—women who have escaped violence, rebuilt their lives and know how important financial security is. That is why I cannot support any proposal by One Nation or the opposition that weakens the safety net for women, because we also know that financial abuse is one of the most common forms of domestic and family violence. Money becomes a weapon. Control becomes a weapon. Unfortunately, superannuation becomes a target too. We saw the dangers during the Morrison government's COVID-era early release scheme. Evidence provided to parliamentary inquiries following COVID showed women were pressured and coerced into accessing their superannuation by abusive partners. Money intended for their future ended up being used for gambling and to purchase drugs. So, when One Nation tells Australians that this is about freedom, my question is simple: whose freedom and at what cost? For many victims-survivors, easier access to super does not create freedom; it creates vulnerability and insecurity, and it perpetrates violence. As a government MP representing Dunkley, I say women deserve better, low-income workers deserve better and young Australians deserve better. That is why this government has taken a very different approach. We are supporting people experiencing domestic and family violence, introducing superannuation on paid parental leave and delivering payday super so workers receive what they have earned sooner, lifting wages. We are working really hard to tackle the causes of financial pressure. We are not telling Australians to withdraw their retirement savings and hope for the best, because real leadership is about solving problems, not shifting them, and shifting them is exactly what One Nation's proposal does. It takes today's problem and hands it over to the next generation of retirees. It is not responsible leadership or governance. It is irresponsible. For a young woman in Langwarrin, a tradie in Carrum, a nurse in Frankston or a family renting in Seaford, superannuation represents something much bigger than a balance on a statement; it represents security, independence and dignity in retirement. Most importantly, it represents hope for the future. That is what is at risk here. This debate is not really about choice. It is about whether we protect Australians' future or ask them to mortgage it. It is about whether we stand up for long-term financial security or chase short-term political headlines. I know where I stand. I stand with the people of Dunkley, with workers and with women. I stand with young Australians who are trying to get ahead. And I stand against any policy that leaves Australians poorer in retirement simply to create the illusion of relief today. Every Australian deserves dignity in retirement. Every Australian deserves financial security. And every Australian deserves leaders who are prepared to protect both. Barton Electorate: Infrastructure and Economy 90 13:20 Ms AMBIHAIPAHAR 315618 Barton The people of Barton have spoken, and they have three priorities: local infrastructure, the economy, and the cost of living. I'll use this grievance debate to outline these key priorities and the action residents need. The first is local infrastructure. In our dense Sydney community, people travel the same routes every day and repeatedly confront unsafe intersections, potholes, rat runs and truck hazards. Many of these issues fall to the state and local government, but I will keep advocating on them and ensure that we have a champion to make sure we have the funding support. The juncture of Bexley Road and William Street in Clemton Park and Earlwood is widely regarded as one of the area's most dangerous intersections. Turning onto Bexley Road means navigating blind spots on a very busy road, with residents repeatedly reporting near misses, including those involving buses and other vehicles. Nearby we have Clemton Park Public School, which brings a lot of school traffic, buses and young pedestrians together at peak times. The community has raised this for many years, yet it remains unresolved. We need an engineering review and serious investment now, not after a preventable injury. Forest Road and Stoney Creek Road are also among Barton's busiest arterial roads and corridors, and Bexley residents are paying the price. One survey respondent said the issue has divided the community, whilst others say the traffic is completely out of control. Congestion and unsafe conditions disrupt school drop-offs, endanger pedestrians and block access to local businesses. Excess traffic spills into the residential run-off, while high tolls leave motorists little choice but to stay on congested local roads. Successive state and council governments have failed to resolve this issue. As another resident said, the neighbourhood is 'drowning in trucks and pollution,' and residents deserve proper traffic modelling and meaningful investment. We need to prioritise safety around the Goodstart Early Learning centre in Carlton and South Hurstville. Vehicles speed past the Carlton centre near Planthurst Road and Park Road, whilst the South Hurstville centre on Woniora Road lacks adequate crossing support. Toddlers and preschoolers arrive and leave at the busiest times, and parents and educators face an obvious daily risk. The community has petitioned for action. Georges River Council must provide traffic support, particularly around calming, signage and safe crossing, before someone gets seriously hurt. I can't fix this overnight, but these are definitely on my list, and I will advocate for them at every opportunity. The second issue is the economy. Residents already face rising costs of fuel, housing and electricity, and the proposed data centre at the former Kogarah golf course has sharpened concerns. Overseas experience shows the strain that data centres can place on communities, and households rightly fear higher bills, while a private development consumes vast amounts of power and water. The concept plan was valued at up to $2.8 billion, including more than 25,000 square metres of data centres, warehouses, logistics facilities, hotels and offices. Buildings of up to 70 metres are proposed besides the Cooks River and residential neighbourhoods. This state-significant development raises serious concerns about scale, noise, height variations and about placing a power- and water-intensive industrial facility beside homes, including introducing pressure on the Cooks River. I do not want to say that we must block development full stop. After all, we live right next to Sydney airport. And I can certainly see the need for logistics and storage capacity as well as an increased number of homes so close to a major employer and service hub. After all, our Barton community has grown and evolved because of its close proximity to Sydney airport, but that doesn't mean that the future growth should not be well-considered, balanced and with residents at the heart of its planning. The community deserves genuine consultation, strong safeguards and transparency, not vague assurances and closed-door decisions. I welcome the federal government's mandatory national standards requiring data centres to add as much renewable energy to the grid as they consume and pay their share of network upgrades. Households must not subsidise private industry developments. I have raised concerns with our state member—Stockland and John Boyd Property—and will keep pushing to ensure that local communities do not wear the cost. Again, I want to reiterate that I understand the importance of data centres in our country. We must store Australian data on Australian soil. As Assistant Minister Charlton puts it: Imagine if our banks, our hospitals and our government systems all depended on computers sitting in another country. All our data, offshored to the lowest bidder. Most Australians would rightly ask: why are we trusting someone else with something so important? That's not independence. That's dependence. So you will not find me as a NIMBY naturally but, instead, I will always be championing for considered development that puts community first, development that makes our economy and society much stronger, and any proposals must be put to the people first rather than the developer's bottom line. Finally, there is the cost of living. I'm proud of the targeted relief we have delivered, including $25 medicines, higher bulk-billing rates across the community and greater support to help first homebuyers enter the housing market. But the closure of the Kingsgrove Post Office demonstrates one pivotal and deeply frustrating truth: too often, profit is still being put before the people. The closure proceeded despite a petition with more than 250 signatures and a united community campaign. Practical alternatives, including streamlined post services nearby, were not properly considered or pursued. Older residents and culturally and linguistically diverse communities have been hit particularly hard. They cannot simply be told to go online or travel further for a trusted local service, and Kingsgrove has already lost too much foot traffic, most of its banks and its hardware store. Removing the Post Office strips another essential service from the town centre and hurts local businesses. Worse, Australia Post failed to consult before finalising this decision. This is unacceptable. Residents must be consulted early and honestly before future cuts are considered. One resident put it perfectly when they said, 'Locally, I'm seeing shops that have been in Kingsgrove for over decades and survived COVID closing'—example: two greengrocers—'leaving much less choice for residents and forcing people to travel further away and spend more on the transportation to buy and do things that we used to be able to do locally.' The petition calls for no further Post Office closures, and that demand must be taken quite seriously. Communities are not line items to be cut wherever a balance sheet demands it. Essential services must put people first. Across all three priorities, Barton residents are asking for the same thing: to be heard, to be respected and to be put ahead of buck passing and private profit. They should not have to wait for a tragedy before dangerous roads are fixed, carry the costs of poorly planned development or fight to retain essential services. These are reasonable demands, and local and state governments and corporations must stop treating them as optional. I'll keep taking these concerns to every level of government, pressing for answers and demanding action until Barton communities receive the safety, the fairness and the respect they deserve. Sitting suspended from 13:29 to 16:00 CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS 92 CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS Artificial Intelligence 92 16:00 Ms SPENDER 286042 Wentworth In the last week, we've seen leaders in the world's pioneer AI companies like Anthropic and OpenAI paint an alarming picture of the speed at which technology is developing, potentially beyond human controls. These CEOs spoke about their concerns and also their own responsibilities but they are calling on governments around the world to step up into this space, and I believe that this is urgent. I want to put on the record very strongly that I think that Australia needs to embrace AI. I recognise the benefits. I believe that Australian businesses need to seize the opportunities for productivity, and, if we don't, we will be left behind. I see the role for data centres in our country, both from a sovereign capability piece but also because of the potential benefits to the energy grid and the clean energy transition. But we also need to be honest about the risks and we need to be addressing those actively. I know that my community is concerned. I launched a survey earlier this week about AI and already have had hundreds of responses. An overwhelming number, 71 per cent, said they were very concerned about AI in general and listed catastrophic risks such as AI takeover, AI-enabled terrorism or extreme threats as their No. 1 concern, and other concerns included misinformation, disinformation and threats to democracy, environmental and climate impacts, job losses and economic disruption. The vast majority of respondents, 84 per cent, said that the government was not doing nearly enough to appropriately deal with the risks of AI. To be honest, I do agree with this. The government has been very slow to act. It took them until the end of last year to bring in an AI strategy, despite being in government for an entire term without one. Other governments have moved faster than them and this was slow. The government seems to be paying more attention now, and I welcome that, but it still has a long way to go. I want to talk about four things I think the government needs to step up on. Firstly, it needs to step up on AI safety. My understanding is that currently the AI Safety Institute, which the government established, has a budget of around $30 million over four years. People are putting the risk that AI destroys humanity at around 10 per cent. It doesn't seem like we are being serious about the potential impact of AI when we're managing the risks with so little money. Secondly, Australia needs to work with other middle powers on this. USA and China are leading the way, but we must work with other middle powers in terms of making sure that we have a role and a step and a control in this space. Finally, we need to actively capture the benefits much more strongly. That means not only helping Australian businesses but also setting ourselves challenges, like how AI can solve national problems and national concerns, some national missions that AI can deliver to really improve our society as well. Deakin Electorate: Vocational Skills and Training 92 16:03 Mr GREGG 315154 Deakin To mark Skills Week and TAFE Day, I had the opportunity to visit Swinburne's Croydon campus and spend some time with apprentices training there. Some were people I was meeting for the first time; others I've had the pleasure of meeting before and seeing progress through their training. We had some genuinely substantive conversations because completing an apprenticeship is a significant achievement. But we shouldn't pretend it's always an easy road. There are real challenges along the way. There are financial pressures and the challenge of balancing work, study and life. There are questions about the nature and continuity of on-the-job training and supervision. And there are challenges for employers too, particularly the small businesses that make an enormous commitment when they take on an apprentice. Those experiences deserve our attention. That's why the support we provide matters, from free TAFE to financial support for apprentices and employers, and to the broader work of making sure more people can start an apprenticeship and, importantly, make it all the way through with the skills they need in industry. But what struck me again at Croydon was the opportunity in front of these young people. A qualification as a sparky, plumber or carpenter can take you almost anywhere. The sky is the limit—big jobs, small jobs, around Australia and sometimes around the world. It's a genuinely exciting set of careers, and I can't wait to see what they're able to achieve. The qualification is just the beginning, not the destination. I see the same sense of possibility every time I visit Ringwood Training, which I have had the privilege of doing many times over the last few years. It is a really a remarkable institution, an arm of Ringwood Secondary College, one of our great public schools providing nationally recognised vocational training to school students, apprentices and people who've already left school. And there's real breadth in what they do. They train young people in automotive, from their first introduction to the trade through to apprenticeships in light vehicle mechanical technology. They teach engineering and fabrication, developing the welding, machining and metalworking skills that are needed across our manufacturing industry. And there's more that they can build on. There's great opportunity for them to expand to electric vehicles, as well. I'm keen to support them however I can in getting access to the cars and technology through government and through industry contacts, because we really do need to be readying these fantastic young people for the jobs of the future. Then there's MEGT, based in the centre of my electorate, doing another essential part of the job: connecting apprentices with employers and helping make those relationships work. Across all three, what I've come away with is an enormous sense of pride and gratitude: pride in the apprentices who are backing themselves, learning a skill and building the future; gratitude to the teachers, trainers and employers who invest their time and experience in the next generation; and gratitude to the apprentices and employers themselves who speak candidly with me about their experience and about what is working, what isn't working and what we still need to do better. Those conversations matter. Our job in government is to listen to them, to keep improving the system around them and to make sure, when someone chooses an apprenticeship, that they have every opportunity not just to start but to finish it and build something remarkable from it. To every apprentice I met: thank you for your time, your candour and your commitment to your trade. You should be proud of what you're doing. I certainly am. Senior Australians 93 16:06 Mr FARLEY 62329 Farrer I rise to speak for the people who built this country and who this government has chosen to ignore. Farrer is a vast expanse of rural and regional Australia. Pooncarie to Albury is a seven-hour drive. Distance is a daily reality, challenging access for our older residents to health care, services and support. Almost 20 per cent of my electorate is aged over 65, and around 19,500 rely on the age pension. The maximum single rate for the pension is $1,237.70 per fortnight; for couples, it is $1,866 per fortnight combined. That is what our pensioners are attempting to live on. Let me tell the House what survival costs. On modest figures, a pensioner household faces roughly $5,250 in rent increases, $3,250 in food, $875 in fuel, $450 in council rates and then essential services of health—a real annual burden increase of around $10,075, or 22.5 per cent of their pension, absorbed within one government's term. The pensions have not risen by 22.5 per cent. Something must give, and it is wellbeing, mental health and dignity. Then, of course, comes health. This government's private health insurance rebate changes will directly affect 14,000 senior residents in Farrer. Our seniors rely on private cover far more than their metropolitan counterparts, because our public infrastructure is thin on the ground. Policyholders are going to be affected by circa $255 per year. Health advocates have warned that seniors will drop or downgrade cover, and that burden will fall onto Albury Wodonga Health or Griffith Base Hospital, networks that are already stretched to their limits because Canberra could not see beyond the Sydney basin when it drew up this policy. Farrer is also home to 3,965 veterans, of which 2,576 claim support, as well as 3,100 NDIS participants and 4,200 people on disability pensions. Constituents who have served this nation, raised its children, worked its farms and paid their taxes are now asked to absorb these costs with no meaningful relief in sight. Every aged constituent in Farrer has a family beneath them—children, grandchildren and great grandchildren who admire and love them. When you ill-treat our elders, you do not fail just one— (Time expired) Community Services, Australian Labor Party 93 16:09 Mr HILL 86256 Bruce Dandenong in my electorate is a jobs-rich area, but it structurally has a higher unemployment rate than the metropolitan average. This was why I was so delighted to launch the Dandenong employment hub along with the assistant minister for employment—$1.5 million over three years. It's a place where anyone in the community can go to get help and advice. It's based at the Dandenong Council, but it's a partnership between all three levels of government. There is no wrong door. You don't have to be on Centrelink. You can be newly arrived, you can have been here for decades, you can be a mum trying to come back into the workforce or you can be the partner of a skilled migrant—you can go and get help and advice. It's about matching supply and demand, so employers are part of the hub. I encourage anyone who is looking for work to visit the hub. This was an election commitment that I made during the election, along with the member for Isaacs. It's an interesting thing, living in a democracy, isn't it? Candidates say, 'If I'm elected, we'll do A, B and C.' Then, if you win the election, you're supposed to deliver on the promise. I'm proud to be part of a government that is delivering on the promises we made at the election right across the country. I didn't think that was a controversial thing. But we now have the opposition and other parts of the parliament pretending it's rorting. They're saying it's corruption, that it's misusing grant programs. Well, I've got a different view. Despite the stupid media stories, which might get them a headline and deal with the sanctimonious schtick that some around here want to run, I'd just remind the parliament that the Auditor-General said—and I chaired the audit committee for years, and I thought this was bipartisan—that there are two ways to deliver grants. First, there are competitive programs, put out to everyone who is eligible. They were the ones the coalition rorted—coloured spreadsheets—and ministers had to resign. We have been four years in government, and every competitive grant program under our government has been administered with integrity. The other way, of course, is closed grant programs—invitation only—urgent, ad hoc, where executive government decides to do something. Or, properly, that's how you implement election commitments. That's what the guidelines say. That's what the law says. That's what the Auditor-General says. Everyone has to apply. They have a value-for-money assessment, done independently by the Public Service, and advice is put to ministers. If it's not value for money, ministers don't fund it. But don't believe me. Those proposing to do away with election commitments—I quote Senator Canavan: 'This is nuts, what you're proposing. You're effectively advocating now for laws to restrict candidates in what they can say and promise on getting elected. At the same time, you're saying you want to defend democracy. You're not proposing democracy. You're proposing technocracy. You're proposing that technocrats in Canberra get all the power to decide what happens in this country.' And I agree. When you're out there talking to people in the community, they expect you to deliver the promises you made. My community doesn't get all the billions of dollars of regional grant programs. We have poor groups that are not very good at writing grant applications, and now they actually got something. (Time expired) Veterans: Health Care 94 16:12 Ms LE 295676 Fowler Veterans have come to see me, and like many members in this House I have sat with them and listened. They were not asking for sympathy. They were asking for understanding. They wanted us, the people in this House, to understand what it's like to come home from a tour of duty and keep carrying it—the injuries, the trauma, the toll on their families. As a refugee from the Vietnam War, I know that Australians who serve gave. I do not take it lightly. In recent weeks we have heard a lot about the government's plan to introduce a $5,000 annual threshold for veterans' allied health care. Veterans organisations, families, clinicians and members of this House have raised serious concerns. My office in Fowler has heard directly from veterans who are worried about what this means for their care. There are more than 1,800 DVA clients in my electorate—veterans, service pensioners, partners and widows. Most rely on allied health to manage the lasting effects of service, stay mobile and live independently. The government says this is a review threshold, not a cap. It says care will continue while DVA makes a decision. If that is the promise, then guarantee it. Set clear time frames. Give veterans a right of review, because uncertainty changes behaviour. Will a veteran delay an appointment, put off seeing their psychologist or stop physiotherapy because they're worried about reaching the threshold? For veterans with complex needs, $5,000 can be reached quickly. That doesn't mean their care is inappropriate. It means their needs are complex. A dollar amount cannot measure clinical need. It cannot measure pain, trauma, mobility or whether someone is at risk of losing their independence. My office has heard from a veteran in Liverpool who is falling at home. His wife has had to call an ambulance many times because she cannot safely lift him from the floor. His occupational therapist supports a lifting device that would keep him safe and prevent him from more call outs. But he is worried about delay. He's worried about uncertainty. Support that keeps someone safe at home should never be harder to get than an ambulance after something has gone wrong. There must be scrutiny of inappropriate billing and overservicing. But the answer is targeted oversight of providers, not a blunt threshold that risks interrupting care for veterans who have genuine needs. Veterans and their families served Australia. They were prepared to protect our safety, our security and our way of life often at risk to their own lives. We cannot ask them to carry this burden as well. Superannuation 95 16:14 Mr HOLZBERGER 88411 Forde Paul Keating was both the architect of compulsory superannuation but also the first person from whom I'd ever heard the line, 'Good policy is good politics.' The corollary of that is that bad policy is bad politics. That's why I can't believe that we're going to be able to go to the next election with the future of compulsory superannuation on the table and at stake, because there is no better policy than compulsory superannuation. There's one thing which I haven't quite had the time, in the 2½ minutes I've got left, or in any of the speeches that I've given so far, to really talk about—one of the reasons that just really motivated me to get involved in politics in my thirties. In my young years, I was a young member of the Labor Party, and I thought that we could achieve change through government law, through collective action. Then, in my late twenties, I was working on sheep and cattle stations, and I guess I learned a different type of value—that sort of personal responsibility and taking care of yourself. So it was that I was working in a servo in Tenterfield and my then partner gave me a book on self-improvement. It was From Zero to $5 million in Five Years. I thought, 'What a heap of rubbish,' but by the time I'd finished it, I was hooked—not on the idea of money but on the idea that taking responsibility for yourself, taking responsibility for your finances, would give you that financial freedom to be able to follow your passion and follow your dreams. So I get this right-wing argument about how it should be all personal responsibility. I do get it. I do get where they're coming from, but the reality is that it just doesn't happen. There is a concept in that: pay yourself first. Pay yourself 10 per cent before you pay your taxes or any of your bills. Pay yourself first. But the reality is that that just does not happen. That's why compulsory superannuation is exactly that across the whole community. It is 12 per cent put away before tax and before bills, so that, at the end of the day, people can have an early retirement. They can retire at 60 in dignity. They can retire at 60 young rather than having to work through to the age of 67. The other thing that I don't get about this right-wing argument that has just gotten too extreme is that it actually takes pressure off the government. It is about people taking responsibility, looking after themselves, being able to retire without getting onto the pension. Without compulsory superannuation, there would be something like 60 per cent on the pension compared to 50 per cent on the pension. This next election is going to be very much about compulsory superannuation. It is a debate that I am looking forward to having because it does return me to that idea that it is about an early retirement, about people being able to take that time in the rest of their life to follow their passions and the things that they've been put on Earth to work for, not to be caught in debt and caught in a cycle of hard work. Himalayas: Floods 95 16:18 Mr HAWKE HWO Mitchell I rise to join the chorus of parliamentarians in expressing our compassion to the people of Nepal for the recent disaster the Prime Minister spoke about in the House of Representatives. I want to thank members of the community in Western Sydney, so many of whom have reached out to me—people I've known over many years and excellent migrants in this country—who had family members in the region, both on the Nepali side of the border and in China and in parts of Tibet when that wall of water just swept whole populations and their dwellings away in those shocking scenes that we saw on our television screens across the world. I do want to thank the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the government for the response that Australia has provided. It's very appropriate. We have a great relationship with the country of Nepal. We have beautiful people who've come here and made a great home in Australia. Those are wonderful Australians who have family and people who were there visiting family, and they are to be given every assistance that we can provide them. I do want to thank in particular the actual officers on the ground, the disaster and recovery team that was sent to Nepal in two groups, searching for people in very difficult circumstances, working with authorities that are overloaded, trying to relay messages back home in a timely way, especially when you've got relatives on the phone, as you do as members of parliament. I thank my staff, who've worked so hard with the actual geolocation information that they think they have of missing relatives—very, very difficult content. I know everyone's been working around the clock in my office, in the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, in the disaster and recovery team, in the government, in the foreign ministry and also the Foreign Minister, who are doing everything we can to provide assistance in what is a wide-scale tragedy. I ask the Australian government to continue its excellent efforts in lobbying. We've sought access to parts of Tibet and things that have not been available to the government of Nepal from China, and our good relationship there would help us ensure that we can do our best for people who are still missing and their family members here. I know we're all trying in this parliament to work in a very difficult environment among people's sovereign borders, but we urge everybody to have that common humanity to allow search and rescue to just get on with the job that we all want to do, which is to find people and find out what happened to people. I thank the Nepali community of Western Sydney—beautiful people, great migrants. To anybody online who has said anything negative about these migrants to this country—and there has been an unfortunate group of people who have—these are outstanding Australians. They are very welcome communities. They are part of the fabric of this country, and those comments are completely out of place. To the people of Nepal, Australia stands with you. We stand with the Australian-Nepali community as well in this time of crisis, and I thank the government for the work they've been doing. Barbagallo, Mrs Gayle 96 16:21 Mr HUSIC 91219 Chifley You think you know someone, and you always discover a surprise. I knew Gayle Barbagallo for decades, and it was only recently that I discovered that one of her favourite animals was an elephant. We associate long memories with elephants—that's all well known—but an attribute that also stood out for Gayle was that they looked after the group, they thought as a group, and they looked after the vulnerable. Long memories, think as a group, look after those in need—these were attributes that Gayle displayed quite often. We recently farewelled Gayle where I learned about her love of elephants and we were reminded about these attributes, and we were reminded about how much she loved our community. She didn't seek recognition for all her hard work; she just got on with helping people. She was a proud, longstanding member of our Labor family and served as the President of the Chifley Federal Electorate Council for many years. She also served on the state electorate council, particularly with Richard Amery, the former state member. She demonstrated this thoughtful, compassionate leadership that was grounded with a genuine desire to make our community stronger. She devoted decades to community service. She facilitated the St Mary's creative writers group, and created a welcoming space where people found confidence and friendship and their own voice. She chaired the Western Sydney Community Legal Centre, ensuring people doing it tough would have access to justice and support at times they needed. Through the Rotary Club of Mt Druitt, she just rolled up her sleeves and helped out whenever the community needed her. One of her greatest legacies was her decade of volunteering at Mount Druitt Hospital—whether through fundraising, supporting patients or helping visitors feel less alone, she always found ways to bring comfort to people. That extraordinary commitment to serving others was recognised when she received the 2018 Coral McLean Award, an honour that reflected exactly who she was. Beyond the titles and achievements, Gayle was a devoted wife, a loving mum, a cherished nana—a great nana—and, as mentioned in the beautiful tribute written by her granddaughter Sophia, it wasn't awards or committees that stood out; it was the Mondays spent drawing together, baking at Easter, laughing on the backyard swing and the simple joy of making a child feel endlessly loved. In an overflowing church, countless people came to say goodbye, and it spoke volumes about the impact Gayle had. I was incredibly fortunate to have known and worked alongside Gayle Barbagallo for so many years. Thank you for everything you did, Gayle. Please rest in peace and know we will always honour your legacy as generously as you cared for us and others. Page Electorate: Sport 96 16:24 Mr HOGAN 218019 Page I'd like to congratulate the Casino RSM Cougars on defeating Murwillumbah to win the 2026 men's first grade rugby league grand final on Saturday. This is the Cougars' first premiership since 1990—36 long years ago. What makes the win even more special is that 17 of the 19 players are Casino locals who came through the local junior system. Congratulations to coach, Brett Loy; captain, Jay Mayer; and players, Joshua Beech, Damien Benn, Lochlan Bower, Grant Byers-Brown, Waylon Caldwell, Josiah Clifford, Izac Cooper, Harry Cusack, Kale Fraser, Tain Fraser, Isaiah Freeburn, Tye Hogan, Gairo Kapana, Charles Kumbi, Connor Lynes, Thomas McGrady, Nick Morrissey, Joel Ryan, Michael Schipp—he'll be a very proud dad, as a lot of them are—Braith Torrens, Thomas Walker and Eddie Walker-Williams. Congratulations also to the manager, Tony Johnson; trainers, Dave Ellis, Matty Roberts, Peter Stanborough and Kirk Hancock; strapper, Wayne Orton; and club president, Travis Falls. Well done to the Cougars. Casino is a very happy place right now. I'd like to congratulate Yamba Bowling Club on its incredible 90th birthday and for all the services that it's provided for our community. The club was established in 1936, with the first clubhouse built in 1937. Also in 1937, the local women came together to form the Yamba Women's Bowling Club. Generations of locals have helped build the club that we know today—people like Bob 'the Bear' Ware, who became head greenkeeper in 1975. Bob was also a local champion bowler and won nine club singles titles. His legacy continues today through the Bob Ware Open Triples. The club has grown over 90 years. I remember and was very proud to be at the opening of the Family Leisure Centre back in 2016. The bowlo remains a huge part of Yamba. It brings people together, supports local organisations and hosts some of Australia's biggest bowling competitions. Congratulations to CEO, Greg Targett; club president, Ian Lauder; and all members, volunteers and staff members. Happy birthday to the Yamba bowlo. I'd like to commemorate the 40th anniversary of the Corindi Beach Hotel—40 years in our community. It was best known as the Amble Inn, which opened in 1986, and for decades was a landmark on the old Pacific Highway. It was the last pub for around 50 kilometres. Tracey Byard was there on the opening night 40 years ago. She later became the licensee and is still part of the club today. In 2022, it changed hands for the first time, and Rodney 'Ned' Kelly and Corey Dunn took over the pub. Today, it's owned by the North Coast Hotel Group. Congratulations to Harry, Tracey, all the staff members and local people who've been part of the pub's story. Business Hunter Awards 97 16:27 Ms CLAYDON 248181 Newcastle I rise today to congratulate the outstanding Newcastle businesses, organisations and individuals recognised at the Business Hunter Awards over the weekend. These awards are a wonderful opportunity to celebrate the people driving our local economy forward, creating jobs, supporting their communities, embracing innovation and helping build a stronger Newcastle. I particularly want to acknowledge the Newcastle winners recognised across a wide range of categories. Congratulations to Soqual Creative Agency in The Junction, recognised for Excellence in Small Business; AVE Technologies in Mayfield East, recognised for Excellence in Medium Business; and Seed People Consulting in Broadmeadow, recognised for Excellence in Micro Business. Each of these businesses reflects the talent, dedication and entrepreneurial spirit that Newcastle is known for. I also want to acknowledge the Hunter Melanoma Foundation, recognised as Outstanding Community Organisation, and its executive officer, Claudia Tolhurst, who was named Outstanding Employee. Under Claudia's leadership, the foundation is making a real difference in our community, raising awareness of melanoma and helping Novocastrians understand the importance of sun protection and early detection. Their work is literally saving lives, and our community is the better for it. Congratulations also to SAPHI Shellshock AI, recognised for Excellence in Innovation. Newcastle has always been a city of ingenuity and problem-solvers, and it's fantastic to see local businesses leading the way with new technologies that have the potential to make a real difference. It was a pleasure to visit the team at S APHI recently and to see firsthand how they're putting a $1.5 million Albanese Labor government grant through the Industry Growth Program to work as they continue to grow and develop their innovative ideas. I also congratulate Beam Bookkeeping, recognised as an Employer of Choice; and Hall & Wilcox, recognised for Excellence in Diversity and Inclusion. Both businesses are proudly based in Newcastle West. These awards remind us that success in business is about more than growth or the bottom line. It's about investing in people, supporting communities, creating opportunities and helping build the kind of city we are all proud to call home. To all our Newcastle winners, congratulations on this well deserved recognition. Your achievements are a credit to your hard work, vision and commitment, and they showcase the very best of our city. As the federal member for Newcastle, I'm incredibly proud to see local businesses, organisations and individuals receiving the recognition they deserve. Congratulations again to all the winners. Thank you for everything you do for our community. I look forward to seeing your continued success in the years ahead. Bagnall, Mr Philip, Defence Kidz, Be Bold Be Heard 97 16:30 Mr KENNEDY 267506 Cook I want to recognise local legend in the Sutherland Shire, Phil Bagnall. Phil has spent decades training people right across my community in his Anytime Fitness gyms in Cronulla, Caringbah and Miranda. Now, anyone who knows Phil or who has been trained by Phil wouldn't describe his training style as gentle or always polite. He has screamed the occasional obscenity in my direction, calling me a pencil necked politician, and has no hesitation telling me when I need to work harder and giving me gratuitous advice on what I should be telling the Prime Minister about his taxation policies. But, underneath all the obscenities is a guy with a massive heart. Phil genuinely cares about people. He holds us accountable, he gets us results and, importantly, when someone's doing it tough, he's the first person to step in to help and put his hand in his own pocket. He trains people from every walk of life: elite sportspeople, professionals, tradies—all types of ordinary Aussies simply trying to be healthier and better versions of ourselves—and he makes us accountable. I'm very grateful, Phil, for what you do for our community and for what you've done for me. I've dropped over seven kilograms in six weeks. Phil, without question, you're the most in-shape 65-year-old I know. You don't look a day over 60, mate. Thank you for everything you do for our community. I want to congratulate Defence Kidz. Cook is home to a substantial defence and veteran community. The 2021 census recorded 503 Australian Defence Force members, 130 reservists and well over 2,000 former serving members of the ADF. That's almost 3,000 residents who are current or former ADF personnel in Cook. Behind those people are partners, children—families—and they experience parental deployments, long separations, relocations and interrupted schooling and are often asked to settle in new classrooms all around the country. Defence Kidz helps these children feel seen and supported. It has distributed more than 550 deployment packs, 18,000 books and provided free resources. I want to thank Hayley Boswell, the CEO and founder of Defence Kids, for what she does. The Commonwealth should work with states and territories to establish consistent, voluntary ways of identifying these children so governments can better support defence children and their families. Their parents serve our country. Their children deserve to be recognised, treated, valuably and never be left to feel invisible. Lakeview Senior College, Tesfay, Mr Eyoael 98 16:33 Ms JORDAN-BAIRD 316021 Gorton What do you get when you mix high school politics, big hair, bigger personalities and an incredible soundtrack? The opposition are pretty famous for their theatrics, but even they would struggle to compete with Heathers:The Musical. On Saturday night, I was thrilled to attend Lakeview Senior College's production of Heathers: The Musical. The Year 10, 11 and 12 students of Lakeview college are seriously talented. Alyce Watson, as Veronica Sawyer, guided us through the story with her incredible voice; Miley Meak was fearsome and stylish as Heather Chandler; and Manawa Teo brought the audience to tears with her rendition of 'Kindergarten Boyfriend' as Martha Dunnstock. A big shout out to Director Frankie Guida, the creative force behind this production. Putting on a musical is no small feat. It takes months of rehearsals, teamwork, dedication and stepping outside your comfort zone. Congratulations to every student involved, and thank you to the teachers, staff and parents who supported them. Last year, Eyoael Tesfay completed year 12 at Catholic Regional College Sydenham and was one of the 2025 Gorton Young Leader Awards recipients, but his entrepreneurial journey began long before he finished school. Since year 7, Eyoael has been developing his skills as a self-taught entrepreneur, innovator and business builder. Most recently, Eyoael developed and released Chill ATAR, an app designed as a personal assistant for VCE students. It connects school and SAC timetables, helps organise notes and study schedules, sends reminders and calculates ATAR scores. It has an in-built screen-time blocker to help students spend less time on their phone. It can also connect students with AI tutors and local tutoring services, helping young people access additional supports when and where they need it. Eyoael's story is a wonderful example of the young talent, creativity and ambition you'll find in Melbourne's west. I can't wait to see what he achieves next. I recently had the privilege of visiting Copperfield College in Sydenham to participate in the Be Bold Be Heard program alongside an inspiring panel of women across my local community. Be Bold Be Heard is an outstanding leadership and advocacy initiative that empowers young women to become confident change makers within their schools. Thank you to the wonderful students at Copperfield College for having me on your recent program panel. It was inspiring to hear the students' ideas about how they are creating equal spaces and empowering women right in their very own classrooms. Congratulations to Copperfield College and Nick Adamou for leading this remarkable program and partnering with St Albans Secondary College to bring together young women from across Melbourne's west. To our local students: your ideas matter, your voices deserve to be heard and you have the power to shape the future. Tara Wind Farm 98 16:35 Mr LITTLEPROUD 265585 Maranoa I'd like to bring to the parliament's attention a dangerous situation unfolding out in my electorate, in Tara, as we speak. It's been predicated by Vestas, a Danish renewable company that is looking to do a renewable development west of Tara, about 350 kilometres west of Brisbane. In seeking a development application, they put up testing towers to be able to understand the wind flow through there; I don't begrudge them that. But this application, which they put in place some months ago and which was approved, was predicated on it being placed in a certain position and with certain safety features put around it. We have already seen, as a result of the negligence of this Danish company, near misses by local aviators. In fact, for their application to the local Western Downs Regional Council, Vestas actually went and got an aviation consultant to give them advice, and that consultant failed to even understand that there were general aviators and agricultural aviators that flew in that part of the world. In fact, probably all they did was go and consult with Qantas and Rex, who fly at 30,000 feet. But these testing towers are effectively around 300 feet. So there's no way in the world that Qantas, Virgin or Rex would have any issue with this whatsoever. The tower was not properly lit, and these towers have wires that come down from them. We've seen that local aviators and agricultural aviators, who are flying fixed-wing aircraft as well as helicopters, are flying around these things without being able to see them. They have not been properly marked—they have not been placed where they were meant to be placed—and they do not have proper safety lighting. I've written now to CASA and the ATSB after local aviators and local landholders, like Keiran Cook, have had the courage to stand up and to say that something needs to change and that their lives are being put at risk by greedy renewable companies from Denmark coming in and not giving a rat's about the lives of those people that live out there, the people that make a living and have made a living producing your food and fibre every day. The fact that these men and women in helicopters and fixed aircraft fly around these things and can't see them—they've had near misses and their lives could be taken—is an absolute atrocity. The fact that Vestas have been allowed to put these things up in that part of the world, knowing very well that agricultural aviation is at the centre of how we produce your food and fibre, and the fact that they have ignored approvals that were given to them—the approvals have been ignored in every sense—is something that ATSB and CASA need to act on. I have written to them and I expect the people of western Queensland to be protected in every way. I look forward to seeing what ATSB and CASA do and I look forward to the prosecution of Vestas for negligence in this matter. (Time expired) Brisbane Youth Policy Challenge 99 16:39 Ms JARRETT 298574 Brisbane There are 187,000 people living in the Brisbane electorate, and 19,000 of those are schoolchildren. In the coming decades, those 19,000, statistically, will finish school, start a career, buy a home and start a family. Some of them will become doctors, nurses, lawyers, tradies—maybe even politicians. But our youth aren't just statistics; they are the future of our nation. Earlier this year, I tasked my 18-year-old intern, Florence, with the challenge of improving how we in government can engage with young people in civics, and she had the creative idea to launch the inaugural Brisbane Youth Policy Challenge. That brought together 35 exceptional students from across the Brisbane electorate to develop a policy solution for a local issue that was important to them, and they used the same processes that we would use in this place. I heard from students from public schools and private schools about a range of issues varying from education and transport to mental health, homelessness and intergenerational inequality. But the one thing that was prevalent across all the policy briefs we received was that young people aren't short of ideas; what they're short of is the platforms to have those ideas heard. So we listened. We had our highly commended team from Kelvin Grove state high school, and they analysed the challenges of work experience for high school students. They recommended a reworked program designed to reduce the mental health strain placed on young people, particularly those facing systemic disadvantage. The joint winners, however, were exceptional young leaders from Kedron State High School and Queensland Academies Creative Industries, known locally as QACI. They blew us away with their innovation, their professionalism, their creativity and their pragmatism. Kedron State High School students Angus, Asha, Jack, Mia and Toby, accompanied by Ms Meg Worsley, proposed a reversal of the Morrison government's Job-ready Graduates program to reduce what they saw as socioeconomic barriers for students entering legal and business degrees. QACI students Abby, Holly, Jake, Lixi and Tilly, accompanied by Ms Corinne Jennings, sought to implement safe zones on public transport. They proposed that we need safe zones like the ones they have in Victoria, and they believe that that will increase not just civilian safety but schoolchildren's safety and, importantly, support the ever-growing uptake of public transport. I am passionate about giving young people a voice. Too often they're part of a conversation in an audience and we ask them to listen and read, and, by the time they turn 18, they have to vote. But, last month, 35 students came together, and those students proved that they belong in the conversation, because the future of Brisbane is not some distant concept; it is sitting today in the classrooms of those 19,000 students. Capricornia Electorate: Capricorn Helicopter Rescue Service 99 16:42 Ms LANDRY 249764 Capricornia I rise to recognise one of Central Queensland's great institutions, the Capricorn Helicopter Rescue Service—better known as CapRescue—as it marks 30 years of saving lives. What began in 1996 with a vision to give people across our vast region rapid access to emergency care is now a sophisticated 24-hour rescue operation. On 18 February 1996, CapRescue flew its first mission. Today, CapRescue's helicopter, Rescue300, and its highly trained crew stand ready around the clock every day of the year, at no cost to patients. CapRescue serves more than 300,000 people across an area roughly the size of Germany, from St Lawrence to Alpha and Agnes Water and offshore from the Capricorn Coast. Its crews respond to crashes, medical emergencies and search and rescue operations, reaching people on highways, properties and islands and at sea. In a region where distance can mean the difference between life and death, that speed and that capability are vital. Behind every mission is a human story, including that of 15-year-old Ty. Ty crashed his motorbike on his family's property near Ogmore, suffering life-threatening head, chest and internal injuries. CapRescue flew him to Rockhampton Hospital for urgent treatment before he was transferred to the Queensland Children's Hospital. For Ty's family, the sound of the helicopter arriving meant expert care was finally within reach when every minute mattered. Ty later said, 'Without the chopper, I would have had a very low chance of getting to help in time.' After surgery and months of rehabilitation, Ty was back on his bike within 25 weeks. His family then raised money for the service that had saved him, turning gratitude into support for the next family in need. That is CapRescue: neighbours helping neighbours and a community looking after its own. Over three decades, it has become part of the fabric of Central Queensland. Keeping Rescue300 in the air is costly, and local businesses, community organisations, sponsors and ordinary Central Queenslanders all play their part. Every fundraiser, sponsorship and donation helps ensure that, when the next Ty needs help, Rescue300 can take to the sky. That generosity has sustained CapRescue for three decades and reflects the strength of the communities it serves. For 30 years, CapRescue has been there for Central Queenslanders on some of their worst days. To every pilot, doctor, paramedic, aircrew, staff member, volunteer, fundraiser, sponsor and supporter thank you. Central Queensland is incredibly proud of you, and may CapRescue continue to be there for our community for many years to come. Hasluck Electorate: Acknowledgements 100 16:45 Ms LAWRENCE 299150 Hasluck All the best to the Fremantle Dockers AFL women's team as they take on the Western Bulldogs and to the Dockers men's team in their preliminary finals against Sydney. It's been an absolutely fantastic week for football in Hasluck, and I want to take the moment to recognise the incredible achievements of the Swan Districts Football Club. Last night, the Black Ducks were exceptionally well represented at the 2026 Sandover Medal and Dhara Kerr Medal awards. A huge congratulations to Jaime Henry, who won the Dhara Kerr Medal and the WAFL Women's best and fairest player and who polled a record breaking 35 votes. Congratulations also to Ashley Sharp, who took out the Joanne Huggins award as the competition's lead goal kicker, with 36 goals for the season. Ashley became the third Swan Districts player in as many years to win the award, following Taylah Edwards and Courtney Zappara. Congratulations also to Coach Jason Burton, who was named the WAFL Women's Coach of the Year—a fitting recognition for a remarkable season—and the club's Rogers Cup side claimed a thrilling one point grand final victory over East Fremantle while the reserves will contest this weekend's grand final after an equally impressive 14-to-two season. The Colts, All Abilities and Futures league teams showed fight all year, and I'm sure they'll bounce back strong next season. Good luck also to the wheelchair team, who start their season this Sunday at the Swan Active Beechboro against the Royals. Off the field, Swan Districts continues to go from strength to strength under the leadership of CEO Jarrad Wright. This year saw the club host its first Good Friday fixture and another successful Big Freeze round, which raised more than $17,000 for the fight against motor neurone disease. Through its Roebourne programs, Swan Districts continues to create meaningful opportunities for young people in regional communities. The club's annual Build and Ride Day saw about 50 donated bicycles refurbished and distributed to local young people while also promoting road safety awareness. Swan Districts has long been one of the great community institutions in our electorate. My passion for football started with Swan Districts. I used to go to every game with my pop and my dad, and we'd sit down by the ice cream van on the far side of the oval. Honestly, I have wonderful memories from there. Their achievements today are another reminder of the positive difference sporting clubs make both on and off the field. As vice-patron, I could not be prouder and I absolutely look forward to seeing what they achieve in 2027. For a quick shout-out, this Saturday, on 19 September, we're hosting the Hasluck Volunteer Awards, where again we get to recognise the extraordinary volunteers and community leaders within Hasluck. Riverina Electorate: Community Events 100 16:48 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina It was a massive day in the Riverina on Saturday. The 160th Wagga Wagga Show was held, and about 11,000 people flocked to be part of the fun. Zara Hiscock, 21, was named young woman of the show, and Jackie Millward's 50 years of volunteering was appropriately rewarded with life membership. I want to give a special shout-out to President Robert Hamilton and his hardworking volunteer committee, Gaven Livermore and Bruce Ryan, and younger people such as Lucy Goodyer and Will Day make the show what it is now. I then ventured to Narrandera Sportsground, where the ground was encircled five deep with cars for the grand final of the Riverina Football League. The Coolamon Rovers won a premiership. It's the Riverina's oldest continuous club. It was founded in 1894. They've never won back-to-back premierships. Next year may well be the year. But, for Coach Gavin McMahon and his team, what a performance. They defeated Turvey Park by a record margin for them of 44 points. I want to give a shout-out to the Coolamon Auskick program. Brothers Joshua and Ryan Allen, Nick Buchanan, Lawson Buchegger, Braeden Glyde, Mitchell King, Cooper McKelvie, Archie Perrot and Nick Pleming all came up from the littlies and played in that senior success. Honestly, the entire community of Coolamon was at Narrandera to watch this great grand final. They've now won 13 premierships, four of them against Turvey Park of the 33 grand finals that the hoppers have contested since 1894. I was back at Wagga Wagga that night at the Riverside precinct for the Relay For Life, the 24th annual event. Dallas Tout and Alan Pottie head up a wonderful volunteer community raising hope and awareness and funds for research into cancer. Many survivors walked the precinct. So many were there in the spirit of loved ones lost but members of the community also turned up and showed their support, and they raised $70,000. That is an incredible effort. Next year, of course, they're commemorating 25 years but it is a celebration. It is a celebration of hope. It is a celebration of survival. The maroon and gold that they wear really jumps out at you. It stands out for those people who do so much for our community, for this campaign against the insidious scourge of cancer. So well done to Relay For Life, the Wagga show and the Coolamon Rovers. Wills Electorate 101 16:51 Mr KHALIL 101351 Wills I want to acknowledge the very strong community concern and actions about the proposed development on the former Nufarm factory site in the suburb of Fawkner, in my electorate of Wills. This is a contaminated site from when ingredients for pesticides, including Agent Orange, were manufactured on the site from the 1950s to the 1970s. Over recent months, it's become very clear that local residents have made a point that this is unacceptable. They want answers. They want transparency. They want confidence that community safety comes first. More than 560 local residents have now signed our petition opposing the proposal. This level of engagement reflects the strength of feeling right across the suburb of Fawkner. I was at Fawkner Festa on Sunday, a great event, and the issue was raised again with me repeatedly by local residents. They're worried about the site's history, the potential risks and whether the community's concerns are being properly heard. Fawkner, a great suburb in the north of Melbourne, deserves confidence that any decisions affecting this suburb are based on rigorous evidence and public health is put first. I'm going to continue to stand with my community and advocate for their concerns to be taken seriously throughout this process. Communities should never be expected to simply accept uncertainty when it comes to their health, their safety and their environment. I also last week had the opportunity to visit year 9 students at St Mary's College to take part in a civics class. These are really important in being able to discuss our democracy with young students, who have many questions. They covered everything from social media bans, artificial intelligence, misinformation, right through to issues of racism and the future of our democracy. What stood out to me wasn't just the range of issues but the thoughtfulness of the discussion. Year 9 is a tough year. It's usually right in the middle of high school. Some could say it's the year where kids are the most naughty, but actually this group was fantastic. They really are grappling with complex challenges and issues very similar to the issues that we grapple with here in this place, so they ask the tough questions, much tougher than in question time, I can tell you that. They challenged assumptions and they were genuinely interested in finding solutions to the problems that we face today as a society. It was a reminder that civic engagement is alive and well amongst the next generation. I was really heartened by that people have always fearmongered a bit about the next generation. It's always about, 'Oh, you know, in my day.' But no, these young people and the conversations I've had with students across my electorate leave me really optimistic that the kids will be alright. Our democracy is strongest when young people are informed, are engaged and are prepared to participate, and, based on the students I met at St Mary's, our future is in very good hands. Lindsay Electorate: Community Events 101 16:54 Mrs McINTOSH 281513 Lindsay There are weekends that remind you exactly why it's such a privilege to represent your community, and this weekend across Lindsay, I saw again why I believe I represent the best community in the country. I started at the Penrith Relay For Life and she was particularly special. We celebrated 25 years of Relay in Penrith, bringing together cancer survivors, carers, families, volunteers and supporters. There's something incredibly powerful about watching that first survivors and carers lap. Behind every person walking is the story of a diagnosis of treatment, of fear, of courage or of standing beside someone they love. And then our community does what it does best; it wraps its arms around people and says, 'You don't have to do this alone.' This year, Penrith Relay for Life has raised more than $119,000. Across those 25 years, our community has raised an extraordinary $4.3 million. That's a great legacy. Thank you to Cancer Council, Penrith Relay for Life committee, every volunteer, every team member, every fundraiser and every survivor, carer and family who has made this milestone so special. Then, on Sunday morning, I had the honour of joining our local Navy community for the Nepean/Blue Mountains Naval Association's Crossing the Bar commemoration. It was deeply respectful. It was held to honour 13 past members who had crossed the bar, remembering their service, their lives, their families and the shipmates they've left behind. I thank the Nepean/Blue Mountains Naval Association, our veterans, our families and our cadets, and a special acknowledgement to Captain the Hon. Peter Collins, who delivered the main address. The words of the 'Naval Ode' capture that remembrance so powerfully: 'They have no grave but the cruel sea.' On Sunday morning, we remembered them. On Sunday afternoon, in glorious Penrith sunshine at the Paceway, came another kind of courage. The Steps for Love of Living walk finished in Penrith after a really long journey from Newcastle, beginning on World Suicide Prevention Day. It was not simply about the kilometres walked; it was about starting conversations and reminding people who may be struggling that they matter, that people do care and that asking for help is a sign of strength. Congratulations particularly to Lou Greco from the Australian Man Cave Support Group and everyone who walked, supported and turned up, including Wayne Wilmington and so many other familiar faces. Cancer, service and mental health may seem like three very different stories, but on this weekend just gone they had something very much in common. People showed up. They showed up for people who are fighting cancer, they showed up to remember those who have served and they showed up for people who might be fighting a battle no-one else can see. That is my community—from Penrith and St Marys to Colyton, Luddenham, Londonderry and all the wonderful suburbs in between—and I could not be prouder to represent them in this parliament. Housing, Ballarat Electorate: Acknowledgements 102 16:57 Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR Ballarat Last week I was able to experience what the Albanese government's massive investment in housing means in my own home town of Ballarat. Right in the centre of town and walking distance to services, schools and shops, Uniting Vic.Tas is building a beautiful, architect-designed development of 24 new homes for people on the Victorian Housing Register. These are some of our most vulnerable residents. I was shown through the development by Figurehead Construction project manager, Caleb—he's a Ballarat boy himself, and he feels really proud that he's contributing to social housing in his home town—as well as the Uniting CEO, Carol Jeffs. Walking through the apartments, I was struck by how much we've learned about making homes welcoming and accessible. They're thoughtfully and practically designed. They're full of light, which is important in our Ballarat winters. They're all north facing and have got terrific outdoor access, as well. They're completely electric, with a big solar array on the roof to keep down energy bills. There's also a large shared courtyard and shared space. It's mud right now, but I can't wait to see when it's landscaped into a green open space for people to use. When Uniting undertakes a housing development like this, they consider the lived experience of their tenants from other developments, and all that knowledge feeds into this new build. So, every time they build new homes, they're getting better at it. These new homes have been made possible with $9.4 million from our Housing Australia Future Fund and $13 million from the Victorian Labor government. Stable housing is life changing, and these new homes will absolutely change lives. On a different matter, Ballarat of course makes the best gin and the best candles. Both Mia and Talbot Candles and Kilderkin gin are available in the Parliament House shop as part of the Victorian showcase throughout the month of September. I caught up with Harper and Connie and their dad, Robert, in parliament last week. Mum, Leah, who makes the candles, couldn't get up to Canberra, as someone needed to stay home and run the business. The candles themselves are lovely, but Leah also does collaborations with other local businesses and artists to create products that are really special and really Ballarat. The candles you can buy at the shop smell like the Australian bush and feature artwork by mixed media artist Brigid Corcoran. Mia and Talbot's bestsellers are, of course, the raspberry drop candles, because you can't get more Ballarat than Sovereign Hill's delicious raspberry drops. They've also created a gin-inspired candle which has recycled botanicals from the Kilderkin Distillery, which you can buy in the gift shop. Chris and Rebecca make their gin in an old warehouse in the centre of Ballarat, and they ship it to all over the world. When they set up in 2016, they were the first distillery in town since the 1930s—there were some illegal ones around the time. Their Larrikin Gin in particular celebrates that cheeky side of our Australian identity, and Chris thinks it's a pretty good fit to be sold here in Parliament House. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 299150 In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members' constituency statements has concluded. BILLS 103 BILLS National Student Ombudsman Levy Bill 2026 103

National Student Ombudsman Levy Bill 2026

Second Reading 103 17:00 The DEPUTY SPEAKER 299150 I understand that it is the wish of the Federation Chamber to debate this order of the day concurrently with the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Amendment (National Student Ombudsman Levy) Bill 2026. There being no objection, the Chair will allow that course to be followed. 17:00 Mr FRENCH 316550 Moore These bills are technically informed, but the policy question behind them is simple: when a student has a serious problem with their university or higher education provider, where do they go if the provider's own complaints process does not work? For too long, the answer was often, 'Nowhere particularly useful.' Students could find themselves dealing with internal processes that were slow, confusing, inconsistent or simply not equipped to deal properly with the complaint before them. Where the complaint involves something serious, including gender based violence, poor complaint handling did not just create frustration—it could compound the harm. That is why the National Student Ombudsman was established. It commenced operations on 1 February 2025, and it gives all higher education students access to a free, independent and trauma informed service where they can escalate complaints about their provider. It was established in response to recommendation 18(b) of the Australian Universities Accord. It also forms part of the action plan addressing gender based violence in higher education, agreed by all Australian education ministers in February 2024. The Ombudsman exists because students needed somewhere independent to go, somewhere outside the institution, somewhere that is not marking the assignment, deciding their progression or controlling access to their services. An independent umpire matters most when one side already controls the ground, the scoreboard and the changerooms, and the early demand for the service tells us the need was real. As of 31 August 2026, the National Student Ombudsman had received 7,690 student contacts. It had resolved 6,016 of those contacts. That is 78 per cent of all contacts received since it commenced operations, and 93 per cent of complaints have been resolved through the informal dispute resolution processes. That is significant because the objective here is not to create another bureaucracy that creates lengthy correspondence explaining why everyone remains unhappy. The objective is to solve problems, and the evidence so far is that the ombudsman is doing exactly that. It is helping students reach practical outcomes and it is doing that while maintaining constructive relationships between students and providers. It is doing something else that is just as important—it is improving the system. The National Student Ombudsman does not only deal with one complaint at a time; it identifies systematic problems, it gives advice on best practice complaints handling, it provides education and guidance to providers, it helps institutions improve their governance, and it gives sector insight into where policies and processes are failing students. Eighty per cent of higher education providers surveyed by the National Student Ombudsman say they are implementing systems or service improvements following the ombudsman's complaints handling and education engagements, and that is a pretty strong indication that this service is not just valuable to students—it is valuable to the providers as well. Better complaints handling means problems can be addressed earlier. It means institutions can learn from failures. It means stronger governance and, ideally, it means fewer students needing to escalate a complaint in the first place. The policy question before the House is not whether the National Student Ombudsman should continue—it should—the question is how its ongoing operations should be funded, and that is what these bills address. The National Student Ombudsman Levy Bill 2026 establishes the legislative framework for a levy on higher education providers. The purpose of that levy is to recover the costs of administering the National Student Ombudsman. Subject to the passage of this legislation, the levy will commence from 1 January 2027. The Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Amendment (National Student Ombudsman Levy) Bill 2026 then provides the collection arrangements associated with that levy. Payment of the levy and any applicable penalty for late payment will be made a condition of registration. In other words, one bill establishes the levy; the other makes sure the levy can be collected. A framework without collection arrangements would be like establishing a parking fine and then deciding not to bother with the payment. Parliament does occasionally enjoy complexity, but thankfully not quite that much! Importantly, the method for calculating the amount of the levy will not be hardwired into the primary legislation. That detail will be set through regulations or guidelines following further consultation with the sector, and that is appropriate. Different providers are different sizes. They operate in different markets. They have different student populations. The detailed design needs to be informed by consultation and to be capable of adjustment. What the parliament is establishing here is the framework, and the principle is clear. The levy is intended to recover the operating costs of the National Student Ombudsman. It is not intended to generate additional revenue, and it will cover those costs in arrears. The government is providing $44.3 million over four years from 2020-27 to underwrite the ombudsman's annual operating costs. Those costs will then be recovered from higher education providers through the levy, paid annually in arrears. That distinction matters. This is cost recovery, not a revenue stream. There is another distinction that matters even more: students will not pay to use the National Student Ombudsman. Access will remain free, and that is fundamental to the design, because there would be something deeply perverse about creating an independent complaints body for students and then putting a price on the door. Imagine telling a student who believes they've been treated unfairly, 'Yes, there's an independent body that can help you, but first please enter your credit card details.' That would defeat much of the purpose. A complaints mechanism is meaningful only if students can actually access it. So the cost sits with the higher education sector, not with the student trying to resolve the complaint. That is appropriate, because providers benefit from the ombudsman's work, too. They receive guidance. They receive insight into systemic issues. They improve complaints handling. They improve services. They benefit from greater confidence in the higher education system. The government made the sector aware of its intention to recover the ongoing costs of the National Student Ombudsman in March 2024. During the establishment phase, the Commonwealth has carried those costs. We are now moving to a sustainable cost-recovery model, and that is the practical purpose of these bills. But it's also important to understand where this legislation sits within the broader reform of tertiary education. In February 2024 the government released the final report of the Australian Universities Accord. The accord is a blueprint for reform over the next decade and the decade after that. Its central challenge is a big one. Over the coming decades, around 80 per cent of people in the workforce will need a certificate, diploma or degree. That means Australia will need more people at TAFE, more people at university, more people gaining skills throughout their working life. This is not simply an education policy. It is a workforce policy. It is a productivity policy. If Australia needs more nurses, teachers, engineers, electricians, health professionals, technicians and skilled workers then our tertiary education system has to be capable of training them. And if we need more Australians to enter tertiary education, the system has to work for the people who use it. It has to be accessible, it has to be affordable, it has to be safe and it has to be accountable. That is why the government has already implemented more than 30 of the accord's 47 recommendations either in full or in part. We've made HECS fairer. We have cut HECS by 20 per cent. We've capped indexation at the lower of the CPI and the WPI. We have moved to a marginal repayment system, and we have increased the minimum repayment threshold. Those changes matter because student debt should not operate as an unnecessary barrier to participation. We've introduced paid prac for the first time, and that now supports students in teaching, nursing, midwifery, social work, clinical psychology, physiotherapy, occupational therapy, speech pathology, paramedicine, radiography, pharmacy, rehabilitation therapies, audiology and podiatry. Anyone who has undertaken compulsory placement knows the practical problem. You can be required to work a significant number of hours in a placement while also somehow paying rent, buying groceries and keeping the lights on. Apparently, the traditional policy response was to hope students had discovered the secret fourth job somewhere between lectures and sleep. Paid prac is a recognition that compulsory training should not force students out of their course because they cannot afford to complete it. We're also doubling the number of university study hubs. That includes 20 new regional university study hubs and 14 new suburban university study hubs. We are increasing the number of free university bridging courses. We've made demand driven Commonwealth supported places available to First Nations students who achieve the marks required for entry. We have established the Australian Tertiary Education Commission as a steward for the tertiary education system, and we have established both the National Student Ombudsman and the national code to prevent and respond to gender based violence. These reforms are connected. The objective is not simply to get more Australians through the front door of a university or TAFE. The objective is to build a tertiary education system that supports people once they are inside, because participation is not just about admission; it is about whether students can afford to continue, whether they can complete compulsory placement, whether they can access support, whether they are safe and whether there is somewhere effective to turn to when something goes wrong. The last point is what these bills are about. The National Student Ombudsman gives students an avenue beyond their provider's internal processes, it gives students confidence that a complaint can be heard independently, it helps providers improve their own systems, it identifies problems that extend beyond one institution or one student and it supports continuous improvement across the sector. There is a broader public interest in that work. Australia asks students to make a significant investment in tertiary education. Students invest years of their lives. They often take on debt. They make choices about employment, family and where they live. In return, they are entitled to expect institutions to have proper processes when something goes wrong. When those processes fail, there should be meaningful external scrutiny. That is not hostile to universities. Good institutions should welcome accountability. If a provider has strong systems, fair complaints procedures and a culture that responds properly to problems, an independent ombudsman is not a threat; it is another mechanism that supports confidence in the system. The experience of the first period of operation supports that conclusion. Thousands of students have already contacted the ombudsman. Thousands of contacts have already been resolved. Providers themselves are making improvements as a result of the ombudsman's work. And that is precisely what an effective complaints body should produce: not an endless process for the sake of process, but better outcomes for individuals and better systems for everybody else. These bills ensure that that work can continue on a sustainable footing from 1 January 2027. They establish a clear legislative framework for cost recovery, they provide for the collection of the levy, they allow the detailed methodology to be developed following further consultation with the sector, they ensure the levy recovers operating costs rather than becoming a revenue-raising measure and, critically, they ensure that students continue to access the National Student Ombudsman free of charge. There is a fairly straightforward principle at the heart of this legislation: if we want more Australians to pursue tertiary education, we also have to build a system worthy of their confidence. That means affordable study, better access, support during training and placement, safe campuses and institutions, and accountability when things go wrong. The National Student Ombudsman is now an important part of that system. These bills give it a sustainable funding base, while keeping access free for students. That is fair, that is practical and it strengthens the confidence in Australian higher education. I commend these bills to the House. 17:14 Dr RYAN 297660 Kooyong It is with great pleasure that I rise to speak to the National Student Ombudsman Levy Bill. Establishment of this position has been one of the most significant contributions of this government to keeping students safe on campuses. It began in August 2023, when representatives of the STOP campaign Australia launched the #IDeserveSafety initiative at Parliament House. They collected thousands of student testimonies from across the country, submitting them to the universities accord. They demanded systemic reform. At that stage, 275 students were being assaulted in university settings every week. Amongst the key demands of that campaign was the creation of an independent oversight mechanism to hold institutions accountable for their handling of gender based violence. I and my crossbench colleagues amplified this call, and I'd like to give a shout-out especially to Zoe Daniel, the former member for Goldstein, and Kylea Tink, the last MP for the now-abolished seat of North Sydney, for their strong and effective leadership on this issue at that time. Together, we helped to get those student representatives in front of the education minister, who was kind enough to see them the same day we met with them. We talked in the House and in the media about how things had to change. The minister and the universities accord listened. The accord found that students needed a simpler and more accessible way to pursue complaints, with proper support. It recommended an independent student complaints mechanism for higher education students. Three years later, we've come a long way. We helped to pass landmark legislation reshaping how universities respond to sexual violence. We now have a Student Ombudsman and a national code that will oversee all higher education providers, requiring evidence based prevention strategies and best-practice support for victims-survivors. These are achievements three years in the making. Together, those students, their supporters, the crossbench, the other parliamentarians who supported them, the minister and the government have made our campuses more safe for the next generation of students. On 1 February 2025, the National Student Ombudsman formally commenced, supported by $19.4 million over the two years for 2024-25 budget. The ombudsman in now in place, working to resolve student complaints about higher education providers, providing a free and independent service available to all higher education students, regardless of the university at which they study. Since opening its doors 18 months ago, the National Student Ombudsman has supported students through complaints of gender based violence, antisemitism, Islamophobia and other forms of racism or discrimination on campus. It's become a critical piece of infrastructure for the wellbeing, safety and experience of students at a time when we're seeing significant challenges across the university sector. The ombudsman is already demonstrating its value. As of 31 August 2026, the National Student Ombudsman had received 7,690 student contacts. It had resolved 6,016 of those matters—78 per cent. That means that thousands of students have already been able to access an independent avenue to have their concerns heard and, where possible, resolved. This is a profound legacy of this place and one which I'm truly proud to have been involved with. However, the Minister for Education has notified higher education providers that the sector is going to have to contribute to the ongoing costs of the ombudsman. This package of bills delivers on that expectation, providing for the imposition, collection and administration of a new levy on higher education providers to recover the costs of administering the ombudsman. A failure to pay will amount to a breach of a condition of registration for those universities and other institutions. It may result in enforcement action, which would be undertaken by the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency. The legislation provides for the minister for education to make rules to facilitate the collection and administration of the student ombudsman levy, but much of the detail beyond that is not in the legislation. The missing details include how the levy formulation will be calculated and how it will be distributed across those higher education providers. Those parameters are going to be left to ministerial delegated legislation. The explanatory memorandum for the bill argues that this approach is necessary to provide flexibility to ensure that levy arrangements can be appropriately adjusted over time to reflect both the costs of the National Student Ombudsman's functions and the exercise of its powers. I do understand the appeal and the need for flexibility, but it has to be balanced with the requirement of transparency. The government has previously stated that the levy will be distributed across providers based on their student population. The government has previously reasoned publicly that the overall student population is a core cost driver for the Student Ombudsman, but neither the bill nor the explanatory memorandum confirm this approach. Universities Australia has challenged this. It has claimed that there's little evidence for a relationship between a provider's equivalent full-time student load and the actual demand placed on the ombudsman service. Headcount might be a more appropriate measure of the need for the services of the ombudsman, but other factors should probably be considered. For example, rural students have greater need for pastoral support, given their isolation and their geographic disconnectedness, the first-in-family factor for many rural students, the compounding effect of regional hardship and the lack of local infrastructure around many tertiary centres in the regions. It seems only reasonable that the department should provide its justification for the proposed methodology in calculating and apportioning this levy. Similarly, clause 9 of the levy bill states: The regulations may provide for exemptions from levy— but provides no details regarding where those exemptions might be appropriate. I acknowledge that the explanatory memorandum notes: … exemptions may be made where a natural disaster impacts higher education providers' ability to enrol students or offer a full course load. Again, though, this is an issue which is under ministerial control and which the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills has noted could raise some concerns. I ask the minister and the department for further clarity, both on the nature of the levy and on the basis of any putative exemptions. The government expects to recover $33.2 million over three years from 2027-28 from this measure and then $11.3 million per year ongoing from higher education providers. I'm glad that there's a provision in this legislation that the minister must ensure that the cost recovery levy is no more than the actual costs of the ombudsman, but cost recovery arrangements should also include safeguards against unnecessary growth in the ombudsman's activities, staffing and costs. This should and could include clear reporting on complaint volumes, on the nature and outcomes of investigations undertaken by the ombudsman, on expenditure by activity, on staffing levels and on the effectiveness of education and outreach undertaken by the ombudsman. It seems only reasonable, given that the tertiary institutions have to pay for this facility to be established on an ongoing basis, that they should be able to understand the basis of the activities on an ongoing basis through some transparent reporting arrangements. These safeguards are the more important because this legislation comes, let's face it, at a time of significant challenges for the tertiary education sector. Universities Australia reports that 13 Australian universities were in deficit in 2024. It has warned of growing regulatory compliance costs, and it has called for a review of higher education regulation to reduce red tape. The Regional Universities Network providers, which cater for one in 10 university students in Australia, are recording net operating losses. There was a time in Australian history when governments accepted that higher education was a public good and they funded it like one, but that assumption seems to be eroding and higher education is quietly being privatised. The Regional Universities Network recognised this in relation to the National Student Ombudsman, pointing out that state based ombudsmen were previously funded by governments and that that was done in recognition of the fact that they serve a public interest. Australia seems to be walking back from that principle that, when something serves the public interest, it should be publicly funded. I'm glad the government acted on the accord's recommendation to establish an ombudsman—again, this is an achievement that the crossbench fought very hard for—but the accord made 47 recommendations and many of them still sit unimplemented. In the context of Australia's approach to withdrawing funding from the higher education sector, that's hardly surprising. But the biggest elephant in the room is the policy that this government least wants to touch: the job-ready graduates program. Passed by the former coalition prime minister and minister for education, it has now been left to languish for longer under this government than the last by the current Labor prime minister and minister for education. Job-ready Graduates increased the cost of some degrees—arts, law, business and economics—and decreased the cost of other disciplines, like teaching, nursing and STEM. In the process, universities received $813 million less in 2024 alone because the increases in the price of some degrees didn't fully compensate for the decreases in others. This was a package that cut the university sector by stealth. The Universities Accord was clear in its assessment that this policy has failed. It found that the intended purpose of Job-ready Graduates, which was to influence student choices through price signals, had not been achieved. It recommended urgent remediation. But the government has as yet done nothing to fix Job-ready Graduates. It says it wants to expand access to university. The minister says he's investing in students' wellbeing and safety. But the government continues to refuse to fix the HECS debt crisis caused by the Job-ready Graduates scheme. The government likes to invoke the Universities Accord when it delivers on it, but it ignores the accord when that requires some difficult decisions. The National Student Ombudsman is an excellent example of what can happen when a government listens to students and acts on the recommendations of the accord. And the crossbench fought for it, because students need an independent avenue to raise complaints, to seek resolution and to ensure that they can remain and feel safe on campus. I'd like to give a shout-out to those campaigners, those fabulous brave women, from the STOP Campaign: Camille Schloeffel, Sophie Aboud, Nuria Olive and Lauren Taylor. There are more; I can't name them all. But all those wonderful advocates came to this place as part of that campaign and fought so hard and well for this and won. The crossbench will continue to fight to protect students, and we'll continue to keep fighting on the Job-ready Graduates mess as well, because the thousands of students who called for the National Student Ombudsman, who cared about their own wellbeing and safety and that of those of the next generation of students, deserve no less than for this parliament to consider their financial safety as well. 17:26 Dr TRISH COOK 312871 Bullwinkel As a former student of two universities and also a former teacher at TAFE and at ECU, I rise today to speak in strong support of our Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Amendment (National Student Ombudsman Levy) Bill 2026 and the National Student Ombudsman Levy Bill 2026. This legislation establishes an enduring industry funded framework to safeguard student welfare and strengthen accountability across Australia's higher education sector. For too long, students facing serious grievances—from administration unfairness to gender based violence—found themselves trapped in internal university processes that failed to protect them. In response, our government created the National Student Ombudsman, a free, independent and trauma informed avenue to resolve escalating disputes and drive systemic institutional improvement. As this critical body completes its establishment phase, this legislation today introduces a fair cost-recovery levy on providers, ensuring that the ombudsman has secure permanent funding without ever passing a cent on to the students. In short, this legislation delivers long-term sustainability to an essential watchdog that protects students, raises standards across providers and reinforces public trust in our tertiary education system. It's a necessary pillar of our broader generation mission to build an accessible, high-quality higher education sector for Australia's future. Education has always been the greatest engine of opportunity in this country. It's a ladder by which Australians from every background, every region and every walk of life can build a better future for themselves, their families and our nation. But that ladder works only if our tertiary system is accessible, fair, safe and ready to meet the profound economic transformations of our time. In February 2024, two years ago, our government released the final report of the Australian Universities Accord. The accord is not merely a policy document to sit on a shelf gathering dust. It is a long-term blueprint for higher education reform over the next decade and indeed the decade after that. It looked clear-eyed at the horizon and asked a fundamental question: what kind of workforce, what kind of economy and what kind of society does Australia need over the next 20 to 30 years? The answer delivered by the accord was stark and unmistakable. It found that, over the next few decades, Australia will need to increase the proportion of our workforce that has tertiary qualifications—a certificate, a diploma or a degree. That's 80 per cent of the Australian workforce who will require a tertiary qualification. It means more Australians at TAFE and more Australians at university. From the clean energy transition to the care economy and from advanced manufacturing to the digital technologies, our nation's prosperity relies entirely on the skills, knowledge and capabilities of our people. We can't afford to leave anyone behind, and we can't afford to delay. When we received the 47 recommendations of the universities accord, we did not waste time. The Albanese Labor government has already implemented more than 30 of the accord's 47 recommendations in full or in part. We're delivering reforms that touch every part of the student's journey, from the moment they aspire to study through their years on campus to the day they enter the workforce. First and foremost, we're tackling student debt. We're making HECS fairer and better. For too long, the burden of student debt has weighed heavily on younger Australians trying to get ahead, save for a home and build for their lives. We took decisive action, cutting HECS debts by 20 per cent across the board. We've capped indexation on HECS debts to the lower of the CPI—the consumer price index—and the wage price index, ensuring that student debt can never again be allowed to grow faster than average wages. And we are transitioning to a progressive marginal repayment system and lifting the minimum payment threshold, leaving more money in the pockets of graduates when they need it most. We also recognised a profound injustice in education that had gone unredressed for decades, and that's placement poverty. For students in demanding disciplines, mandatory unpaid prac hours mean choosing between completing their degrees and putting food on the table or paying their rent. Our government introduced paid prac for the very first time in our nation's history. We started with student teachers, nurses, midwives and social workers, and we've extended that essential support across our allied health and care workers—students in clinical psychology, physiotherapy, occupational therapy, speech pathology, paramedicine, pharmacy, radiography, rehabilitation therapies, audiology and podiatry, the jobs of the future. By easing the financial squeeze on these students during their clinical placements, we're keeping them in their courses and ensuring our hospitals, clinics and schools have the future workforce they so desperately need. We're also breaking down geographical and structural barriers that prevent capable Australians from reaching higher education. We have doubled the number of university study hubs across the nation, funding 20 new regional study hubs and 14 suburban study hubs—study hubs such as the one at York in my electorate of Bullwinkel and at Midland and Gosnells TAFEs—because we believe you shouldn't have to leave your community, your family or your job just to get study support when you're doing a tertiary certificate or degree. We've expanded the number of free university bridging courses, creating clear pathways for students who need extra support to step into higher education, and we've guaranteed demand driven Commonwealth supported places for all First Nations students who achieve the marks to get in, removing artificial caps and backing Indigenous excellence. We have established the Australian Tertiary Education Commission, ATEC, an enduring, independent steward of the tertiary system, ensuring that system-wide growth aligns with national priorities and student needs. We're also opening the doors to higher education. Opening the doors is only half the task; we must also ensure that once the students walk through the doors of the environment it is safe, supportive, fair and accountable. Every student in this country deserves to pursue their studies in an environment free from harm, harassment and neglect. That's why our response to the accord included two historic integrity measures: the National Higher Education Code to Prevent and Respond to Gender-based Violence and establishment of the National Student Ombudsman. For far too long, the complaints process within higher education institutions let students down. Longstanding failures in complaint handling left students feeling unheard, dismissed or retraumatised when they sought help. When a student faced serious grievances, whether concerning administrative mistreatment, unfair disciplinary actions, discrimination or even horrific incidences of sexual harassment and assault, they often found themselves running into institutional brick walls. Providers were frequently perceived as protecting their own reputations rather than safeguarding the welfare of their students. The Albanese Labor government has said, 'Enough is enough.' We established the National Student Ombudsman to give every higher education student in Australia a free, independent and trauma informed pathway to escalate complaints about their higher education provider. If a student is unable to resolve concerns through their provider's internal process or if that process has failed them, they now have somewhere to turn. They have an independent champion with the statutory power, independence and trauma informed expertise to investigate matters thoroughly and impartially. The ombudsman's support provides safer, more accountable and more responsive higher education settings across the entire country. That evidence is in, because the demand for this National Student Ombudsman has been significant, with 7,690 student contacts as of 31 August 2026. I note that 6,016 of those matters have been successfully resolved. Behind every one of those stats is a student who needed help—a student who was stressed, frustrated or traumatised and simply needed somebody to listen, investigate and deliver a fair resolution. The ombudsman has resolved 93 per cent of complaints through informal dispute resolution processes. That's how these outcomes are being achieved, and it's an extraordinary achievement. The ombudsman is also driving systemic institutional change. Eighty per cent of the surveyed providers reported implementing system and service improvements following their engagement with the National Student Ombudsman's complaints-handling and education teams, so they're amending their processes in line with the National Student Ombudsman's recommendations. The ombudsman provides education and guidance on best practice in handling complaints, and it identifies systemic issues affecting students before these can fester into widespread failures. It strengthens university and college governance, elevates student outcomes and contributes directly to restoring and deepening public trust in Australia's higher education system. The National Student Ombudsman Levy Bill 2026 establishes a fair levy on providers to maintain this system. But let's be clear: we established this. The start-up and operational costs of the ombudsman were fully borne by the Commonwealth government. But we're now stepping up and creating this model, which is an industry cost-recovery model, so that the system, the institute of the ombudsman, can continue to do its great work, because we know that the ombudsman fosters students, providers and the broader higher education system. The legislation before the House today is about fairness, integrity and future-readiness. We have a generational goal to build the 80 per cent of our workforce that will hold a tertiary qualification. To reach that goal, we must continue to make higher education fairer, more accessible and more supportive. As I said, we're doing that by wiping 20 per cent off student debt, by supporting students in mandatory placements and with the study hubs in outer suburbs and regional towns. We're backing First Nations students and expanding the fee-free bridging pathways. And, with this bill, we're ensuring that an independent, trauma informed, fully funded watchdog will hold providers accountable and ensure every student is treated with the dignity and fairness they deserve. That is what good government looks like—being practical, being principled and being focused on the future. I commend the bill to the House. 17:40 Ms WITTY 316660 Melbourne I rise to speak in support of the National Student Ombudsman Levy Bill 2026 and the related legislation before the House. I am proud to represent Melbourne, one of the greatest education capitals of Australia. Our city is home to the finest universities in the country and institutions recognised around the world for the quality of their teaching, research and innovation. Every year, students from across Australia and across the globe choose Melbourne as the place where they will study, grow new skills and build a future. Education changes lives. It remains one of the strongest predictors of future opportunity. It creates pathways into secure work. It lifts incomes. It improves health outcomes. It gives people more choice about the lives they want to lead. For our nation, it is one of the smartest investments we can make. That belief has always been central to the Labor movement. Labor has always understood that talent and ability are everywhere in our community, but not everyone has the same opportunity. A young person's future should not be limited by how much money their parents make, where they grew up or whether they happen to know the right people. That commitment to expanding opportunity through education has shaped generations of Labor reform, and it continues to shape the work of the Albanese Labor government today. The legislation before us sits within a much broader vision of Australia's education system, a vision that recognises our future prosperity depends on having a more educated, more skilled and more productive workforce. The Australian Universities Accord set out that challenge clearly. It found that, over coming decades, around 80 per cent of jobs will require some form of tertiary qualification, whether that is a university degree, a diploma or a certificate. That presents an enormous opportunity, but it also creates enormous responsibility, because the decisions we make today about higher education will shape Australia's economic future for decades to come. That is why the Albanese government has not treated the universities accord as another report to be placed on a shelf. They have been getting on with implementing reform. More than 30 of the accord's 47 recommendations have already been implemented in full or in part. Those reforms are helping make higher education more affordable, more accessible and better connected to Australia's future skills need. One of the first pieces of legislation passed by this parliament was the government's commitment to cut student debt by 20 per cent. More than 3.2 million Australians have now benefited, and more than $16 billion in student debt has been wiped. An Australian with the average HELP debt of $27,600 saw $5,520 removed from their balance. That reform has been particularly significant in my electorate. Melbourne has the highest number of people with student debt of any electorate in the country. Around 36,000 people in Melbourne are carrying HELP or VET student debt. They are young workers paying rent. They are graduates starting careers. They are people trying to get ahead while managing the cost-of-living pressures facing households right across the country. The government has also made student repayments fairer. The income threshold before repayments begin has increased to $67,000. Repayments are now calculated on an income above that threshold rather than a person's total income. For someone earning around $70,000 a year, that means about $1,300 less in repayments annually. These changes recognise something many students and graduates have been telling us for years. Getting an education should create opportunity. It should not become a life-long financial burden. In contrast to this fundamental idea, the conservative approach to education has always been easier on people who begin life with advantages. If your family can support you through university, unpaid placement may be manageable. If they can help with rent, rising student debt may feel less immediate. If you know how powerful institutions work, pursuing a complaint may be less daunting. Government policy cannot be written only for people with money, confidence and connections. The answer of the three right-wing parties over there has for too often been that students should pay more, borrow more and manage the consequences themselves. Labor rejects that narrow view. University education should not depend on the size of your parent's bank account. Safety should not depend on whether a provider chooses to listen. Justice should not depend on whether a student has the power to fight an institution alone. Labor is prepared to widen opportunity. Those opposite remain far more comfortable defending a system that rewards the people already ahead. The government has also introduced the Commonwealth prac payment. For years, students studying in professions we desperately need were often expected to complete hundreds of hours of mandatory placement work while receiving little or no income—teaching students, nursing students, midwifery students and social work students. Many were working long placement hours while still trying to pay rent, pay bills and keep food on the table. The Commonwealth prac payment is helping to address that problem and is expecting to support around 68,000 eligible students completing placements each year. The government has also expanded access to higher education. New university hubs are opening across suburban and regional Australia. Free enabling and bridging courses are helping students who may not have followed a traditional pathway into university. Demand-driven Commonwealth supported places are now available to First Nations students who achieve the marks required for entry. Additional university places are being allocated as we prepare for Australia's future workforce needs. An additional 9,500 commencing university places have been allocated for 2026 alone. We have also established the Australian Territory Education Commission. Its role is to provide long-term stewardship of Australia's tertiary education system, helping ensure universities, TAFE, industry and governments are working towards a shared vision for the future. All of these reforms have a common thread. They are focused on opening doors. They are focused on making sure people have genuine opportunities to develop their skills and contribute to their communities, and they recognise that building a stronger economy begins with investing in people. But opening the door of a university is only part of the job. Students also need confidence in the institutions they attend. They need confidence that concerns will be taken seriously, that university processes are fair and that, if those processes fail, there is somewhere independent they can turn. That brings me to the National Student Ombudsman, which commenced operations on 1 February 2025. It was established following recommendations of the Universities Accord and forms part of a broader effort to improve safety, accountability and student wellbeing across Australia's higher education sector. It provides students with access to free, independent and trauma-informed complaint services. Students who have exhausted a provider's internal complaints process can take their concerns to the ombudsman and receive independent consideration and support. That service fills an important gap. Universities are large and complex institutions. For many students, particularly those with difficult personal circumstances, pursuing a complaint can be intimidating. Students should never feel powerless when they're trying to seek a fair outcome. The National Student Ombudsman provides an avenue for review that is independent, accessible and focused on achieving practical outcomes. The response from students demonstrates the value of the service. As of 31 August 2026, the National Student Ombudsman has received 7,690 student contacts and resolved 6,016. That level of demand tells us that students wanted an independent avenue and that students are using it. The outcomes have also been encouraging. Ninety-three per cent of complaints have been resolved through informal dispute resolution processes. That means students are receiving practical outcomes without unnecessary delays. The benefits extend beyond individual complaints. The National Student Ombudsman helps identify systematic issues across the sector. It provides advice and education on better complaints handling. It shares better practice. It helps institutions improve. Around 80 per cent of surveyed providers have reported implementing systems and services improvements following engagement with the ombudsman. That creates benefits across the whole higher education system. Students benefit, providers benefit and the broader reputation of Australian higher education benefits. The legislation before the House today ensures that work can continue as a sustainable footing. The government has provided $44.3 million over four years to underwrite the operations of the National Student Ombudsman. Under these bills, those operating costs will be recovered from higher education providers through an annual levy paid in arrears from 1 January 2027. Importantly, students will continue to access the service free of charge. A student's ability to seek assistance should never depend on their capacity to pay. The service exists to support students. Keeping it accessible is essential. The higher education sector also benefits directly from the ombudsman's work. Institutions benefit from improving complaints handling. They benefit from guidance and education, and they benefit from the identification of systematic problems before those issues become larger failures. A cost recovery arrangement recognises those benefits and helps secure the long-term future of the service. I am so proud to represent Melbourne, Australia's great education city. That reputation has not happened by accident. It has been built over generations by students, educators, researchers and institutions that have helped make our city a destination for learning, discovery and opportunity. Every year, people come to Melbourne because they believe education can change their future. They come to gain skills, to build careers and to create opportunities that might otherwise have been out of reach. They deserve a higher education system that backs that ambition, a system that opens doors, a system that supports them through their studies, a system that listens when something goes wrong. The Albanese Labor government has been focused on building exactly that kind of system. Through the Universities Accord, student debt relief, paid prac, expanding access to universities and with the establishment of the National Student Ombudsman, Labor is strengthening the institutions that help Australians build better futures. This legislation helps ensure that important work continues. It will ensure students retain access to a free and independent pathway for complaints and support. It will strengthen confidence in Australia's higher education sector, and it forms part of Labor's broader commitment to making education more accessible, more affordable and more responsive to the needs of students. That's because, for Labor, education has never just been about qualifications. It has always been about opportunity—opportunity for the student who is the first in their family to attend university, opportunity for the young person trying to build a better life and opportunity for communities, industries and a country that depends on the skills and talents of its people. That belief remains at the centre of Labor's agenda today. I commend the bill to the House. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 299150 I understand the member for Pearce would like to present a copy of their speech for incorporation into Hansard in accordance with the resolution agreed to on 6 November 2025. 17:55 Ms ROBERTS 157125 Pearce The incorporated speech read as follows— I would like to speak in support of the National Student Ombudsman Levy Bill 2026, a bill that secures the future of a service that has already changed the university experience of thousands of young Australians for the better. This bill relates to the funding of the National Student Ombudsman, and it ensures that this vital, independent, trauma informed service remains free for students while its costs are fairly shared by the higher education sector it serves. The National Student Ombudsman opened its doors in February last year after decades of advocacy by students, survivors-advocates and the higher education sector itself. The universities accord recommended that we establish one, and the Action Plan Addressing Gender-based Violence in Higher Education, agreed by all Australian education ministers, called for it too. This government acted on those recommendations because students deserved a single, national, independent place to turn when things go wrong at university. Before the ombudsman existed, students faced a confusing patchwork: individual university complaint systems, state and territory ombudsmen with different rules and, in many cases, no clear pathway at all. That complexity deterred complaints, delayed resolutions and too often left students—especially those experiencing sexual harassment, assault, discrimination or systemic barriers—feeling unheard and unsupported. The National Student Ombudsman changed that. It is free for students, independent of universities and equipped with strong investigative powers, similar in nature to those of a royal commission, to examine a broad range of complaints. It can bring parties together to resolve issues, offer restorative engagement processes and alternative dispute resolution where appropriate and make findings and recommendations for university action while monitoring how those recommendations are implemented. It handles complaints on student safety and welfare, racism, gender based violence, course administration, teaching and assessment, facilities, disciplinary processes and reasonable adjustments for both domestic and international students. The early results speak for themselves. As at 31 August 2026, the National Student Ombudsman had received 7,690 student contacts since it opened its doors and had resolved 6,016 of those—78 per cent. These were complaints that, before the ombudsman's establishment, would have had to navigate that fragmented web of systems or in many cases would never have been made at all. Behind those numbers are real stories: a student finally able to access reasonable adjustments after a long battle with their institution, a survivor of sexual assault supported through a restorative process that prioritised their safety and voice, an international student on an offshore campus able to lodge a complaint and seek redress without fear of visa repercussions, a cohort of students whose concerns about unsafe facilities led to tangible changes on campus. The ombudsman has given students a voice in the matters that concern them when they walk through the gates of our universities. Its effect is felt beyond individual students. The ombudsman's statutory functions include educating the sector on best practice for handling complaints, and that work is already lifting standards across universities and other higher education providers. Eighty per cent of higher education providers surveyed by the National Student Ombudsman say they are implementing systems and making service improvements following its advice. That is how you build a safer, fairer, more accountable higher education system—not just by resolving individual cases, but by changing the way institutions respond when things go wrong. The Australian government funded the National Student Ombudsman during its establishment phase. That was the right approach. It allowed the office to stand up quickly, build capacity and begin taking complaints without delay. But, as the service matures and demand stabilises at a high level, it is appropriate to move to a cost recovery model that ensures long-term sustainability. That is exactly what this bill and its associated bill do. This bill establishes the legislative framework to introduce a levy on higher education providers to recover the costs of administering the National Student Ombudsman. The associated bill amends the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Act to provide for collection arrangements associated with the levy and its payment and allows for penalties for late payment. The intent is that the levy will commence from 1 January 2027, which gives providers certainty to plan and ensures there is no gap in funding as we transition from the establishment phase. Most importantly, it will ensure that students can continue to access the National Student Ombudsman free of charge and that the costs of providing this critical service are borne fairly by higher education providers. Some may ask: why not fund the ombudsman from general revenue indefinitely? The answer is simple. Fairness, sustainability and alignment with the 'user pays' principle that underpins much of our regulatory architecture. The ombudsman exists because universities and other higher education providers have a responsibility to their students. When complaints arise, it is appropriate that the sector collectively contributes to the independent mechanism that holds it to account and drives improvement. A levy also creates a clear, transparent link between the service and its beneficiaries. Universities benefit from the ombudsman's work in multiple ways. It reduces the burden on internal complaints processes by offering an external, expert avenue; it provides sector-wide insights that help institutions identify systemic issues before they escalate; and it enhances public confidence in the integrity of Australia's higher education system. In that context, a modest cost recovery levy is a reasonable contribution to a service that strengthens the sector as a whole. Importantly, the design of the levy recognises the diversity of the sector. The regulations will allow for a methodology that can take account of provider size, student numbers and other relevant factors so that the burden is proportionate and equitable. Small and specialist providers will not be treated the same as large, multicampus universities. That flexibility is essential to ensure that the levy supports, rather than distorts, a diverse and innovative higher education landscape. This bill is not just about funding mechanics. It is about protecting students, especially those most at risk of harm and least able to navigate complex systems. The National Student Ombudsman was created in response to well-documented failures in how some institutions handled sexual harassment, sexual assault and gender based violence. It was created because too many students felt silenced, disbelieved or forced to choose between pursuing a complaint and continuing their studies. By securing the ombudsman's funding, we are securing a safe, independent and expert avenue for those students. We are ensuring that a student in a regional campus, an online course or an offshore program has the same access to justice as a student on a main, metropolitan campus. We are ensuring that international students, who may fear repercussions for speaking up, have a confidential, no-wrong-door pathway to raise concerns, and we are ensuring that the ombudsman can continue to publish findings, guidance and sector education that prevent harm before it occurs. The evidence is already clear. Where the ombudsman engages, institutions improve. Where its recommendations are implemented, policies change, training is enhanced and cultures shift. That is the kind of systemic change that keeps students safe and supports their success. This bill sits within a broader reform agenda to make higher education fairer, safer and more responsive to students' needs. Through the universities accord reforms, we have introduced the National Student Ombudsman alongside the National Higher Education Code to Prevent and Respond to Gender-based Violence, expanded free university bridging courses and committed to new regional and suburban university study hubs. We have strengthened demand driven, needs based funding to support students from low socioeconomic backgrounds, First Nations students and those studying in regional areas. The ombudsman is a cornerstone of that architecture. It provides the accountability mechanism that ensures other reforms deliver in practice, not just on paper. Without it, students would have fewer levers to pull when institutions fall short. With it, we have a continuous feedback loop. Complaints inform guidance, guidance informs practice and practice improves outcomes. I acknowledge that some providers will have questions about the precise design of the levy. That is why the bill explicitly requires regulations to set out the calculation method following further consultation with the sector. The department will continue to work closely with universities, private higher education providers, student representatives and other stakeholders to finalise a methodology that is transparent, predictable and fair. If there are concerns about capacity to pay, particularly among smaller or specialist providers, those are exactly the sorts of issues the regulatory design process is intended to address. The government's objective is not to impose an undue burden but to ensure that the ombudsman can continue its work without relying indefinitely on general revenue. A well-designed levy achieves both. The National Student Ombudsman is working. It is resolving the majority of complaints it receives, improving institutional practice across the sector and giving students—especially those who have been silenced in the past—a powerful, independent voice. It costs students nothing, but it makes a profound difference in their lives. This bill ensures that difference endures. It transitions the ombudsman from establishment funding to a sustainable, fair, cost recovery model, with the levy commencing on 1 January 2027. It keeps the service free for students, places the costs where they belong—on the higher education providers who benefit from its existence—and embeds the ombudsman as a permanent feature of Australia's higher education landscape. For the sake of students who have waited decades for this service, for the universities that are already improving because of it and for the integrity of our entire tertiary system, this bill deserves the House's support. I commend the bill to the House. 17:55 Ms COMER 316551 Petrie I rise today in strong support of the National Student Ombudsman Levy Bill 2026. At its core, this bill is about making sure students have somewhere to turn when something goes wrong—somewhere independent, somewhere free, somewhere they'll know they'll be listened to. Importantly, this bill is about making sure that service is properly funded and sustainable into the future. This is an issue that is particularly important to me. When I was studying full-time at the University of the Sunshine Coast, UniSC, not only did I learn through my coursework; I also learnt through my time on the student senate and the university council. University is an incredibly important chapter of many people's lives. It gives them the opportunity to learn, to meet people from completely different backgrounds, to challenge themselves and to become involved in campus life. One of the most important things I took away from my studies was the understanding of just how important it is that students have a voice. While at UniSC, I was elected to serve as co-chair of the student senate and as a member of the university council. I put my hand up for those roles because I wanted to help my peers—my fellow students. I wanted students to know that there was someone prepared to listen to them, someone prepared to advocate for them and someone prepared to make sure their concerns were heard. For me, student representation was never about having a title. It was about making sure that students had a genuine say in decisions that affected their education, their wellbeing and their university experience. Student safety mattered to me then, student voices mattered to me then and they still matter enormously to me today. That is why I feel so strongly about the National Student Ombudsman. No matter how good a university is, some things can go wrong. Universities are enormous organisations. They have faculties, schools, administrative departments, enrolment processes, academic review procedures, placement requirements, complaints systems, appeal processes and pages upon pages of policies. If you work inside those systems every day, they make sense. But, for a student encountering them for the first time, particularly when something has already gone wrong, they can be incredibly difficult to navigate. A student might receive a decision affecting their assessment, their enrolment, their placement or their progression through their degree. Suddenly, that student is not just dealing with the consequences of that decision. They are trying to work out who they need to speak to, what processes they need to follow, what their rights are, whether they can appeal and where they can go if they feel the internal system has failed them. That can be intimidating for anyone, but it can be particularly difficult for a student who has moved away from home for the first time, for an international student learning a completely new education system, for a student with disability, for someone from a disadvantaged background, for the first person in the family to attend university or for someone already dealing with a traumatic experience. Students should not need a law degree just to work out how they can properly have their concerns heard. They should not be bounced from one department to another. When they have exhausted their university's internal complaints processes, they should not feel as though they are completely on their own. That is where the National Student Ombudsman matters. The ombudsman gives higher education students access to a free, independent and trauma informed pathway for complaints that cannot be resolved internally. Every one of those words matters. It is free because access to justice and a fair complaints process should not depend on how much money a student has in their bank account. It is independent because sometimes students need somewhere outside their institution to turn. It is trauma informed because the issues students bring forward can be serious, confronting and deeply personal. There is an obvious power imbalance between an individual student and a major university. One student can be dealing with an organisation with thousands of employees, established administrative structures, detailed policies, professional advisers and lawyers. It is very easy for someone in that situation to feel small, to feel overwhelmed and to feel like nobody is listening. The National Student Ombudsman helps to change that, and we already know that students are using it. The ombudsman commenced operations on 1 February 2025. By 31 August this year it received 7,690 student contacts and had resolved 6,016 matters—that is 78 per cent of all contacts received since the beginning of operations. For a service that has only existed for a relatively short period of time, that is a significant level of demand, but the figure also shows something else. They show that the ombudsman is actually resolving matters. Ninety-three per cent of complaints have been resolved through informal dispute resolution, and that is an important result because a good complaint system does not need to turn every disagreement into a prolonged legal battle. Sometimes, what a student needs is for someone independent to look at what happened, to understand the situation, to make sure the process is being fair and to help find a practical way forward. That is exactly the kind of role the ombudsman is playing. But his work is not limited to individual complaints. One complaint can tell us something much bigger about the way a system is working. It can expose unclear policy, a broken process, poor communication or a weakness in the way complaints are handled. That means helping one student can also help hundreds or even thousands of students who come after them, and we're already seeing that happen. Eighty per cent of higher education providers surveyed by the National Student Ombudsman reported that they were implementing system and service improvements following complaints handling and education engagements with the ombudsman. That is significant. That is not a service that simply receives a complaint, closes the file and moves on. It is helping universities improve, it is helping institutions identify weaknesses and is helping build a better higher education system. That brings me to the levy at the centre of this bill. The National Student Ombudsman is no longer an idea. It is operating, and students are using it. Complaints are being resolved, and universities are making changes because of its work. If we want that work to continue, then we must fund it properly. During the establishment phase, the government bore the operating costs of the National Student Ombudsman. The higher education sector was advised in March 2024 that the government intended to move to a cost recovery model once the ombudsman was established, and this legislation delivers that model. From 1 January 2027, the National Student Ombudsman will move to full cost recovery from the higher education sector. That means the institutions operating within our higher education system will contribute to the cost of maintaining the independent complaints mechanism that supports the accountability across that system. That's fair because, while the Ombudsman provides a service directly to students, the benefits flow across the entire higher education sector. Universities benefit when complaints are resolved earlier, they benefit when systemic problems are identified, they benefit when they receive guidance about improving internal complaints processes, and they benefit when students have greater confidence in the integrity of the higher education system, so it makes sense that the sector should contribute to maintaining that service. One thing this legislation does not do is put that cost onto students, and that is incredibly important. A student should never have to think, 'Can I afford to make a complaint?' Students have already faced significant financial pressure. Many are working while studying. They are paying rent, buying groceries, paying for transport and trying to keep up with their studies while managing all the other costs of everyday life. There should not be another fee standing between them and independent support when they need it most. The levy is designed to recover the operating costs of the Ombudsman in arrears. It is not intended to generate extra revenue for government. This is not a broad new tax. It is not money being collected for an unrelated purpose. It is targeted cost recovery mechanism for a specific service. That is an important distinction. The amount recovered is connected to the cost of operating the National Student Ombudsman, and, importantly, it means students can continue to access the service for free. The government is providing $44.3 million over four years from 2026-27 to underwrite the annual operating cost of the ombudsman with those costs then recovered from higher education providers through the annual levy paid in arrears. That gives the ombudsman certainty, and certainty matters. You cannot have an effective independent complaints body if its staff are constantly wondering whether they will have the resources they need to do the job. Investigating complaints takes resources, supporting informal dispute resolution takes resources, identifying systemic problems takes resources, and working with universities to improve complaints handling takes resources. The people doing this work need the expertise and the capacity to deal with what can often be complex and sensitive matters. This bill gives the ombudsman a sustainable funding base to do exactly that. The legislation also establishes the framework for administering the levy. The detailed rates and methodology will be developed through the regulations and guidelines following further consultation with the higher education sector. That is appropriate because higher education providers are very different. They vary enormously in size, student numbers, structure and location. So while parliament establishes the framework, the detailed operation of the levy can be developed in consultation with those who will be part of that system. The framework also provides for matters including refunds, remission or waiver, penalties for late payment and review of decisions relating to collection and recovery. That provides transparency, it provides accountability and it provides clarity for higher education providers about how the scheme will work. This bill also forms part of a much broader agenda for higher education. In February 2024 the government released the final report on the Australian Universities Accord. That accord set out a major challenge for Australia: over coming decades we need more Australians with the skills and qualifications for the jobs of the future. That means more people going to TAFE, and it means more people going to university. But it cannot simply be about getting students through that front door. We have to support them once they are there. That is why this government has made HECS fairer. It is why we have introduced paid prac, why we have expanded the university study hubs, why we have increased access to free university bridging courses and why we have established the National Student Ombudsman. The ombudsman also forms part of our broader work to address gender based violence in higher education, because when a student is dealing with something as serious as gender based violence or another traumatic experience, they should not be left to navigate a complicated institutional complaints process alone. There needs to be somewhere else to go—somewhere independent, somewhere that understands the seriousness of what they're dealing with. That is what the National Student Ombudsman provides. The title of this bill talks about the levy, but ultimately this bill is about people. It is about the student who feels nobody is listening. It is about the student who has reached the end of an internal process and does not know where to go next. It is about the student who needs someone independent in their corner. It is about making sure that service is still there when they need it. When I think back to my own time at UniSC, I think about how much I enjoyed being a student. I think about serving on the council, and I think about being co-chair of the student senate. I think about why I put my hand up in the first place. It was because I believe that students deserve a voice, I believe their concerns deserve to be heard, and I believe institutions work better when they listen to the people that they work for. University should challenge students—through what they learn, through the ideas they encounter, through the skills they develop and through the ambitions they pursue. It should not challenge them to work out which office will listen to them when something has gone wrong. The National Student Ombudsman gives students another pathway. This bill makes sure that pathway has a sustainable future. It establishes a fair cost recovery model. It ensures the sector contributes to the service which it benefits from and protects free access for students. It gives the National Student Ombudsman the certainty it needs to continue supporting students across Australia. As someone who has been a university student, who has represented students and who understands how important student voices and student safety are, I am incredibly proud to support this legislation. I strongly support the National Student Ombudsman, I strongly support giving students an independent voice when they need one, and I strongly support this bill. I commend the bill to the House. 18:09 Dr GARLAND 295588 Chisholm In February 2024 the Albanese Labor government released the final report of the Australian Universities Accord, a blueprint for higher education reform over the next decade and the decade after that. Our government has made some serious and meaningful progress on the accord's recommendations, having already implemented 30 of the 47 recommendations. Some of our work in this space has included some much-needed, welcome and, quite frankly, overdue reforms. It became apparent during the accord consultation process that we needed to act to help set up our tertiary education system to deliver for Australia's future skills needs. That means more people at TAFE and more people at university. It means acting on HECS to ensure that it is better and fairer for both current and future generations of students. That is why we cut 20 per cent off HECS debts and capped indexation on HECS debts to the lower of the CPI and the WPI. The 20 per cent cut to HECS debts was in fact the first bill to be introduced under the re-elected Albanese Labor government, and I was very pleased that we were able to so quickly deliver on that promise. In total, more than three million Australians have had their HECS debts cut by 20 per cent, and that only happened because of a Labor government. When we introduced our cut to HECS debt, the average student debt was about $27,600, and we've that debt by around $5,520. This is incredibly important to my community. My electorate of Chisholm is full of highly aspirational families who value access to education. There are thousands of students in my community who find themselves studying at Deakin or Monash university or at Holmesglen TAFE. Chisholm saw more than 26,000 people have their HECS debt cut by 20 per cent, and this is so meaningful to people in my community. Also, in relation to HECS, we are moving to a marginal repayment system and are raising the minimum repayment threshold. Another initiative that I know is so important to my community is the introduction of paid prac for the first time, covering many different courses. This means that students don't have to make a decision between completing a course and keeping their job. It affects courses such as teaching, nursing, midwifery and social work. We're also expanding the scheme to include clinical psychology, physiotherapy, occupational therapy, speech pathology, paramedicine, radiography, pharmacy, rehabilitation therapies, audiology and podiatry. We're also making demand-driven Commonwealth supported places available to all First Nation students where they get the marks to get in. And we're establishing the Australian Tertiary Education Commission as a steward of the tertiary education system. I've spoken about the National Student Ombudsman before, as well as the National Higher Education Code to Prevent and Respond to Gender-based Violence, because these reforms are incredibly important to me. In fact, my advocacy for reforms in this space pre-date my election as a member of parliament by many years. Through the accord process, though, I had the opportunity, as an elected member of parliament, to hear directly from students and staff at universities about their own lived experience both on and off campus. It was during that process that I was able to reflect on my own lived experiences and those of my peers throughout my academic life, both as a student who lived on campus and as a staff member in a university. I know how important it was for us to introduce the National Student Ombudsman, and I undertook many consultations in my own community about this. I'm so pleased that Minister Clare has led and delivered on the recommendation to establish the ombudsman. The ombudsman gives all students a free, independent and trauma-informed pathway to escalate complaints about their higher education provider. It was established in response to longstanding failures, frankly, in provider complaint handling. The National Student Ombudsman also supports safer, more accountable and more responsive higher education settings. This was something that many people in my community wanted to see. It came through very clearly from the higher education community survey that I undertook in my electorate. The ombudsman help students who cannot resolve concerns through their provider's internal processes to do so. We know that the demand for the National Student Ombudsman has been significant, which clearly demonstrates that it was absolutely the right decision to move to establish this office when we did. It is necessary. The data backs this up. As of 31 August this year, 2026, the National Student Ombudsman had received 7,690 student contacts and resolved 6,016 of those matters. These numbers are important not only in and of themselves but also because every number represents a person, mostly a young student, who has needed the assistance of the ombudsman. Let's think too of the early indications of the effectiveness of this scheme. We know that already 93 per cent of complaints brought to the National Student Ombudsman have been resolved through informal dispute resolution processes. This is important because it helps support practical outcomes for students while maintaining constructive relationships between students and providers. Indeed, 80 per cent of surveyed providers reported implementing system and service improvements following National Student Ombudsman complaints handling and education engagements. The National Student Ombudsman also provides education and guidance on best practice complaints handling, identifies systemic issues affecting students and contributes to stronger trust in our higher education system. The purpose of the bills before the House today is to ensure that we are able to establish a levy to support the ongoing operation of the National Student Ombudsman and ensure that there is sustainable funding from 1 January 2027. This is an initiative that our government put on the agenda in March 2024, when we made the sector aware of our intention to recover the ongoing operation costs of the National Student Ombudsman. During its establishment phase, the costs of the National Student Ombudsman have been borne by the government, and it is appropriate to now move to a cost-recovery model. The levy helps sustain a service that benefits students, providers and the broader higher education system and ensures it remains a service that's free for students. It is so important, now that the National Student Ombudsman has been stood up and has delivered outcomes for thousands of students, that it is funded to ensure its long-term future. As the Minister for Education has mentioned, the Australian government funded the National Student Ombudsman during its establishment phase. This bill establishes the legislative framework for the next phase, which is to recover costs by introducing a levy on higher education providers. That's the cost of administering the National Student Ombudsman that the levy will pay for. The associated bill will in practice provide for collection arrangements associated with the levy and its payment and will allow for penalties for late payment. In the regulations of the bill, the method for calculation of the amount of the levy will be set out following further consultation with the sector. This move to a cost-recovery model has been part of the design of the National Student Ombudsman since discussions began between the government and the sector in March 2024. It is the intention of this bill that the levy will commence from 1 January 2027. This will ensure that students can continue to access the National Student Ombudsman free of charge. It is once again really significant to emphasise that since February last year we've seen over 7,690 student contacts with more than 6,000 resolved matters. This again demonstrates that the National Student Ombudsman has been good for students and universities and that we really do need to make sure that its future is secured. That means that the critical service relies on the payments by higher education providers through this levy. I know this is going to continue to be an institution that is of great benefit to students in my community, and this is beyond just being part of our work in higher education. The National Student Ombudsman was also part of our action plan to address gender based violence in higher education. Making sure that they have the investigative and dispute resolution powers is really important. This is, of course, connected to our broader work to end gender based violence. One of the important aspects of the function of the ombudsman is that it ensures both domestic and international students have an effective trauma informed complaints mechanism to access when they're not satisfied by their higher education provider's response. I'm really passionate about this reform. It's been a long time coming. I've heard from hundreds and hundreds of people through my community survey in my electorate about the issue of higher education, and safety was consistently raised as a really important issue, so it's important that we're delivering on this and ensuring the future of the National Student Ombudsman through this legislation. It's not easy for people to voice complaints. Indeed, we know in the past people have disengaged from education because they have felt there was no-one who would either listen or act for them when they have had unsafe experiences on their campuses. So I'm really pleased that we're taking the next step to ensure the future of the National Student Ombudsman, an incredibly important part of our higher education architecture in Australia now, and I commend this bill to the chamber. 18:20 Ms COFFEY 312323 Griffith An offer of a university place brings excitement, relief and the chance to imagine a different future. For a school leaver, it can mean the first real step towards work they have dreamed about for years. For a parent returning to study, it can mean a new career and greater security for their family. For the first person in a family to attend university, that offer can carry the hopes of generations. We encourage people to take that step. A student deserves fair treatment throughout their course. They deserve a safe place to learn and a serious response to concerns about their wellbeing, and they deserve somewhere independent to turn to if university lets them down. The National Student Ombudsman provides that independent service and the bill before us, the National Student Ombudsman Levy Bill 206, will support its ongoing operation, keeping it free for students who need help. My commitment to education began long before I entered this parliament. I'm a qualified secondary schoolteacher. I did the university study but haven't actually been a teacher in my career. I believe deeply in the value of learning and in the responsibility we share to give every young person a fair chance. I spent more than 13 years working for the Australian Indigenous Education Foundation, including as the deputy CEO, supporting educational opportunities for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander young people. That work informs the way I think about education policy today. An opportunity has to come with support. A place at an educational institution is the beginning of its responsibility to a student. Young people bring their own abilities and ambitions. Our institutions must provide the conditions for them to learn, ask for help and pursue those ambitions with confidence. For a student studying away from home, a problem at university can feel much harder without family nearby. For someone unfamiliar with university processes, even finding the right person to contact can become an obstacle. And for a student facing racism or discrimination, the response to a complaint can affect their sense of belonging. I want every Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander student to know that they belong in higher education if that is the path that they choose. Their cultures deserve respect. Their concerns deserve attention. We cannot ask students to be confident about their future and then leave them alone to challenge unfair treatment. Our ambition must extend from the offer of a place through to the completion of a qualification with support throughout. These responsibilities have a direct connection to the community I represent. Griffith University's Southbank campus is home to the Queensland Conservatorium and the Queensland College of Art and Design. Students develop their talents in institutions that contribute to the cultural life of our community. At TAFE's Southbank campus, the University of Canberra partnership provides another local avenue into degree study. It brings university education into a setting familiar to many people pursuing practical skills and further qualifications. These students are part of the everyday life of South Brisbane and our surrounding suburbs. They rent homes, work shifts and contribute to local organisations. Some balance study with caring responsibilities. Others have moved away from family to take up their place. A difficult experience with an education provider can reach into every part of that life. An unresolved complaint can consume time meant for assignments. Uncertainty can make it hard to concentrate. A student worried about their safety can struggle to keep up with attending their classes. We should be proud of our education providers and expect them to respond well to concerns. Independent scrutiny supports that expectation. It gives students confidence that someone outside their institution can examine what has happened. The National Student Ombudsman began operating on 1 February last year, following years of calls for stronger student protections. The Australian Universities Accord recommended its establishment. Education ministers included in the national action plan addressing gender based violence in higher education. Our government acted on those calls. Students now have a free, independent service to help address concerns they have been unable to resolve with their higher education provider. Its work includes complaints about student safety and fairness of complaint processes. It can examine concerns about reasonable adjustments for students with a disability and aspects of course administration. Think of a student seeking an adjustment that will help them participate in their course. Repeated requests go unanswered, and an assessment deadline approaches. They need a clear response and a fair process. They need to know what happens next. Or think of a student reporting harassment and then struggling to obtain information about the handling of their complaint. Each unanswered email can deepen their uncertainty. Each delay can make continuing their education more difficult. The ombudsman provides independent examination of the provider's actions. It can bring parties together to resolve problems, make recommendations and monitor the provider's response. That independence is a practical protection for students dealing with an institution that holds considerable influence over their future. We should recognise the imbalance a student can face in that situation. A university has established procedures, experienced administrators and access to professional advice. A student making a complaint for the first time can feel overwhelmed by the process before anyone has examined the substance of their concern. They can worry about damaging relationships with the people responsible for their education. They can question whether speaking up will make their circumstances harder. An independent ombudsman gives them another avenue to pursue a fair response. The importance of that work lies in its ability to examine an institution's actions, seek explanations and recommend changes. A student's concern receives scrutiny beyond the provider's own processes. Independence must come with the capacity to act. The ombudsman's investigative powers and ability to monitor recommendations give substance to the right to raise a concern. Students deserve a process that looks carefully at the evidence and treats everyone fairly, and providers deserve clear findings that help them understand what went wrong and what needs to change. Students who experienced sexual violence spoke about the harm they suffered and the failures in the institutional responses that followed. They asked for accountability, and they sought changes that would protect other students from similar experiences. In September 2024, End Rape On Campus Australia, the STOP Campaign and Fair Agenda welcomed the legislation to establish the ombudsman. The founder of the STOP Campaign said: We shouldn't have had to share the horrors of what we experienced to get change. No student should have to make their most painful experiences public to persuade an institution to take their safety seriously. For someone already managing the effects of trauma, pursuing a complaint can require enormous effort. Retelling an experience, gathering correspondence and waiting for a response can add to that burden. The way a service listens can influence whether a person feels able to continue to seek help. That is why the ombudsman's trauma-informed work is so important. Respectful treatment must be part of the complaint process from the first contact through until its outcome. The national code to prevent and respond to gender-based violence forms another part of our government's work on student safety. The ombudsman provides independent complaint handling; the code sets expectations for prevention and responses to gender-based violence. This bill supports the continuing work of the ombudsman with that wider effort. As of last month, the National Student Ombudsman had received 7,690 student contacts and resolved over 6,000 matters. That represents 78 per cent of contacts received since it began operating. The service has resolved 93 per cent of complaints through informal dispute resolution processes. That tells us something useful about the work involved. Independent complaint handling can help people reach practical outcomes without every dispute requiring a lengthy formal investigation. That value extends beyond the individual matter. 80 per cent of providers surveyed said the ombudsman reported implementing improvements to systems and services following its complaint-handling and education arrangements. A complaint can reveal a problem affecting another student who may never have raised it themselves. Fixing that problem can prevent further harm and save other students the effort of pursuing the same concern. The ombudsman helps providers recognise those patterns and improve their complaint handling. Better complaint handling gives staff clearer processes and gives students clearer answers. It can help an institution respond earlier, before a problem grows more serious or a student loses confidence in seeking help. The ombudsman's work reaches students who never contact the service themselves. They benefit from improvements made after someone else raised the concern. We should judge the service by that wider contribution, alongside the individual matter that it resolves. That is a reason to support its ongoing work across the higher education sector. This legislation forms part of our government's response to the Australian Universities Accord. We have implemented more than 30 of the accord's 47 recommendations in full or in part. We have cut HECS debts by 20 per cent and made indexation fairer. We have raised the minimum repayment threshold and changed repayments so that they better reflect people's incomes. We have introduced paid prac, expanded access to free university bridging courses and invested in more regional and suburban university study hubs. The ombudsman addresses another barrier: the risk that unfair treatment or an unresolved complaint will push someone out of their course. Every student who feels forced to abandon their studies carries the cost of that lost opportunity. Their family can feel it too, particularly after years of encouragement and sacrifice to help get them there. We should take that possibility seriously in every discussion about student support. The National Student Ombudsman helps uphold the promise we make to every student who accepts an offer of a place. Their education deserves our investment, their safety deserves our attention and their right to a fair hearing deserves a service they can rely on. 18:30 Mr BURNELL 300129 Spence The National Student Ombudsman Levy Bill 2026 is about ensuring that students across Australia continue to have access to a free, independent and effective ombudsman for their needs. This is also about making sure that this important service has a sustainable funding model for the future. To understand why that matters, it's worth looking at the broader transformation taking place across Australia's tertiary education system. In February 2024, the Albanese Labor government released the final report of the Australian Universities Accord. That accord provides a blueprint for reforming higher education, not simply for the next few years but for the next decade and the decade after that. The jobs our young people will enter are changing, the skills businesses require are changing and the qualifications Australians will need throughout their working lives are changing as well. Over the coming decades, around 80 per cent of people in our workforce will need a certificate, diploma or university degree. Reaching that level will require more Australians going to TAFE. It will require more Australians going to university. Importantly, it will require our tertiary education system to reach people and communities who have historically been underrepresented in higher education. Already, the Albanese Labor government has implemented more than 30 of the accord's 47 recommendations, either in full or in part. We have made HECS fairer by cutting student debts by 20 per cent. Changes to indexation mean HECS debts are now indexed by the lower of the consumer price index or wage price index. We have increased the minimum repayment threshold and moved towards a marginal repayment system. Those reforms recognise that getting an education should help Australians get ahead in life, not leave them feeling as though they are falling further behind. Alongside those changes, this government has introduced paid prac for the first time. For generations of students, compulsory placements have presented a very real financial challenge. We are changing that. It means more students can focus on completing the practical training they need without having to choose between their qualification and paying their bills. As well as this, access to university itself has also been expanded. The government is doubling the number of university study hubs, with 20 new regional university study hubs and 14 new suburban university study hubs. I had the pleasure of seeing what this means first-hand to my community in the north. In January, I joined the Minister for Education to open Uni Hub Playford. For communities like mine, initiatives like Uni Hub Playford matter enormously. Not every student can simply pack their bags, move closer to a major university campus or reorganise their life around study. People have families, jobs, caring responsibilities, community commitments. Some are the first people in their family to consider university and may not have the networks or support that others may take for granted. Bringing university support closer to where people live helps break down those barriers. It tells students in the northern suburbs that higher education is for them too. The government has also increased the number of free university bridging courses, helping more Australians build the skills and confidence necessary to begin higher education. However, a world-class university system cannot simply be measured by the number of students who walk through the door. It must be also judged by what happens to those students once they are in sight. Students need confidence that, when something goes wrong, their concerns will be heard. They need confidence their complaints will be taken seriously. Most importantly, there must be somewhere independent for students to turn when the internal process of their institution failed to resolve their concerns. That is why the National Student Ombudsman is so important. For the first time, higher education students across Australia have access to a free, independent and trauma-informed service where they can escalate complaints about their provider. For too long, students who experienced serious problems could find themselves navigating the very institution they were complaining about in order to seek a resolution. Many institutions worked hard to resolve complaints appropriately, but longstanding failures in complaints handling across parts of the sector demonstrated the need for an independent pathway. The National Student Ombudsman provides that pathway. So, when students cannot resolve an issue through their provider's internal processes, they now have somewhere else to turn. That can involve individual complaints, but the work of the ombudsman goes much further than that. It identifies systemic issues affecting students. Through its investigations and engagement with providers, it provides guidance about best-practice complaints handling. That work helps improve governance across the sector and provides insights that institutions can use to improve their own systems. In turn, that strengthens trust between students and their universities. The early results demonstrate just how necessary this service has been. As of 31 August 2026, the National Student Ombudsman had received 7,690 student contacts. It had resolved 6,016 of those matters, representing 78 per cent of all contacts received since it commenced operations. Even more encouragingly, 93 per cent of complaints have been resolved through informal dispute-resolution processes. That means practical outcomes have been achieved for students while, where possible, constructive relationships between students and providers are maintained. There is also evidence that this work is driving change beyond individual complaints. Of higher education providers surveyed by the National Student Ombudsman, 80 per cent reported that they were implementing system or service improvements following complaints-handling and education engagements. That is exactly what we should want from the ombudsman. The objective should not simply be to resolve one complaint and move on to the next; we should learn from those complaints. Providers should be able to identify where systems have failed, understand why they have failed and make changes so that other students do not experience the same problems. The question before us, through these bills, is how we sustainably fund that work into the future. During the establishment phase, the costs of the National Student Ombudsman have been covered by the Australian government. The government made the higher education sector aware in March 2024 of its intention to move towards recovering the ongoing costs of the ombudsman's operations. The 2026-27 budget confirmed the next stage of that process. These bills deliver on the government's budget measure to undertake full cost-recovery of the National Student Ombudsman's operations from the higher education sector from 1 January 2027. The National Student Ombudsman Levy Bill establishes the legislative framework for a levy on higher education providers. That levy will recover the costs associated with administering the National Student Ombudsman. It will apply to all higher education providers registered with the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency from 1 January 2027. Importantly, this levy is about cost recovery. It's not designed to become another revenue stream for government. Operating costs will be recovered in arrears, and the levy is not intended to generate additional revenue beyond the costs of operating the National Student Ombudsman. The precise method used to calculate the amount payable will be established through regulations or guidelines, following further consultation with the higher education sector. That consultation is important because Australia's higher education sector is diverse, with no two institutions the same. Providers vary significantly in size, structure and the number of students they serve. The framework established by this legislation allows the government to undertake that further consultation before settling the detailed calculation arrangements. Alongside the levy bill, the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Amendment (National Student Ombudsman Levy) Bill establishes the associated collection arrangements. Payment of the levy, along with any applicable penalty for late payment, will become a condition of registration for higher education providers. Together, these bills provide the legislative architecture required for a sustainable cost-recovery model. The government is providing $44.3 million over four years from 2026-27 to underwrite the annual operating costs of the National Student Ombudsman. Those costs will then be recovered annually from higher education providers through the levy. Critically, students themselves will not be charged. The National Student Ombudsman will remain free for students. That principle is fundamental to this legislation. A student experiencing a serious problem with their provider should never have to ask whether they can afford to have their complaint independently considered. Financial circumstances should not determine whether someone can seek help, nor should we establish an independent complaint system and then place a financial barrier in front of the students who need to use it. Under this model, the sector contributes towards maintaining the independent system that supports accountability and improvement across that same sector. Providers benefit from better complaints handling, and they benefit from identifying systemic problems earlier. Universities benefit when students have greater confidence in their institutions, and the entire higher education system benefits when there are clear and independent mechanisms for accountability. This reform should therefore be considered as part of the much broader work under way across tertiary education. The universities accord has given Australia a roadmap for where our higher education system needs to go. As we move forward as a nation, we need more Australians gaining qualifications. That means opening the doors of universities and TAFE to people who might previously have thought those opportunities were beyond their reach. Reducing financial barriers is an important part of making higher education more accessible, and bringing study opportunities close to where people live gives more Australians the chance to pursue a qualification without having to uproot their lives. Supporting students through compulsory placements helps ensure financial pressure does not stand between them and completing their degree. Expanding opportunities for First Nations Australians is equally important so that more students have the ability and ambition to attend university, and that they have a genuine pathway to do so. Yet increasing participation is only one half of the job. Once we encourage more Australians into higher education, we also have a responsibility to ensure that the system works for them. Students deserve safe learning environments; they deserve institutions that respond appropriately when problems arise. When internal processes do not work, they deserve access to an independent avenue for resolving their concerns. The National Student Ombudsman provides that avenue. In a little over a year and a half of operation, thousands of students have already reached out for assistance, thousands of matters have been resolved, and providers are changing their system as a result. That demonstrates the value of this reform and reinforces why it needs a sustainable funding base. For those reasons, I commend this bill to the house. 18:42 Mr HILL 86256 Bruce I'll sum up the debate. These two bills relate to the funding of the National Student Ombudsman. I got excited when the shadow minister walked in—obviously because I love seeing him and because he's got an excellent first name. I've always approved of that. There was that unfortunate term when we had another one, but he wasn't so good, so we dealt with him. But I understand he's here for the next debate. Anyway, I do thank all members who've spoken, especially the government members. I think that last contribution summed up very well the broader context in which this bill sits and the work that the government's done to improve access and equity to higher education—particularly and perhaps most importantly for those students from the suburbs and the regions who may be the first in their families to go to university or pursue higher education or, indeed, TAFE. It's just as important. You referred to the study hubs, cutting 20 per cent off all student debt, prac payments and so much more. It's certainly the passion that drives the Minister for Education. It's the consistent thread through his work in early childhood, in schools funding and in post-school funding, and it's core to the mission of a Labor government. That's a speech for another day. One of my family stories is about how my mum couldn't afford the uniforms to go and finish year 12, and could never achieve her dream of being a doctor and going to uni. It's core to our Labor values. Within that context, the work of the National Student Ombudsman is so important. It has given students a voice in the matters that concern them when they walk through the gates of our universities, and it's helping our universities to implement best practice too. It's really important that it be set up for success to continue its work into the future. These bills establish the legislative framework to introduce a levy on higher education providers to recover the costs of administering the National Student Ombudsman and provide for collection arrangements associated with the levy and its payment. It's nerdy, and it's niche, but it's important. The method for calculation of the amount of the levy will be set out in the regulations to this bill, following further consultation with the sector, and the bill makes clear—importantly, I'll finish on this point—that will be on a cost recovery basis. These things are done in accordance with the government's cost recovery framework, as is appropriate, and I commend the bills to the House. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment. Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Amendment (National Student Ombudsman Levy) Bill 2026 121

Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Amendment (National Student Ombudsman Levy) Bill 2026

Second Reading 121 CONDOLENCES 122 CONDOLENCES Gaudron, Hon. Mary Genevieve, KC 122 18:45 Mr LEESER 109556 Berowra It's a great honour to rise to speak and pay tribute to the Hon. Mary Gaudron KC, a former justice of the High Court, a trailblazing Australian lawyer, the first woman to be appointed to the High Court and somebody who I want to add my personal tribute to, having been an associate on the High Court, which she served on—in my case, an associate to her colleague the Hon. Ian Callinan AC, KC. I want to acknowledge my friend the member for Fenner, who worked a couple of years before I did, for Justice Kirby, on the same court and will no doubt provide some of his own reflections on Mary Gaudron. I want to say the names of some country towns here: Wingham, Casino, Gympie, Newcastle and Moree. They're five Australian country towns, and five of the seven justices on the Gleeson court, on which I was privileged to be an associate, grew up in country Australia. Mary Gaudron grew up in Moree, and her story is a great Australian story—a girl from a modest background who, by dint of her intellect and her application and her burning sense of justice, rose to be a leader in her profession and ultimately a trailblazing lawyer: the first and, to this point, only woman to be Solicitor-General of New South Wales; the youngest person ever to be appointed to a federal court in our history; and the first woman to be appointed a justice of the High Court. She was a remarkable trailblazer, and I think it says something good about Australia, but it also says something particularly about the legal profession that then, as now and as it has been historically, it has been a way in which people from modest circumstances, through application and intellect, can rise. That was certainly the case with Mary Gaudron. Mary Gaudron's career was remarkable. Inspired by Dr HV Evatt, who was visiting her town and presented her with a copy of the Constitution during the 1951 Communist Party dissolution referendum, she went from being a recipient of a document from a great Australian lawyer to being somebody who ultimately interpreted the law. She attended St Ursula's College in Armidale before going on to Sydney university, where as a part-time student she became the first female part-time student to win the university medal. Winning the university medal and coming first in your year at law school is always an extraordinary achievement, but when you think she was at law school with such great intellects as her later colleague former justice Bill Gummow, who is no slouch, particularly as an intellect and particularly in equity, it shows the level of intellect and intellectual attainment that Justice Gaudron brought. She was somebody who had a burning passion for equality. She was briefed by the Whitlam government. Clyde Cameron had met her before they came to government, and she was briefed by him to present the government's case in the equal pay case. Some of the work that she did on maternity leave and equal pay she regarded as some of her most important work. At only 31, she was appointed Deputy President of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission as a judge. She later became Solicitor-General of New South Wales, and in 1987 the Hawke government appointed her to the High Court. I want to make some observations for myself about the sort of judge she was. Firstly, as a former solicitor-general, she was always tough on governments and particularly tough on the Commonwealth; although I think on federal versus state debates the record will show that her sympathies lay with the Commonwealth over the states in the main. She was particularly tough on governments that weren't there arguing for a full throated position. Secondly, she was unsympathetic to government agencies that cried poor. That was not something that she was particularly interested in. Thirdly, she was very forceful. When she put an argument, she put it in a forceful manner and she wanted to hear the proposition tested. She didn't do it to pick on counsel; she did it because she was interested in the argument and interested in the law. My memory of her is of being great company and great dinner company in particular. I had the privilege of not only having dinner with her several times as an associate. Subsequently, when she retired, I would visit her even in her home with my friend and former flatmate Haroon Hassan, who was her associate, and would have a few champagnes with her. It was always great company. She was not a partisan figure, but I think it was clear that she had strong Labor values. The Labor Party had appointed her to her various offices, she spoke at the funeral of Justice Lionel Murphy, and she was a bit taken aback that I wanted to leave the legal profession to work for Tony Abbott when he was a minister in the Howard government. That was probably a bit far for her! She loved stirring the possum. She loved having a debate. She had a wonderful sense of humour. I want to say something about some of the messages that some of her associates have given me. I know that my friend the member for Fenner is going to mention some of those other things. I want to mention a few of them. The first of her associates I want to mention is Rick Kalowski. Rick went on to have a glittering career, including as Head of Comedy at the ABC. Rick has been a sort of guardian angel for me in my own career. I would never have been an associate to Justice Callinan had Rick not suggested to me that I might enjoy doing this and that I should apply, so I'm very grateful to him. When I asked Rick to provide a memory of Mary Gaudron, he said: I loved her. She was perhaps the single most important mentor and teacher to me in my professional life. And she was modest to the point of occasional oddity. For example, the angriest I ever saw her with me—and there was a solid Top 10 of those—was when I had the audacity to want to fact check with her, details of her own actual life for the section I was asked to write in The Oxford Companion to the High Court of Australia. This is how modest she truly was. It wasn't just people like Rick that she influenced. There was former attorney-general Nicola Roxon. There were judges of the Court of Appeal of New South Wales, like Richard McHugh. There are academics. There is former lawyer, Jesuit priest and a good friend of mine father Frank Brennan. A beautiful note was sent to me by Fiona Phillips, who is one of her former associates, that reflects on Mary Gaudron's horror at the antisemitism that we've seen in recent years. She writes: Mary was the first person to call me in January 2025 when news broke that my street had been firebombed. And later that year, following the Bondi Massacre she got in touch to see how I was "bearing up", signing off her message "Equality for all. Mary G". I mentioned my friend Haroon Hassan a moment ago. It says something lovely about your year as an associate—and I'm sure that my friend the member for Fenner would feel the same—that you meet these extraordinary judges with extraordinary intellects, you see them debate each other in court, you see them debate each other outside and you see people who can disagree, yet they're not disagreeable and they enjoy each other's company. Such was the case with the associates too. Haroon had stood for the Australian Democrats in the Senate. He had a Pakistani Muslim background. His father had been a distinguished academic, and his father and mother introduced me to the beautiful cello of Jacqueline du Pré. Haroon wrote beautifully of Justice Gaudron: What that almost unfathomable record of achievement cannot convey is what it was like to work beside her. She devoured information and could cut to the heart of a complex appeal with a single withering question. She painstakingly drafted her judgements in longhand, in purple ink from a trusted fountain pen. She edited with a severity reserved for her own prose; no sentence that could not justify itself survived. She was impatient with incompetence and pomposity but unfailingly courteous to those without power, from the most junior counsel to the court attendants and registry staff. Her jurisprudence rested on a conviction, infused throughout her judgements (and stated more bluntly in chambers), that equality before the law must mean something concrete. Her other associate in my year is the remarkable Lucy Martinez. Lucy like Mary was a girl from a country area, Townsville, who has gone on to have an extraordinarily glittering career as an international arbitrator. Whenever Justice Gaudron and Justice Callinan would write together, I was always the beneficiary of the extraordinary editing that Lucy did. Her brain was far more powerful than mine. In fact, I saw a tribute that the American legal academic Noah Feldman recently made of Amy Coney Barrett. I think it is remarkable of Lucy too, and it shows the calibre of people that Justice Gaudron chose. Noah Feldman said of Amy Coney Barrett, and I would say of Lucy Martinez, that she is legally technically a genius and one of the strongest lawyers I've ever encountered. The fact that she could start a practice, having worked as an international arbitrator overseas, and then run that practice from Townsville says something about the great start she got from Mary Gaudron, as did so many others who were privileged to work with her. Mary Gaudron was at the High Court during the Mason, Brennan and Gleeson years. She was there for all of those big cases, whether it was the Mabo case on native title, the implied freedoms case or cases dealing with chapter III of the Constitution and expanding judicial power. Mary Gaudron played a key role in all of those cases. She will be remembered as a lion of the law, as a trailblazing female lawyer and as a wonderful and great Australian. May her memory be a blessing. 18:56 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fenner It's a pleasure to follow my friend and colleague the member for Berowra in rising to pay tribute to the Hon. Justice Mary Genevieve Gaudron KC, former Justice of the High Court of Australia. I came to know Justice Gaudron when I worked as associate to Justice Michael Kirby from 1997 to 1998. She was generous, confident, warm and funny. She took an interest in the associates and treated us with kindness. Justice Gaudron was born in Moree in 1943. She won a scholarship to the University of Sydney and graduated with the University Medal. She was the first female part-time student to receive the medal. She was admitted to the New South Wales bar in 1968. In 1972, she became the first woman appointed to the New South Wales Bar Council. She appeared for the Commonwealth before the arbitration commission in the equal pay case. In 1974, aged 31, she became a deputy president of the commission. She later regarded the equal pay case and the maternity leave case as among the highlights of her career. The latter helped establish a general federal award standard of up to 52 weeks' unpaid maternity leave. Her concern with equality was constant throughout her professional life. In 1981, Justice Gaudron became Solicitor-General for New South Wales. She was the first woman to hold that office in any Australian state. Soon afterwards, she became the first woman in New South Wales to be appointed Queen's Counsel. As Solicitor-General, she appeared frequently before the High Court, including in the Tasmanian dam case. The Australian Law Journal described her advocacy as 'outstanding and ingenious'. In 1987, at the age of 44, Justice Gaudron was appointed to the High Court of Australia. She was the first woman to serve on the court and the only woman to serve on the court during its first century. Naomi Sharp SC, one of Justice Gaudron's former associates, remembers her truly incredible intellect, her elegant, persuasive and relentlessly logical reasoning and her leading role in the court's chapter III jurisprudence. She also recalls Justice Gaudron's strength of character, her steadfast integrity and her belief that we are always diminished by the absence of equality. Justice Gaudron made significant contributions to the law governing native title, judicial power, equality and the freedom of political communication. In Mabo, she and Justice Deane described the dispossession of Aboriginal peoples as the darkest aspect of the history of this nation. In Dietrich, she joined the majority in recognising that the right to a fair trial could justify a stay where an indigent accused faced serious charges without legal representation. In Australian Capital Television, she helped shape the implied freedom of political communication. In Kable, she joined the majority in holding that state parliaments could not confer functions on state courts that were incompatible with their place in an integrated national judicial system. Her thinking about equality also shaped her constitutional jurisprudence. In Street v Queensland Bar Association, and later in Castlemaine Tooheys, she developed the idea that discrimination could involve the unequal treatment of equals and the equal treatment of unequals. Her chapter III judgements emphasised equal treatment under law, judicial independence and the requirement that judicial power be exercised according to judicial process. In Leeth, she would have invalidated a law under which Commonwealth offenders could receive different treatment depending on the state or territory in which they were tried. In Wilson, she joined the majority in holding invalid a law that directed judges to perform functions threatening public confidence in the judiciary. Former Gaudron, associate Rick Kalowski's entry in the Oxford companion to the High Court of Australia describes Justice Gaudon as a rigid logician, while noting her reluctance to depart from precedent without carefully reconsidering its correctness. Haroon Hassan, who also served as her associate, recalls what Justice Gaudron was like to work for: She devoured information and could cut to the heart of a complex appeal with a single withering question. She … drafted her judgements longhand, in purple ink from a trusted fountain pen. She edited rigorously. As Haroon puts it, 'No sentence that could not justify itself survived.' He also recalls that she was 'impatient with incompetence and pomposity, but unfailingly courteous to those without power, from the most, junior counsel to the court attendants and registry staff' and, I should add, the associates. Justice Gaudron was also great company. Naomi Sharp remembers her as a tremendous entertainer and a gifted and witty raconteur whose humour ran to the wicked. She recalls that Justice Gaudron could literally hold court and was known to spring into Irish songs. Haroon Hassan remembers her irrepressible sense of fun, her compassion and her commitment to social justice. Her impromptu champagne parties were, he says, the stuff of legend. He recalls Justice Gaudron in full flight, cigarette in one hand and champagne glass in the other, telling stories in gravelly tones. Rick Kalowski remembers how little interest she had in burnishing her own reputation. When he tried to fact check details of her life for that entry, she became angry with him for doing so. Rick says, 'That's how modest she truly was.' Her loyalty was also demonstrated after the death of Justice Murphy in 1986. Kalowski recalls that Justice Gaudron spoke powerfully at his memorial service at the Sydney Town Hall to a packed audience. Former Gaudron associate Fiona Phillips recalls that when Justice Gaudron and Justice Toohey were appointed to the High Court the following year, Justice Gaudron asked to take what had been Justice Murphy's chambers. Phillips notes that Justice Murphy was somewhat of a pariah at the time and regards the decision as characteristic of Justice Gaudron's loyalty and fearlessness. As her colleague on the bench, Justice Michael Kirby recalls Justice Gaudron's unwavering support for women's equality; for him and his partner, Johan van Vloten; and for members of minorities. He remembers her as a strong and consistent champion of article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. Justice Gaudron's example stirred others. Gina Cass-Gottlieb recalls how inspiring it was as a young lawyer to see the first woman appointed to the High Court. She recalls Justice Gaudron mentoring many women lawyers and told me simply, 'She really was loved.' Naomi Sharp describes Justice Gaudron as someone who blasted past every closed door, paving the way for generations of grateful women who followed. Her former associates remember her generosity with her time and support and the privilege of having her in their lives. Haroon Hassan writes that Justice Gaudron's legacy lies partly in the proposition she embodied that the highest court in its land is strengthened by voices that had, until 1987, never been heard there. He observes that many women who have since been sworn into superior courts have followed a path she trod alone for far too long. Justice Gaudron served on the High Court until 2003. She then served as a judge of the International Labor Organisation's Administrative Tribunal from 2003 to 2012, including as its president from 2009 to 2011. Justice Gaudron changed the law and changed the legal profession. She was kind to her associates and served as the mentor to many. Mary Gaudron helped make Australia a fairer and more inclusive country, and she reminded those around her that being a leader doesn't mean you have to stop enjoying life. To her family, friends, colleagues and former associates, I offer my condolences. 19:05 Dr HAINES 282335 Indi It is a privilege and an honour to stand here today and make some remarks about the incredible Justice Mary Gaudron. One of the things I love about being a parliamentarian is coming to these debates, these condolence motions, where I hear from my colleagues and learn so much about the people that we're honouring with a motion such as this. I thank the member for Fenner for his extraordinary remarks and the detail around Justice Gaudron's extraordinary contribution to the law. He was able to speak with such eloquence about matters of law, logic and legacy not only from a legal professional perspective but from a human perspective. I won't speak so much of the detail of that, although I'm sure there'll be much repetition in what I have to say and what others have documented. I'll speak more plainly, really, of Justice Gaudron's humanity and her characteristic rural style, which certainly appealed to me as a rural woman. So it is that today I rise to acknowledge the passing and indeed the most extraordinary life of the Hon. Mary Gaudron KC. Much has been made of Justice Gaudron's status as a pioneer, and rightly so. While I don't want to repeat my colleagues, it's impossible not to acknowledge some of her many firsts, and we must not ever forget the firsts that this woman forged. She was the first woman appointed Queen's Counsel in New South Wales. She was the first female solicitor-general in that state or anywhere in Australia, and both the first female and the youngest person to become a federal judge. Then, of course, in 1987, which is really not very long ago, she became the first woman appointed to the High Court of Australia, and she certainly was not the last woman appointed. Justice Gaudron was acutely aware that she would pave the way or not for other women to come, later saying she didn't want to be the first and the last, or to give anyone cause to say, 'We tried a woman and it didn't work.' Well, they tried it, and it did work. Justice Gaudron has been followed in her firsts by scores of talented and capable women—so many, in fact, that it's easy to forget that it wasn't always this way. Justice Gaudron was forced to resign her part-time job at the Crown Solicitor's Office after getting married because—yes, it's hard to believe, but it's true—at the time, married women weren't permitted to work in the Public Service. She was the first woman to ever speak at a High Court swearing-in ceremony, and it was her own—extraordinary. Justice Gaudron's groundbreaking career began not in the well-appointed suburbs of large cities like Melbourne or Sydney but at a local convent school—so familiar to us in rural and regional Australia—in north-western New South Wales. I think in the past few days we've all heard that fabulous story of young Mary from Moree receiving a copy of the Constitution from a visiting Doc Evatt. She was determined to be a barrister—again, incredible for a young girl in a country town, who I'm sure wouldn't have met too many barristers and obviously hadn't met any women barristers. She was determined to become one, and so she did. She ignored the advice of a local solicitor who suggested perhaps she should consider a job at the telephone exchange instead. It's a classic story of the grit and the persistence of Mary Gaudron and, more broadly, the grit and persistence of many rural women who've had to break through such barriers. Justice Gaudron's ferocious intellect was matched by her equally ferocious commitment to social justice, something she acknowledged was shaped by her working-class upbringing in regional Australia—not that she thought her background was or should be remarkable on the High Court, because to her it was self-evident that the judiciary should reflect the whole of Australian society. She was known as fiery and quick witted but always plain spoken. On hearing that the vice-chancellor of the University of Sydney had wanted to award the university law medal to the male student who came second to her, Justice Gaudron is said to have observed, 'The only difference between us is that I sit down to pee.' I had the honour of working with Justice Gaudron on the development of legislation for a federal anticorruption commission, something she'd been advocating for since 2017. When Justice Gaudron first came to my office with a team of other extraordinary and experienced judges, one of my staff, a young woman and a law graduate, told me that meeting Mary Gaudron was a dream come true. She could barely speak when Mary Gaudron walked into the room. Of course, as we've heard, there was no-one kinder to young professional women and young lawyers—and young women anywhere, actually—than Mary Gaudron. Indeed, it really is one of the greatest privileges of serving in this parliament to meet and work with people of the stature of Justice Gaudron. For someone of such huge stature, she actually wasn't very big; she was quite small. One of my fond memories of that time of developing that legislation for an anticorruption commission was doing a press conference with a whole range of retired judges. Justice Gaudron came along, but she said, 'I don't do press conferences; I'm not going to do a press conference.' I managed to persuade her, and she said, 'I'll do it, but I do need to have a cigarette first.' So here she was, this amazing, courageous woman who I had the great, great pleasure—I don't generally like being around when someone's smoking a cigarette, but, by golly, you wouldn't get me between her and the outside garden. So out we went. We had a chat about what we'd talk about in this press conference. She had a cigarette. She came out, and the press were waiting for her. You could have heard a pin drop. They wanted to hear what Justice Gaudron had to say. We all did. Justice Gaudron's legacy will persist in all for whom she paved the way, and her legacy will also persist for a just and equal Australia. I offer my heartfelt condolences to her family, her friends and her associates, all of whom I know are so proud to have been associated with Justice Mary Gaudron. Vale. May she rest in peace. 19:12 Ms CLUTTERHAM 316101 Sturt It's a privilege to rise today to speak about the Hon. Mary Gaudron KC, the first woman to take silk in New South Wales, the first woman to serve as state solicitor general and, in 1987, the first woman appointed to the High Court of Australia. I rise not as someone who knew Justice Gaudron, as my friends the member for Fenner, the member for Indi and the member for Berowra did; all made heartfelt and meaningful contributions this evening. But I rise as someone who was impacted by her and who greatly admired and respected her. I wish I had had the chance to meet her and go to one of her champagne parties that the member for Fenner told us about this evening, which sounded truly excellent. I commenced my law degree at the then University of Adelaide in March 2001, in my second year of uni. I was two months shy of being 19, and I found law really hard. At the University of Adelaide there was a really heavy focus on legal theory and a great emphasis on precedent with hours spent trying to find the obiter and distinguish it from the ratio in really dense, long judgements. In 2001, the composition of the High Court of Australia was as follows: Chief Justice Anthony Gleeson, Justice Michael McHugh, Justice William Gummow, Justice Michael Kirby, Justice Kenneth Hayne and Justice Ian Callinan—all men. We also, of course, had Justice Mary Gaudron, the only woman. I admired her greatly. As part of the Bachelor of Laws degree, as I said, we had to read a lot of High Court judgements. To be frank, the most popular judge wasn't Justice Gaudron; it was Justice Kirby. His progressive approach made him stand out on that bench, which I thought generally applied a more conservative black-letter approach to the Constitution, so I too was on the Kirby bandwagon. But there was another judge I always sought out when reading a judgement, and that was Justice Mary Gaudron. I was not alone in seeking her out. What did she say? What did she think? What perspective did she bring? Did she write the majority or join it? Did she write a dissent or join it? Her views were always of great interest to me, not only because of the high-quality way that she constructed her position and the high-quality way she analysed the various competing and complex arguments put before her but, yes, because she was a woman, that first woman on that High Court bench dominating and leading and being excellent in a profession that was, throughout her career, absolutely run by men. We've all heard her stories—law firms telling her they don't hire women as a general policy, barristers' chambers refusing her the opportunity to buy into a room when she joined the bar in 1968. But she persevered and she succeeded in circumstances when it might have been easier to stop and do something else. She had something to offer—a great intellect, work ethic and a sense of social justice—and she wanted to contribute, and jurisprudence in this country is better for her having had the gumption to just ignore those who told her no, to just crack on and find her own path. That path led her to be appointed to the High Court bench at the age of 44. That's my age right now, which is why I find her feat even more remarkable. Having reached this age of 44, I think I admire her and her achievements more than ever now. When I started reading Justice Gaudron's judgement in the early stages of this century, it was in an era when the legal profession was dominated by men still. More women than men were starting to study law at university but there was a dearth of female barristers, a dearth of female senior associates, special counsel and partners. The way that the law was practised was heavily and almost exclusively about how much time you were present in the office, slaving away over those little billable hours. It wasn't conducive with having a family or, frankly, a life. There also remain stubborn attitudes about women's capability, intellect, together with questions about whether they possess the necessary aggression and disposition to really handle being a top lawyer. These attitudes persisted during my 20-year career, but I always thought, 'If Justice Gaudron could do it then so could I and so could other women.' I saw women lawyers routinely allocated tasks like preparing documents to go in a brief to counsel, with their male colleagues—often more junior—getting to write the actual brief to counsel. I saw women regularly allocated to smaller cases, which would bring in less money for a firm, or allocated to non-billable work like presentations and articles, with their male colleagues given roles speaking to and directly advising clients. This happened regularly. At a previous firm I was working at in the not too distant past, there was one woman partner in the whole of Australia. When I asked the male global managing partner what the plan was to mentor, sponsor and promote more women, I was told that the strategy was to wait for the men to die—then the women would get an opportunity. When I was a young lawyer, I had a client ask me to read a contract but then 'get someone with brains to read it'. I did a fair bit of advocacy in international commercial arbitration proceedings and I regularly had clients not want me to do that, even though I was half reasonable at it, because I was a young woman. But the attitudes and barriers that Justice Gaudron faced were far more significant than my experiences. She persevered and she became a High Court judge. Her appointment and her tenure on the bench are significant for the entire legal profession, not just for women. Men could also see her value, and we heard her value being spoken about tonight by the member for Fenner and the member for Berowra. They could see her intellect, her sharpness, and they respected it. But most importantly, women could see her. We often say 'you cannot be what you cannot see', so to Justice Mary Gaudron, I say: I saw you. I heard you. I read your words and I thank you for them and for paving the way for Justice Bell, Justice Kiefel, Justice Gordon, Justice Jagot and Justice Jacqueline Gleeson to make their way to the High Court bench. Some of Justice Gaudron's words were significant, and she penned the majority judgement with Justice Deane in Mabo v Queensland (No. 2), which recognised the existence of native title in Australia under common law operating to firmly and rightly acknowledge the connection that First Nations people have with this country. Justice Gaudron's judgement was significant, finding that native title rights were sourced from Indigenous laws and customs and not from a grant from the Crown and that the doctrine of terra nullius was not applicable to Australia at the time of British settlement in New South Wales. This has shaped modern Australia, and the significance of this judgement and Justice Gaudron's contribution in this respect continues today. It is an incredible legacy. Mary Genevieve Gaudron was a trailblazer. She understood and accepted this. But it was her fervent wish that, in her lifetime, women's achievements in the legal profession would be characterised not as trailblazing but as business as usual. In her swearing-in speech in 1987 she said: Because I believe that too often we emphasise difference at the expense of common cause, I would wish that the day had arrived when the appointment of a woman to this Court was unremarkable. Well, the current High Court benefits from three out of seven justices being women. Thanks to Justice Gaudron, having women on the High Court is no longer something that is nice to have; it is something we expect. I extend my deepest condolences to Justice Gaudron's family and to the legal profession. May Mary Gaudron rest in peace. 19:21 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina It is always a pleasure to follow the member for Sturt, who, like the person we are honouring tonight, is also a trailblazer, and I commend her for her speech and her fine and eloquent words. Certainly we are marking the death, but also very much the life, of a remarkable Australian, a powerful woman. The member for Sturt and many other women have drawn great inspiration from this fine lady. Mary Genevieve Gaudron was born on 5 January 1943. She saw first light in Moree, at the time of a great heatwave in inland Australia—not uncommon for western New South Wales. And to think that from those very humble beginnings she elevated herself, despite many obstacles, adversities and hurdles, as we've heard, to the positions that she held. It is something quite incredible. It says a lot about her indomitable spirit. It says a lot about the character of this fine person. It also shows that it doesn't matter what your postcode is in Australia; you can be anything in this country, the lucky country. It takes perseverance. It takes, in her case, kicking in that glass ceiling. It takes a little bit of luck, a lot of determination and a lot of intellect. She won a scholarship to the University of Sydney, graduating with the university medal in law. That was perhaps one of the first of many amazing achievements. At 27 she became the youngest person to appear unled before the High Court of Australia, in O'Shaughnessy. In 1972 she became the first woman appointed to the New South Wales Bar Council. At 31 she became a deputy president of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. In 1981 she became the first female to serve as Solicitor-General for New South Wales. Also that year she became the first woman in New South Wales appointed as Queen's Counsel. In 1977, at just 44 years young, she became a justice of the High Court of Australia. She served on the High Court until January 2003, and she later served as president of the Administrative Tribunal of the International Labour Organization in Geneva. All that is quite exceptional, and we know that. But, aside from her amazing career in silk and her incredible achievements in the legal profession, she never forgot her country origins. She was a mother, she was a friend to many, and, of course, like all of us, she loved family; she did. The difference that she made in our country was profound then, but, many, many years into the future, the work that she did and the achievements that she accomplished will make a difference—long into the future. She believed that equality before the law had to have a practical and meaningful effect, and she lived that to the nth degree. As a junior barrister, she argued the equal pay case for the Whitlam government in 1972, and that would have been pretty difficult back then. That would have been very, very tough. She helped establish the 1979 maternity leave standard while serving on the commission, and bravo to her for that. She considered both achievements amongst her proudest. We've heard about Mabo, but there were many others as well. In Kable she helped establish limits on state parliaments using state courts in ways incompatible with the independence and integrity of the Australian judicial system. That all sounds very legal and complicated, but she found a way. She forged through, because that was this incredible Australian. As I've said, and as we've heard from the member for Sturt, she broke barriers for women. Her appointment to the High Court in 1987 meant that women's voices were finally represented in Australia's highest court, and that is special. She demonstrated that the legal system is stronger when it includes perspectives previously excluded from positions of power, and I think we could say that about this place too. I think we could. Her career helped pave the way for many women who have since been appointed to Australia's superior courts. I could also say, as we've heard from the member for Sturt, that she probably didn't realise the women, particularly, she was influencing. She probably didn't realise that she was providing that spark, that inspiration, to many young women to try to be the best that they could be. She effectively forged a path that other women could follow and did. Her journey from Moree to the High Court is not only a story of breaking barriers for women; it is a powerful example of the contribution that regional Australians can make at the highest level of national life. Vale to the Hon. Mary Genevieve Gaudron. May you rest in peace, and may your family and wide circle of friends find comfort in your many incredible achievements. Federation Chamber adjourned at 19 : 28