BILLS

2026-09-17 3 1 0 House of Reps 0 1

Thursday, 17 September 2026

The SPEAKER ( Hon. Milton Dick ) took the chair at 09:00, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.

BILLS 1 BILLS Carbon Credits and Other Legislation Amendment (Integrity and Transparency) Bill 2026 1

Carbon Credits and Other Legislation Amendment (Integrity and Transparency) Bill 2026

Reference to Federation Chamber 1 09:01 Ms RYAN 249224 Lalor I declare that, unless otherwise ordered, the Carbon Credits and Other Legislation Amendment (Integrity and Transparency) Bill 2026 stands referred to the Federation Chamber for further consideration immediately. BUSINESS 1 BUSINESS Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders 1 09:01 Mr THOMPSON 281826 Herbert I move: That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Member for Herbert from moving the following motion immediately: That this House has no confidence in the Minister for Veterans' Affairs and Minister for Defence Personnel, and that he should resign immediately. I want to start by thanking all the veterans around the country who have reached out to their members and the minister and who have been in the fight every single day to scrap this insidious cap of $5,000 on veterans' allied health, because today, veterans, you have won. You have done this. You have made a bad government back down, and I am so proud of you because, without you being in the fight, without you coming to Canberra, without you telling this horrible, horrible minister that he was wrong, we wouldn't be here today. And the coalition has always stood beside you. We stand with you every day because we must honour those that put on the uniform, those that serve this nation, those that deploy on combat operations, those that deploy on humanitarian and peacekeeping missions. When natural disasters occur, the first people we look to are members of the Australian Defence Force. And then, when they become veterans, they deserve respect and a government that looks after them. Sadly, the Labor Minister for Veterans' Affairs has not done this. He has failed in his duty. He has let them down. He didn't even want to meet with these veterans. It took pressure from the coalition every single day even to get veterans in the room with the minister. His job is to listen, work and deliver on veterans' affairs and Defence personnel matters, and he has failed. He has failed continually. He is failing even today, because he should be standing at the dispatch box in here and he should resign. This veterans' affairs minister has failed, and the Prime Minister, if he had any decency in respect of veterans around this country, would sack that minister, because the veterans have lost confidence in the veterans' affairs minister. I have lost confidence in him. I know it's the Labor Party way that he'll fall up into another position somewhere, but that is not good enough. Veterans right now are looking at this parliament, going: 'What a rabble. What a rabble this Labor government is.' They have been let down time and time again. The stories that I've read out in this parliament that members across this chamber have received, including those talking about suicide—every single time we brought it to a vote or spoke about it, the Labor government voted against us, voted it down, didn't want to back its veterans, didn't want to get rid of this $5,000 cap on allied health, to the point that they were blue in the face arguing that it was going to be good for veterans and their families. I can tell you that, no, it wasn't. And now, on the last sitting day of this fortnight, they have done a double backflip. They haven't come into the chamber to announce they're getting rid of this cap; they've just quickly released something in the hope it goes away. But I can tell you that veterans know that it will not go away. They want this Labor Minister for Veterans' Affairs to resign. He should not be in the position he is. He has failed. He has failed and failed and failed time and time again. When veterans put on the uniform they sign a blank cheque. The blank cheque is they are willing to lay down their life for this nation; they will serve wherever they need to in service of this nation. But our blank cheque to them is 'If you are wounded, injured or ill, we will look after you,' because thanking someone for their service doesn't stop on Anzac Day or Remembrance Day; it is every single day. It's in our covenant. Thanking them for their service is not placing a cap on their allied health. The stress that veterans have been under—time and time again I've seen and heard from fathers, mothers, sons and daughters, and the veterans themselves, in tears, crying, begging for this Labor government to do the right thing. They got ignored time and time again, to the point where veterans were sitting in the office of the Prime Minister and they got told: 'Don't try and burn the house down. We won't come after you.' Are you kidding me? Threatening veterans? Well, Minister, if you want to stand up and defend your insidious cap, you can after this speech. It is disgraceful. You're either calling the veterans liars or you want to double-down on it. That's all you're doing here. The veterans' affairs minister wouldn't even rock up. They didn't even see him. When he got made to see them, he sat back, crossed his arms, rolled his eyes, said he could have been at the Governor-General's reception having champagne and canapes. Well, I can tell you that the role of the veterans' affairs minister is to meet with veterans, to listen to them, to serve them. It's not to serve the Treasury, who are trying to get a saving; it's not trying to put a cap on our veterans. This was for $748 million in savings. What a disgrace. Imagine trying to take money off veterans health services. The arguments were, 'It'll only affect a couple of people.' Well, I can tell you now that the 'couple of people' that it could have affected or would have affected was actually not true. I did my own sums. I would have run out of the $5,000 cap in about 2½ months. And I know what happens when you run out of allied health services. I know what happens when the tunnel goes dark and you're in a bad place—I've been there, and so have many of my friends—and I know what happens if you can't get out. When you can't get out then we're carrying coffins, we're going to funerals. This was said, time and time again, by veterans to the minister and to the Prime Minister but nothing was done. They just kept saying that we're blowing this up, that it's a storm in a teacup. Rubbish! So now, since the minister has decided—he was probably told; I doubt that he made this decision himself. He should walk into this place and resign. He's failed. He has failed in his No. 1 duty in serving our veterans. Veterans from around the country have so much to deal with in everyday life, let alone fighting with a Labor minister. That's not what they want to do. They've already had their fight. They've already been in it. They don't have to fight a government just to get services. That's ridiculous. These veterans, who have done everything for this nation, everything to support the Australian people, have had a Labor government waltz in and say: 'You know what? "Thank you for your service" doesn't count today. We're going to put this allied health cap on you.' To then have a minister stand up here and repeatedly defend it, saying it was the right thing, and having other Labor ministers pat him on the back and say he's doing a great job—I can tell you that's not what the Australian people feel. They feel let down. They feel let down by an incompetent minister. This Minister for Veterans' Affairs has not only disgraced himself he's also disgraced the government. He should have stood up and said: 'You know what? If this cap is going to hurt veterans or if this cap is going to hurt their families, then I don't support it.' That's what an honourable person would have done, and that's why we've had to bring on this censure motion. He has failed in his job. The minister at the table, the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, keeps interjecting. I hope that she gets up and speaks about it and defends this horrible minister, who has let down the Australian people. This is absolutely disgraceful. But this is what happens time and time again. The ranks close in. Everyone is doing the right thing. Well, if we didn't have to get into the fight, we wouldn't have to be in this position, and veterans wouldn't be absolutely filled with anxiety around it in all of your electorates. I remember the member for Isaacs came in here yelling. The member for McEwen came in here screaming at everyone, telling all of us that we're wrong. 'No cap. You're wrong. You're doing this.' We've offered to go into their electorates and debate them at their RSLs or their ex-service organisations. It goes quiet then. But the disgrace and the disrespect that this Labor government and this veterans' affairs minister have shown our veterans will never be forgotten. It will never be forgotten. They've let them down. We had veterans come to parliament and take their medals off, lay them down and say, 'I don't want these.' It's a disgusting disgrace that this government has pushed them to that position. It should never be the case. But today, veterans and your families, you have done this. I want to thank you for getting in the fight with us. I want to thank you for reaching out to all of us to make sure that we can hold this bad Labor government to account, because without you it would have been our voices only. So I want to tell you that your service matters, not just on Anzac Day, not just on Remembrance Day, not just on the battle honour days. It matters every day to me because 'lest we forget' is not just words. It is a commitment. It is a commitment that this Labor minister for veterans' affairs has failed on time and time again. He should walk in today and he should resign. These other ministers who wanted to interject the whole time should get up and defend him, because it is a disgrace and we've scrapped the cap. The SPEAKER 53517 Is the motion seconded? 09:11 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina The motion is seconded. My word, the motion is seconded. Standing and sessional orders have to be suspended. Every day, our men and women in the Australian Defence Force go to work. They are tested. Whether that is in battlefield combat, whether that is in peacekeeping deployment or whether that is in the canteen at Puckapunyal, they are tested. Today, there's one particular person in this place, and there's a test upon that person. It's the Prime Minister of this country. The test is: will he maintain the faith in his hapless minister? Will the Minister for Veterans' Affairs and Minister for Defence Personnel still have his job by the end of today? I have right here what should be the last media release from Minister Matt Keogh. It is a statement on veteran allied health changes dated 17 September 2026. When you read this, you start to realise how crook this government is when it comes to veterans' care. It says: The Albanese Government has a deep respect for our veterans who have, and who continue to serve our country. Anyone who pulls on our nation's uniform to serve in our name deserves nothing less. Tell that to the more than half a million veterans who for weeks, for months, have wondered why there needed to be an arbitrary dollar figure placed on their courage, on their duty, on their noble service, on their allied health—a $5,000 cap on their physical health and on their psychological care. It's not good enough, Prime Minister. It's not good enough, Minister. The media release continues: We have been consulting on this measure, and we have heard from veterans there are concerns about this approach. They have not been consulting. They did not consult prior to the May budget. They had not consulted until about 31 August, in the second week of the nationwide listening tour that I went on, and I went to every state and every territory. I went to the capital cities, I went to the regional centres, and I listened. That's what consulting is all about. It's listening to veterans. And there were hundreds upon hundreds of them. This is why standing and sessional orders need to be suspended. This is why this parliament needs to pause. And this is why this prime minister needs to act. The media release continues: We have been listening carefully and today, the Government is taking the proposed $5,000 threshold off the table. Mr Pasin 240756 Still won't call it a cap! Mr McCORMACK 219646 It's a cap. It's a threshold. It's a limit. It doesn't matter what it is. It's an insult to our veterans. It's a betrayal to their service. It is a disgrace. Then it says: We will engage with the veteran and provider community on how we can continue to deliver on the objective of achieving better veteran wellbeing outcomes while ensuring integrity of the system. Well, I can tell you how they can continue to deliver on the objective of achieving better veteran wellbeing—it's by sacking the minister! That's what the Prime Minister has to do. He has to get a new veterans' affairs and defence personnel minister, and the new minister must be placed around the cabinet table so that, when Labor decide that they are going to, once again, look at the service and the sacrifice of our veterans, we can have a minister who can bang the table and say: 'No, no, no, Prime Minister, that's not going to happen. Our veterans deserve better.' Our veterans have deserved better than what they've been served up in recent months and years. There was the limitation on medallic recognition. There was the Invictus Games funding that was taken away. There was the Doug and Kaye Baird travel—just a few thousand dollars to go around the country and talk about the legacy of Corporal Cameron Baird VC, MG, a posthumously awarded Victoria Cross recipient, one of the bravest of the brave. And this minister couldn't find it in his heart of hearts to give his parents a few thousand dollars so that they could possibly talk to schools and possibly talk to RSL sub-branches about the legacy and about the importance of serving this nation—no more important thing. The Prime Minister has one important thing to do today. They've scrapped the cap—well and good. He needs to scrap the minister. 09:16 Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR Ballarat I don't think any of us are going to take lectures from that side of the House. When we came to government, there were veterans languishing, waiting to get access to their entitlements, because you had a deliberate budget policy— Opposition members Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Hang on a second. I'll interrupt the minister for a moment. We're not going to have this non-stop yelling. Both the member for Riverina and the mover of the motion were given the respect to be heard when they did that. We're going to have the same respect shown to this minister. We're not going to have everyone just simply yelling. I know this is an important issue, but we're just going to hear the minister. She has the right to raise her views in this chamber just as much as anyone else does. Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR Those opposite had a deliberate policy—a budget strategy—of deliberately having people wait and languish on the waiting list to have their veterans assessed. We had to put on extra staff into Veterans' Affairs, at a cost of billions of dollars, to actually get people to process veterans claims so they could get access to their basic entitlements. That is what happened under that government. You deliberately had people languishing on the waiting list, trying to get actually assessed. That is what happened under you. We have increased funding into Veterans' Affairs by $16 billion. We now have veterans, today, who were sitting and waiting for years to have their claim assessed, now being able to access those entitlements. We are proud of the work the minister did to actually get that happening. You should be ashamed of yourselves, frankly, for having let thousands and thousands of veterans down by not actually having their claims assessed—years waiting on the list before they could actually get any entitlements at all. That's what happened, and it was a deliberate budget strategy on behalf of those opposite to have those people waiting for that length of time for their entitlements. The veteran community knows that. They know, absolutely, that they are now seeing claims processed much faster and that more people are getting access to the entitlements to which they were entitled. That is really what had happened under the previous government. Obviously, we understand that there has been concern expressed by the veteran community around the issue of the $5,000 threshold. We understand that. We've consulted. We've listened to people, and we've now made the statement today that we are withdrawing that threshold. But let's look at the issue that we're trying to address here. It's that veterans are struggling to get access to the allied health professionals that they need because the rates of pay for the allied health professionals have not been keeping up. There are many allied health professionals across the community who are not servicing veterans today. We can't get access to those allied health services in the first place. What we've been trying to do through the changes is increase the fees that the government pays for allied health professionals to make sure that they actually are servicing our veteran community and make sure that they are actually available for our veterans as part of their assessment package. That's what we've been trying to do and the minister is trying to do, and I don't think any of us make any apologies for trying to make sure that our veterans actually have access not only to their pensions—which they didn't have under the previous government, because they had a deliberate budget strategy to make sure that that didn't occur. There were thousands and thousands of people waiting for their claims to be assessed, languishing on the waiting list, having no idea whether they would get that through or not. I don't think that we should have lectures from those opposite that somehow or other that they actually had supported veterans through that period. There were thousands of people languishing on the waiting list. We have a deep and abiding respect for our veterans. There are members on both sides of this chamber who have served in the ADF. I don't need to have threats from you, those opposite. I don't need to have threats from those men opposite saying, 'I'll come into your electorate and I'll show you.' I don't need blokes saying that to me. I'm very happy. I talk to my RSL. I go to the RSL all the time. I don't need threats. I don't need men threatening me in this chamber saying, 'I'll march down to your electorate, and we'll tell you.' That's what you've been doing. Oh, here's a numpty. The SPEAKER 53517 Order, the member— Mr Caldwell 306489 You might want to withdraw that. Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR [inaudible] that word. Look it up. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Forrest on a point of order? Mr Small 291406 Indeed. We're very clear about standing order 64 and directing comments through the chair. I would ask the minister to withdraw the unparliamentary term which she used to describe me just now. Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR [inaudible] look it up. Do you know what it means? The SPEAKER 53517 I didn't hear the word. I don't want the word repeated. The member for Forrest has raised a point of order. I'll ask the minister to direct her remarks through the chair and to refrain from the term 'you'. And if the minister has used an unparliamentary remark, I'll ask her to withdraw. I did so yesterday, and there wasn't one made. It's up to the minister. Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR I withdraw. The SPEAKER 53517 I thank the minister, and the minister may continue. I'd like some silence, particularly from people who are interjecting not from their seats. Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR Again, as I say, this government is very proud of the work of the Minister for Veterans' Affairs in making sure that veterans have had access to a veteran's pension—something that did not happen under those opposite with thousands languishing on the waiting list to actually get their claims assessed in time. That is what actually happened under those opposite. There has been $16 billion extra in funding from this government into veterans' payments directly making sure that veterans have access to the claims that they are entitled to. There was a deliberate strategy under the previous government of saving money by delaying the claim processing. That is what you did. In fact, you had a minister for veterans' affairs resign because of it. He went out and gave a press conference. He said he was unable, through the ERC process, to get the support and the funding that he needed. That is the legacy of those opposite. Our minister for veterans' affairs—we are processing people more quickly. People are getting access to the pensions that they are entitled to under this government. As I said, we have a deep respect for veterans who have served and continue to serve this country. We are proud of the significant investments, including in this budget, of additional money for veterans directly for the services that they need. We are very proud of the work that the minister has done to secure that funding. Obviously, we understand that the proposal around the $5,000 threshold has caused concern for the veterans community. We have responded to that. Opposition members Opposition members interjecting— Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR Instead of sitting there interjecting—you were heard mostly in silence; I do acknowledge I interjected a couple of times, but I've had a wall of noise coming at me from those opposite. This minister has done work to make sure that we responded to the royal commission. We are working every day to actually get those recommendations done. We are increasing the amount of staff within veterans affairs to process claims so that veterans can get access to their payments more quickly and there is $16 billion of additional money that has gone into veterans payments. All of that—all of that—is a legacy that we are proud of on this side. And we are proud that the Minister for Veterans' Affairs has delivered that. We understand, as I said, that the issue of the threshold has caused concern in the veteran community, and we have made the announcement today. We've been consulting on the measure, and we've listened, and that threshold has been paused— An opposition member: Paused! Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR has been withdrawn. So, as I say, we're not going to take lectures from the people opposite, who left thousands and thousands of veterans languishing on the waiting list for years trying to get their claims assessed, as though somehow they are now holier than thou and the only people who support veterans. Well, they didn't demonstrate it in government. They had a veterans affairs minister resign from their cabinet—resign because of the lack of support that their government showed to veterans. He stood down and said that he could no longer be part of a government that did not support veterans. He then actually resigned from the political party because it clearly was a party that did not support veterans. We're not going to take lectures from you, and we support the minister well and truly for the work that he has done. The SPEAKER 53517 The question is that the motion be agreed to.

The House divided. [09:31]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

42 AYES Aldred, M. R. (Teller) Batt, D. J. Bell, A. M. Birrell, S. J. Boyce, C. E. Buchholz, S. Caldwell, C. M. Chaffey, J. L. Chester, D. J. Farley, D. Hamilton, G. R. Hastie, A. W. Hawke, A. G. Hogan, K. J. Joyce, B. T. G. 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. Sharkie, R. C. C. Small, B. J. Taylor, A. J. Thompson, P. Venning, T. H. Violi, A. A. Wallace, A. B. Wilkie, A. D. Willcox, A. J. Wilson, R. J. Wilson, T. R. Wood, J. P. 89 NOES Abdo, B. J. Albanese, A. N. Aly, A. Ambihaipahar, A. Belyea, J. A. Berry, C. G. Bowen, C. E. Briskey, J. L. Burke, A. S. Burnell, M. P. 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. Haines, H. M. Holzberger, R. A. V. Husic, E. N. Jarrett, M. L. Jordan-Baird, M. A. M. Kearney, G. M. 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. Ryan, M. M. 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. Thistlethwaite, M. J. Thwaites, K. L. Urquhart, A. E. Wells, A. S. White, R. P. Witty, S. J. Zappia, A. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

BILLS 6 BILLS Sport Legislation Amendment (World Anti-Doping Code Implementation) Bill 2026 6

Sport Legislation Amendment (World Anti-Doping Code Implementation) Bill 2026

First Reading 6 Second Reading 6 09:37 Ms WELLS 264121 Lilley I move: That this bill be now read a second time. We are in a golden period of Australian sport. Just look at the past two years. Our Winter Olympic and Paralympic teams recorded their best-ever result at Milano Cortina and our Commonwealth Games team headed home from Glasgow with some serious bling after many record-breaking performances. In 2024, Australia's summer Olympians became our most successful team ever—53 medals, and a record number of personal bests. As we build toward the Brisbane 2032 Olympic and Paralympic Games, Australians have a veritable feast of major sporting events to look forward to—annual tournaments like the Australian Open and events the Albanese government is supporting, including next year's netball and softball world cups and the men's and women's rugby union world cups in 2027 and 2029 respectively. We will see the world's best athletes right here in our backyard. From playground to podium, the Albanese government is investing today to make the most of these opportunities. Our $200 million Play our Way program—the largest-ever sporting fund specifically for women and girls—is delivering 300 projects around Australia to provide facilities and programs aimed at getting more girls and women to play and stay in sport. Earlier this year, we announced a record-breaking $513 million to support our high-performance athletes over the next two years leading into the Los Angeles 2028 Olympic and Paralympic Games and on to Brisbane 2032. And last week we marked a major milestone for the $249.7 million redevelopment of the Australian Institute of Sport, with demolition 50 per cent complete and a builder appointed to deliver the major works. We are investing in our athletes. We are investing in participation. And we are investing in the facilities and institutions that support Australian sport. In this year's budget we also committed a further $20.1 million to support Sport Integrity Australia in its role as our national antidoping organisation and coordinating agency for integrity issues across Australian sport. When an Australian athlete steps onto a track or court, or dives into a pool they should know the contest is fair, and within the rules. And the Australians cheering for them should be able to trust the result. If we want Australians to believe in sport, then integrity cannot be an afterthought. Australia is a world leader Australia is a world leader in sport integrity and has a longstanding record of supporting clean, fair and safe sport. Australia established the Australian Sports Drug Agency in 1990 to combat the use of prohibited drugs in Australian sport, well before many countries had developed their own systems and nine years before the formation of the World Anti-Doping Agency—WADA. We have and continue to play an active role in shaping world antidoping governance and policy. Australia is a signatory to the UNESCO antidoping convention, the Oceania representative on the WADA executive committee and associated committees and we have been integral in shaping the World Anti-Doping Code. The 2027 w orld a nti- d oping c ode The World Anti-Doping Code provides the framework that allows athletes to compete under the same core antidoping rules wherever they are in the world. It is updated regularly because while sport does not stand still, neither does doping, technology and the risks facing our athletes. For example, international investigations into Russian sport identified institutional involvement in doping practices, and the manipulation of samples and interference with antidoping processes. These findings led to significant international consequences and demonstrated the harm that systemic doping can cause to clean athletes and confidence in international competition. Following a two-year global review by WADA, the revised 2027 code was approved in December 2025 and will begin on 1 January 2027. The 2027 code strengthens the effectiveness, fairness and consistency of the international antidoping system, including through enhanced operational independence, improved athlete appeal rights and updated public disclosure provisions. Australia, through Sport Integrity Australia, participated throughout the review process, working with athletes, sporting organisations, the National Sports Tribunal, the Australian Sports Drug Medical Advisory Committee, the Australian Sports Commission, peak sporting bodies and Australian antidoping experts. To maintain a globally harmonised antidoping framework, all code signatories, including Australia, are in the process of reviewing and updating their frameworks to comply with the revised code and international standards by 1 January 2027. And we will. Because a robust, international antidoping system needs to address both individual and systematic attempts to undermine fair competition. Because our athletes, our coaches and sports administrators, who give everything a fair go, should have trust they are competing in a fair contest. Implementing the 2027 c ode Sport Integrity Australia, the agency responsible for combatting doping in sport in Australia, is working with sport stakeholders to ensure we implement the 2027 code ahead of 1 January 2027. This will be achieved through an integrated package of amendments to primary legislation, regulations and sporting policy, the Australian National Anti-Doping Policy—ANADP. TheSport Legislation Amendment (World Anti-Doping Code Implementation) Bill 2026delivers the required legislative changes through specific amendments to the Sport Integrity Australia Act 2020and the National Sports Tribunal Act 2019. The b ill First, this bill makes amendments to strengthen athletes' appeal rights in relation to therapeutic use exemption decisions. Athletes will now be able to seek a review of therapeutic use exemption decisions through the National Sports Tribunal. This means athletes who have been denied approval to use a legitimate medical substance or method, which is usually prohibited in a sporting context, can take their case to a national independent appeal body. Second, the independence of Australia's antidoping system will be reinforced by transferring responsibility for imposing consequences from sports to Sport Integrity Australia. The 2027 code requires greater operational independence in the administration of antidoping programs. This avoids potential conflicts of interest, where a sporting organisation is responsible for decisions affecting athletes in their sport. Now the Sport Integrity Australia CEO will issue provisional suspensions and sanctions where an antidoping violation may have been committed. Third, the new approach to publication on the Sport Integrity Australia violations list, addressed in part 3 of the bill, balances the public interest with privacy safeguards and further protect vulnerable participants. While the code still requires a public-facing list on antidoping violations that have occurred, there is now a broader scope to exclude athletes in certain circumstances. This includes those who have not been found to have committed an offence or are not at fault. With respect to minors, protected persons and recreational athletes, there will be greater consideration of whether publishing details of a violation will be in the best interests of the individual, while balancing with public interest. Finally, the bill updates the Sport Integrity Australia Act definition of an athlete to remove the domestic rule that automatically treats a person as an athlete for six months after they last competed. This brings the act in line with the definitions and technical instruments recognised under the international antidoping framework. Conclusion The Albanese government is backing Australian sport for the long term. We are backing our athletes, our sporting organisations and the major events that will define our next decade. And we are doing the work to create a fair arena that makes these moments possible. We are strengthening our laws against match fixing and competition manipulation. We are investing in Sport Integrity Australia. And through this bill, we are ensuring Australia's antidoping framework remains among the strongest in the world, because when the world comes to Australia through the major events ahead of us and Brisbane 2032, we want to showcase more than Australian sporting success. We want to showcase Australian sporting values, fair competition, independent decisions, clean sport. A fair go must mean a fair contest. I commend the bill to the House. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order for the next day of sitting. Private Health Insurance (National Joint Replacement Register Levy) Amendment Bill 2026 8

Private Health Insurance (National Joint Replacement Register Levy) Amendment Bill 2026

First Reading 8 Second Reading 8 09:46 Ms WELLS 264121 Lilley I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The National Joint Replacement Registry is administered by the Australian Orthopaedic Association. The registry collects information from all relevant hospitals in Australia to define, improve and maintain the quality of care of individuals receiving joint replacement surgery. The registry improves clinical effectiveness by tracking long-term outcomes, identifying which prostheses and surgical approaches perform best, and giving clinicians the evidence they need to make better choices for patients. The Australian Orthopaedic Association is provided funding to operate the registry through a Commonwealth Grant Agreement, which is efficiently cost recovered through the imposition of a levy authorised by the Private Health Insurance (National Joint Replacement Register Levy) Act 2009 on sponsors of joint replacement devices listed on the Prescribed List of Medical Devices and Human Tissue Products. The purpose of the Private Health Insurance (National Joint Replacement Register Levy) Amendment Bill 2026 is to remove the $5,000 levy cap per device per financial year. By eliminating the cap, the amendment ensures the levy is allocated in proportion to the actual volume of devices supplied by the medical device companies. The existing levy cap has resulted in smaller and medium-sized medical device companies bearing a disproportionate share of the financial burden while companies that supply large volumes of devices pay comparatively less. Removing the cap will ensure the levy is allocated in proportion to the actual volume of devices supplied by medical device companies, creating a fairer and more equitable distribution of the levy. This is important because, as demand for joint replacement grows with an ageing population and increasing rates of chronic disease and obesity, the registry will become even more important to maintaining safe, effective and high-quality orthopaedic care. The government's continued support for the registry reflects its commitment to evidence based health care, patient safety, clinical quality and the responsible use of private health insurance contributions. I commend the bill to the House. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order for the next day of sitting. Child Support and Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Ending Financial Abuse in the Child Support Scheme No. 1) Bill 2026 9

Child Support and Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Ending Financial Abuse in the Child Support Scheme No. 1) Bill 2026

First Reading 9 Second Reading 9 09:50 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney I move: That the bill be now read a second time. Our government is committed to supporting families and children. We have consistently demonstrated that commitment through reforms and investments since we were elected in 2022. We've expanded the Paid Parental Leave Scheme to 26 weeks and added superannuation. A family having a child today will receive almost $30,000 in paid parental leave, more than double what it was when we came back to government. We've given parents more flexibility in how they take their paid parental leave and set aside four weeks for dads, sending a clear signal that caring responsibilities should be shared by both parents. For sole parents, we've increased access to Parenting Payment (Single), which previously ended when children turned eight and now extends to the age of 14. When we were elected in 2022, an eligible sole parent with a dependent child aged eight to 14 could receive $651.50 per fortnight in income support through JobSeeker. Now, the same parent can receive $1,087.20 per fortnight through Parenting Payment (Single). This change has benefited around 200,000 sole parents since September 2023. We've cut the cost of child care for more than one million families, introduced a three-day childcare guarantee for all families who need it, and we're working to build a universal early childhood education and care system to improve affordability and access even further. We've invested $4.4 billion to respond to family, domestic and sexual violence, including more funding for workers in frontline services, with the next phase of work on the National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children on the way. And, in the most recent budget, we increased funding for community services for vulnerable families and children by $171.7 million, a 12 per cent increase in that important work. Consistent with this commitment, at the 2025 election, Labor promised to close loopholes that enable financial abuse in Commonwealth systems, including in the child support system. Child support exists to ensure children don't suffer financially when their parents separate. Around one million Australian children depend on it. Children in single-parent households, which are mostly headed by women, face a significantly higher risk of poverty. Child support paid in full and on time helps those families meet essential costs such as food, housing, education, health care and participation in community activities. It plays a vital role in reducing poverty and financial hardship for families and children. The government understands that child support is not merely an administrative process. It's essential to the economic security and stability of separated families. It makes a real difference to children every day. But, right now, there are too many loopholes in the system. Some parents use the system to harass their former partners, to obtain personal information about them or to create debts for them. Some parents hide their income to get out of paying what they should. And far too many parents just don't pay at all. The backlog of unpaid child support is over $2 billion. There are 200 individual child support debts of over $150,000. One parent's debt to their children is more than $2 million. Currently, our system allows this to happen. In the 2026-27 budget, the government announced an additional $182.6 million to be invested into the child support system to make it safer and more effective and to help more children get the support that they are owed. Our reforms will improve every part of the system: from weaponisation risks in system processes, to the accuracy of assessments, to enforcing compliance. We designed this package by listening to people with direct experience of the system. All of us in this place receive representations from constituents about child support. The letters are often harrowing. I have collected the issues that have been raised with me in correspondence, and this package reflects my commitment to improving the system for those people who have taken the time to write. We've also listened to advocates. I'd like to particularly acknowledge Terese Edwards, the CEO of Single Mother Families Australia, who's in the gallery today. Terese has fought for decades for progress on these issues, and I want to thank her for her contribution. These reforms are a tribute to her advocacy. And, of course, our reforms are informed by the findings of the Commonwealth Ombudsman and the recommendations arising from reviews of Australia's family law system. This bill is the first of two to implement the child support reforms we've announced. It does three things: It fixes process that can be weaponised against former partners. It creates new protections for child support recipients against family payment debts caused by former partners. And it expands access to the Australian child support scheme for children overseas with one parent in Australia. The bill has three schedules. Schedule 1 gives Services Australia discretionary powers to reduce harmful interactions in the child support system. The changes will allow Services Australia to prioritise the safety of parents by refusing certain applications for new child support assessments, as well as change of assessment applications, where these applications would cause harm. Currently, no matter how much evidence Services Australia has that a person is using the system to harass the other parent, they have no option but to progress applications and involve a parent who may be harmed as a result. How harm will be determined will be based on the family law framework and decisions to refuse an application will be reviewable. Additionally, Services Australia will have the power to dismiss objections that have little or no prospects of success or would not materially impact the child support case. This change will protect parents from being dragged into unnecessary review processes that may have been initiated with the intention to harass them. To illustrate the change, let's consider a fictional couple. We'll call them Lucy and Daniel. Lucy has sole care of her two children and has previously suffered violence at the hands of her former partner, Daniel. Over a 13-month period, Daniel repeatedly tells Services Australia that Lucy's income has changed and submits multiple change of assessment applications and objections seeking to alter the child support assessment. Each time, Services Australia reviews the evidence and concludes that Lucy's income has not, in fact, changed. Despite providing little evidence to support his claims, every time Daniel lodges an application or objection, Lucy must engage with Services Australia and provide evidence to confirm her income details. This creates a significant administrative burden for Lucy and can be used to harass, exhaust or wear down her resolve to claim the child support she is entitled to. As a result of this bill, if Daniel lodges a further change of assessment application or objection, Services Australia can refuse the application or dismiss the objection. This bill also removes the mandatory requirements to exchange documents provided during the change of assessment and objection processes. When one parent lodges a change of assessment application, both parents must submit detailed personal information so that application can be assessed. Currently, there is a legal requirement mandating that entire copies of documents provided in this process are exchanged with the other parent. This can include a parent's contact details, details about their employment and even financial records showing where they have used their bank cards—details of where they shop, for example. This means sensitive and personal information is shared, which deters some parents from seeking a change and, at worst, can create a physical safety risk. Between 30 and 40 per cent of the approximately 14,000 parents who seek a change of assessment each year withdraw from the process before it is completed, in part because of the legal requirement that all documents be shared. The current requirements will be replaced with a safer information exchange model that provides Services Australia with discretion over how to exchange relevant information, including by redacting documents or by providing written or verbal summaries of information. The intention is to share only the information that is relevant to the merits of the case, ensuring the other parent is afforded the opportunity to respond to that relevant information, not trawl through irrelevant documents. As an example of this change, consider Tom and Linda. Tom and Linda are separated and have a history of family and domestic violence. Tom and Linda have a child support case where Tom is the payer. Linda believes that Tom is understating his income and his child support assessment does not reflect his true financial capacity. However, Linda is hesitant to apply for a change of assessment. She knows that if she asks Services Australia to investigate Tom's income she will have to provide information about her income as well. She is worried that personal information, such as her current employer, may be disclosed to Tom and put her safety at risk. Linda decides not to proceed as the risk to her and her child's safety is too high. As a result, Linda and her child may not be receiving the level of child support they are owed. Following the changes, if Linda decides to proceed with a change of assessment, Services Australia will not be required share information with Tom that is not relevant and may increase her risk of harm, such as her home and work address and her bank statements that show where she shops. Schedule 2 of this Bill strengthens protections for parents who currently collect child support privately. There is a link between child support and Family Tax Benefit, or FTB. This link exists to ensure that where a parent is able to receive child support from their former partner for the benefit of their child and it is safe to do so, they seek that child support, and government income support is adjusted to account for this income. This link can be weaponised. When a paying parent does not submit tax returns for an extended period, their child support liability must be based on provisional income. If that parent then submits multiple years of tax returns, their child support liability may be retrospectively recalculated. This often results in the parent owing more child support than they actually paid. In these cases, the receiving parent's FTB entitlement may then also be retrospectively reassessed, resulting in a FTB debt for the receiving parent, through no fault of their own. In these circumstances, parents in agency collect are already protected in that FTB entitlement is based on the child support actually paid, so there can be no FTB debt. As any additional child support is paid, FTB will be adjusted accordingly. For parents in private arrangements, the government has no visibility of when that additional child support is paid to the receiving parent. The FTB debt against the receiving parent remains whether or not the paying parent actually pays the additional child support they owe. This means a receiving parent in private arrangements may be punished by having an FTB debt raised, with no extra child support provided. The government's reforms make changes to address this problem. The government is creating new processes that ensure parents entering the system are given more information about the advantages and risks of choosing private arrangements or agency collect, including the protections that are available against FTB debts if they choose agency collect. The additional change made in this schedule of the bill, says that those parents who are owed money can choose to pursue the extra child support debt from the paying parent themselves. For parents who continue to choose private arrangements, this bill pauses collection of FTB debts for three months after those debts are raised, giving parents the opportunity to consider their options and take appropriate action to pursue the extra child support from the paying parent themselves, or they could apply for an exemption or special circumstances debt waiver, which would extinguish the family tax benefit debt. Or they could choose to move to agency collect and ask to have outstanding child support recovered by the government. This would cause the FTB debt to be reassessed against the child support arrears that have been received, assumed to be zero, which would also extinguish the FTB debt. For parents in this situation who opt to move from private arrangements to agency collect, we are reversing the assumption: we currently assume the extra child support has been paid. Now we will assume that it has not been, and their family tax benefit debt will be recalculated to zero. This bill makes a further change relevant to these cases. If a parent chooses to move from private arrangements to agency collect, the bill will allow them to request that Services Australia collect outstanding child support debts that have been raised in the previous three months, or nine months in exceptional circumstances, even if the debt relates to a period outside this timeframe. That means that if late lodgement of tax returns causes a new child support debt to be raised that relates to years of underpayments, the government can pursue that child support debt on behalf of the receiving parent. To illustrate these changes, our fictitious couple this time is Alex and Lee. Alex is assessed to pay child support to Lee, and they have managed their child support privately up till now. Alex has not lodged her tax returns for five years. When Alex lodges her outstanding tax returns, that causes a reassessment of child support for past periods. The reassessment means that Alex should have paid $14,000 more in child support to Lee than she actually did. This causes Lee's family tax benefit entitlement to also be reassessed and a family tax benefit debt is raised against him. Under the current rules, Services Australia is obliged to commence recovering that family tax benefit debt immediately, regardless of whether Alex has paid the $14,000 to him or not. If Lee asks to move to agency collect, Services Australia can only pursue the portion of the $14,000 that relates to the three months prior to that move. The changes made by this bill mean that Lee has time to consider his options. If he opts to move to agency collect, the family tax benefit debt is extinguished. If and when Alex pays the $14,000 that's owed, his family tax benefit entitlement will be adjusted accordingly. And Lee would be able to ask Services Australia to collect the entire $14,000 child support debt from Alex. Even though that debt was accrued over a period of five years, the debt was raised within the three-month window. These changes provide pathways that release parents from FTB debts raised against them through the child support system, while enabling those parents to collect more of the child support debts that are owed to them. Another reform in this bill is to allow both receiving parents and paying parents to move into agency collect arrangements. Currently, only receiving parents, or both parents together, can make this choice. Around a quarter of child support parents with a family and domestic violence indicator are payers. We know that direct financial interactions can create opportunities for ongoing control and unwanted contact. Under the current rules, these parents can be left without an effective option to avoid direct engagement with the other parent. Giving all parents the ability to have Services Australia manage payments will reduce those risks and provide an additional layer of protection. Schedule 3 of this bill will make child support assessments easier to access across international borders, by allowing direct applications to the Australian child-support system from parents in certain overseas jurisdictions. Currently, a parent who resides in a reciprocating overseas jurisdiction cannot apply directly to Services Australia to receive child support, but must apply through their local child-support authority. This is inconsistent with the legislation for parents in non-reciprocating jurisdictions who can apply directly to Services Australia for a child support assessment where they meet eligibility criteria. This change will reduce difficulties parents face in seeking child support, such as where there are delays in the overseas authority sending the application to Services Australia, or the parent can't identify who their local child-support authority is. This legislative change will be accompanied by a grant to a non-government organisation to assist some parents overseas where the other parent of their child is an Australian who has refused to support that child. I'll give a fictitious example to illustrate this change. Like other examples, these are not merely hypothetical but reflect a lot of correspondence to me as the minister and to our department. George travels to a holiday destination overseas. He meets Maria, a local woman. During their time together, Maria falls pregnant. George returns to Australia and refuses to support the child. Maria and their child live in an economically depressed area and suffer significant hardship. The child has limited access to health or educational opportunities. A small amount of child support could dramatically change that child's life. Under current arrangements, Maria would need to navigate local systems and is dependent on her own country's processes to address a situation that is the result of the actions of an Australian citizen. Under this change, Maria can apply directly to Services Australia to assess the case. Normal eligibility and assessment rules will apply. If the application is successful, Services Australia will collect the assessed amount of child support from George and remit it to Maria regularly to support their child. This change sends an important message to Australians in this situation. For children born overseas to an Australian parent, the government will not protect the Australian parent from their responsibilities to this child. The three schedules of this bill represent the first tranche of our child support reforms. Our reforms will also mandate employer withholding in all suitable circumstances, so that child support is remitted from wages in the same way as pay-as-you-go tax and superannuation, resulting in easier, on-time and in-full payments. And we'll implement automatic overseas travel bans for paying parents with $10,000 or more in unpaid child support and a history of recent travel. The government is committed to making this system safer and more effective for the children who depend on it. I commend the bill to the House. Debate adjourned. Aged Care Legislation Amendment (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Aged Care Commissioner and Other Measures) Bill 2026 13

Aged Care Legislation Amendment (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Aged Care Commissioner and Other Measures) Bill 2026

Consideration in Detail 13 10:14 Mr RAE 300122 Hawke I present a supplementary explanatory memorandum to the bill, and I ask leave of the House to move government amendments (1) and (2) as circulated together. Leave granted. Mr RAE 300122 I move government amendments (1) and (2) as circulated together: (1) Clause 2, page 2 (at the end of the table), add: (2) Page 60 (after line 22), at the end of the Bill, add: Schedule 4 — Additional review for prescribed entry decisions Aged Care Act 2024 1 Section 7 Insert: entry decision reviewer: see subsection 90D(4). prescribed entry decision: see section 90A. 2 Section 55 (after the paragraph beginning "For the service groups") Insert: A classification decision or a decision about an individual's priority category may be reviewed and changed in certain circumstances, at the request of certain approved needs assessors connected with the decision, and with the consent of the individual. 3 Subsection 78(1) (note) Omit "Note:", substitute "Note 1:". 4 At the end of subsection 78(1) Add: Note 2: Certain decisions under this subsection can be subject to additional review under Part 4A. 5 At the end of subsection 83(1) Add: Note: A classification decision can be subject to additional review under Part 4A. 6 At the end of subsection 86(1) Add: Note: Certain decisions under this subsection can be subject to additional review under Part 4A. 7 At the end of subsection 90(1) Add: Note: A decision under subsection 86(1) about an individual's priority category can be subject to additional review under Part 4A. 8 After Part 4 of Chapter 2 Insert: Part 4A — Additional review process for certain classification decisions and priority category decisions 90A Decisions subject to additional review (1) A decision by the System Governor for an individual for a classification type for a service group is a prescribed entry decision if subsections (2) and (3) apply to the decision. (2) This subsection applies to the following: (a) a classification decision under section 78 for the individual for the classification type ongoing for the service group home support; (b) a decision under subsection 86(1) about the individual's priority category for: (i) the classification type ongoing for the service group home support; or (ii) the classification type short-term or ongoing for the service group assistive technology; or (iii) the classification type short-term for the service group home modifications. (3) This subsection applies to a decision that meets the conditions (if any) prescribed by the rules. 90B Requesting additional review (1) A person may request the System Governor to review, under this Part, a prescribed entry decision for an individual if the person: (a) is an approved needs assessor; and (b) is authorised to make the decision; and (c) is employed or otherwise engaged (however described) by the entity that employed or engaged (however described) the approved needs assessor who provided the classification assessment report or prioritisation report for the decision. Note: The request is taken to not have been made in certain circumstances: see section 90C. (2) The request may be made only if: (a) the individual consents to the request; and (b) the circumstances (if any) prescribed by the rules apply. Note: If a request for review of a prescribed entry decision is made under this Part, requests (including by the individual) for reconsideration of the decision under Division 2 of Part 2 of Chapter 8 are affected by section 90G (additional reviews—interaction with reconsiderations). (3) The request must: (a) be made in writing and in the approved form; and (b) comply with the requirements (if any) prescribed by the rules. Timeframe for requests (4) The request must be given to the System Governor within the following period after the day the prescribed entry decision was made: (a) 7 days; (b) if the System Governor determines a longer period for the request than would otherwise apply under paragraph (a)—that period. (5) The System Governor may, at the request of the person who requested the review, extend the period under subsection (4). 90C When request taken not to be made (1) A request under subsection 90B(1) is taken, for the purposes of this Act (other than paragraph 90G(2)(b) (days to be disregarded for reconsideration and review provisions)) to not have been made if: (a) the System Governor is satisfied that a requirement in this Part has not been met in relation to the request; or (b) the person who requested the review withdraws the request before it is decided under subsection 90E(2). Note: For paragraph (a), examples of requirements that may not be met include the following: (a) the decision is not listed in subsection 90A(2); (b) the decision does not meet the conditions prescribed by the rules for the purposes of subsection 90A(3); (c) the person requesting the review does not meet the requirements in subsection 90B(1); (d) the circumstances prescribed by the rules for the purposes of paragraph 90B(2)(b) do not apply; (e) the request does not comply with the requirements prescribed by the rules for the purposes of paragraph 90B(3)(b). (2) The System Governor must give the person who requested the review written notice that the request is taken to not have been made: (a) if paragraph (1)(a) applies—as soon as practicable after receiving the request; or (b) if paragraph (1)(b) applies—as soon as practicable after receiving the withdrawal. 90D Dealing with a request for additional review (1) This section applies if a request is made under subsection 90B(1) to the System Governor to review, under this Part, a prescribed entry decision for an individual. (2) The System Governor must, as soon as practicable after receiving the request, give the person who requested the review written notice that: (a) states that the request has been received; and (b) specifies the day the request was received. Reviewing the prescribed entry decision (3) The System Governor must: (a) personally review the prescribed entry decision under section 90E; or (b) cause the prescribed entry decision to be reviewed under section 90E by a delegate of the System Governor who: (i) was not involved in making the decision; and (ii) occupies a position in the Department. (4) The person who reviews the prescribed entry decision under section 90E is the entry decision reviewer. 90E Additional review — decision (1) This section applies if a request is made under subsection 90B(1) to the System Governor to review, under this Part, a prescribed entry decision for an individual. (2) The entry decision reviewer for the review must review the prescribed entry decision and decide to: (a) affirm the prescribed entry decision; or (b) vary the prescribed entry decision; or (c) set aside the prescribed entry decision and substitute a new decision. Note: For the effect of the decision, see section 90G. Requirements for review and decision (3) In reviewing the prescribed entry decision and making a decision under subsection (2), the entry decision reviewer: (a) must have due regard to procedural fairness; and (b) must have regard to any material on which the prescribed entry decision was based that the entry decision reviewer considers relevant; and (c) may have regard to any matters prescribed by the rules as matters to which the entry decision reviewer may have regard; and (d) must act in accordance with the rules. (4) Without limiting paragraph (3)(d), rules made for the purposes of that paragraph may prescribe criteria, methods or procedures relating to classification levels or priority categories. (5) If the entry decision reviewer decides under subsection (2) to vary or substitute the prescribed entry decision, that decision (as varied or substituted) must: (a) if that decision is a classification decision under section 78—be a classification level set out in the rules for the purposes of paragraph 81(2)(a); or (b) if that decision is a decision under subsection 86(1) about the individual's priority category—be a priority category prescribed by the rules for the purposes of paragraph 87(1)(a). (6) To avoid doubt, in reviewing the prescribed entry decision and making a decision under subsection (2): (a) the entry decision reviewer does not need to follow the criteria, methods or procedures prescribed by the rules as mentioned in subsection 78(1) or 86(1) (as the case may be); and (b) if the entry decision reviewer decides under subsection (2) to vary or substitute the prescribed entry decision, that decision (as varied or substituted) does not need to meet the criteria: (i) if paragraph (5)(a) applies—set out for a classification level by the rules for the purposes of paragraph 81(2)(b); or (ii) if paragraph (5)(b) applies—prescribed for a priority category by the rules for the purposes of paragraph 87(1)(b). Guidelines (7) The System Governor may, by notifiable instrument, make guidelines relating to any of the matters mentioned in this section. 90F Additional review — notice and date of effect Notice of decision (1) After an entry decision reviewer reviews a prescribed entry decision for an individual and makes a decision under subsection 90E(2), the entry decision reviewer must, within 14 days of making the decision, give written notice to: (a) the person who requested the review; and (b) the individual. (2) The notice must set out the following: (a) the decision; (b) the day the decision was made; (c) the reasons for the decision. When decision takes effect (3) The decision takes effect: (a) unless paragraph (b) applies—on the day the decision was made; or (b) if the notice specifies a day as the day the decision takes effect (which must be a day on or after the day the prescribed entry decision took effect)—on that day. 90G Additional reviews — effect and interaction with reconsiderations Additional review decision has effect as if made under original provision (1) A decision under subsection 90E(2) on review of a prescribed entry decision has effect as if it had been made under the provision under which the prescribed entry decision was made. Note 1: The decision (the additional review decision) under subsection 90E(2) is disregarded for the purposes of Part 2 of Chapter 8 (reconsideration and review): see paragraph (2)(a) of this section. Note 2: For the date of effect of the additional review decision, see subsection 90F(3). Note 3: The additional review decision does not have effect if (see subsection (5)): (a) the decision (the reconsideration decision) on a reconsideration of the prescribed entry decision under Part 2 of Chapter 8 is as favourable as, or more favourable than, the additional review decision (see subsections 564(4) and (6) (effect of reconsideration decision), and subsection (4) of this section); or (b) the Administrative Review Tribunal makes a decision on review of the reconsideration decision (see section 107 and subsections 108(2) and (4) of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (operation and effect of Administrative Review Tribunal's decision)). Interaction with reconsideration provisions (2) In applying Part 2 of Chapter 8 (reconsideration and review of decisions) in relation to a prescribed entry decision: (a) disregard a decision (if any) under subsection 90E(2) on review of the prescribed entry decision (despite subsection (1) of this section); and (b) disregard a day during a period (if any) (the additional review period): (i) starting the day a request is made under subsection 90B(1) to review the prescribed entry decision; and (ii) ending the day notice of a decision on the request is given under subsection 90F(1), or notice that the request is taken to not have been made is given under subsection 90C(2). Note: Paragraph (a) has the effect that a reconsideration of the prescribed entry decision under Part 2 of Chapter 8 is of the decision as made, and not of the decision as varied or substituted under subsection 90E(2). (3) A request under subsection 559(1) to reconsider the prescribed entry decision, that is made during the additional review period, is taken to have been made after that period. Additional review decision prevails over decision on reconsideration if more favourable (4) If: (a) a decision (the additional review decision) under subsection 90E(2) is made on review of a prescribed entry decision for an individual; and (b) the prescribed entry decision is subsequently affirmed, varied or substituted (the reconsideration decision) on a reconsideration of the prescribed entry decision under Division 2 of Part 2 of Chapter 8; and (c) the additional review decision is more favourable for the individual than the reconsideration decision; despite subsections 564(4) and (6) (effect of reconsideration decision), the reconsideration decision does not have effect for the purposes of this Act (other than section 566 (review by the Administrative Review Tribunal)). Note: If this subsection does not apply (for example, because the reconsideration decision is as favourable as, or more favourable than, the additional review decision for the individual), the reconsideration decision has effect instead of the additional review decision and the prescribed entry decision (see subsection 564(6) and subsection (5) of this section) on and from the time mentioned in subsection 564(4). Additional review decisions otherwise subject to decisions on reconsideration or ART review (5) To avoid doubt, subsection (1) operates subject to: (a) subsections 564(4) and (6) (effect of reconsideration decision); and (b) section 107 and subsections 108(2) and (4) of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (operation and effect of Administrative Review Tribunal's decision). 9 At the end of subsection 559(1) Add: Note: If the reviewable decision is a prescribed entry decision, and a request is made under subsection 90B(1) to review the prescribed entry decision: (a) days in the additional review period mentioned in paragraph 90G(2)(b) are disregarded in applying this Part in relation to the prescribed entry decision; and (b) a request for reconsideration under this subsection of the prescribed entry decision made during the additional review period is taken to have been made after that period: see subsection 90G(3). 10 At the end of subsections 559(3), 560(5) and 562(5) Add: Note: In applying this Division in relation to a prescribed entry decision, days in the additional review period mentioned in paragraph 90G(2)(b) are disregarded if a request is made under subsection 90B(1) to review the prescribed entry decision. 11 Application The amendments made by this Schedule apply in relation to a prescribed entry decision made on or after the commencement of this item. This Labor government is committed to building an aged-care system that delivers the care that older Australians need. This amendment establishes the capacity for an escalation pathway for home support assessment decisions. It will make a real difference to older people who have complex extenuating circumstances that don't fit neatly into existing assessment processes. The integrated assessment tool is a critical component of the Single Assessment System, which was a key recommendation of the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety. This amendment further improves that system. Where an older person's needs cannot be fully captured by the assessment, assessment organisations will be able to refer that assessment to the Department of Health, Disability and Ageing. The system governor will then be able to substitute a different outcome where the case meets the criteria. The circumstances in which this applies will be set out in the Aged Care Rules. We'll take the time to consult on exactly what those criteria need to be to ensure that we're delivering a sustainable, workable pathway. This sits alongside other work to strengthen our assessment system based on the experiences we've heard about from older Australians and those who care for them. Earlier this year, we made changes to the prioritisation system, Curate, which brought the average wait for someone assessed as 'high priority' down from just over two months to just over one. We made sure that people with MND are automatically treated as urgent. We're enabling assessors to correct input errors in the tool, and the rapid review into the Support at Home prioritisation mechanism will tell us what else needs adjusting. At this stage, I acknowledge the constructive conversations I've had with the shadow minister, on behalf of the opposition. There are contributions in terms of how we further improve this system. We have the member for Mayo, the member for Kooyong and the member for Curtin in the House, all of whom I have met with and discussed different elements of this system; I thank them for their constructive engagement as well. Consistent national rules are an essential feature of a fair, sustainable system. Assessment organisations, peak bodies, advisory group members and representative groups told us the system needed a way to deal with the exceptions to the rules. This amendment continues the government's work of delivering a system that provides safe, dignified and high-quality aged care for every older Australian. 10:17 Ms WATSON-BROWN 300127 Ryan I want to speak very briefly about the government's proposed changes to the integrated assessment tool. The Greens fully support the establishment of a permanent Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander aged-care commissioner. The government's amendments show that Labor are slowly starting to recognise that they've built a system that is untenable. The government says it will provide an escalation pathway for those underassessed by their aged-care assessment tool. We know, though, that the integrated assessment tool is broken. It systematically underassesses older Australians with cognitive issues, mental health conditions and frailty. This is the same tool that was giving older people with MND 10 times less funding than was necessary. This is not a tool that can be fixed with an escalation pathway to tape over everything it gets wrong. Older people don't need another escalation pathway to the department; they need human override by clinicians and the new assessment tool. Older Australians expect to be treated with dignity, respect and care. They expect and deserve to have decisions about their care made by human beings. The integrated assessment tool is a symptom of the aged-care system that Labor has created—one where real people, in the later stages of their lives, are subject to the whims of an algorithm. I've received many emails, phone calls and letters from older Australians and their adult children in my electorate. Without exception, they're absolutely horrified by the lack of transparency and the callous disregard that Labor's aged-care system is putting them through. Securing aged care is really hard, and it should not be this way. The fact that Labor is proposing these amendments shows that pressure is working. This bill and these amendments regarding the IAT will go to a Senate inquiry, where the Greens will continue to work across the whole parliament to fix this broken system. 10:19 Ms CHANEY 300006 Curtin Among other things, the government's amendments to the Aged Care Act introduce an additional human review process for decisions made by the integrated assessment tool, and I support these amendments. They're overdue and they're welcome. For close to a year, an automated tool has had the final say on aged-care support packages for older Australians. Assessors with decades of clinical experience have been unable to override a result that they believed to be wrong. Older Australians have seen their supports cut despite deteriorating health, with no clear explanation and no way for a human to step in and fix it. I've heard directly from individuals affected and from aged-care assessors and providers in Curtin who describe watching this system produce outcomes they knew to be incorrect and being powerless to change them. That's older Australians carrying the cost of a process that nobody can properly explain or correct. So, when the government brings forward a schedule that restores a form of human override, I welcome it. The new part 4A allows a human assessor to request an additional review of a decision made by the automated integrated assessment tool. The substance of this reform sits in the rules that will be made under it. The bill leaves crucial matters to those rules, including what requirements must be satisfied for this human review process to be used. Those rules are not before the House today. They will be made by the executive, and they deserve the same scrutiny as the legislation itself. I'll be looking closely at them when they're tabled, and I expect the government to consult properly with the sector first. A human override with narrow rules and short windows would not fix this. I also want to place these amendments in a wider context, because it should not have taken this long, and it should not happen again the way it's happened this time. This morning, the Guardian revealed that, before the rollout of the automated aged-care tool, assessors had been told by government many times that they would maintain the ability to override the assessment tool. Only at the last moment did these assessors, many of whom had been working to assess and support older Australians for decades, realise that the government had actually failed them and failed older Australians by taking away any ability to override the automated tool. Despite frantic warnings made by the assessors that this would cause real problems, the government ignored them and ploughed ahead. These types of safeguards should not be an afterthought, and they should not be at the whim of each minister. Last week, I introduced the Automated Decision-Making (Safeguards and Transparency) Bill into this House. That bill does for all automated government decisions what these amendments do for one small corner of the aged-care system. It requires any department or agency automating a decision to meet a set of safeguards and transparency requirements before that automation goes live. It prohibits automation where a decision requires genuine human discretion, where an outcome cannot be properly explained or where it would produce an unlawful result. Where automation is used for high-risk decisions, it requires a human to be able to override the outcome, requires the system to be tested for accuracy before use and requires review pathways and independent oversight. The story of the integrated assessment tool shows why this framework is needed. This was not unique to aged care. It was a symptom of a larger gap. We have no general rule that a human must be able to correct an automated government decision. So, when something goes wrong, the fix has to be legislated, department by department, after the harm has already been done. Older Australians should not have to be the ones who discover the gap in the system by living through it. Neither should people relying on the NDIS or social security or on the growing number of government processes where automation is being introduced. That's the case for a single mandatory framework that applies across government, rather than a patchwork of amendments introduced after each failure has already occurred. I support these amendments. I'll be scrutinising the rules that follow them closely, and I urge the government to look at what happened here and support a broader framework governing the use of automated decision-making so the next robodebt, no matter which department it's in, is stopped before it starts. 10:24 Ms SHARKIE 265980 Mayo While I recognise what the government's trying to do here with this amendment—to enable escalation of home support assessment decisions in extenuating circumstances where the needs of the older person are not fully captured by the existing assessment process—I think we need to recognise that the system we have fails to address the systemic and structural flaws that the aged-care integrated assessment tool, the IAT, has created, and we need to see and detail and monitor its outcomes closely. In April 2026, the Australian and New Zealand Society for Geriatric Medicine wrote to and advised both portfolio ministers, identifying multiple clinical risks resulting from the IAT's design. Then, we had Professor Kathy Eagar, in her evidence to the Senate Community Affairs References Committee's inquiry into Support at Home, saying that there is 'absolutely no justification for replacing expert clinical assessors with an algorithm'. Surely we've learnt in this place how fatal algorithms can be. Professor Eagar said that the 62-page IAT is 'massively overengineered', a 'huge waste of taxpayer money', 'not fit for purpose', 'fatally flawed' and its continued use 'cannot be justified'; that 80 per cent of the IAT's 622 questions are not used in the algorithm and issues such as 'frailty and elder abuse are not really even mentioned'; that small differences in functional IAT scores produce very different funding outcomes for people with identical needs; that no other country uses an algorithm so extensively to assess care needs, and those who have tried to do so all but 'abandoned it' because 'it does not work'; and that 'this system is not at all consistent with the vision that the royal commission had in mind'. The minister surely knows this. Professor Eagar said that the rules regarding IAT are 'not consistent with the act', as they redefined Support at Home as a financial entitlement scheme rather than a care and support scheme, which was the purpose that was set out in the act. She said that people who don't get their needs met end up malnourished, dehydrated and with pressure injuries and that they have falls, break their hips and fill up our emergency departments—which I'm seeing in South Australia and we're seeing right across the nation. This is not a saving of taxpayer money. The Guardian newspaper reported documents released under FOI in which multiple state and territory health ministers have documented systemic errors since the IAT commenced in November last year. The director-general of health in WA, Dr Shirley Bowen, stated that the absence of a pathway for clinical discretion in exceptional circumstances poses significant risks. She said: Without a pathway for discretion, a small but vulnerable group of older people might experience catastrophic outcomes while waiting for algorithmically determined access to services. Expert evidence was also provided by former inspector-general of aged care, Ian Yates, AM, to the Senate inquiry. He agreed with Professor Eagar. He said that assigning funding levels before the care services are worked out is 'contrary to person-centred care' and that the assessment methodology is 'fatally flawed'. So I would urge the government and urge the minister to admit that the IAT is fatally flawed. This is a bandaid patch-up. I don't even think it's going to work. Most older Australians don't think it's going to work, and their families are deeply concerned. Why are you not properly listening to the experts, whether that's Professor Eagar, Ian Yates, COTA, OPAN or National Seniors? We have seen a litany of failures by this minister and this act already, and older people are dying because of it. 10:29 Dr RYAN 297660 Kooyong I rise to speak to an amendment that adds human oversight through a new review process on certain aged-care assessment decisions made by the integrated assessment tool. I've been raising concerns about the integrated assessment tool, the algorithm currently being used to determine aged-care supports, since the legislation for it was passed by the House—22 times this year in parliament. Since 1 November last year, there has been no mechanism for skilled clinicians to be able to override the final assessments of this tool. I've heard repeatedly from Kooyong constituents whose needs have been grossly underestimated by the integrated assessment tool, which has left them with aged care packages that have been manifestly inadequate. I repeatedly raised concerns about community members like Graham Crossan, an older member of the Kooyong community with motor neurone disease, and how he was underserved and undersupported by the aged-care system as a result of this tool. I've repeatedly raised the concern that we have been creating robo-aged-care. That's why I'm really happy to see the government listening to reason and listening to the concerns of aged care experts and older Australians from around the country for the need to restore human oversight to aged-care decision-making. I'm really pleased that the government has recognised an amendment that the minister is to refer to the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs. I hope that this inquiry will be open to public submissions so that older Australians, like those I've heard from in Kooyong, and the experts from the sector can continue to voice their concerns about how the aged-care system is treating them in this country. On my initial reading of the amendments, the proposed review framework is a positive and constructive step, but there are details that will need to be resolved. It's important that older Australians have the opportunity to discuss the algorithm's outcome with a skilled clinician that undertakes their assessment and that, if they're unhappy with that assessment, they can apply to the system governor for a review of its decision. The amendment is providing that a request for review must occur within seven days of the algorithm's original decision. Urgency is good, but this is a very small window. I look forward to further detail from the minister on how the department plans to equip assessors with the knowledge to encourage applicants to pursue this pathway within that timeframe. The amendment states that a review will be undertaken if the circumstances prescribed by the aged-care rules apply, and I note that the minister has promised further consultation with the sector and older Australians on those rules. I hope that he will—as my colleague the member for Curtin has suggested and as I've already spoken to in the main legislation that we're addressing today—consider the need for and press his colleagues to urgently legislate a system-wide framework for the use of automated decision-making in government. We've already in this House this week spoken to the ills, the harm and the gross damage undertaken and inflicted on Australians by robodebt. We have to make sure that that doesn't happen again. I'd also like more detail on who's going to be undertaking the reviews under this amendment. It specifies that the system governor or their delegate, who has to occupy a position within the Department of Health, will be responsible for that decision. It's absolutely crucial that those delegates have clinical experience. They cannot be public servants without the ability and the expertise to undertake that sort of review. I'm really pleased to see that the reviewer can vary decisions about both the classification and the priority of older Australians undertaking these assessments. In other words, the review will be able to determine how much funding those individuals receive and how quickly. It's good that the reviewer is going to have to provide reasons for that decision-making within two weeks of the decision. I'd like to commend the Minister for Aged Care and Seniors for taking this step. He has been pushed very hard by the crossbench on this issue, with good reason. We commend him for acting now. We would have liked him to act sooner, but you take what you can get in this place. These amendments provide an opportunity for correct decisions under a system that may otherwise leave, and has been leaving, older Australians without the support that they need and deserve. Question agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Third Reading 21 10:34 Mr RAE 300122 Hawke by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Customs Amendment (Safeguard Inquiries) Bill 2026 21

Customs Amendment (Safeguard Inquiries) Bill 2026

Second Reading 21 10:35 Mr HOGAN 218019 Page I rise to speak on the Customs Amendment (Safeguard Inquiries) Bill 2026. The coalition supports this bill. Australian industry has asked for this change, and the case for it is sound. Bringing Australia's trade remedies together in one specialist agency should make the system easier to use and better able to respond when manufacturers face a surge in imports. But the government has more work to do. Changing the agency responsible for an inquiry will achieve little if industry can't bring a case forward, the process remains unclear and the people doing the work lack the resources they need. Those are the concerns industry brought to the committee, and they deserve answers from the government. This bill transfers responsibility for the safeguard inquiries from the Productivity Commission to the Anti-Dumping Commission, which will be renamed the Australian Trade Remedies Commission. A safeguard is a temporary restriction on imports, usually a higher tariff, where a surge in imports causes or threatens serious injury to an Australian industry. It differs from antidumping action. A safeguard doesn't require a finding that goods have been dumped or that anyone has engaged in unfair trade. It responds to the harm caused by increased imports, subject to the requirements of world trade rules. These measures give an affected industry time to adjust. They're temporary measures, and their consequences extend beyond the industry seeking assistance. A tariff can raise costs for businesses that buy imported products and for consumers, and the inquiry must weigh these effects. The bill includes a public interest test covering the economic significance of affected industries and the likely consequences for the economy, downstream businesses and consumers. The coalition supports a system that examines the evidence and considers those consequences. Australian manufacturers need a credible remedy when the conditions for one are met. That matters in the current trading environment. Global overcapacity, particularly in steel and aluminium, and sudden changes in trade flows can push large volumes of product into open markets such as Australia. For a manufacturer, the consequences can arrive well before government responds: orders fall away, margins shrink and investment is deferred. A business that has trained workers and built its capacity over decades can find itself struggling to survive. When a factory closes, the loss is significant. Suppliers lose work, apprentices lose opportunities and much-needed skills leave the industry. Australia therefore needs a safeguard mechanism capable of responding when it is needed, and that's why consolidating the three trade remedies functions makes sense. Industry already deals with the Anti-Dumping Commission, and its investigators understand trade remedies and the evidence required to assess them. Housing these functions together should reduce duplication and build expertise. No submission to the committee opposed the bill. But support for the bill was accompanied by consistent concerns about access, funding and procedure, and we ask the government to take those concerns seriously. A clear pathway for industry—the first problem is that industry can't itself start a safeguard inquiry. An inquiry can begin only when the minister refers the matter to the commissioner. There is no application pathway that triggers an inquiry, no published threshold industry can meet to secure referral and no obligation on the minister to explain a refusal. A business facing an import surge must first secure the minister's attention. That takes time and resources, while the commercial damage continues. In its submission, the Building Products Industry Council raised this as a major concern. The council represents industries across steel, timber, cement, glass, masonry and insulation. Capral Aluminium, the Australian Aluminium Council and the Australian Forest Products Association raised the same issue. They want a clear, published process through which industry can present a prima facie case to the commission and the minister, and that's a reasonable request. The Australian Steel Institute's experience shows why it matters. In November 2025, it sought safeguard measures for fabricated structural steel. Its request passed through ministerial consideration before reaching the Productivity Commission in January this year. The final report isn't due to government until November 2026, and, according to the institute's evidence, that's three years after the damage began. The businesses worst affected include small and medium enterprises. They don't have unlimited reserves to carry years of losses while waiting for decisions. A remedy that arrives after a business has closed offers little comfort to its workers. The government says this bill will improve accessibility. If that's the case, then it should establish a process that manufacturers can understand and use, with published guidance, application material and indicative timeframes. Secondly, there are the ministerial powers and accountability. The second concern is the minister's continuing control over an inquiry. The minister sets the reporting period, requires hearings and requires a draft report to be released. The minister also determines whether the commissioner may make a recommendation. It's the last power that deserves attention. If the minister doesn't require a recommendation, the commissioner can't make one. An inquiry could take evidence, hear from affected businesses and find serious injury yet be unable to recommend action. Industry deserves to know why a process designed to investigate harm could be prevented from recommending a response to it. The minister may also amend or withdraw a reference before receiving the report. The bill doesn't require reasons to be given or notice to be provided to parliament. Ministerial responsibility is part of this system. It must be accompanied by transparency. The government should publish every reference, together with any amendment or withdrawal and the reasons for it. Parliament and affected industries should be able to see how these powers are exercised. There are also questions about the public interest test. The minister may specify additional matters for the commissioner to consider. Further, the bill requires a commissioner to have regard to whether a recommendation is in the public interest, rather than to be satisfied that it is. The government presents this test as an important protection. Published methodology and clear reasons would help parliament assess how that protection works in practice. The Australian Steel Institute told the committee that the methodology used in the current fabricated structural steel inquiry hadn't been disclosed. That made it difficult to judge what evidence would assist and how to present it. The new commission should publish its methodology so participants understand what is required. Thirdly, it's about the published rules and procedures. This concern is about how much detail remains outside the bill. The minister may make rules governing the commissioner's responsibilities, inquiry procedures, participation by interested parties and timeframes for the handling of evidence. These matters will determine how the system works for the businesses using it. But the power to make those rules is discretionary. The bill doesn't require the minister to exercise it. Industry's requests for clear procedures therefore depend on a further government decision. Manufacturers and downstream users should have an opportunity to identify practical problems before the arrangements take effect. Finally, the commission must be funded to carry out its new responsibilities. The explanatory memorandum says the cost will be met by existing resources. Industry questioned whether that is realistic, given the growth in the commission's antidumping and countervailing workload. The Australian Workers' Union, which supports prompt passage of the bill, also raised funding concerns. It noted that the temporary funding increase provided in 2025 wasn't renewed in the 2026-27 budget. Safeguard inquiries require demanding economic analysis, assessment of injury and consideration of effects across the economy. Transferring that responsibility creates work. A new name doesn't provide more investigators or any analytical capacity. Without adequate funding, safeguard inquiries could be delayed, or resources could be diverted from existing antidumping cases. Australian industry depends on those cases being handled properly too. The government should state now how much funding the safeguards function will receive, how long it will last and how the existing work will be maintained. It should also address InfraBuild's concern that the public interest test remains confined to safeguards. Its introduction here shouldn't become a precedent for changing the assessment of antidumping claims, which serve a different purpose. The coalition will vote for this bill because consolidating Australia's trade remedies is sensible and the industry wants the safeguards system to work better. Our support doesn't settle all the questions raised by the inquiry. Manufacturers need a published pathway to bring cases forward, ministerial decisions need reasons and scrutiny, and the commission needs clear procedures and adequate resources. We thank the organisations that gave evidence and the committee secretariat for its work. We will hold the government to the improvements it has promised Australian industry and press it to finish the job. 10:44 Ms CLUTTERHAM 316101 Sturt I rise today to speak in support of the Customs Amendment (Safeguard Inquiries) 2026. At its heart, this bill is about protecting free and fair trade. It recognises that Australia is a trading nation, supportive of rules based trade and focused on the jobs, growth and opportunity from participating in a free, fair and sustainable international market. Free and open trade drives vibrant competition, innovation and economies of scale, allowing individuals and businesses to take advantage of lower prices and increased choice. Free trade is about rejecting favouritism and expanding economic opportunity for all, because it creates new, higher paying jobs for Australians as well as for Australia's trading partners. Attempting to restrict trade in order to protect existing jobs makes no more sense than attempting to ban the use of new technology. This government will always back Australian manufacturing to make sure it isn't compromised by unfair trade. In this country, the benefits of trade are also shared with the community through the ongoing participation of women and First Nations Australians. First Nations Australians have engaged in trade for thousands and thousands of years, and they continue to share in the benefits of trade today, including through inclusive trade provisions in agreements with our trading partners. Foreign investment through trade and Australia's openness to foreign investment have helped to build Australia, create jobs and raise living standards through the introduction of new technology and by fostering competition. Foreign investment provides access to the additional capital we need and supports higher levels of investment by pooling risk and return across domestic and foreign investors. Foreign investment has also played an important role in the development of our agriculture, resources, energy, infrastructure and financial sectors, and it's also critical in driving forward our transition to net zero. This speaks directly to a future made in Australia, which is directed at both maximising the economic and industrial benefits of the global net zero transformation and securing Australia's place in an ever-changing and complex global, economic and strategic landscape. Scaling up Australia's clean energy industries will assist in strengthening global clean energy supply chains and will underpin our ongoing role as a reliable energy supplier. Australia will continue to work with our international partners to build new clean energy industries and in particular to ensure regional energy security and advance practical action on climate change and climate resilience, as we clearly demonstrated at the recent Pacific Islands Forum. A future made in Australia and international trade are also focused on encouraging and facilitating the private sector investment needed to harness these opportunities. The private sector is the engine room of our economy, and it supports the inclusive and sustainable productivity growth that is at the heart of the national agenda. It operates by promoting economic growth and opening up new trade opportunities through investments, knowledge transfer and innovation. Without the private sector, new markets are not created; competition is not fostered; and investments in critical national projects, perhaps through private equity or venture capital, are not made. This all means direct employment; the provision of finance to many industrial sectors and geographic regions; acting to boost living standards and improve the availability and quality of goods and services such as housing, infrastructure, health and education—often through public-private partnerships that allow for risk sharing, so governments and the Australian taxpayer do not have to shoulder all of the financial and operational risks. Equally, with its capacity to invest, innovate and commercialise, the private sector also contributes environmentally friendly technologies, which are valuable in the face of climate change and the transition to clean, renewable energy, helping many positive impacts in many critical development goals such as food security, health and water. The role of the Australian private sector in free and fair international trade cannot be underestimated. It cannot be restricted or limited. It must be an active partner with government. Government has a critical role to play here, because government invests in essential services. It builds infrastructure and supports education, research and skills development. Government provides the strategic leadership that helps Australia prepare for the future at the same time as recognising that innovation, entrepreneurship and investment are often driven by businesses in the private sector that are willing to take risks, develop new technologies and create new industries. All of this works together in the international trade context. This bill represents an important step forward in creating fit-for-purpose national trade architecture for a complex world that is continually experiencing shocks. It does this by vesting responsibility for undertaking safeguard inquiries with the Australian Trade Remedies Commission, currently known as the Anti-Dumping Commission. This will streamline Australia's trade remedies architecture. The transfer is an important step in modernising Australia's trade remedy system, noting that this has not undergone significant reform in more than a decade. So it's incredibly important, and it's a signal of Australia's ongoing commitment to free and fair trade and our response to the current levels of volatility in approaches to international trade. It's important that we, in response to that volatility, have sought to rely on pre-existing mechanisms to develop solutions to this challenge rather than follow the volatility that has been displayed by other World Trade Organization members. The imposition of the safeguard measures has been a feature of the World Trade Organization's legal structure almost since its inception. But, here in Australia, safeguard inquiries have actually been relatively uncommon. There have been only four since we entered the 21st century. But, as we have seen across the globe, governments are taking different approaches to trade with the consequence that principles of free and fair trade are under significant pressure. We have now consistently seen commitments regarding tariffs being dismissed with the stroke of a pen and treaty and fair trade agreement obligations simply disregarded because they don't suit a particular moment. Given the risks posed to the international rules based trade regime, it's imperative that Australia use all of its tools in its toolkit to back local industry to ensure it's not overpowered by the new approaches being prosecuted in the international trading environment. This bill is a significant development in Australia's approach to safeguard measures. So what are they? They might be temporary quotas, increased tariffs or a combination that are imposed against the imports of a certain product, typically in circumstances where a product is imported in such increased quantities and under such conditions as to cause or threaten serious injury to domestic producers in a particular territory of similar or directly competitive products. Initially, these measures were designed as an emergency-style trade remedy intended to respond to a surge of imports that would cause or threaten to cause serious injury to a domestic industry producing the same product. But, as we have seen, because prohibitive tariffs are now being imposed by a number of major World Trade Organization member states, safeguard measures may need to have a broader and deeper application. This bill will transfer responsibility for safeguard inquiries from the Productivity Commission to the Australian Anti-Dumping Commissioner, who would be renamed the Australian trade remedies commissioner. How it works is that the relevant minister can refer a matter to the Australian trade remedies commissioner to commence an inquiry. Importantly, before the commissioner recommends the application of safeguard measures, they must consider whether the application would be in the public interest. This might include, amongst other things, a consideration of the likely impact of any recommendation to impose or not to impose safeguard measures on the Australian economy, on downstream industries and on consumers. It will also require consideration of the benefits to Australian industry in removing the identified serious injury or threat of serious injury and the economic significance of the industry in Australia that might be affected. This is an important guardrail on the application of the safeguard measures themselves because it requires consideration of the potential protectionist flavour that may arise through the implication of safeguard measures, noting that protectionism and a protectionist approach are not commensurate with free and fair trade and are also a potentially harmful response to unfair trading practices. This public interest test is critical in weighing up the consequences of what could amount to significant market intervention. 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 these 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. Australia has a strong history of free and fair trade. We have free trade agreements with multiple countries around the globe, including New Zealand, the US, Singapore, the United Arab Emirates, Thailand, Chile, Peru, Malaysia, Korea and Japan, just to name a few. Free trade agreements provide Australian exports with a better competitive position. They open up prospects for increased bilateral investment, and they reduce costs for Australian businesses and consumers. It cannot be disputed that free trade agreements contribute to the greater economic activity and job creation in Australia and that they deliver opportunities for big and small Australian businesses to benefit from that greater trade and investment. Free trade agreements encourage investment. They help to improve the rules affecting issues such as intellectual property, the digital marketplace and government procurement. They provide significant competitive advantages for Australian businesses and consumers in that improved access to a wider range of competitively priced goods and services, new technologies and innovative practices are made available. You can also achieve better regional economic integration and the development of shared approaches to trade and investment between Australia and our trading partners that are bilaterally beneficial, not just beneficial to one trading partner. And, in doing this, free trade agreements deliver enhanced trade and investment opportunities that contribute to the economic growth of less developed economies, which is critical for regional stability. Government-to-government and business-to-business relationships are greatly enhanced through the negotiation process and the implementation process. With all these enormous benefits for Australian businesses, the Australian people and our future economic prosperity and regional security, it would be curious to take an approach that sought to hinder and complicate the implementation of a free trade agreement with, say, the European Union—especially one meticulously negotiated with the interests of all affected Australian industries at the forefront of mind and negotiated meticulously with the long-term sustainability of a fair, free trading relationship with the European Union that benefits Australian industry as a key priority. The bill represents a significant step forward with respect to protecting Australian industry at the same time as continuing to prosecute free and fair trade. The inclusion of the public interest consideration provides confidence to the community that safeguard inquiries will assess both the benefits to Australian industry and the impacts on a range of stakeholders in the course of formulating a recommendation on their application. I commend the bill to the House. 10:59 Mr BURNELL 300129 Spence The Customs Amendment (Safeguard Inquiries) Bill 2026 is about ensuring that Australia has the tools, the expertise and the institutions necessary to protect Australian industry in an increasingly uncertain global trading environment. It reflects a simple principle that should unite every member of this House: when Australian businesses compete, they deserve a fair contest. Local manufacturers should succeed because of their innovation, productivity and hard work. They should not be forced to compete against unfair trade practices that distort markets and undermine confidence. The Albanese Labor government believes strongly in the benefits of trade. We are an outward-looking nation whose prosperity has been built through engagement with the world from the earliest exports of wool and wheat through to today's advanced manufacturing, critical minerals, agricultural services and technology sectors, Australia's history has been shaped by our ability to trade with the world. Millions of Australians' jobs depend on our ability to sell goods and services beyond our shores, attract investment and participate in global supply chains. One in four Australian jobs is trade exposed, highlighting just how important international commerce is to our national prosperity. The government has demonstrated its commitment to expanding trade opportunities for Australian businesses and workers. Manufacturing exports have grown substantially under this government. Our trading relationship with China has been repaired, and new free trade agreements have been secured with the United Kingdom, the United Arab Emirates and the European Union. Those achievements strengthen opportunities for exporters, create jobs and support economic growth across our nation. Support for trade, however, does not mean accepting unfair conduct when it occurs. Open markets must be accompanied by effective safeguards that ensure Australian industries are not harmed by practices that breach the spirit or the rules of international commerce. Free trade and fair trade are not competing concepts; they are complementary principles that work together to create confidence, investment and long-term prosperity. When overseas producers dump goods into markets at artificially low prices, when products benefit from unfair subsidisation or when sudden surges of imports threaten serious injury to domestic industries, governments have a responsibility to act. That responsibility is recognised under the rules of the World Trade Organization. WTO members are permitted to implement trade remedy measures in carefully defined circumstances to protect domestic industries from demonstrable harm. Those measures are not acts of protectionism; they are lawful mechanisms designed to ensure international trade remains fair, balanced and rules based. Australia has long maintained a trade remedies framework to fulfil that purpose, yet the reality is that that system we inherited is no longer equipped to mee the challenges of the modern trading environment. As we all know, global markets have become more volatile, geopolitical tensions have increased and supply chains have experienced significant disruptions. Manufacturing sectors across the world are confronting excess capacity and heightened competition. Those developments have increased the demand for effective trade remedies and exposed weaknesses in Australia's existing arrangements. The current framework divides responsibility between different agencies. The Anti-Dumping Commission undertakes investigations relating to dumping and subsidisation. The Productivity Commission conducts safeguard inquiries when concerns arise about import surges causing serious injury to domestic industries. That split structure may once have appeared workable, but today it represents an unnecessary fragmentation of expertise and responsibility. Australian manufacturers navigating the trade remedy system should not be required to understand multiple agencies, separate processes and different institutional arrangements simply to seek assistance. Industry deserves a system that is clear, accessible and fit for purpose. That is what this legislation delivers. The bill transfers responsibility for safeguard inquiries from the Productivity Commission to the Anti-Dumping Commission. In recognition of its expanded role, the commission will be renamed the Australian Trade Remedies Commission. That new title accurately reflects the breadth of responsibilities the organisation will undertake. More importantly, it establishes a single specialist body responsible for Australia's trade remedy functions. Consolidating these responsibilities will strengthen capability, improve consistency and create a more coherent framework for industry engagement. Businesses seeking assistance will know where to go, government will benefit from greater alignment across trade remedy mechanism and stakeholders will interact with a specialist agency whose expertise is focused squarely on addressing unfair trade practices. These reforms were announced by the Treasurer, Minister Farrell and Minister Ayres following the economic reform roundtables in August 2025. The announcement followed extensive advocacy from industry groups, manufacturers and unions who recognised the need for reform. Their message was clear: Australia's trade remedies framework required modernisation to meet contemporary challenges and support domestic industry more effectively. Under the bill, the Australian trade remedies commissioner will be empowered to conduct safeguard inquiries when matters are referred by the responsible minister. The legislation establishes a clear framework governing how those inquiries are undertaken. Detailed provisions set out referral arrangements, reporting requirements and transparency obligations. Once an inquiry is completed, the commissioner will provide a written report to the minister. That report must be tabled, ensuring parliamentary oversight and public accountability. Public notice requirements will ensure interested parties are aware of inquiries and have opportunities to participate. Hearings will generally be conducted openly while preserving the ability to protect sensitive information in appropriate circumstances. Documentation provided to the commission will be made publicly available, except where legitimate confidentiality considerations apply. Transparency is a central feature of this reform. Stakeholders must have confidence that trade remedies are based upon evidence, rigorous analysis and clearly articulated reasoning. Public trust is strengthened when decision-making processes are visible and accountable. The bill also equips the commissioner with information-gathering powers necessary to conduct thorough investigations. Those powers mirror arrangements currently available to the Productivity Commission. They ensure inquiries can access the evidence required to make informed recommendations. Robust evidence gathering is essential because safeguard measures carry significant economic implications, and decisions made must be grounded in facts rather than assumptions. The government is committed to maintaining a rules based system that balances competing interests responsibly. That commitment is reflected in the public interest test contained within this legislation. Before recommending safeguard measures, the commissioner must consider a range of relevant factors. Potential benefits to Australian producers will be assessed. The significance of affected industries to the national economy will be examined. Consideration will be given to downstream industries that rely upon imported inputs. The likely impacts on consumers will also form part of the analysis. Ministers will retain the ability to specify additional matters through terms of reference where appropriate. These requirements recognise an important reality. Trade remedy measures can provide important support for industries experiencing injury, but they may also have broader economic consequences. Responsible policy requires decision-makers to weigh those considerations carefully. The framework established by this bill strikes that balance. It protects Australian industry while maintaining transparency, accountability and consistency with Australia's international obligations. The inclusion of a public interest assessment should provide confidence to businesses, workers and consumers alike. Recommendations will not be developed in isolation from their broader economic context. They will reflect a comprehensive examination of impacts across the economy. That approach is practical, balanced and responsible. It is also consistent with Australia's longstanding support for a rules based trading system. Some have sought to characterise trade remedies as measures directed at particular countries. The suggestion that these reforms are directed towards any particular nation fundamentally misunderstands how Australia's trade remedies framework operates. Every investigation is conducted independently, guided by evidence and consistent with Australia's obligations under the WTO. Recommendations are reached on the facts established through each inquiry, not on political considerations or on the identity of a trading partner. The purpose is to respond to unfair trade practices wherever they arise while preserving Australia's commitment to an open rules-based trading system. Decisions are made in accordance with WTO obligations and established legal frameworks. The purpose is not to target any specific trading partner but instead to protect Australian industries from unfair trade practices wherever they occur. Australia is not alone in maintaining such arrangements. Comparable economies around the world utilise trade remedies to ensure domestic industries are not disadvantaged by unfair conduct. The challenge facing governments today is ensuring that those mechanisms remain effective as global conditions evolve. The need to reform is particularly evident in sectors experiencing intense international pressure. Australia's steel industry provides a clear example. Persistent global overcapacity has created significant challenges for producers around the world. Industry participants have expressed concerns regarding import pressures and their impact on domestic operations. The Australian Steel Institute formally requested a safeguard inquiry into certain fabricated structural steel products. In accordance with the current legislative framework, the government referred that application to the Productivity Commission for consideration; that inquiry is continuing. Nothing in this bill alters or interferes with that process. Existing arrangements remain in place for the duration of the current inquiry, and this legislation simply establishes a more effective framework for future cases. Industry has welcomed that approach. Support for these reforms extends across a broad range of stakeholders. Representatives of manufacturers, producers, importers, unions and government agencies participating in the International Trade Remedies Forum have endorsed the transfer of safeguard responsibilities. Major industry organisations have called for these changes. Trade unions representing Australian workers have done the same. The Australian Industry Group, Manufacturing Australia, the Australian Steel Institute, the AWU, the AMWU, the Textile, Clothing and Footwear Union and the ACTU have all advocated for reform. Such broad agreement is not always common in public policy. When employers, workers and industry bodies arrive at the same conclusion, parliament should take notice because these groups understand the practical realities facing Australian manufacturing. They recognise the importance of maintaining effective trade defences. Even members opposite have previously acknowledged the need for stronger trade remedy arrangements. Senator Canavan has publicly raised concerns regarding imports that threaten Australian manufacturing jobs. He has also argued for investment in the Anti-Dumping Commission to ensure Australia can take evidence based action against international trade rules. Those observations reinforce an important point: strengthening Australia's trade remedies framework should not be a partisan issue; it is a matter of supporting Australian workers, Australian manufacturers and Australian communities. The previous government spoke about changes to Australia's antidumping system. The difference is that this government is delivering the reform. The need for reform was acknowledged, but acknowledgement alone does not strengthen Australian industry. After almost a decade in government, the coalition left office without implementing the changes it had promised to Australia's trade remedies framework. Labor has taken a different approach. We have consulted widely. We have engaged directly with businesses, unions, manufacturers and importers. We released a consultation paper and sought feedback from stakeholders across the economy. Operational improvements have already been pursued within the Anti-Dumping Commission. Efforts to reduce complexity and improve accessibility are continuing. Greater engagement with small and medium-sized enterprises is underway. Work is progressing to provide stakeholders with timely information about global trade developments and potential trade diversion risks. This bill represents another practical step in that broader reform agenda. It is part of a comprehensive effort to ensure Australia's trade remedies regime meets the needs of modern industry. The Albanese Labor government is determined to build a future made in Australia. Achieving that objective requires more than investment alone. Businesses need confidence that markets operate fairly. Manufacturers need confidence that unfair practices will not be ignored. Workers need confidence that government will stand behind industries that play a critical role in national prosperity. Strengthening trade remedies supports those goals. Consolidating expertise within a single specialist body improves effectiveness, enhances transparency and strengthens confidence. Modernising institutional arrangements increases accessibility and responsiveness. Together, these reforms help create a stronger and more resilient economy. They ensure Australia remains committed to free trade while maintaining the capacity to respond when trade is not fair. In a period of growing uncertainty across global markets, that capability has never been more important. For all those reasons, I commend this bill to the House. It does a lot of great work in protecting great businesses and workers in communities like mine in the seat of Spence. 11:14 Mr NEUMANN HVO Blair I'm pleased to speak in support of the Customs Amendment (Safeguard Inquiries) Bill 2026. The Albanese government supports free trade and supports fair trade. Since coming to office, we have repaired our trading relationship with China and signed and/or implemented free trade agreements with the European Union, the United Arab Emirates and the United Kingdom. We're a trading nation, and one in four Australians in employment owe their jobs to trade directly or indirectly. Rules based trade is good for Australia, Australian jobs and Australian households, but, when trade is not fair, we stand up for Australian businesses and Australian workers, using 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. This bill represents an important step in creating fit-for-purpose national trade architecture for a complex and shock-prone world. The bill unifies all trade remedy responsibilities under one specialist body, enhancing the Albanese government's support for Australian manufacturers against increasingly unpredictable global trade dynamics. We're committed to strengthening the trade remedies regime, protecting the Australian economy from unfair trade and levelling the playing field for local industry. Demand for trade remedies is increasing, but the trade remedies system we inherited is not fit for purpose. Currently, the responsibilities for the Australian trade remedies regime are split across the Anti-Dumping Commission and the Productivity Commission. The bill transfers responsibility for the WTO safeguards inquiries from the Productivity Commission to the Anti-Dumping Commission, which will be renamed the Australian Trade Remedies Commission. The transfer of safeguard responsibilities was announced by Minister Farrell, the Treasurer and Minister Ayres back in August 2025, as an outcome of the economic reform roundtables, following strong industry and union advocacy. Under the World Trade Organization regime, trade remedies can be put in place to protect Australian industries from injury caused by dumping or subsidisation of products manufactured overseas or by a surge in imports. What does this really mean? The Economics Legislation Committee of the Senate examined this particular bill in August 2026. Both sides of politics supported its implementation. But what is the safeguard mechanism? A safeguard action is an emergency action, really, which can be taken by a government where there is a massive increase, or a surge, of imports which cause or threaten to cause serious injury to a domestic industry. We can take action. This can be done in the form of tariffs, import quotas or other measures and are applied on a global basis in accordance with the rules internationally. It's done temporarily to give domestic industry time to adjust, in those circumstances, to the new import surge. A safeguard inquiry can be undertaken to determine remedial action by government. They are undertaken in accordance with our obligations under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT 1947) and agreement on safeguards contained in other safeguards agreements internationally. There is support for this legislation across the chamber. I am pleased for that. Under this bill, the Trade Remedies Commission will have powers to undertake safeguard inquiries to determine whether an increase in imports is causing or threatens to cause serious injury to a domestic industry. So we've got a renamed commission. We've got the conferral on that commission of the functions to conduct safeguard enquiries when a matter is referred to it by the responsible minister; the capacity to outline safeguard processes, including how the minister refers the matter to the commission; the requirement for the commissioner to provide a written report to the minister; the requirement for that inquiry report to be tabled; public notice of inquiries and hearings; requirements for documents submitted to the commission to be made public except when certain confidential exceptions are necessary; the establishment of information collection methods for the commissioner; and the empowerment of the commissioner to do incidental safeguard functioning. Finally, the legislation includes a public interest consideration similar to that required by the Productivity Commission. What will the commissioner consider? There are the benefits to the Australian producers in removing the serious injury; the economic significance of the Australian industries affected; the likely impact of the recommendation on the Australian economy, downstream industries and consumers; and other matters under the terms of reference. The inclusion of a public interest consideration, I think, provides some confidence to the community about the assessment that will impact on the range of stakeholders. The approach taken in the bill, I think, balances what is necessary and also transparency. The bill supports our commitment to ongoing practical regulatory improvement. The bill will not remove the Productivity Commission's existing framework for conducting its own safeguard inquiries, including its current inquiry into steel imports. Given the increased likelihood of application for industry for safeguarding inquiries and calls for key stakeholders, the bill has been expedited ahead of the government's trade remedy reform effort. The bill has overwhelming support from stakeholders. The member for Spence outlined some of them. The AWU supports it. The ACTU and industry also support it. There's a lot of support, and there's ongoing consultation. The Australian Steel Institute supports it. The Australian Industry Group supports it. Manufacturing Australia supports it. It has a broad range of support, and it demonstrates, I think, our commitment in this area. I note, as I said before, the Senate Economics Legislation Committee reported on it. The coalition members had some concern, apparently, but really they gave support as well. So there's some urgency in relation to the bill, as I've said. I mentioned before that the bill won't remove the Productivity Commission's existing framework for conducting safeguard inquiries, and that safeguard inquiry is looking into allegations of dumping in the steel industry and will determine if increased steel imports are damaging our domestic industry. The PC will continue to undertake that inquiry. The current inquiry is being conducted in response to a formal request by the Australian Steel Institute, ASI, to introduce safeguard measures against importation of fabricated steel-structure products. That inquiry is looking at beams, guardrails, stairways and other types of things, and we're seeing a surge in imports, which really, in my view, do cause serious injury to the Australian domestic steel industry. And I'm looking forward to the outcome. I'm hopeful that the PC will do the right thing here. We're doing this because we understand the pressures on the Australian and global steel sectors. The industry has called for action; we're responding here. The government referred the ASI's application to the PC, the responsible body, under that legislation, because it warranted formal consideration. I think it certainly did. That inquiry is very important for my electorate, as a number of local steel and aluminium producers have been severely affected by unfair practices. For example, Capital Aluminium is a large aluminium extrusion plant in Bundamba and Ipswich. The member for Chifley has been there with me before, and we've been there a number of times. Those antidumping measures are very important, as they allow manufacturers like Capital to compete on a fair and level basis. I've met with Capital several times in recent years, and they have said the aluminium sector, particularly aluminium extrusion, is globally dealing with huge overcapacity in China and unfair trade practices that have resulted. So Capital welcomes the result of this case and the certainty it brings to the Australian domestic extrusion industry. In addition, CASA Engineering has a facility in Bundamba in my electorate and supplies fabricated structural steel to builders. I met with director Peter Casa late last year, and he told me the firm had been significantly impacted by extensive structural steel imports from two countries, particularly China and Vietnam, and he had to close two workshops and reduce his workforce. At the time, CASA Engineering had called for the government to refer ASI's application to the PC for a safeguard inquiry, which we've done, and for safeguard measures to address the harm being done to the local steel fabrication industry and help firms like theirs to survive. Importantly, these efforts build on other initiatives to tackle dumping and support local manufacturing. For example, in October last year, following an investigation by the Australian Anti-Dumping Commission, the minister for industry and science extended the duties on aluminium extrusion exported from China to Australia for a further five years. Initially imposed in 2010, these antidumping measures maintain the value of Australian produced aluminium extrusion, which are used in the construction, automotive, aerospace and electronics industries. Under these measures, Chinese aluminium extrusion manufacturers will be hit with import duties if it is priced below local market values. Again, Capital, who have a facility in my electorate, are the largest producer of aluminium extrusion in Australia, and they welcome the extension, which is helping to preserve local manufacturing industry. The Albanese government is strengthening Australia's antidumping regime to support local manufacturing firms in my electorate and protect jobs in regional areas like Ipswich. As well as this, the government is providing the Anti-Dumping Commission with an additional $5 million to boost investigation capabilities. That's been an ongoing issue from my experience, my observation and the feedback I've heard from stakeholders. On top of this, in January this year, the government launched a $20 million Made Right Here in Australia campaign to raise awareness of Australian products and encourage consumers around the country to buy Australian. Our grant to the Australia Made campaign is supported by a major 'buy local' push in stores, online, and across the media. Australia Made, including the Made Right Here campaign, gives local manufacturers like Capral a trusted, highly recognised mark which helps identify Australian made products and gives customers confidence they are buying quality and locally. These reforms are part of a broader resilience plan anchored by a future made in Australia design to level the playing field, cut red tape and strengthen manufacturing at every stage. I want to thank the Minister for Industry and Innovation and Minister for Science for bringing forward this important legislation and for the work done by the government to deliver Australia's Future Made in Australia agenda. That Future Made in Australia agenda is part of Labor's agenda, and we believe in it thoroughly. In summary, this bill will create a specialist body that will be known as the Australian Trade Remedies Commission. It will comply with Australia's commitment 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 which can bring deep expertise to trade remedies. That has not always been the case here in Australia. It will support Australian industry, our regional areas like Ipswich and a future made in Australia. I know how important fair trade and a level playing field for job security of workers at blue-collar jobs in Ipswich are. Our government has the biggest pro-manufacturing package of any Australian government in Australian history. Part of that is making sure our antidumping and trade remedies regimes are fit for purpose and that their design is geared towards backing Australian industry. That's what this legislation is all about and that's why I commend it to the House. 11:27 Mr HUSIC 91219 Chifley It is a pleasure to follow the member for Blair on this because I do know what a big deal this is for manufacturing in his electorate, as it is in many electorates. This bit of legislation, for many people who may have accidentally or deliberately tuned into parliament, may seem like an arcane, esoteric bit of work, but it's actually something that's been 30 years in the making. It reflects a journey that this country has been on. Let me explain. I was a teenager in the Hawke-Keating years, at a time when we opened up the economy. We cheered on a lot of what was done back then because opening up the economy, breaking down tariff walls and integrating us into the world trading system at that point in time were a big deal. It hurt a lot of blue-collar workers. I saw that in my own family. A lot of pressure was placed on the companies they worked for and the wages that they earned from that work. We grew up in a time when we chanted the mantra of free trade. I spouted it many times over the years. Free trade is great when it happens, but the world is not that neat and it doesn't always abide by the rules. Free trade is great when it happens. That's why a lot on our side of the chamber and our side of politics have talked not just about free trade but fair trade—because in many cases there are big players that will use their position to be able to produce product in a way that is not fair trade and certainly isn't free trade. One of the biggest turning points in world trade was the admission of China to the World Trade Organization in about the year 2000. At that point, you saw so many countries shift from domestic production and domestic manufacturing; this all shot offshore to China. China, from that point on, became an economic powerhouse. So much of the world's product came out of one country. It took us 20 years from when China was admitted to the WTO to the impact of a pandemic to make us take another look at the way in which world trading and the world trade mechanisms were operating—so many eggs in one basket. We said at that point that we had to learn the lesson of the pandemic and then we started to build our own capabilities to make the things we needed when we needed them most. But it took a long journey from us chanting, in a crowd, the virtues of free trade to recognise how much distortion had happened in trade flows across the planet. As part of that, and to protect ourselves from it, we've had an Anti-Dumping Commission in place. When countries produce product at such a volume and, importantly, where they produce it and deliberately price it lower than what they produced it for and then sell it to other countries, that presents a huge economic risk. To us it means that, if you are a steelmaker or an aluminium producer or an extruder like Capral, which the member for Blair just referenced, and you're having to compete against product that has been deliberately undercut and which then secures market share in the country where you're producing that material—and that is priced so low that you see your customers shift from you to the importers of that product that has been undercut—and you are forced to close, that presents a big problem for a country like ours. The Anti-Dumping Commission is made up of some great people. I saw them firsthand as the industry minister in the last term of this government. They do incredible work. It is not easy to do the work that they do, but it takes a long time for them. From the moment a local industry player calls out the pricing of that type of product, it takes a long time for the Anti-Dumping Commission to come up with a decision about what's going on. Then there's a long appeal process as well. It puts huge pressure on Australian industry. It takes a long time to make those decisions. So, what's the alternative? The alternative is effectively what's contained in here. I'm grateful for the acknowledgement of the industry minister—that this work began in the last term of government, where we had attempted to shift these powers from the Productivity Commission to the Anti-Dumping Commission. What these powers will allow is that, instead of taking a long period of time for those decisions to be made, we could go on the front foot, make an early assessment through these emergency powers that the parliament's debating right now and act way quicker. We could prevent and shield Australian manufacturers from cut-price product that would impact on them. Remember this: once manufacturers in Australia are forced out of business because of cut-price product, what happens? It creates yet another dependency, particularly on China, for that product. Then we get more and more entrenched and we fail to learn the lesson of the pandemic, which was that we should do more of this work on our own and be able to stand up on our own two feet. Having the safeguard mechanism was something that I believed was really important to speed up the way we made decisions. But it gets resisted, and it gets resisted by the usual suspects that exist within the federal bureaucracy. I'm just going to make this point: it doesn't matter who's on this side of the chamber; we all get advice from the same places. We get it from Treasury. We get it from Finance. We get it from DFAT. We get it from the Productivity Commission. The Productivity Commission held this power not because it wanted to use it but because it didn't want it to be used. In the 20 years or so it had this power, how many times did it do safeguarding inquiries? I reckon around four times, and it did it in some arcane areas, probably as a result of pressure of the Howard government or the coalition government, but it wasn't using it actively. So, if it's not going to use it, it should lose it and it should go to the ADC, where they can make those decisions quickly. But it was those characters, the usual suspects—Treasury, Finance, DFAT. DFAT would argue that anything like this would threaten that the WTO would intervene and that it would breach free trade agreements. Donald Trump has given the biggest kick to the WTO. The WTO is in the corner nursing its injuries and its shins. It isn't going to do anything. It's up to individual countries to stand up for their own industries and take the steps to fairly, rigorously and in a detailed way determine when they have been impacted by dumping behaviour. You'll get the arguments out of DFAT, Treasury, Finance and the Productivity Commission—which are occupied by people who are stuck in ideological permafrost and who find it hard to believe these types of powers should come in. In fact, there was an article in InnovationAus that talked about Treasury analysis of the economic implications of AI, and it quoted the Treasury, saying: "In Australia, most productivity growth at the firm level related to AI will likely come from adopting and adapting technologies developed elsewhere." That's the mentality for all parliamentarians. Like I said, regardless of who occupies the Treasury benches, you get advice from these types of people that believe the best way for us to use technology is to import it quickly and not develop it here. God forbid we spend our own money developing sovereign capability on anything! Similarly in terms of safeguards, they take the view that free trade should occur unencumbered: if someone can price a product in a particular way, competition will be good, will strengthen local firms and will ensure that lower prices flow through the economy, and that's got to be a good thing. That's very superficial and does not factor in how bigger economies, bigger players, can undercut the prices at which they offer product for trade. When I say this bill has been 30 years in the making, it's going through that journey—the journey of recognising that the free trade mantra is only good if it's not superficial. It's got to be fair dinkum, and you've got to be able to test whether the prices for product are legitimate and not deliberately undercut. There'll be a lot of people in this place and outside that talk about impending conflict with China and talk about having to get ready for some sort of military conflict, one they've concocted in their head and believe will occur any time soon. China don't need to fire a missile; they just fire product our way. And they fire product because we set up a world trade system where they took on so much of the work that we used to do, and they price it in such a way that creates dependencies. China don't have to fire a shot; they just fire a product at us. If we don't think seriously, in a sustained way and in a determined way, about building sovereign capability, if we continue to listen to the same voices in Canberra—the PM&C, Treasury, Finance, DFAT and the Productivity Commission—and if we take as gospel what is put to us, we will always be dependent. Make no mistake. We will not build up serious sovereign capability. We will not be able to stand on our own two feet. All we will ever be is the best customer on an app store, buying someone else's product from some other land, instead of actually building the capabilities that matter here. Having an economically diverse country, where we don't have all our eggs in one basket, where we build our wealth through different sectors and different activities, is really important. And, if you want to build greater productivity, look at the countries that are more economically complex in their make up and see how much more productive and stronger they are. That's the challenge for us. I maintain the position that our commitment to sovereign capability has to be deeper than talk. It requires serious coordination across government at cabinet level, where all relevant portfolios are committed, on a yearly basis reporting, what has been done to advance sovereign capability in the key areas. We cannot do everything on our own, and it's certainly not something I would urge. On the big, important things we have to have depth in capability. That can be across our existing behemoths of resources and agriculture, as well as energy production, medical sciences, advanced manufacturing and advanced tech. We need to be able to build our capabilities. And we have to do it in a way acknowledging the way that other countries do it, instead of having the ideological nineties version of the way in which we back industry, because the nineties version was that you don't put any government funding in. Other countries have been doing it and working smart in building up capability, and we have been the outpost that has ignored the way the rest of the world is working. It means investing more in R&D. It means investing more in grants to help grow companies at the relevant points of the technology readiness levels. It involves a scale-up approach that sees more small businesses become medium-sized enterprises and seeing the productivity uplift that occurs from there. Having a national scale-up strategy is really important. It's being able to keep a central tab on how we are developing capability. All this is critical for the long-term good of the country. This type of legislation and this type of activity, where we take an important power out of the Productivity Commission, put it into the ADC and protect ourselves in a quicker way from dumping activity, is a big part of that process as well. So I congratulate the industry minister on landing this and the government in bringing forward this legislation, because it is very important and it does correct a behaviour that we have supinely just sat here and let the world dictate the terms in which trade occurs, comforting ourselves in the notion that we've chanted the mantra of free trade without recognising that that doesn't always occur that way and that sometimes you've got to step in and protect yourselves from the behaviours of others. Trade is important. It builds stronger relationships between countries. It does absolutely improve the strength of economies and the strength of incomes of the workers within those economies. But we can't be purist about it. We have to be pragmatic, and we have to step in where it's necessary to do so. This is one example of just that, and I absolutely commend the bill to the House. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Third Reading 32 11:42 Mr RAE 300122 Hawke by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. BUSINESS 32 BUSINESS Rearrangement 32 11:42 Mr CALDWELL 306489 Fadden I move: That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Carbon Credits and Other Legislation Amendment (Integrity and Transparency) Bill 2026, having earlier been referred to the Federation Chamber by way of a programming declaration, being returned to the House immediately, and all remaining proceedings occurring in this Chamber. The first order of business this morning that was moved by the chief opposition whip was regrettable in that it referred the Carbon Credits and Other Legislation Amendment (Integrity and Transparency) Bill 2026 to the Federation Chamber immediately. The consequences of that, Deputy Speaker Georganas, as you well know, are that it will now not be debated in this place and instead will be debated at the government's time of choosing in the Federation Chamber. The purpose for which the Federation Chamber exists is effectively as a clearing house, if you like, for uncontroversial matters and to provide a place for statements to be made by honourable members in relation to their community, grievance debate and other programmed speeches. It is not there for the debate on legislation that is controversial. It is there when there is effectively a clear pathway to the passage of a bill. That is not what we are presented with in relation to this bill. I say that because, in his speech on the second reading, the member for Wannon, Mr Tehan, moved an amendment to that bill, which by its very nature would suggest that the opposition does not agree to the terms of the bill. It is inherent in the fact that we have moved an amendment that we intend for there to be a significant debate on this bill. For it to be scooped up and sent upstairs to the Federation Chamber, in my view, is an absolute abuse by this government of the intentions for the use of the Federation Chamber. This bill is of significant consequence and ought to be returned by the government to be debated here in the House of Representatives. Anything short of that, quite frankly, is a regrettable and unsatisfactory arrangement. The member for Wannon, in his speech on the second reading, could not have been clearer about the opposition's significant concerns about this bill. We oppose this net zero bill. On its face, one might think that it makes uncontroversial administrative changes to the operation of Australia's carbon credit scheme—a market of nearly $50 billion. However, this is what we have concerns about: the bill makes three serious and significant changes. First, the bill greatly expands the rights of native title claimants. The bill would allow a mere claim to native title, regardless of whether native title actually exists or may exist at law, to trigger a mandatory approvals process whereby a project proponent must obtain consent from the claimant before a carbon credit can be purchased. Now, the Chubb review did not recommend this change, and it is for reasons like this one that we believe this consequential legislation should be debated here in the House. Second, the bill leaves taxpayers more exposed to the purchasing of expensive carbon credits for Labor's net zero objectives. Currently, the government can purchase carbon credits having had regard to whether the purchase would be at least cost. This bill repeals the least cost consideration and inserts an opaque value-for-money test which can include, among other considerations, whole-of-government emissions reduction and net zero strategies. That's environmental, social and economic changes, and First Nations cultural benefits. The third significant change is that the bill hands the Minister for Climate Change and Energy sweeping new powers to disrupt carbon-abatement projects. This bill newly allows the minister to declare that a methodology being used by a proponent to monitor their emissions is not valid. Stakeholders are roundly against this new power and argue it will increase risk, raise costs and increase investor uncertainty. We all know that those on the other side of this place have an ideological pursuit of certain aspects of the Australian economy that, quite frankly, Australians need to hear about. That's why this suspension of standing and sessional orders, in my view, must be supported—in order to give the Australian public the transparency over this particular piece of legislation that they deserve; and, for each and every community across this nation who sends their parliamentarians to this place to debate legislation, so that debates on consequential amendments to bills be debated here. This is exactly one of those moments. It was quite extraordinary that, when the government knows full well that we have a number of speakers who will want to make a contribution on this matter, the first order of business today was to kick the can down the road, squirrel it away and pretend like there's nothing to be seen so our members on this side of the chamber don't have the opportunity to scrutinise this and properly bring the level of visibility of what's going on that this bill deserves. In my previous role as the opposition whip during this 48th parliament, I had made an early observation about the conduct of business by this government: there were more bills heading upstairs to the Federation Chamber on controversial legislation than we had previously seen. This is what happens when a government comes in here and has a 94-seat majority. They think they can just do this kind of thing. Well, we are here small in number but big in voice. We will stand up for the Australian people, and we will make sure that this kind of behaviour doesn't go unseen and unchecked. Because it's the Australian public who are the ones that need to know that the coalition is here fighting for them day in and day out and that this government will be held to account. The only way we can do that properly on this bill is to have this debate right here. I look upstairs, and I see the public gallery. Those people up there want to know what's going on. They're here for a reason. If I said to them, 'I'll meet you up in the Federation Chamber,' as good a place as that is, they wouldn't know where it is. They're not in the gallery of the Federation Chamber. They're here because they think this is parliament. This is where the debates take place. So, when the Chief Government Whip came in here this morning and said, 'We're going to brush this one upstairs,' that was a terrible, terrible thing for this government to do. This is what they are doing. They are just trying to hoodwink the Australian people into thinking that there's nothing to be seen here. I just listed out the very reasonable concerns that we as a coalition have with this bill, just three points. I could go on, but they're the top three. Those and all of the other matters that relate to the pursuit of the net zero ideology by this government and by the Minister for Climate Change and Energy ought to be shown the daylight of the House of Representatives chamber and nothing less. That's what the Australian people deserve. On this suspension of standing orders, I hope that the Minister for Aged Care and Seniors, who is opposite me, will join in having heard the debate that I've put forward and will support this most reasonable motion in order for this debate to be heard here in the House of Representatives, where it ought to be. The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZY Is there a seconder for the member for Fadden's motion? Mrs McIntosh 281513 I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. The SPEAKER 53517 The question is the motion moved by the member for Fadden be agreed to.

The House divided. [11:57]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

42 AYES Aldred, M. R. (Teller) Batt, D. J. Bell, A. M. Birrell, S. J. Boyce, C. E. Buchholz, S. Caldwell, C. M. Chaffey, J. L. Chester, D. J. Farley, D. Gee, A. R. Haines, H. M. Hamilton, G. R. Hastie, A. W. Hawke, A. G. Hogan, K. J. Joyce, B. T. G. Kennedy, S. P. Landry, M. L. (Teller) 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. Small, B. J. Tehan, D. T. Thompson, P. Venning, T. H. Wallace, A. B. Watson-Brown, E. Webster, A. E. Willcox, A. J. Wilson, R. J. Wilson, T. R. Wood, J. P. 87 NOES Abdo, B. J. Albanese, A. N. Aly, A. Ambihaipahar, A. Belyea, J. A. Berry, C. G. Bowen, C. E. Briskey, J. L. 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. 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. Thistlethwaite, M. J. Thwaites, K. L. Urquhart, A. E. Wells, A. S. White, R. P. Witty, S. J. Zappia, A. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

BILLS 34 BILLS Customs and Other Legislation Amendment (Illicit Tobacco Enforcement Modernisation and Other Measures) Bill 2026 34

Customs and Other Legislation Amendment (Illicit Tobacco Enforcement Modernisation and Other Measures) Bill 2026

Second Reading 34 12:02 Mr HASTIE 260805 Canning In general terms, the coalition will support the parliamentary passage of the Customs and Other Legislation Amendment (Illicit Tobacco Enforcement Modernisation and Other Measures) Bill 2026. However, we are also strongly opposed to the Albanese government's hapless and ham-fisted overall approach to the illegal tobacco crisis in Australia. That's a matter to which I will return in a few moments. In short, the coalition will always be prepared to endorse measures that will potentially give our border and law enforcement agencies more effective powers to tackle the scourge of illicit tobacco. There is a very clear public interest in ensuring that the Australian Border Force, the Australian Federal Police and other Commonwealth agencies have the legal tools they actually need to disrupt illicit tobacco supply chains, prosecute those who profit from them and prevent weaknesses in our customs system from being exploited by organised crime. This bill makes a small set of changes in pursuit of those objectives. It revises offences under the Customs Act 1901 relating to the unlawful importation and subsequent possession, movement, sale and supply of tobacco. It also adjusts the evidentiary framework applying to illegal tobacco offences, including the circumstances that might be relied upon to establish that tobacco is illicit. Those are reasonable reforms. Additionally, the bill amends the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 to expand access to relevant documents and strengthen provisions dealing with assets that may otherwise be structured or shielded from confiscation. It also makes changes to the regulatory framework for custom depots and warehouses, including licensing, compliance and oversight arrangements and the fitness and propriety requirements applying to licence holders, associated persons and those with access to customs controlled premises and goods. Again, those are worthwhile measures, albeit that some industry stakeholders are already and perfectly justifiably expressing that there is a need for more clarity on what the definition of 'take all reasonable steps' is. All of us in this parliament should be making it harder for organised criminals to infiltrate— Honourable members Honourable members interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265979 Order! The member is entitled to be heard in silence. It's a bit disrespectful. Mr HASTIE 260805 Not the first time, and I'm sure it won't be the last time! All of us in this parliament should be making it harder for organised criminals to infiltrate legitimate supply chains, exploit weaknesses in customs controlled environments and divert tobacco into the domestic black market—so the coalition won't oppose the broad direction of the bill. However, we should also be very clear about what this bill does not do. It is not a comprehensive solution to Australia's illicit tobacco crisis. It does not address the root causes of that crisis at all, including the economic ones. These have transformed Australia into one of the most lucrative and profitable illicit tobacco markets in the world. And the introduction of the bill certainly does not detract from the wanton incompetence and negligence of the Albanese government in allowing Australia's illegal tobacco problem to deteriorate so dramatically. This is no longer some peripheral black market activity; it is a major organised crime problem, a border security problem, a community safety problem, a public health problem and a revenue problem. The Australian Bureau of Statistics has calculated that around 80 per cent of all tobacco and nicotine products consumed in Australia now come from the illicit black market. It's an astonishing figure. The government's own Illicit Tobacco and E-cigarette Commissioner has also estimated that the value of that market was between $4.1 billion and $6.9 billion in 2024-25, and that the excise and duty evasion for the same financial year was between $7.7 billion and $11.8 billion. It's a huge amount of money forgone in revenue through that excise. Australians have witnessed the disastrous consequences for themselves. They have seen tobacco shops firebombed, legitimate businesses destroyed, a mass of extortion, intimidation and violence, and organised crime groups fighting rapaciously over territory and profits in suburban shopping areas. Across this country, we've all seen the rise of these illicit tobacco shops, the massage parlours which are really illegal brothels next door, and the associated crime that grows up around it. It's a real problem, and it's compromising community safety across our great country. This is no longer simply a question of people buying cheap cigarettes under the counter; it is a gigantic organised crime industry, with major consequences for entire communities. Yet the Albanese government continues to behave as though the solution is simply another enforcement announcement, another taskforce, another penalty or another legislative amendment, when that is clearly not the right way forward. We've all seen the evidence. Even the agencies charged with enforcing these laws acknowledge that reality. The Australian Border Force now describes illicit tobacco as 'a low-risk, high-reward commodity'. It has also conceded that the market is still continuing to increase in scale, complexity and profitability. In short, criminal networks are exploiting enormous and profitable price differentials. Accordingly, they can absorb seizures and enforcement activity as another cost of doing business because the underlying profits remain so large. Having established these ratlines that come through our borders, who knows what else is coming to our shores illegally—not just illicit tobacco but also drugs, guns and other tools that terrorists opposed to our country will use to commit acts of violence. These facts are at the heart of the problem. You cannot fix the illicit tobacco crisis by only changing the potential consequences for criminals if you're not equally prepared to address the massive economic incentives that keep drawing criminals toward such a massive honey pot. Yet Labor has made those incentives even more enticing to criminals. In the 2023 budget, the Albanese government imposed an additional five per cent increase in tobacco excise every year for three years. Those increases took effect in September 2023, September 2024 and September 2025, and they came on top of the existing twice-yearly indexation of tobacco excise. At the time, the Treasurer and the health minister said that they expected those measures would raise an additional $3.3 billion over the forward estimates. Instead, legal tobacco revenue has completely collapsed from almost exactly that very moment with a phenomenal acceleration in the share of consumers buying the illegal products. These aren't adults who can smoke legally. We're talking about our youth, our kids, the very people we should be protecting from these illicit tobacco sales. The black market has flourished, organised crime has exploded in association with it, and the government, far from making money, has lost billions of dollars of revenue in the process. These are just some of the many reasons why the coalition has proposed a fundamentally different approach. Our policy is not based on the fantasy that the government can simply keep increasing tobacco taxes indefinitely, watch the legal market all but disappear and then somehow magically police its way out of the consequences. Our objective is very clear. Our objective on the coalition side of the House is to destroy the business model of the criminal gangs. That's why the coalition has proposed an 80 per cent reduction in tobacco excise. That would reduce the excise component on a standard packet of cigarettes from around $30 to around $6, with the rate to be reviewed after two years. That is a policy designed to remove the extraordinary price differential that has driven consumers out of the legal and regulated market and into the hands of organised crime. It is designed to radically alter the current dynamics of the market, to make legal tobacco competitive with illicit tobacco again and to deprive revenue from the criminal gangs and return it to the Commonwealth, to be put to use elsewhere through public health campaigns against smoking, to enforce the law and to also invest in schools and hospitals and infrastructure—all of those things that this Labor government is neglecting right now. But our policy does not stop with excise reform. We have also proposed a $200 million nationwide law enforcement surge. Yes, we're going to hit them economically, we're going to destroy the business model and we're also going to come after them with the law. We're going to hit them hard with the law. That will mean more raids, more investigations, more arrests, more seizures, more shop closures and more border disruption. Our work will be designed to give enforcement agencies a fighting chance. We will enable a stronger operational focus across the Australian Border Force, the Australian Federal Police, the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission and AUSTRAC. Notwithstanding how well in particular the Queensland government has done in this area without any meaningful help from the federal government, we will also give the state and territory governments much more support than they have received over the past four years. We have also proposed a legal, regulated and taxed adult market for nicotine vapes and nicotine pouches while maintaining strong protections for children. We live in a world where people are going to smoke and use tobacco products, regardless of the health risks. Everyone knows the health risks of tobacco: lung cancer, emphysema, blood clots, heart disease, throat cancer, mouth cancer, tongue cancer—all sorts of complications. Please don't smoke. But people will still smoke. That's why we have to be realistic and why we have proposed $60 million for a national public awareness and education campaign. It is to expose the organised crime behind illegal tobacco and vapes while reinforcing the health dangers of smoking. It is to move people from an illegal black market onto a legal market which at least, in the end, is regulated by the Australian government, delivers revenue to the Australian government and keeps people operating within the law. That's what we want, ultimately. There are many differences between the coalition's approach and Labor's. For reasons that defy logic, Labor sees illicit tobacco purely as an enforcement problem. The coalition sees the full picture, the big picture, and is addressing excise, regulation, demand, public health, organised crime, border security, revenue and enforcement. It's great to see young kids up there, Deputy Speaker, as we speak about tobacco. Kids, please don't smoke. It's not good for your health. The coalition here is working to kill and break the illegal tobacco market and also make the legal tobacco market work for Australians. For reasons that defy logic, Labor sees illicit tobacco purely as an enforcement problem. However, we see the big picture. You cannot solve this crisis by addressing only one of those things. That's why the coalition intends to use the consideration of this bill to put elements of our policy directly before the parliament. We will move a consideration in detail amendment. If passed, this amendment will give legislative effect to some of the key components of the coalition's policy package. This amendment includes our proposed 80 per cent reduction in tobacco excise and the necessary legislative changes to establish a properly regulated adult market for nicotine vapes and nicotine pouches. Of course, not every component of our policy can be delivered through amendments to this bill. Our $200 million law enforcement surge and our $60 million public campaign on educating Australians about the risks of tobacco and smoking use are principally administrative and funding measures. But where this parliament has the opportunity to address and reform the settings that have contributed to this crisis, the coalition believes it should do so. This bill should also be referred to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement for inquiry and report. That committee has examined illicit tobacco before. Its remit encompasses the performance and activities of Commonwealth law enforcement agencies, changes in criminal activity and the effectiveness of law enforcement methods. At a time when illicit tobacco has become one of the most lucrative markets for organised crime in this country, there is every reason for that committee to examine whether the government's latest measures are adequate and, more broadly, whether Commonwealth agencies have the full suite of resources, structures and powers they require. The government should have nothing to fear from that scrutiny. If these laws are as important as the government says they are then they should withstand serious examination. And if there are more lessons to be learned from the catastrophic growth of this illegal tobacco market, parliament should hear from them. The coalition's position on this legislation is clear. We support stronger enforcement, better laws, tighter customs and border controls, and improved pursuit of the criminal profits generated by illicit tobacco. For those reasons, we will not oppose the bill. But this bill, again, is nowhere near enough. Australia cannot arrest, seize and prosecute its way out of a market in which organised crime continues to enjoy extraordinary profit margins. Unless the federal government tackles the economic incentives, improves enforcement, restores integrity to the legal market and gives consumers lawful and regulated alternatives, organised crime will continue to adapt and sustain itself. The choice is very clear: on that side of the House, more illicit tobacco, more organised crime, more Australians breaking the law in purchasing those illegal tobacco products; on this side of the House, reimposing the law, breaking the economic model used to sell illicit tobacco, and enforcing the law and crushing these organised criminal gangs. That's what we want to see: more Australians operating within the law. The coalition has put forward a comprehensive plan designed to achieve exactly those things, so we won't oppose the measures contained in this bill, and we will seek to drastically improve them by pushing for a much broader response. It will be a response that is capable not merely of, fairly trivially, inconveniencing the criminal gangs behind illicit tobacco but of smashing the market and the model that keeps them in business. I commend the sensible elements of this bill to the House. However, I also condemn the government for its ongoing unwillingness and ineptitude when it comes to destroying the criminal gangs behind this currently entrenched and evil trade. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265979 I thank the member for Canning. If I can just add, as a deputy speaker, please, kids, don't smoke. It will ruin your health. It will ruin your lives. Don't smoke. 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. 12:19 Ms ROBERTS 157125 Pearce The incorporated speech read as follows— I would like to speak in strong support of the Customs and Other Legislation Amendment (Illicit Tobacco Enforcement Modernisation and Other Measures) Bill. This bill is the next step in the Albanese Labor government's crackdown on the criminals behind the illicit tobacco and vaping trade. It is the most comprehensive modernisation of Australia's illicit tobacco customs enforcement framework since 2018. It ensures laws designed for a very different market can keep pace with increasingly sophisticated criminal enterprises. Illicit tobacco is not a victimless crime. It undermines public health, harms legitimate businesses, deprives governments of critical revenue and provides significant profits for serious and organised crime. The trade is being fuelled by a massive surplus of cheap global production. Tobacco can be produced for less than a dollar a packet, and that surplus is being weaponised by transnational criminal networks. These syndicates operate like multinational businesses. They are sophisticated, well-resourced and commodity agnostic. They do not care whether they are trafficking methamphetamine, tobacco, counterfeit luxury goods, wildlife or human beings. They want to make money and will exploit any weakness in our borders, laws or regulatory systems. But as we go after these criminals, it is important to recognise that Australia is continuing to make progress in reducing smoking. The latest evidence from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare shows that daily smoking among Australians aged 14 and over fell to 5.8 per cent in 2025, down from 8.3 per cent in 2022-23. Daily vaping remained broadly stable at 3.6 per cent. These are hard-won public health gains. They must not be surrendered to criminal enterprises trying to get Australians—particularly young Australians—hooked on nicotine. Smoking remains the leading cause of preventable death and disease in Australia and contributes to around 20 per cent of our cancer burden. Two in three long-term smokers will die from a smoking related illness. This bill follows the passage last sitting week of the Combatting Illicit Tobacco Bill, which raised penalties, opened up new law enforcement techniques and updated proceeds-of-crime laws. This legislation builds on that work and further raises the stakes for criminals involved in the illicit tobacco trade. Current tobacco offences often require prosecutors to prove that tobacco was imported with an intention to defraud the revenue. They may also need to demonstrate that the person involved knew the tobacco was subject to customs duty and that duty was payable. That approach is increasingly unfit for purpose. Organised crime groups have adapted by distancing themselves from the border and importation process. They use layers of intermediaries, shell companies, freight operators, warehouses and retail outlets. Direct evidence of a person's intention or knowledge can therefore be extremely difficult to obtain. This bill creates new offences for importing, possessing or conveying illicit tobacco. The new framework focuses on unlawful conduct and better reflects the reality of concealed and distributed supply chains. It also introduces observable indicators of illicit activity. An established indicator may satisfy the reasonable suspicion element; it does not, by itself, establish guilt. Importantly, reasonable suspicion is an objective test. It focuses on observable facts rather than requiring officers to prove every hidden detail of a criminal supply chain. Indicators include non-compliant retail packaging; non-compliant tobacco products, including products concealed in plain packaging; tobacco concealed to avoid detection; missing import invoices or required paperwork; and tobacco sold for less than the combined value of applicable excise and GST. That final indicator is particularly important. The fact that tobacco is being sold below the excise and GST payable can, by itself, establish reasonable suspicion that it was unlawfully imported. This will be a powerful tool for the Australian Border Force and state and territory police forces. Anyone involved in the illegal tobacco and vaping trade should take notice. If law enforcement enters a retail premises and establishes one of these indicators, action can be taken. The focus will be on serious criminals and organised networks. However, the framework will also make it easier to target retail businesses that possess or sell illicit tobacco. The offences apply to a 'person', and under Commonwealth law that includes a corporation. A tobacconist company, warehouse company, distributor, transport business or logistics company may be investigated and prosecuted where appropriate. Anyone involved in this trade—from senior figures in criminal networks to retailers—should be looking for a new line of work. The bill also introduces stronger consequences for serious offending, ensuring organised criminals receive penalties that properly reflect the gravity of their conduct. The bill closes an important loophole affecting duty-refundable tobacco. This tobacco is supplied to duty-free operators for export or sale to eligible travellers. Under the current framework, it is not subject to customs control in the way it should be, creating opportunities for diversion into the black market at duty-free prices. The bill restores customs control until the tobacco is exported or sold to an eligible traveller. This will reduce opportunities for diversion and ensure appropriate oversight throughout the supply chain. For legitimate duty-free operators, these reforms largely formalise existing expectations and practices. They are designed to close a regulatory gap, not impose unnecessary burdens on responsible businesses. The bill also streamlines the seizure and disposal of illicit tobacco. The amount detected by the Australian Border Force has increased significantly, yet seizure processes remain heavily administrative and resource intensive. Frontline officers can spend hours documenting and processing individual seizure notices. That is valuable operational time that could instead be spent stopping illicit drugs, weapons and other dangerous goods from entering Australia. These reforms will support faster seizure and disposal processes. They will also ensure that tobacco imported in breach of permit conditions can be dealt with as swiftly as tobacco imported without a permit. The legislation strengthens integrity across the customs supply chain. Illicit tobacco operations often depend on facilitators and intermediaries that provide access to storage facilities, freight networks, depots and warehouses while maintaining an appearance of legitimacy. The bill introduces additional licensing conditions for Customs brokers and Customs controlled depots and warehouses. Licence holders will be required to refrain from conduct that facilitates, assists or enables the importation of prohibited tobacco products. They will also have a positive obligation to take all reasonable steps to prevent such conduct within their operations. The bill elevates existing tobacco related licensing obligations into the legislation and expands the role of the National Customs Broker Licensing Advisory Committee to include applications for new depot and warehouse licences. This will provide a more consistent approach to licensing integrity and compliance, ensuring legitimate operators are not disadvantaged by businesses that facilitate criminal activity. The second major part of the bill strengthens Australia's proceeds-of-crime framework. Prosecutions should be pursued where the evidence supports them, and illicit tobacco should be seized and destroyed. But these measures alone are not enough. Organised crime is driven by profit. What hurts criminal syndicates is the loss of their cash, houses, cars, boats and other assets. To create a lasting deterrent, law enforcement agencies must be able to recover criminal profits efficiently. Monetary penalty orders require offenders to repay the financial benefits derived from criminal activity and help ensure that crime does not pay. This bill clarifies how those benefits are calculated, ensures penalties are reduced only in appropriate circumstances and allows restrained property to be used more effectively to satisfy court ordered penalties. A criminal should not be able to deduct a fine from profits made through criminal activity and claim that the benefit has been repaid. A penalty is a penalty. The offender must repay the profit and face the penalty. The bill also updates production orders, which help law enforcement obtain information relevant to criminal investigations. These reforms clarify existing powers, strengthen offences for interfering with production order processes and allow authorities to seek orders during proceedings when new information arises. They also support a more consistent approach across Australia's eight jurisdictions, where rules can currently differ or conflict. Finally, the bill strengthens the unexplained wealth framework by clarifying how a person's total wealth is calculated. This will support a more realistic assessment of wealth and ensure property owned or controlled by a person can be considered. Together, these reforms will better equip law enforcement to identify, restrain and recover the financial rewards that make organised crime attractive. This bill comes at a time when illicit tobacco networks continue to grow in sophistication. The reforms modernise enforcement, strengthen supply chain integrity, improve operational effectiveness and ensure organised criminal groups face stronger consequences. Action is being ramped up pre-border, at border and post-border. The best container of illicit tobacco is the one that never reaches our shores or passes through our border. The Australian Border Force is disrupting increasing quantities of illicit tobacco offshore and at the border. But the most urgent area for action is post-border. State and territory governments must shut the illegal shops. Australians would not accept a methamphetamine laboratory operating in the middle of a local shopping centre. They should not be expected to accept criminal businesses openly selling illicit tobacco and illegal vapes to children and young people. I acknowledge the nation-leading work of Queensland and South Australia in disrupting this trade. I also welcome Victoria's new laws, which took effect this week and give inspectors and police the power to close businesses found selling illegal tobacco. Six Melbourne stores in Footscray and Richmond have already been ordered to close for up to 90 days. It does not matter whether the premises is a tobacconist, convenience store, lolly shop, gelato shop, service station, barber, clothing store, restaurant or any other retail outlet. Any business that chooses to engage in the illegal tobacco trade must be subject to enforcement action. It is deeply disappointing that the coalition has supported an approach that risks allowing the vaping market to expand and undermining Australia's public health progress. This government will not allow criminal syndicates or vested interests to undermine Australia's public health achievements. I urge all members of this House, and the other place, to support the swift passage of this bill. Our law enforcement officials have asked for these powers. They need the tools to disrupt criminal networks, seize illicit products, confiscate criminal profits and protect our communities. This bill strengthens Australia's borders, supports legitimate businesses and ensures organised crime cannot exploit weaknesses in our laws or treat penalties as simply another cost of doing business. I commend the bill to the House. 12:19 Dr RYAN 297660 Kooyong Australia's illicit tobacco trade is now one of the fastest growing criminal markets in this country. It cost us an estimated $4 billion in 2023-24. It's bigger than the combined markets for cannabis, cocaine, heroin and ecstasy. Since 2023, it has brought more than 200 firebombings and at least three homicides to Australians' suburbs. Our customs laws were written for another era—for the occasional small-scale duty dodger, not for the organised crime syndicates currently running Australia's national distribution networks and neon lit shopfronts on our high streets. This bill, the Customs and Other Legislation Amendment (Illicit Tobacco Enforcement Modernisation and Other Measures) Bill 2026, separates the offence of importing illicit tobacco from the offences of possessing and moving it around Australia, so that a shopkeeper in Malvern or a warehouse operator in Dandenong can be prosecuted without the Crown first having to prove exactly how the product came into the country. It will allow the courts to draw the obvious inference from the obvious facts—that cigarettes sold for less than the excise and GST payable on them, with no documentation of origin, in packaging that ignores our plain-packaging laws, and carrying flavours which are already banned in this country are clearly illicit. The bill also strengthens the powers of investigators to obtain documents, and it closes off pathways used to shield assets from proceeds-of-crime action. The assistant minister is right on this point: what hurts criminals is not the condemnation of our communities; it's losing the cash, the cars and the houses. So this is good legislation, but I want to be clear why we need it, because I'm concerned that the government could be about to cave to the tobacco industry, to the convenience store industry and to their lobbyists by cutting the tobacco excise. If it drops the tobacco excise, this government will add to a long succession of short-sighted, stupid failures from both sides of politics in this very important policy area. The Howard government's 1999 reforms replaced a weight based excise with a per-stick system of tobacco taxation. That excise was indexed to the CPI until 2010, when Kevin Rudd's government increased it by 25 per cent. In 2013, Prime Minister Rudd announced a four by 12.5 per cent series of automatic annual increases in the excise over and above the ordinary indexation. In 2016, the Liberal government legislated a second four by 12.5 per cent escalator, which operated between 2017 and 2020. That was already part of the Labor opposition's platform at that time, so it had bipartisan support. In 2023, the current treasurer added another five per cent a year increase for three years, and alongside these increases the excise is automatically indexed twice a year. So, of the 4.3-fold increase in the tobacco excise that Australia has seen between August 2013 and September 2026, about three-quarters occurred under the coalition, which is now, quite remarkably, proposing cutting that excise by 80 per cent, taking it back roughly to where the Howard government left it in 2007—a tacit acknowledgement of its own policy failure. The mess in which we now find ourselves, if we blame it on the tobacco excise, is one for which we can hold all of the major parties responsible. But it's my belief that the excise is only part of the problem; it is by no means all of it. In fact, the illicit market's take-off in 2020-21 coincided with the end of the escalator. What changed after 2020 was not the tax. What changed was that, for the better part of a decade, we've seen enforcement which was close to non-existent and penalties which have been derisory, and, in most cases, anyone can open a tobacco shop without so much as a licence. Criminals have discovered that they can sell duty-not-paid cigarettes over the counter in broad daylight and nothing will happen to them. So they have—by the tens of thousands. And the people who saw this first aren't the people in this place. They're the people in our communities. In its submission to the Senate inquiry into the illegal tobacco crisis, Stonnington described the position that every Victorian council has found itself in: illegal tobacco shops multiplying along its shopping strips; residents and legitimate traders demanding action; and a council which has no power to licence, inspect or close tobacco retailers. Until recently, Victoria had 14 inspectors to supervise as many as 10,000 tobacco retailers across the state, and those 14 inspectors had to conduct their visits in pairs for their own safety. In the May 2026 Victorian budget, the government committed $13.4 million to triple Tobacco Licensing Victoria's inspector numbers and to create new closure powers. But, even when that target is reached, we'll still only have one inspector for every 200-odd tobacco shops. The states and the local government areas need help. Our councils know our shopping strips. They know which shops open last month and who owns the buildings. Through their rates databases, they know the identity of every property owner in their municipality. Councils can be the eyes on the ground, and they are the level of government most committed to our communities, but they've never been given the tools or the partners to act on what they're seeing every day. This bill will give our federal agencies better tools. The task now is to make sure that the state licensing regimes, the closure orders and the landlord liability laws that are finally arriving in Victoria are actually backed by inspectors, a police interest and a commitment to enforcing them. Illicit tobacco is not a tax problem. It's an enforcement problem, and the blatancy of the trade is its greatest weakness. Unlike the trade in heroin or cocaine, illegal tobacco needs a shopfront. It needs a lease, a sign and a cash register. Every one of these shops is visible to passers-by. They're a blot on the landscape of our suburbs. Every one is visible to a regulator and to a police force which actually choose to look. We wouldn't tolerate unlicensed shops selling alcohol or firearms or prescription medicines on our high streets. We shouldn't be tolerating this. That leads me to the second half of this debate and the reason for my second reading amendment. In the last month, two parties in this parliament have announced their answer to organised crime is to cut the tax that organised crime is evading and that tobacco companies are paying. We've just heard from the shadow minister to that effect. The coalition proposes to cut excise by 80 per cent, from about $30 a pack to $6. One Nation proposes a 75 per cent cut and a three-year freeze on indexation. Both of those proposals are being presented as crime fighting measures, but they are, in fact, nothing of the sort. Consider the arithmetic. The tobacco excise is currently about $30.57 on a packet of 20 cigarettes. A budget-brand legal pack costs $40 or more. An illicit pack sells for as little as $10—and as little as $7 by the carton. If you halve the excise, an illegal pack will still cost about $27. If you cut it by 80 per cent, the retail price will still be $16 to $26—as the coalition itself has acknowledged—which is still two to four times the price of illicit cigarettes. If you abolish the excise altogether, an illegal pack will still cost more than a $7 illicit one. There is no reasonable level of excise reduction that would make any material difference to the supply chains run by serious and organised crime. Those calling for a cut in the excise never name a reduction that would make taxed cigarettes competitive, because there simply isn't one. And that is the flaw in their argument. Nor does international evidence help the tax cutters. If high excise caused black markets, then low tax countries would have small black markets. But this is not the case. About 65 per cent of tobacco sold in Malaysia and South Africa is illicit. In Brazil it's about half. But all tax tobacco far less than we do. One country has actually tried the experiment that the opposition is proposing. In 1994, Canada halved its federal cigarette excise to fight smuggling. Five provinces matched that cut. Prices in those provinces fell by almost half. But, within a year, the gap in smoking rates between the provinces that cut and those that hadn't had widened, because more young people started smoking and fewer smokers quit. Teenage smoking rose for the first time since the 1970s. One study attributed around 190,000 additional daily smokers to that single decision by Canada. Federal revenue fell by billions, and the smuggling networks were not dismantled. In fact, by 2008, contraband was back to a third of both the Ontario and Quebec markets. It still sits there. Canada bought a decade of decreased smuggling at the price of a generation of extra smokers, and then it got that same black market back. That is the experiment that the coalition and the One Nation are asking us to repeat. There is no mechanism in Australian law to compel tobacco multinationals to pass a single cent of any excise cut onto smokers. On this year's budget, figures show a 50 per cent cut in customs duty could hand as much as $2.1 billion a year to three companies—about $900 million to British American Tobacco, $550 million to Imperial Brands and $440 million to Philip Morris—and 80 per cent would cut them even more. And that prize explains the intensity of the lobbying campaign which is now being waged in this parliament. On 4 May this year Philip Morris appeared before the Senate inquiry in a closed session which was unlisted on the public program. That was the first platform given to a major tobacco company in this parliament in 16 years, and it was permitted despite Australia's obligations under article 5.3 of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. The Australasian Association of Convenience Stores, which is running the retail case for a cut in the excise, is led by a chief executive who began his career as a BAT trainee. Its policy adviser spent 20 years at Philip Morris. All three tobacco multinationals are paying members of the Australasian Association of Convenience Stores. And the association was a founding member of the Alliance of Australian Retailers, the front group that the tobacco companies set up in 2010 when they were fighting plain packaging, until its funding was exposed and it was forced to withdraw. About half of the tobacco industry lobbyists in this country previously held positions in government. And the National Party, the only major party still taking tobacco money, accepted $137,500 from Philip Morris and $88,000 from British American Tobacco in the last financial year alone. The tobacco industry has deliberately reframed a health and regulatory debate as a crime debate so that industry aligned voices can present themselves as neutral experts on law enforcement. But this is, in the end, a health debate. Smoking still kills 24,000 Australians every year—66 Australians every day. Price is the second-most powerful reason smokers give for quitting, and young people and people on low incomes are the most price sensitive of all. The National Drug Strategy Household Survey 2025 reported daily smoking at a record low of 5.6 per cent, down from 19.5 per cent in 2001. Fifteen of Australia's leading health organisations, led by the Cancer Council, have put it plainly: even if we cut the tobacco tax altogether, illicit products will remain cheaper. Legal tobacco will become more affordable. Industry profits will skyrocket. Smoking rates will increase, and people will die. Illicit tobacco is primarily an enforcement and health issue. It is not a tax issue. So I ask the Albanese government and the health minister—who I understand just today has received an award from the Public Health Association of Australia lauding him for his work on the tobacco excise, cigarette smoking and the need to fight these things in this country—don't let a lobbying campaign and big tobacco bully you into a policy that every serious health body in this country opposes and that international experience has shown will not work. There is a legitimate case to freeze the tobacco excise until enforcement catches up. There is no legitimate case for a cut in the tobacco excise. And so that with, I move the second reading amendment circulated in my name: That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: the growth of the illicit market is the product of many years of inadequate enforcement, weak penalties and the absence of retail licensing, and that there is no good reason to cut the tobacco excise at this point in time". And I commend this bill to the House. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 295588 Is the amendment seconded? Dr Scamps 299623 I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak. 12:35 Ms BERRY 23497 Whitlam I rise today in support of the Customs and Other Legislation Amendment (Illicit Tobacco Enforcement Modernisation and Other Measures) Bill 2026. The bill amends the Customs Act 1901 and the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 to introduce a series of measures aimed at clarifying criminality associated with illicit tobacco products and enabling enforcement and prosecution. At its core, this bill is about protecting Australians. It's about protecting public health, protecting communities from serious and organised crime and protecting the integrity of our borders. It's also about ensuring that Australia does not surrender decades of successful tobacco control policy to international criminal syndicates who profit from addiction, disease and lawlessness. The Albanese Labor government has a clear position: we are not going to abandon evidence based health policy because organised criminals have identified an opportunity to make money, nor are we prepared to create a new generation of Australians addicted to nicotine by winding back protections that have helped drive smoking rates to historic lows. Australia has one of the strongest and most enviable tobacco control records in the world. Daily smoking among adults has fallen dramatically. According to recent Australian Institute of Health and Welfare data, daily smoking rates have fallen to around 5.8 per cent of adults. This is hundreds of thousands fewer smokers than only a few years ago. Smoking nevertheless remains Australia's leading cause of preventable disease and death, responsible for enormous human suffering and healthcare costs. The simple truth is that consuming tobacco kills people. The evidence is overwhelming and has been established over many decades. Smoking is linked to lung cancer, heart disease, stroke, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and numerous other illnesses. Public health experts estimate that smoking kills approximately two in every three long-term smokers and remains responsible for around one in five cancers diagnosed in Australia. Behind the statistics are real people—families who watch loved ones struggle through chemotherapy, children who lose parents too early, and grandparents who never meet their grandchildren. I should note that I lost my own grandfather, Bob, to the health impacts of smoking. These are the human consequences of nicotine addiction and tobacco use. The harms do not stop with traditional cigarettes. E-cigarettes or vapes are also part of the problem. This is important as the coalition have made public statements that we don't need to worry about vaping. In the last decade, vaping has emerged as a significant public health challenge. Alarmingly, vaping products are readily available and heavily marketed in ways that appeal to children and teenagers. In the towns throughout my electorate of Whitlam, like many other places in Australia, vape shops have sprung up near schools and in shopping centres frequented by young people. The evidence base on vaping harms is growing. Studies from Australia and internationally have linked vaping to nicotine addiction, respiratory disease, cardiovascular impacts and exposure to toxic chemicals. Recent research from the University of Sydney presents strong concerns regarding links between vaping and both lung and oral cancers. These products frequently contain highly concentrated nicotine, heavy metals and harmful chemicals. Dental professionals have reported increasing cases of gum disease, oral inflammation, tooth decay and other oral health complications associated with vaping and nicotine pouches. Equally concerning is the relationship between vaping and smoking uptake. Young people who vape are much more likely to progress to conventional cigarette smoking. The idea that vaping would act as an exit ramp from nicotine addiction has simply not been reflected in the experience of many Australian communities. The public health dimensions are deep, and they are alarming. There's also an environmental dimension to vapes in particular. Disposable and illicit vaping products have become a form of toxic litter in our suburbs. They contain lithium batteries, plastics and chemical residues. Despite being an electronic waste requiring proper disposal, they are routinely discarded in parks, streets, school grounds and waterways. Communities are left to manage the environmental consequences while criminal syndicates pocket the profits. Understanding the problem requires us to understand the nature of the illicit market. Illicit tobacco is a global challenge. A packet of cigarettes can be manufactured in parts of South-East Asia for mere cents. Those products can then be smuggled across borders and sold at prices that undercut legitimate products while still generating enormous criminal profits. This is not a uniquely Australian problem. Jurisdictions throughout Europe, North America and Asia continue to grapple with illicit tobacco, illegal nicotine products and organised-crime infiltration of supply chains. The international experience demonstrates two important lessons. First, enforcement matters. Second, organised crime adapts when governments fail to act. The Albanese Labor government has chosen action. Since 2024, the Commonwealth has committed more than $365 million towards combating illegal tobacco and vaping products. Enforcement is now occurring before products leave foreign ports at Australian borders and throughout domestic supply chains, and the results have been significant. The Australian Border Force, alongside partner agencies, has achieved record seizures. Over the last year, authorities seized more than 2,300 tonnes of illicit tobacco and 13.2 million vaping devices. Criminals have been denied profits, and harmful products were prevented from reaching Australian consumers. Over a kiloton of tobacco was seized in just four months under Operation PRINTWALL because of the Australian Border Force's strengthened controls and trusted partnerships. The Therapeutic Goods Administration and the Australian Border Force have prevented almost 24 million illicit vaping products from entering Australian communities since January 2024. This success has also been possible due to greater collaboration among relevant agencies. The National Disruption Group, established under the leadership of the Australian Border Force, has united Commonwealth, state and territory agencies in a coordinated response. The AFP led Criminal Assets Confiscation Taskforce has restrained tens of millions of dollars in criminal assets. Why should Australians who do not smoke care about this issue? It's because the harms extend far beyond nicotine consumption. Evidence internationally and domestically has linked illicit tobacco supply chains to broader organised criminal activity. Around the world, investigations have uncovered exploitation, coercive labour practices and modern slavery risks within segments of illicit tobacco production and distribution networks. Closer to home, communities are experiencing the consequences firsthand. Illegal tobacco shops have become focal points for criminal activity. We continue to hear about firebombings, extortion attempts, intimidation and turf disputes connected to illicit trade. Small-business owners operating legally should not have to compete with criminal enterprises using illicit products, untaxed profits and intimidation to establish themselves in commercial precincts. We are also witnessing distortion of local retail markets. In some communities, illicit tobacco and vape stores are saturating the streets where traditional small businesses struggle to survive. Criminally funded operators can also absorb losses, subsidise rents and use tobacco sales to support broader illicit activity. The result is unfair competition and a weakening of legitimate local commerce. All this unwelcome trade and consumption of harmful cigarettes and vapes is also a direct cost to taxpayers. Australians rightly expect Medicare and our public hospital system to be there when tobacco related illnesses require treatment. Yet illicit tobacco avoids the taxation and excise systems that help fund public services. Every packet sold on the black market undermines revenue that could otherwise support health care, education, border protection and community services. The coalition and One Nation say that Australia should simply slash tobacco excise rates to compete with illicit products on price. That argument is deeply flawed. A packet of illegally manufactured cigarettes produced overseas for a fraction of a dollar will still generate substantial criminal profits, even if excise is reduced. Legitimate businesses paying wages, complying with regulations, meeting packaging standards and operating within Australian law cannot realistically compete with international criminal syndicates on price. Reducing the excise won't eliminate organised crime. It would simply reward it. Worse, it would mean surrendering public health policy to criminal behaviour. If organised criminals smuggle tobacco successfully, the answer surely cannot be to weaken tobacco control measures that have saved countless Australian lives. Nor should we forget the vaping component of this debate. The coalition's recent comments concerning the legalisation and availability of vapes and nicotine products ignore the reality that vaping itself has become a major public health concern. A focus only on cigarette excise while ignoring vaping is half baked. The objective should be fewer Australians addicted to nicotine in any form. That brings me to the bill before the House. This legislation complements the Combating Illegal Tobacco Act 2026 and modernises Australia's customs enforcement framework to deal with the realities of today's illicit tobacco market. We are proposing a comprehensive modernisation package that updates laws designed for a very different environment and equips agencies to respond to increasingly sophisticated criminal enterprises. The bill creates new offences for importing, possessing and transporting illegal tobacco. It introduces tougher penalties for people involved in large-scale illegal tobacco operations. It gives customs officers stronger and simpler powers to seize illegal goods. It applies customs controls to tobacco products that have received a refund of tobacco duty. It strengthens the licensing rules for customs brokers and operators of customs depots and warehouses. And it improves the operation of proceeds of crime laws to ensure that criminal profits can be identified, restrained and confiscated. Prosecutors will no longer need to prove detailed knowledge or intent in cases where dishonesty or deception is used to cheat the government out of revenue. This has often been difficult because organised crime groups distance themselves from importation activities. Instead, the bill introduces a set of objective observable indicators. This will enable authorities to more easily establish criminal intent for an individual or company distributing or selling these products where those products clearly do not meet the product standards or pricing regime expected for authorised tobacco. This is what we mean by modernising the current legislation. By making evidentiary presumptions and enforcement arrangements more realistic, authorities will be better able to prosecute. This legislation is backed up by ongoing funding. The 2026-27 budget will add $20.3 million over four years to combat the illegal tobacco market. This means more boots on the ground, strengthening licensing, supporting joint operations and enabling storage and destruction. We know that illicit tobacco is a low-risk, high-reward activity for organised crime. This legislation increases the risks, strengthens enforcement tools and improves the ability of law enforcement agencies to follow the money. It's also part of a broader strategy. The Commonwealth is working with states and territories, many of which have implemented tougher enforcement regimes. Queensland and South Australia have taken a lead, demonstrating that strong compliance operations, shop closures and enforcement activity can disrupt criminal business models and drive meaningful impacts. Making it easier to shut the shops is where the states and territories really do play a critical role. Illicit tobacco will not become legitimate even if the excise is different. These shops need to be closed in the interests of public health and dismantling transnational syndicates. We know that this is a public health issue, a law enforcement issue, a community safety issue and an organised crime issue. The Albanese Labor government is taking a serious, balanced and evidence based approach. We are strengthening border protection, supporting states and territories, investing in enforcement, targeting criminal profits and maintaining our commitment to reducing smoking and nicotine addiction across Australia. 12:50 Ms ALDRED 11788 Monash I rise to speak on the Customs and Other Legislation Amendment (Illicit Tobacco Enforcement Modernisation and Other Measures) Bill 2026, a narrowly focused set of legislative changes to address Australia's illicit tobacco market. It seeks to strengthen the Commonwealth's enforcement over tobacco imported into and held within Australia with stronger controls around customs depots and warehouses, revamped licensing and compliance settings, and new mechanisms to stop tobacco being diverted into the illegal domestic market. In essence, these changes to the Customs Act mean prosecutors will no longer need to prove an accused person knew the tobacco in their possession had been smuggled. Instead, law enforcement can rely on the product's characteristics—for example, no plain packaging, an implausibly low price or a pack of 30s that can no longer be legally bought and sold here—to establish that those products have entered Australia illegally. Good stuff. The coalition won't oppose moves to strengthen enforcement or introduce real consequences for illegal conduct, but I'd like to make a couple of points beyond that. First, we all continue to hear from this government that its settings are right, that everything is working and that it might be all the Victorian government's fault, as we heard in question time last week. I do have some sympathy for that argument, until you look at the string of arson attacks across South Australia and New South Wales in the past fortnight alone. Yet under this government there is still the insistence that it has this all under control. The facts would suggest otherwise. This is the second bill in a matter of months seeking tougher penalties and greater enforcement for a problem that will keep playing out as whack-a-mole for overstretched and underresourced police and enforcement agencies while the government refuses, point-blank, to address the real underlying driver here. Don't take my word for it. Professor James Martin, a criminologist at Deakin University specialising in black markets, and Edward Jegasothy, a senior lecturer in public health at the University of Sydney, wrote this of the bill: The federal government is attempting to pass yet more legislation to combat the illicit tobacco and nicotine trade. This time, the commonwealth argue, enforcement agencies will have the powers they need to make a meaningful difference. This follows the pattern we feared and predicted a year and a half ago: more restrictive and punitive legislation aiming to do what the previous legislation was supposed to. Meanwhile, the problem gets worse, further justifying more laws. On the Assistant Minister for Citizenship, Customs and Multicultural Affairs—who, I might add, I believe is acting in good faith, even though I have my disagreements with him—they wrote: A big part of the problem is who the laws are most likely to affect. Assistant Minister for Customs … claims the laws will target "serious criminals" … However, in practice, the new laws will almost certainly not affect those at the top of the criminal hierarchy, who rarely, if ever, would be caught handling an illicit product. Martin and Jegasothy go on, in an article in the Monthly, to say,'The problem persists until this government accepts that high tobacco taxation is the driver.' Why does this bill miss the mark? The government's own explanatory memorandum undermines its own approach. It defends the new offences on the basis that pecuniary penalties are treated by criminal actors as a cost of doing business, absorbed and offset against the significant profits generated from illicit tobacco. I would say that that is precisely the problem that this bill fails to address. Where margins are wide enough that fines, seizures and even prosecution are simply priced in as a cost of trade, extra penalties and faster forfeitures won't shift behaviour among the syndicates or their customers. Not one of the bill's eight measures touches the price gap, moderates excise or stabilises the legal market. It targets tobacco reaching our shores while leaving untouched the demand that legitimate retailers, hemmed in by price, can no longer meet. And there are consequences for legitimate businesses. The price gap carries real costs. Small and family-run retailers keep losing customers to illicit sellers, undercutting them by 70 to 80 per cent, while their communities absorb the firebombings, extortions, increased insurance costs, violence and staff assaults that come with control of the trade. Meanwhile, the later stages of the enforcement stay weak. Domestic prosecutions and convictions sit in the single digits each year, against tens of thousands of border detections, and courts often hand down non-custodial sentencing, even for commercial-scale offending. More offences on the statute book won't change this without genuine prosecutions, genuine custodial outcomes and a price setting that lets legal products actually compete. The bill also changes how these offences are proved by reversing the onus of proof. The new offences sit on presumptions. Once certain facts are shown—unpaid duty, goods missing from a cargo report, packaging that fails Australian requirements, a sale below the combined duty and GST—the law 'takes it to be' reasonable to suspect unlawful importation. The defendant then bears the burden of pointing to evidence to rebut it. The explanatory memorandum concedes this reverses the onus of proof and is generally considered undesirable in criminal law. Lawyers better qualified than me can reasonably disagree on that trade-off. What's harder to reconcile is the government's willingness to compromise a core criminal law protection to chase the supply chain while refusing to revisit the tax settings that have created and are driving this black market in the first place. Higher maximums only matter if courts impose them, and the record shows they mostly don't. The Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions told the Senate inquiry into this issue that between July 2018 and December 2025 it received 430 referrals, finalised 405 prosecutions and secured 284 convictions. Of those, only 107 offenders—roughly 38 per cent—received any actual custody. A further 79 got a prison term with no time to serve, 67 got a community based order, 25 were fined and six were discharged without conviction. These outcomes fall well short of the maximums that parliament has legislated for. The Customs Act sets out a 10-year maximum for importing or possessing illicit tobacco. Once the Combating Illicit Tobacco Bill 2026 commences, that rises to 15 years and fines of up to 12,000 penalty units—roughly $4.4 million. Yet convictions run at just 30 to 40 a year, while the market runs into the billions, and most convicted offenders avoid full-time custody entirely. The new offences here, carrying maximums of five to 10 years and fines of $2.18 million and $2.91 million, sit on top of maximums the courts already decline to use. I think that is a fair point to raise. A further wrinkle shrinks these figures even more. Under section 4J of the Crimes Act, all Commonwealth tobacco offences can be, and mostly are, dealt with summarily. When a matter goes that route, a 10-year maximum shrinks to two years and a five-year maximum shrinks to 12 months before a court has even begun weighing the offender's circumstances. The maximums announced by government are, in most cases, a fraction of what gets reported. The reasoning is well established, and the DPP states it plainly: a maximum penalty is a yardstick reserved for the worst case imaginable, not a guide to typical sentencing. Raising it has no real bearing on ordinary sentences, and it's these ordinary sentences organised crime actually factors in. Parliament has lifted tobacco penalties repeatedly now—in this bill, in last month's act and in offences already on the books—while actual sentences imposed have barely moved. On the evidence available, the maximum penalty is rarely, if ever, applied. So what would actually help? If the government genuinely wants to protect communities, retailers and revenue, the response must go beyond more enforcement powers as the only lever. First, tackle the price gap. Until excise comes down substantially, tougher penalties will stay marginal to the calculations of the syndicates running most of today's illegal tobacco and nicotine market. Second, address demand through visible, nationally consistent compliance at the point of sale, not just the border. Third, make the courts a genuinely effective part of the response, working with the attorneys-general on sentencing consistency and custodial baselines for serious repeat or organised offending. None of that features in this bill. This bill is a more elaborate version of the enforcement-first approach parliament passed only a few weeks earlier. It creates new offences, shifts the onus of proof, speeds up seizure and strengthens proceeds-of-crime provisions. I am sure that enforcement agencies will welcome that additional and added efficiency, but, as long as consumers can buy illegal tobacco for a fraction of the taxed price and the odds of serious penalties stay low, retailers and communities will continue to bear the brunt and see little change. Two bills in a month have expanded the enforcement framework, yet neither has grappled with the economic conditions sustaining the market. Until that price gap is addressed, the Commonwealth will keep legislating against the supply of a market its own tax settings have created and continue to drive. The coalition has put forward the only comprehensive platform on tackling illegal tobacco in Australia. My colleagues and I have argued for cutting the excise—in my case, for a year. Others in my party room and the National Party have done so for longer. But this is no longer a partisan issue. The crossbench, state and federal Labor parliamentarians and a teal member of parliament all share the view that the excise needs to be cut. New South Wales premier Minns has called for an aggressive cut, and I commend his moral courage and urge the Prime Minister to follow him. If he can't follow Chris Minns, perhaps he can listen to his own backbench, who, in a minority report to the Senate inquiry, broke from the government's official approach. Last week, in question time, the Prime Minister dodged the question five times, but I suppose dodging a question five times beats not telling the truth about something 50 times. He dodged it on breakfast television too. We've now learned that, alongside Treasury's elasticity pricing modelling, an agency within the Department of Home Affairs is also looking at the excise, so I have faith that the government is taking baby steps on the road to illegal tobacco Damascus. One teal MP has acknowledged the status quo isn't working and supports an excise cut, and I commend her for that. Her common sense isn't shared by all of her colleagues, though. The member for Kooyong argues against a cut. Wary that a further rise in excise would only strengthen the black market's price incentive, however, she has also argued that increasing the tobacco excise would encourage the black market. I think it's worth recalling what JFK once said: 'We enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.' That fits well. This debate has been too often driven by ideology rather than facts and behavioural economics to be included in those considerations. Think for a moment who actually bears the cost of what this bill is meant to address. Katie Tangey, the innocent Melbourne woman murdered in a case of mistaken identity by illegal tobacco gang leaders, would have turned 29 this Tuesday. My thoughts are with her family, and I want them to know that I'm fighting on this issue so that this doesn't keep happening to more families across Australia. This government claims to be the parliamentary wing of the union movement here to stand up for working people. Right now it's retail staff, often young, often having their first experience in the workplace, often on the minimum wage, standing behind a counter because it's their job and having to face the full consequences of this, which are violent. The Australian Border Force, on the issue of the excise influence, said as much in its submission to the Senate inquiry that price is a driver in this. Criminologist James Martin has said that, once a black market reaches this scale, you simply cannot police your way out of it without other measures. The government's own figures show the illicit market has pushed past half of all of the tobacco consumed worth billions of dollars every year. Meanwhile, smoking rates, the entire justification for this policy, are no longer falling as they should. Western Australia has recorded an uptick for the first time in three decades. Wastewater testing shows nicotine consumption climbing nationally, and the New South Wales department of health has shown that smoking rates have tipped over 15 per cent in that state. This government has been warned by Treasury, the Australian Border Force, state premiers, doctors and its own backbench in a Senate report that the illicit market cannot be policed away while the financial incentive to run it remains at large. Australians deserve better than a government with its head in the sand on this issue. 13:05 Ms CLUTTERHAM 316101 Sturt I rise today to speak in support of the Customs and Other Legislation Amendment (Illicit Tobacco Enforcement Modernisation and Other Measures) Bill 2026, which is the next step in the government's ongoing crackdown on the criminals behind the illicit tobacco and vapes trade. We know illicit tobacco presents multiple threats to Australians and Australian communities. Firstly, illicit tobacco involves products that are made, distributed and sold illegally, avoiding regulations and tax laws. This illegal trade presents a serious challenge to Australia by weakening public health efforts, regulations and the economy. Secondly, we know that profits from illicit tobacco and e-cigarette sales often fund organised crime. This not only harms the safety and health of our communities but makes it harder for law enforcement to deal with other criminal activities, worsening social and economic problems. Thirdly, the illegal trade in tobacco and e-cigarettes causes the government to lose a large amount of that revenue. That money could otherwise be used to fund important public services and health programs. Fourthly, the illegal trade puts public health at risk by exposing people to unregulated and potentially harmful substances. It also weakens efforts to inform the public about the dangers of these products and to discourage their use. E-cigarettes have led to more young people becoming addicted to nicotine, creating new cycles of dependence. Finally, illicit tobacco damages the trust in regulatory systems designed to protect consumers. It reduces public confidence in regulatory bodies and creates unfair competition for businesses that follow the rules and comply with regulations. Illicit tobacco is not a victimless crime. It undermines public health objectives, harms legitimate businesses, deprives governments of critical revenue and provides a significant source of profit for criminal enterprises. Illicit tobacco needs to be cut off at the source. Cutting the tobacco excise is not cutting illicit tobacco off at the source. It just makes legal tobacco products cheaper and more accessible. It reverses decades of successful smoking reduction and increases future public healthcare and hospital costs because it causes a myriad of health conditions, including lung cancer, which often leads to death. Smoking kills people. It's deliberately addictive and it kills. Making it legally cheaper means more addiction, more health issues, more strain on health systems and more people dying. It also fails to stop criminal syndicates from lowering black market prices further. Organised crime can maintain price advantages by cutting their own rates. Competing with organised crime on price is a race to the bottom. Governments have a duty to set legal and ethical boundaries. Governments work to create laws that minimise or prevent things like exploitation, discrimination, abuse, modern slavery, bribery and corruption. And they work to create laws that minimise harm while trying to ensure every time that one set of rules and regulations minimising harm does not cause harm in another area. Harm prevention, protecting human rights, promoting public health and practising fairness are duties of government. Lifestyle choices are up to the individual. If you want to smoke, smoke. If you want to drink, drink. These choices are not illegal, and governments should not act to suppress personal freedom and individual autonomy, but smoking and drinking are harmful. We know this. Everyone knows this. That harm leads to antisocial behaviour and strain on the public health system. Governments have a duty to minimise this, and that is what a high excise is all about. Reducing the excise to price match with organised crime is a dereliction of that duty, if that is your sole motivation for the reduction. The tobacco excise is high for a reason—because it is embedded in public health goals. Subsidising or matching illicit pricing risks legitimising illegal syndicates and ignoring those public health goals. So the government's attention has been directed at the source of illicit tobacco: organised crime. A central reform contained in this bill is the creation of new offences for importing, possessing or conveying illicit tobacco. Existing offences require prosecutors to prove that tobacco has been imported by a person with intent to defraud the associated revenue. This involves establishing that the person was aware that tobacco was subject to a duty collection framework and that that duty must be paid on importation. This offence was designed for a previous era, where low-level criminals were trying to defraud revenue. Now, the scale and sophistication of organised crime have grown such that a new and more targeted approach is required. This bill operates to amend the Customs Act to introduce a number of measures to increase the deterrence of criminal conduct in respect of the unlawful importation of tobacco and to support more effective enforcement options and related prosecutions. The measures are also intended to prevent the diversion of tobacco products into the domestic market where those tobacco products are required to be exported from Australia. These measures will also go some way to improving the operational efficiency of the Australian Border Force and its capability to respond to the prevalence of illicit tobacco imported unlawfully and then circulated within the Australian community. The measures are not intended to affect legitimate participants like importers, customs brokers and depot and warehouse operators who comply with their legal obligations. The bill also amends the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 to introduce three measures to strengthen the pecuniary penalty order framework, modernise the production order framework and strengthen Australia's unexplained wealth framework. These measures will ensure that law enforcement agencies are able to detect and disrupt organised crime actors and recover the profits and wealth generated by criminal activity. There are a total of eight measures. The first modernises illicit tobacco offences under the Customs Act by introducing two new offences with a reasonable suspicion test, meaning that goods that were unlawfully imported by a person in circumstances which defraud the revenue and then four new offences for tobacco imported without the permission or in breach of permit conditions. All six of these new offences are supported by evidentiary presumptions. The second clarifies the language in paragraph 233 of the Customs Act to ensure that tobacco imported unlawfully may be prescribed as a tier 1 good in Customs Regulation 2015 to enliven stronger penalties under the Customs Act. The third measure extends customs control over duty refunded tobacco until export or sale or until withdrawal or disallowance of an application for a refund of customs duty, thereby reducing diversion risk and strengthening supply chain integrity. The fourth measure streamlines seizure and disposal of illicit tobacco by expanding the definition of 'special forfeited goods' in the Customs Act such that it includes tobacco imported in breach of permit conditions, which modernises the requirements for publication and service of seizure notices, and by removing the claim process for the return of seized illicit tobacco. The fifth introduces new licence conditions, uplifts existing tobacco related licensing obligations and strengthens governance for licensed depots and warehouses through expanding the remit of the National Customs Licensing Advisory Committee. The sixth will amend the Proceeds of Crime Act to clarify and strengthen production order powers used in proceeds of crime investigations. The amendments clarify that production orders may be sought after proceedings have commenced, and they remove jurisdictional limitation on the issue of production orders, allowing them to be issued relating to one or more documents that are located in or accessible from Australia. The amendments also realign penalties for interference with information-gathering processes to effectively punish those who seek to destroy or deface property tracking documents. The seventh will improve the operation of the pecuniary penalty order framework in the Proceeds of Crime Act. The amendments will clarify how pecuniary penalty order amounts are calculated, including that an amount may only be reduced by amounts that have been paid rather than amounts that are payable. The amendments will also clarify that a person's effective control of property is assessed at the date of a restraining order or that the responsible authority applies for an order under section 141 of the act, which ensures that property remains available to satisfy a pecuniary penalty order. Finally, the eighth measure will amend the definition of 'total wealth' in the Proceeds of Crime Act to clarify how it is calculated for the purposes of determining unexplained wealth amounts during proceeds of crime proceedings. The amendment will ensure that items of property that can be traced to a single source are not required to be counted multiple times in determining unexplained wealth amounts. To be clear, this should be construed not as watering down the regime but as amending it so it better stands up to scrutiny with improved prospects for effectiveness. Briefly returning to measure 1, the evidentiary presumption, the bill will contain a list of what are called 'observable indicators' of illicit activities. If any one of these indicators is established, then that is taken to satisfy the reasonable suspicion test of the criminal offence. The reasonable suspicion test under these new laws is an objective test. It doesn't depend on what an officer or anyone suspects. This allows enforcement agencies to focus on observable facts rather than try to prove every detail of a concealed illicit supply chain. This is an evidentiary presumption system. An evidentiary presumption is a starting assumption the law makes about a fact or a situation. It's not the final word, but it sets the baseline. So, if no-one produces evidence to the contrary, such that the presumption is not rebutted, the presumption usually stands. Examples of the new objective indicators include non-compliant retail packaging or non-compliant tobacco products, like menthol cigarettes hiding in plain packaging, or acts that conceal tobacco to avoid detection or if the tobacco sales price is below the excise and GST combined. That fact alone will establish the reasonable suspicion that it was unlawfully imported. Given the scale of the problem with the importation of illicit tobacco in this country, the objective indicator measures will provide the Australian Border Force and all state and territory police forces with a powerful and effective tool to pursue organised crime and improve prospects of conviction because of the evidentiary presumptions. So, to those operating a retail store, if the Australian Border Force or other law enforcement agency enter a store and observe one of these indicators, they can take action. Selling illicit tobacco is no longer worth the risk, because you'll get caught. Concealing illicit tobacco activities is no longer worth the risk; you'll get caught. And participating in any way in the illicit tobacco industry is no longer worth it; you'll get caught. This bill contains a series of measures that are practical and targeted and that focus on the problematic elements of the sector without posing additional risks to public health. They are directed at cutting illicit tobacco off at the source. They are directed at organised crime and directed at strengthening our borders so illicit tobacco does not reach our shores in the first place. And, if it does, the measures are directed at disrupting what happens in the postborder phase and improving prospects of conviction. I commend the bill to the House. 13:20 Mr WALLACE 265967 Fisher The coalition will not oppose the Customs and Other Legislation Amendment (Illicit Tobacco Enforcement Modernisation and Other Measures) Bill 2026 in the House. We support sensible measures that give Commonwealth law enforcement and border agencies stronger tools to combat illicit tobacco trade. But we should be very clear about what this bill can do and what it can't do. It can make prosecutions easier. It can strengthen proceeds of crime powers and tighten controls around customs depots and licensed warehouses. What it cannot do on its own is fix the economic conditions that have allowed organised crime to turn illicit tobacco into one of the most lucrative criminal markets in Australia. Australia's illicit tobacco crisis is no longer simply a question of public health. It is a law and order issue. It is a community safety issue. It is a revenue issue and, as I said in this House in June, it has become a significant domestic national security issue. The government's own Illicit Tobacco and E‑cigarette Commissioner estimates that illicit tobacco represented between 50 and 60 per cent of tobacco sold in Australia in 2024-25. The estimated value of that market was between $4.1 billion and $6.9 billion, with excise and duty evasion estimated at between $7.7 billion and $11.8 billion. That is an extraordinary amount of money moving outside the legal economy and into the hands of criminal gangs, criminal networks. These are not backyard operators selling a few cheap packets of smokes under the counter. The Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission describes illicit tobacco as one of the most significant organised crime commodities in Australia. We've seen firebombings, extortion, intimidation and violence linked to this trade. Innocent people have been killed, legitimate businesses have been targeted, communities have been put at risk and criminal groups have fought over territory because the profits are so large. The Australian Border Force has described illicit tobacco as a low-risk, high-reward commodity and has warned that the market continues to grow in scale, complexity and profitability. AUSTRAC has warned that illicit tobacco is also an increasing money-laundering threat. This bill contains worthwhile measures. It creates a clearer framework of offences dealing separately with unlawful importation and with the possession, movement, sale and supply of illicit tobacco once it is inside Australia. Importantly, it also addresses one of the practical problems faced by prosecutors. Under the existing framework, cases can be frustrated by the need to prove that an accused person knew tobacco had been unlawfully imported. This bill makes it easier to prove tobacco is illicit by allowing prosecutors to point to obvious warning signs, such as unrealistically low price, non-compliant packaging or no evidence of a legitimate supply chain. That can include tobacco being sold at an extraordinarily low price. Those are practical changes that should make it easier for authorities to act against the people moving illicit tobacco through the domestic market. The bill also strengthens proceeds of crime arrangements. That matters because when you are dealing with organised crime, you have to follow the money. I made this point in June, and it remains just as important today. If you can't immediately arrest these thugs for the firebombing, the extortion or the violence, then go after the money. Freeze the assets, seize the profits, and strip away the financial reward that keeps these criminal enterprises operating. The bill also strengthens customs licensing, compliance and oversight arrangements, including a greater scrutiny of people associated with customs depots and licensed warehouses. Again, these are sensible measures, and the coalition will not stand in their way. But nobody in this House should mistake another round of enforcement amendments for a more complete solution. Australia did not arrive at this point because the criminal law was missing one more offence. We arrived here because a huge illegal price gap created an extraordinary profit opportunity, and organised crime seized that opportunity. In the 23 May budget, Labor imposed an additional five per cent tobacco excise increase in each of the three successive years, on top of the existing twice yearly indexation. Those increases took effect September 2023, September 2024 and September and 2025. At the time, the government forecast those higher excise rates would raise an additional $3.3 billion over the forward estimates. Instead, tobacco excise revenue has fallen sharply as more of the market has shifted underground. The coalition's position is that you cannot separate enforcement policy from the incentives that make the illegal trade so profitable. If the black market can massively undercut the legal market, criminals will keep being attracted to it. If those criminals can make extraordinary margins, they will absorb seizures, arrests and shop closures as a simple cost of doing business. That's why the coalition has put forward a better plan. Our policy would reduce tobacco excise by 80 per cent, cutting the excise component on a standard packet of 20 cigarettes from around $30 to around $6, with the rate reviewed after two years. The purpose is not to encourage smoking; let me make that perfectly clear. The purpose is to attack the price differential that organised crime has exploited and to bring consumers back into a lawful, regulated market. We would combine that with a $200 million nationwide law enforcement surge focused on raids, arrests, seizures, investigations, illegal shop closures and border disruption. That means a stronger operational focus across the Australian Border Force, the AFP, the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission and AUSTRAC. We would also establish a legal, regulated and taxed adult market for nicotine vapes and nicotine pouches while maintaining protections for children. And we would invest $60 million in a national public awareness and education campaign to expose the organised crime behind illicit tobacco and vapes and reinforce the dangers of smoking. This is not a choice between tax reform and enforcement. Australia needs both. We need to shrink the criminal profit margin and then hit what remains with the full force of the law. We need to stop shipments at the border, shut illegal shops, seize criminal assets, follow the money and arrest the people running these networks. We also need to restore some basic common sense to the tax settings that have helped make the black market so profitable. Tobacco excise revenue peaked at around $16 billion in 2019-20. By last financial year, it had halved to around $8 billion. At the same time, organised crime groups are estimated by the government to be making billions from illicit tobacco. This is a perverse outcome. Australians are collecting less tax while criminals are collecting more money. A policy designed to raise revenue and reduce smoking has instead helped create a market in which lawful retailers are undercut by organised crime, and illegal sellers operate without age checks, product standards or regulatory oversight. The coalition's position is straightforward: we support giving police and broader agencies and prosecutors better tools. We support stronger proceeds-of-crime powers. We support making it harder for criminal syndicates to hide behind evidentiary gaps or exploit— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour, and the member will be granted leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed. STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS 49 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Fiscal Policy 49 13:30 Ms WATSON-BROWN 300127 Ryan If you're starting to think that maybe something's wrong with how this country is run, you're right. Your pay can't keep up with the cost of everything; meanwhile, gas corporation CEO Kevin Gallagher's salary almost doubled last year to $9 million. You work hard and pay a huge stack in tax every year; gas corporation Santos makes billions and pays $0 in tax. Your essential services are substandard and underfunded; the government blocks calls to raise $17 billion from taxing gas exports. People are doing all the right things, but living standards are dropping. Our politicians have sold us out to massive corporate interests. There's no sugar coating this. Our politicians have been handing over Australia's wealth to multinational corporations bit by bit for decades—our resources, our public assets, our local industry, our scientific innovations. Changing this starts with voting out the people responsible and voting in people who don't answer to big corporations and lobbyists, people who will do what needs to be done: tax gas corporations; bring essential services back into public ownership; cut energy bills, medical bills and banking fees; make quality stuff in Australia again; build genuinely affordable homes. Make Australia work for regular people. That's the Greens' plan. World Pharmacists Day 50 13:31 Ms URQUHART 231199 Braddon World Pharmacists Day on 25 September recognises pharmacists who are delivering more services and helping more patients access timely, affordable care close to home. Community pharmacies are vital in regional communities, where they may be the only primary healthcare service. Today I acknowledge three exceptional pharmacists serving Braddon. Eliza Triffitt from TerryWhite Chemmart in Burnie is an inspiring young leader. Raised in rural Tasmania, she holds information evenings on sleep, mental health, baby care and menopause, provides offsite vaccinations, supports women's football and hockey, and established a community pantry based on the principle 'give what you can and take what you need'. She also mentors an intern and six UTAS pharmacy students. Terry Travers has served East Devonport through the Mersey Advantage Pharmacy for more than 40 years. A former Pharmacy Guild branch president, Terry rallies his staff behind charitable events, and has generously contributed his time to the Mersey Yacht Club, the Three Peaks Race, and the Melaleuca Home for the Aged. Jo O'Malley of Westside Pharmacy and Complete Care Pharmacy in Penguin is a respected statewide leader and current Pharmacy Guild state president. He is a vocal advocate for his community, while supporting the soccer and surf life-saving clubs. These pharmacists demonstrate commitment and community spirit that make regional pharmacies indispensable. On World Pharmacists Day, I thank them and every pharmacist right across Braddon for improving health care and strengthening the communities that they proudly serve. Live Animal Exports 50 13:33 Mr WILKIE C2T Clark While live sheep exports will end in 2028, many other animals will continue to endure the horrors of the live export trade, with no end in sight. Last year alone, Australia exported more than 800,000 cattle, 33,000 goats and 1,700 buffalo. In fact, cattle numbers increased by 11 per cent and goat exports more than doubled. So, the cruelty continues. For instance, in 2024, a Brahman Express voyage killed 151 cattle—a mortality rate of 4.5 per cent. These animals suffered and died over days at sea in a trade that still puts profit ahead of welfare. Two years on from the Brahman Express incident, it remains under investigation and the exporter still trades. This is why I'm proud to present a Change.org petition to end all live animal exports, with about 470,000 signatures. This is one of the largest petitions Change.org has ever seen, and powerful evidence that the community wants a lot more done than just the live sheep export ban. I acknowledge Lisa Margetts, who started this petition and who has campaigned tirelessly for years, and I thank every person who signed it. Grassroots advocacy matters. It got us the sheep ban and it's what will get us a full ban on live exports. On that note, I seek leave to table the petition. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 Has the petition been approved by the Petitions Committee? Mr WILKIE C2T It's not in a format that the Petitions Committee would accept, so I'm seeking to table it as a parliamentary document. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 Is leave granted? Mr Hill 86256 As discussed with the member, I can't grant leave at this point. We haven't reviewed it, but I do appreciate the point that you're making and invite you to undertake further discussions with us. The Petitions Committee is the appropriate form for the House, but we can certainly talk about it further. Cybercrime 50 13:35 Ms KARA COOK 316537 Bonner Today, Women in Digital and Sekuro launched new research into cybercrime victimisation in Australia, and the data should make all of us pay attention. Nearly half of Australians surveyed experienced cybercrime in the last year. One in four experienced abuse or online harassment. One in five experienced multiple forms of cybercrime. But this new research also asks us to look beyond the headline numbers and understand the gendered nature of cybercrime, because the crimes that cause women some of the most profound harm are also among the least reported. Shame, fear and uncertainty about where to turn can keep victims silent. Cybercrime is not just about compromised passwords or stolen money. It can affect someone's safety, identity, relationships and livelihood and their sense of security in their home. Our government has set the goal of making Australia a world leader in cybersecurity by 2030. Under Horizon 2 of the Cyber Security Strategy, we are delivering 64 initiatives across 19 action areas, including better cyber education, stronger protections and making it simpler for Australians to report cyber incidents. But this research shows us why our response must also be victim centred and gender aware. We need to make reporting easier, support victims to recover, build digital literacy and ensure emerging technologies do not create new opportunities for abuse, because every Australian deserves to be safe not only in their community but in their home and online as well. Gun Control 51 13:36 Mr GEE 261393 Calare Prime Minister, repeal these flawed gun laws. This rushed kneejerk buyback is an absolute disaster for country Australia. It's nothing more than legalised theft and an insult to every law-abiding gun owner across this state. We all condemn the horrific acts of terror of 14 December, but using honest citizens as political scapegoats deflects from serious security and intelligence failures, and it is a complete disgrace to do so. Former director-general of security Dennis Richardson, a man who has dedicated his life to the service of Australia, has stated that, when it came to confronting extremism 'we dropped the ball and failed to draw a line'. He is also concerned that the interim royal commission report would not contain substantive recommendations about intelligence and policing. Why are regional Australians being forced to pay the price for government security and intelligence failures? The crooks won't be handing in guns under the buyback. These laws only take guns out of safes, not off the streets. Go after the illegal guns. In Calare, these rushed gun laws are smashing law-abiding firearm businesses, and these pathetic grants on offer do nothing to help them. Prime Minister, bin this junk policy. Target the real threat, and leave law abiding gun owners alone. Bin this policy, junk it and reverse course now. Dunkley Electorate: Volunteering 51 13:38 Ms BELYEA 309484 Dunkley This last week, I've had the absolute pleasure of connecting with 28 volunteer organisations in my electorate who have been awarded a share of $65,000—from local sporting clubs to community support organisations that do so very much to keep our community connected, active and strong. I am proud to have delivered these grants. They provide new equipment, resources, training and other practical support. This is a small thank you to the people giving their time, energy and care to make a difference in Dunkley. I have to say this is one of the very best parts of this job. Being on the ground across Dunkley meeting the people who make these organisations work, listening to what they need and then helping deliver support are a real privilege. I am incredibly proud to represent Dunkley, the community I call home and love. Our volunteers are the heart of Dunkley. They coach our kids, support our neighbours, bring people together and step up when they need it most. I want to thank the mayor, Councillor Sue Baker, and Stephen Sparrow from Family Life for joining the selection committee. To all the 28 organisations receiving funding: thank you for everything you do. Your contributions make Dunkley a stronger, more connected and more caring community. Lindsay, Ms Jean Elizabeth 51 13:39 Mr LEESER 109556 Berowra I wish a very happy 100th birthday to Jean Elizabeth Lindsay, born this day in 1926 in Hong Kong. Jean had an exciting childhood. She grew up in a hotel, but everything changed when she was evacuated from Hong Kong, pending the Japanese invasion, as a 14-year-old to Australia, living with strangers. Apart from her parents and her brother, whom she didn't know were alive or dead for many years, her optimism got her through the war and she was reunited with them after the war. She married her childhood sweetheart, Jim, and they were married for over 50 years. They had two children, Jen and Roger; four grandchildren, Joanna, Warwick, Sasha and Rohan; and nine great-grandchildren, James, Ruth, Alex, Georgia, Zoe, Angus, Hannah, Elsie and William. Jean worked for the Department of Post-War Reconstruction after the war, but she always wanted to be a schoolteacher. In her 80s, along with other residents of the Grange, she went and read to children at Mount Colah Public School, which she did until she was 90—a lifelong dream fulfilled. Jean is one of those extraordinary, optimistic, warm, fun-loving people that is a wonderful influence on everybody she meets. I was privileged to have all her support in my political career when she served as the vice-president of the Westleigh Fox Valley branch. Jean, thank you for the amazing person you are. I celebrate this day with you and the family. Here is to many more happy returns and happy celebrations with a remarkable Australian. Veterans: Afghanistan 51 13:41 Mr GOSLING 245392 Solomon Many months ago I wrote to MPs and senators, providing some perspective regarding Australian war crime cases arising from the Afghanistan conflict and asking that parliamentarians refrain from politicising these issues. This was due to the damage it was causing to the wellbeing of many in the veterans community, including their families. However, some parties have decided to continue to politicise some of these issues—particularly at a by-election—and then double down. A leader—the One Nation so-called leader—failed to show leadership and did not retract a disgraceful cartoon reflecting on a member of this place. Next month there will be a series of Afghanistan related events commemorating the 25 years since Australian operations began in Afghanistan, with Operation Slipper. Gatherings and reunions like these are a great opportunity for mates to get back together, and they can all be proud of their service in Afghanistan. But it can also be retraumatising, particularly when there are discussions about the moral dilemmas that can happen in these types of conflicts. I want them to know that they are supported by our government and by the Australian people. We are proud of the service of tens of thousands of Australians in Afghanistan and will continue to support them in the national interest. (Time expired) Migration 52 13:43 Mr VENNING 315434 Grey How can anyone trust Labor to get migration down? They have lost control and Australians are paying the price. Labor have missed their migration target in every budget they have delivered. So what does Minister Burke decide to do now? Well, he's putting the slowdown on backpackers. Backpackers do not buy Australian homes; they are temporary workers and they keep regional communities moving. It's harvest time in the next couple of weeks. Farmers are expecting backpackers to come in any second. They have not been approved. He's fudging the numbers to make himself look better at the expense of regional communities again. The coalition solution is we're going to tie net overseas migration to the amount of homes we build—less migration, more homes. Australians don't need another Labor target that we will of course miss; they need a Taylor coalition government that will fix the economy, restore our living standards and protect our way of life. Regional communities are taking the hit, whether it's through the crazy net zero ideology that we've seen kill the community of Whyalla—800 jobs lost on Monday this week. I implore the Prime Minister and Minister Ayres to get over to that community, like they did in February, and look the steelworkers in the face. Qin, Professor Charles 52 13:44 Mr NG 316052 Menzies I rise today to talk about an extraordinary Australian, Professor Charles Qin OAM. Professor Qin is a leader in my community and one of Australia's most respected English-Chinese interpreters. Professor Qin has been the interpreter of choice for prime ministers from both sides of politics, from Bob Hawke to John Howard to Tony Abbott to our prime minister, and he has worked in the United Nations, the Olympic Games and APEC. He was awarded the Medal of the Order of Australia for his contribution to international relations, particularly through translating and interpreting. I've had the pleasure of meeting Professor Qin on many occasions. Just last weekend, I saw him at two Mid-Autumn Festival events I attended, and I've always found him to be humble, professional and generous with his expertise. That's why I was deeply concerned to see recent reporting by the Australian newspaper cast doubt on his loyalty to Australia because of his professional and community associations. A measure of how slapdash this damaging article was is the fact that it was disowned the next day by the head of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, whose researchers raised initial claims. National security matters, and legitimate concerns should always be properly scrutinised. But association is not allegiance, and Chinese Australians should not be held to a different standard because of our heritage. They should not have to continually prove their loyalty to Australia simply because they maintain cultural, community and professional connections. The Albanese Labor government will always stand with Chinese Australians and with our multicultural communities. Migration 52 13:46 Mr TED O'BRIEN 138932 Fairfax Australia has rightly welcomed people from every corner of the planet. But, over the years, a social compact has emerged between governments and the Australian people; when a government loses control of Australia's borders, people's appetite to bring in more migrants changes. We have yet another Labor government in this country which has lost control of Australia's borders. There has not been a year since the Albanese government have come to power when they have met their migration targets—not so much as a year. As a result, there is a shortfall of houses in Australia to the tune of 400,000. And, of course, the more Labor brings people in without controlling our borders, the worse this situation gets. While we've been in this chamber over the last hour or so, the minister has spoken. I look forward to hearing what he has had to say. From online reports, his first message was to blame everybody else but the government. Blaming the Australian people for having too few people in their homes—an absolute disgrace. He is now in his fifth year in government, and they still cannot get this under control. No wonder the compact has been breached. Electoral System 53 13:47 Ms JORDAN-BAIRD 316021 Gorton When it comes time to vote, every Australian deserves to know three things: who is trying to influence their vote, who they are working with and who is paying for it. At last year's federal election, members of the Plymouth Brethren church coordinated with the opposition to descend on polling booths across the country. In my electorate of Gorton, Liberal volunteers physically intimidated me, my volunteers and voters in my community. They violated our personal space, yelled in the faces of voters and even followed volunteers home, forcing us to submit police reports. We have since heard deeply troubling allegations that Brethren members secretly funded far-right agitators to disrupt campaign events. But Senator Canavan described their conduct as par for the course in politics. We on this side believe that we cannot and should not accept this conduct—covert political interference, disruption and intimidation—as part of our political system, and it is deeply troubling that there are members of this parliament who do not share this view. In my home state of Victoria, voters will soon go to the polls. They deserve to know whether the Brethren—or any other group working with secret networks—will be part of the campaign. The federal and Victorian Liberal parties must tell voters: Have they met with Brethren leaders? Are they again coordinating disruption? Will Brethren members be sent into Victorian communities again? People of every faith have a place in our democracy. Secrecy and intimidation do not. Veterans: Health Care 53 13:49 Mr WILLCOX 286535 Dawson Today, the government has scrapped the cap. The proposed $5,000 allied health cap for veterans is gone. This is a win for veterans. This was a disgraceful proposal from the moment it appeared in the budget. It created fear and uncertainty for veterans, who have already given so much to this country. I've heard directly from veterans across Dawson, from Mackay to the garrison city of Townsville. One of the veterans who spoke to me was Mark from Annandale, who told me that, because of the severe injuries from his service, $5,000 would have covered just three months of his treatment. It is to the government's shame that veterans were put in this anguish in the first place. The Minister for Veterans' Affairs should resign. But today it's about the veterans who stood up and spoke out; the veterans who told me how this would impact their lives; the veterans who refused to accept that, after serving their country, they would have to fight for the care they need. The veterans were heard. The government was forced to listen. Veterans, this is your win. You fought for our country, and it is my honour to fight for you. Thank you for your service. We on this side of the House do not take it for granted. We appreciate everything you've done. Lest we forget. Electoral System 53 13:50 Mr NEUMANN HVO Blair On page 28 of the Liberal Party review of the last federal election, they admitted the Plymouth Brethren—a cult—was a support group for the Liberal Party on polling booths in their campaign. This morning Senator Canavan, the Leader of the Nationals, described the Plymouth Brethren as 'good people'. Well, I can tell Senator Canavan that good people don't assault, harass and abuse voters at polling booths. They don't assault, harass and abuse political opponents. They don't assault, harass and abuse campaign workers and other political parties. They don't stalk and follow in cars, to their homes, political opponents, their campaign directors and their campaign workers. They don't defy Australian Electoral Commission directions in terms of signage. They don't systemically destroy political opponents' campaign signs. They don't collude with far-right and Nazi groups and pay them to harass the Prime Minister and ministers just because they don't like them. Then Senator Canavan made the ridiculous claim this morning that the Labor Party has a problem with people of faith. I'm a Christian. There are people of faith on this side of politics. God is not a card-carrying member of the Liberal and National parties, Senator Canavan. Come clean. Come to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, Liberal Party—like the Labor Party—and give evidence of your collusion with the Plymouth Brethren at the last federal election. Environmental Defenders Office 53 13:52 Mr THOMPSON 281826 Herbert When 12-year-old children in the electorate of Herbert are asking me whether they are going to die, because of a climate countdown, something has gone seriously wrong. Children deserve facts, perspective and hope, not apocalyptic activism masquerading as education. The so-called Climate Clock is not a literal countdown to humanity's extinction; it is an international activist campaign designed to raise money. One of its major sponsors is Oak Foundation. That same foreign foundation has also been identified as a funder and supporter of the Environmental Defenders Office, an activist organisation that uses litigation to delay and disrupt major Australian projects. And who gives millions of dollars in Commonwealth funding to the Environmental Defenders Office? The Albanese Labor government. Labor and Oak Foundation are separately supporting the same activist organisation, while children in our communities are left terrified about whether they have a future. All of you on that side of the House should be ashamed of yourselves. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 Direct your comments through the chair, Member for Herbert. Mr THOMPSON 281826 The coalition has committed to defunding the Environmental Defenders Office. Our children should be informed and prepared for the future, not terrified into believing they will never have one. Liberal Party of Australia 54 13:53 Ms AMBIHAIPAHAR 315618 Barton If you claim to be the alternative prime minister, you should answer basic questions. But the Leader of the Opposition refuses. New South Wales ICAC's Operation Rosny has exposed illegal donations and branch stacking aimed at destroying Liberal rivals, including by the members for Lindsay, Mitchell and Berowra and the former member for Farrer. Their offence? Refusing to bend the knee to the hard right. What do they make of the man who led that faction, the current leader of the opposition, and his close factional ally and moneyman, Dallas McInerney, who bankrolled the whole thing? He ducks and weaves whenever the camera turns on. Meanwhile, people in Canterbury face crushing strata fees and crumbling buildings. They're the human cost of this grubby affair. And what about the Exclusive Brethren—a sect whose members do not vote, who oppose women holding authority and who fly followers around Australia to distribute Liberals material? What was the opposition leader's role in that? Money may have bought this opposition leader plenty, born with a silver spoon in the mouth, but it cannot buy loyalty from his caucus or fool the Australian people. Here's the question he keeps dodging: how much will this opposition leader spend to try and buy his way to the top? Housing 54 13:55 Mr VIOLI 300147 Casey This week we saw another report confirming the complete failure of the Albanese Labor government's budget. The HIA new home sales showed that, in August, new home sales dropped 10 per cent. In the three months to August, there was almost a 20 per cent drop in new home sales across the country. If you're an Australian today and you rent, your rents are up. If you're an Australian today and you're looking to buy a new home, it's harder than ever. If you're an Australian that owns an existing home, that home has gone down in value because of the Albanese Labor government and this treasurer. It is no wonder that the backbench has started to background against the Treasurer. It is clear that the Australian people have lost faith in this treasurer because of his continual failures, and the backbench have now lost faith in this treasurer. Honourable members Honourable members interjecting— Mr VIOLI 300147 I'll take the interjections of 'this is rubbish'. Maybe talk to your colleagues, because they're very happy to talk to journalists and tell them how bad this budget is and how much this Treasurer has failed. He can try to stop the dissent as much as he likes. But what happens when you get back home is you speak to the community that are feeling the pain every day. If you are in the housing market, if are were a tech startup or a small business, your life has got harder under this government because of this treasurer who continues to fail. He has spent a lifetime talking about political spin. He has not delivered for the Australian people. Electoral System 54 13:56 Mr ROB MITCHELL M3E McEwen Elections in Australia are supposed to be fair, free and about democracy. But what we saw at the last election was a deliberate campaign run by those opposite with the Exclusive Brethren and the Neo-Nazi mates out there harassing people on election booths. People who were going for their very first time to vote were harassed by their mates out there—mates that don't vote and don't pay tax. But they were happy to hand over bags of cash to the Liberal Party for support. You've got to ask: why? Why would you want to subvert the course of democracy? Why would this be the reason for you turning up to a polling booth? The real question coming up now is: will we see the same thing happen in the Victorian election this year? We know the exact same characters that were in the McEwen Liberal campaign are the exact same characters in the Yan Yean campaign and the Macedon campaign. We had lots of people come in who'd never been here before and just absolutely harassed people the entire time through prepoll and the entire time through election day. It's something that we should absolutely stamp out to make sure that this country has its democracy fair. Freedom is the most important part of it—and to not have thugs come in in their Neo-Nazi shirts and harass people that didn't do anything. It's bad enough that Senator Canavan supports it. Those opposite are supporting Neo-Nazis and Brethren churches, affecting democracy. (Time expired) The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 The member for Wannon has the call. Mr Tehan 210911 No, I don't have the call. I'd like the member for McEwen to withdraw that. That was an imputation and a slur. He should withdraw that. Do you want me to say the same about you? The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Wannon will withdraw. I'm going to handle this. I don't want anyone being slurred in this parliament. I think, on the final day of this sitting, I'm going to ask that there be no slurs during question time. We'll start with the member for McEwen withdrawing. Mr Rob Mitchell M3E I withdraw. Prime Minister 55 13:59 Mr TAYLOR 231027 Hume Pressure from the coalition has forced Labor to scrap its arbitrary cap on health services for our veterans, and I commend the members for Herbert and Riverina for their spirited fight against this arbitrary cap. I applaud our veterans, whose defiant roar ultimately won the day. It's unleashed unnecessary anguish in our veteran community, and there's no confidence in this minister. I say to the Prime Minister: now the cap has been scrapped, scrap the minister. But you won't, Prime Minister. You'll paint this as just another change of position, always in denial about the damage being caused to this country. Dodge, duck, dip and dive—that's this prime minister to a tee. Insults to the Japanese Prime Minister—dodge. Dubious grants to your golf club—duck. Grubby best mate and disgraced adviser—dip. Refusing to acknowledge Islamist extremism—dive. I'll tell you what's revealing about this prime minister. He cuts health services to our veterans, but he keeps funding welfare and housing deposits for non-Australians. Those opposite will always put Australians second. We'll always put Australians first. The SPEAKER 53517 I'm going to remind the Leader of the Opposition that minutes before he spoke I asked for there to be no slurs on members. There was an incredible amount of slurring in that 90-second address. We need to take this temperature down. The way we're talking about members of parliament—I'm going to request everyone to focus on the policy, not the person. In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded. MINISTRY 55 MINISTRY Temporary Arrangements 55 14:01 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I inform the House that the Assistant Treasurer and Minister for Financial Services will be absent from question time today and the Treasurer will answer questions on his behalf. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 55 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Migration 55 14:01 Mr TAYLOR 231027 Hume Under Labor, 1,100 people have arrived in Australia every day. That's a new person arriving in Australia every 78 seconds. Labor is in denial. Why were there no cuts to immigration today? 14:02 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I'm asked about the announcement today by the Leader of the Opposition. The final part of the question was about why we have made the announcements the way we have, and in particular, why the numbers that we're talking about are the numbers that are in the budget. In referring to the term 'cuts', the member opposite is wanting to say that we should go deeper than the numbers projected in the budget. Let me say this to the Leader of the Opposition, as I said to the National Press Club today: if you make cuts too deep and too hard in the immigration system, you trash the Australian economy. That's what happens. I say to the member opposite—has he listened to his own backbenchers as they've been calling for working holiday-makers? Has he listened to the Farmers' Federation and others as they've been saying they don't have enough workers, or does he fall for this argument that maybe it's only the regions and not the cities? Does he understand in any way the fact that, if you're trying to build houses and housing is something that we need—we also have skill shortages. In Sydney and Melbourne, two-thirds of the plasterers essential for new housing are born overseas. Does he understand that the people who have jobs at our universities funded by international education are Australian citizens with real jobs? Does he understand that the people who work there have real jobs? Does he understand that the small businesses that exist off the back of international education are also people with real jobs? Australia does need to temper the rate of migration to give housing a chance to catch up. We do need to do that. But what no responsible party of government should ever do is say that they will leave Australian businesses without the skills they need to make their businesses run, that they will leave Australian farmers without the skills that they need to be able to deal with the next harvest—that those opposite would be able to have a situation for industries like law enforcement, like resources, like our teachers, like construction. We are proudly a nation that has been built on immigration—absolutely proudly. What we need to make sure of is that the system is managed as effectively as possible. We need to make sure that it is guided to deliver for the needs of the Australian people. What we don't need is random dog-whistling of someone wanting to claim that they're against all the numbers and want all the numbers to be lower except for every visa that might affect their electorate. Honourable members Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 There is far too much interjection. The Leader of the Opposition. The member for Barton and the member for Barker are close to not being here for the remainder of question time. Gender Equality 56 14:05 Ms SITOU 298121 Reid My question is to the Prime Minister. How is the Albanese Labor government making real progress on gender equality? Why is the government's focus on empowering Australian women so important for our country? 14:05 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the remarkable member for Reid for that question. Now, for the first time ever, Australia has broken into the top 10 global rankings for gender equality. When we came to government, we were ranked 43 out of 148 countries. Today we are eighth. That is what delivering real change looks like. And it didn't happen by accident. It happened because, for us, women's equality is not an add-on or an afterthought. It's right at the heart of everything that we do, including the largest-ever women's health package in Australian history. Just today I met some fantastic women, including Katie, who are benefiting from a new breast cancer drug listed on the PBS which, instead of costing $1,370 a script, will cost just $25. One million women have accessed cheaper medicines for endo and for contraceptives. This has led to direct savings for them of some $150 million. Our 33 endo and pelvic pain clinics are now open along with the 137 urgent care clinics. And of course we're backing women's economic empowerment: paid parental leave, at a full six months, with super paid on top; growing and protecting wages, especially in those feminised industries that have been undervalued, like aged care and child care; and free TAFE and paid prac for 14 professions, including nursing and social work. There is more to do; the scourge of family, domestic and sexual violence against women and girls is unacceptable. Together we're working towards the second National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children, and we'll continue to take action. That is a focus for our government. Whether it's in our caucus room or around the cabinet table, for the first time, women are in a majority in both of those places, because Labor does reflect modern Australia—our people, our ambition and our aspiration. And our diversity is absolutely a strength. We're proud of that and we're especially proud of what we've achieved together for Australian women. Migration 56 14:08 Mr HOGAN 218019 Page My question is to the Treasurer. Treasurer, there were no cuts to immigration today, yet the Prime Minister blew a $7 billion black hole in your budget with a single text to an ABC journalist. Labor's in denial and gaslighting the public on this. How can Australians trust anything Labor says on migration and the effects on your budget? 14:09 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin When it comes to migration, as the Minister for Home Affairs just said, migration is a force for good in our communities, in our country and in our economy so long as it's properly managed. And the announcement that the minister made today at the National Press Club and the series of important steps that we are taking are all about ensuring that our migration system is robust and that it delivers in our national interest, including in our national economic interest. I pay tribute to the minister for the work that he has done leading this policy development and also the wonderful job that he did at the National Press Club today, laying out our policy. Now, the difference between this side of the House and that side of the House is that our migration policy is determined by cabinet ministers in the cabinet room; the Liberal Party's migration policy is determined by One Nation in the cockpit of a plane donated by a billionaire. That's the difference between this side of the House and that side of the House. And if you look at the migration numbers that came out today, today there were new numbers on net overseas migration. And what they showed is that net overseas migration on our watch has nearly halved from its peak, and we expect it to fall further. If you look at the net overseas migration numbers that came out at 11.30 am today, what they show is that we are ahead of schedule—ahead of forecast—when it comes to getting the net overseas migration number down to more normal levels. Now, we understand, if even if those opposite don't want to front up to this, when we came to office net overseas migration was surging, and a lot of the key indicators in the housing market were falling. We are turning that around. And the net overseas migration numbers show that that is the case, and the policies announced by the home affairs minister earlier today are all about ensuring that we continue to manage the program in a responsible way, in the interests of our people and in the interests of their economy. Women's Economic Security 57 14:11 Ms WITTY 316660 Melbourne My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Women. What action has the Albanese Labor government taken to grow women's economic participation? What is standing in the way of this progress? 14:12 Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR Ballarat Can I thank the member for Melbourne for the question. She has been a fierce advocate for women and for families all of her working life, and it's wonderful to have her here in this place. The government has achieved a lot of firsts for women's equality inside and outside of this place. We're the first Commonwealth government to achieve a majority of women on the government benches and the first Commonwealth government to have more women than men around our cabinet table. There's the lowest gender pay gap in Australian history. It was 14.1 per cent when we came to office, and it is now 11.3 per cent. And, as the Prime Minister has said, Australia is now ranked eighth in the World Economic Forum's Global gender gap report 2026, the first time Australia has ever ranked in the top 10. Since we came to office in 2022, this government has jumped 35 places in the global rankings. Under those opposite, we were 43rd after slipping to an all-time low of 50th under their leadership. We are now eight out of 148 countries. It is an astonishing leap, and I'm sure those opposite would be scratching their heads as to what caused this remarkable turnaround in Australia's performance. They don't have to keep wondering why; the report itself makes it very clear. It says: Australia's recent performance follows a clear inflection point: consecutive gains since 2023 have lifted what had previously been a largely flat trajectory. Can anybody tell me what had happened to shift that trajectory? It's been a deliberate policy of this government to build gender equality into everything that we do. It's because of the policies and the actions of this government that Australia is becoming a more equal and a more fair society. It isn't a fluke; it's the result of intentional and meaningful work. It's our changes to help lower-income women build more retirement savings, something that One Nation, the National Party and the Liberals want to systematically undermine. It's our decision to extend paid parental leave to six months and pay super on it. It's our commitment to lifting the wages of aged-care and early childhood education workers, two industries not only dominated by women but also crucial for women's participation in the workforce. The result of these and many changes is that women, on average, are getting paid $325 more each week than they were under those opposite. That is real change that means Australian women and girls have more choice and a better chance of making decisions that are right for them. There is always more to do to continue our work to end violence against women, to build on the work in women's health, to close the gender pay gap further and to support women in leadership. But we are on the right path to making Australia the best place in the world for women and girls. DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 57 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS Acknowledgement 57 14:15 The SPEAKER 53517 I'm pleased to inform the House that present in the special visitor's gallery today is a visiting delegation from Japan, led by the former foreign minister of Japan, the Hon. Yoko Kamikawa, accompanied by His Excellency Mr Kazuhiro Suzuki, Ambassador of Japan to Australia, as well as Australian and Japanese deaf youth ambassadors. They are here as part of the Empowered Voices, Shared Futures program, supporting intercultural communication between the deaf communities of Australia and Japan. I also welcome the Deputy Premier of Tasmania, the Attorney-General of Tasmania and a former member of this House, Guy Barnett. I'd also like to welcome students from Springsure State School, from Central Queensland, from the electorate of Flynn, as guests of the member for Flynn. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 57 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Data Centres 57 14:15 Ms WATSON-BROWN 300127 Ryan My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, Anthropic plans to build a giant data centre in the Western Downs, potentially increasing Queensland's energy use by 25 per cent, the equivalent usage of 1.5 million homes, therefore pushing up power prices. Will you legislate requirements for data centres to build renewable infrastructure at least equal to their energy consumption? In the meantime, will you place a moratorium on data centre approvals? 14:16 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for Ryan for her question. It goes to artificial intelligence and its impact in local communities, which is something that has caused an issue around the world, it must be said. We think that there is enormous benefit to come from artificial intelligence in areas such as health care, health provision and doing analysis to make a difference. There are benefits in education and potentially benefits in productivity as well. But that doesn't mean that there are not risks which need to be mitigated, which is why I announced that we would legislate for Australian standards to make sure that artificial intelligence works in our national interests. This was raised as well at our National Cabinet meeting, and it was agreed there that we would progress the legislation, which, because of the corporations power, the Commonwealth will have power to legislate to ensure that the suggestion that has been made that it would increase power prices, that it won't do that, and that it will need renewables. If there is surplus energy in, for example, gas, in some areas, then we would allow that to be used on the proviso that it does not put pressure on the system and therefore put pressure on the prices that ordinary Australians are paying. Why is that important? That's important because you need social licence for these institutions, and we're working constructively to make sure that that social licence is available—is absolutely critical. We've said very clearly that we must shape AI or it will shape us. Areas such as sovereign capability, our capacity to provide for the defence and security of Australia is absolutely essential. There's the idea that we just say, 'We'll have a moratorium on new technology,' which is one option that has been put forward, I know, by the Greens political party. What I want to do is not have a moratorium. I want us to be at the forefront of shaping it in our national interest, because this is a technology that is happening. You can engage in ChatGPT, or any of these facilities right now. It is having an impact. That is why we can't afford to sit on the sidelines, because if we sit on the sidelines we won't have any impact on how this rolls out. Next week, at the United Nations, I expect that this will be a major topic of conversation on the way. I leave tomorrow night. I leave and arrive on the same night because of the way that it works in San Francisco, for meetings to take place. I'll engage constructively, and I would encourage all of the parliament to engage with the committee chaired by the member for Maribyrnong and deputy chaired by Senator Duniam, in the other place, and engage constructively. This should not be a partisan issue. This is one which really requires the national interest to be first and foremost. Women's Health 58 14:20 Ms MASCARENHAS 298800 Swan My question is to the Minister for Health and Ageing. How are new medicine listings on the PBS helping Australian women living with breast cancer and endometriosis? 14:20 Mr BUTLER HWK Hindmarsh Thank you to the member for Swan for that question. As she knows, breast cancer is the most common cancer for Australian women, and, although we have some of the world's highest survival rates for this cancer, even after successfully completing cancer treatment, many women require maintenance care for many years to keep the cancer at bay. For thousands of Australian women, that treatment has been a monthly injection of Zoladex, a drug that suppresses the hormones that feed the cancer. Some months ago, the company that owns Zoladex announced, very suddenly, it would be withdrawing that drug from the PBS this November, along with some other countries. It is hard to overstate the shock and the deep anxiety that that caused the many thousands of women who, for years, have relied on this drug to keep the cancer at bay and to keep them alive. Since then, the assistant minister for health and I have been working very closely with the breast cancer community to find a solution for those women. As the Prime Minister said, this morning, he, the assistant minister and I met with the Breast Cancer Network Australia, Cancer Nurses and an incredibly brave patient called Katie. Katie was one of the many women who, immediately after this announcement, started to have some pretty confronting discussions with their clinicians about surgical options to do what Zoladex had been doing for years—namely, keeping them alive. Katie told her incredibly powerful story as a woman at 34 years of age having her ovaries removed, pushing her into menopause at that early age and preventing her from ever bearing a child. As she told the media so bravely earlier today: Nobody should be making irreversible decisions about their body because they are afraid a medicine might disappear. That work together that we've done with the community led to the government finding an alternative treatment that is equivalent and used widely overseas. We invited the owner of that drug, Ipsen, to bring it to Australia quickly and go through an expedited PBS process. I want to thank the company for their cooperation on that. Today we were able to announce that triptorelin will be listed on the PBS from 1 October. It is an equivalent monthly treatment at just $25 a script instead of, as the Prime Minister said, $1,350 every single month. As Katie said, again, in her testimony this morning: Living with cancer will always come with things that we cannot control. But today, women have been given some of that control back. Economy 59 14:23 Mr TIM WILSON IMW Goldstein My question is to the Prime Minister. Labor legend Bill Kelty has declared the Treasurer's economic model a failure, and Labor's own backbench are leaking against him, saying Australians aren't buying the Treasurer's spin. Now, the Australian Financial Review reports that the Treasurer has switched back to using the 30-year average from the 20-year average for productivity in order to pump up his numbers. With cooking the books the only answer to Australia's economic crisis, how many more chances does the Prime Minister intend to give his failing treasurer? 14:24 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin They've got a lot of nerve asking about productivity assumptions, given they presided over the weakest decade for productivity growth in the last 60 years. The weakest decade for productivity growth in the last 60 years was the decade that they presided over, and their budgets weren't worth the paper they were written on, because they deliberately kept productivity assumptions at 1.5 per cent.The June quarter of 2022—the quarter that they left office—was the weakest quarter for productivity in over 40 years, so they've got a lot of nerve asking about productivity. They did nothing about productivity in their wasted decade of missed opportunities in office. The assumption in the budget and the assumption in the Intergenerational report is set by Treasury based on all the available data here and abroad. It is a long-run assumption. It's not common to constantly change long-run assumptions. One of the first things I did as Treasurer was to get rid of the coalition's dodgy productivity assumption and make it more realistic, on the advice of the Treasury department. I accepted their advice to downgrade the long-run assumption to 1.2 per cent. As I said, they're not changed frequently. While productivity growth has been weak for the last couple of decades, there are some potential upsides, including from artificial intelligence. The productivity assumption is consistent with international forecasts. The UK uses 1½, the US uses 1.4, New Zealand uses 0.9, and we are in the middle of those assumptions. The Treasury changed the transition path from two years to five years, recognising how volatile short-term movements can be. But, more broadly, as I said, this country has had a productivity challenge not for the last couple of years but for the last couple of decades. That's why this government, more than our predecessors over there, takes this productivity challenge seriously. We take responsibility for trying to turn it around over time, and that's why the budget had the broadest and biggest productivity agenda of any budget in recent decades. It's an agenda which is all about approvals being faster, working with the federation, foreign investment reform, all of the agenda that the Prime Minister ran through on AI and the technological revolution—all of the important ways set out in the Intergenerational report on Monday that we can try and turn this productivity performance around. But to finish where I started, of all of the people that I would take advice from on productivity, those opposite would not be anywhere near the top of the list. Family Law 59 14:27 Ms JARRETT 298574 Brisbane My question is to the Minister for Social Services. How is the Albanese Labor government getting more kids the support they're owed and closing loopholes in the child support system that allow for financial abuse? 14:27 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney I want to thank the member for Brisbane for her question. I know how deeply she cares about kids getting the support they need. In most cases when people break up or a marriage ends, both parents are very happy to cooperate to make sure that the interests of the kids are put first. But, sadly, in some families that's not the case. We know that some parents hide income to prevent paying child support. Some parents even misuse personal information that they get from the child support system to continue to victimise or harass former partners. We know that this is particularly the case where there's been domestic violence in a relationship. Some parents simply pay nothing. They know that they owe, but they don't pay. There's about $2 billion of unpaid child support debt in this country, and that's just the debt we know about. We know that there are about 200 cases where parents owe more than $150,000. There's even one case where the parent owes more than $2 million. That's obviously not fair, and it's terrible for the kids involved. We won't tolerate it. That's why in the budget in May we announced a $183 million package to reform every part of the child support system—its safety, its accuracy—to make sure that we are able to enforce compliance. This morning I introduced the first bill to deliver on that commitment. That bill does three important things. It fixes processes that have been weaponised against former partners. It creates new protections against unexpected debts in family payments. It makes it easier to access the Australian child support scheme for children who are overseas and who have an Australian parent. We're also better resourcing the Australian Tax Office and Services Australia to make sure that more kids get all the support they need, in full and on time. In coming months, we'll be introducing more legislation to continue to deliver on our commitments. That second tranche of legislation will include automatic travel bans for anyone who's got a child support debt of more than $10,000 who's recently travelled overseas. If you can afford to go to Bali on a holiday, you can afford to pay your child support debt. And we'll be using employer withholding more often to make it simple—so child support is paid automatically in the same way as superannuation or pay-as-you-go tax. That will reduce conflict in the system and make the system much easier to use for everyone involved. These are the biggest changes to the child support system in many decades, and I urge all members to support this legislation. Steel Industry 60 14:30 Mr VENNING 315434 Grey My question is to the Prime Minister. Before the Prime Minister jets off to New York this weekend, why won't you visit Whyalla and face the 800-plus workers who have lost their jobs under Labor's 'Future Made Offshore'? 14:31 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler As the member is aware, I leave tomorrow and so I have— Mr ALBANESE R36 It's a serious issue for the people of Whyalla. I'll pair up how many times I've been to Whyalla compared with the frontbench there. We'll add it up. I don't know if the member for Canning's been to Whyalla—or the Leader of the Opposition. He's probably been there to check that it was still there. Remember when they were in government? They said it would disappear off the map. We're working constructively with the Malinauskas government. We'll continue to do so. We'll continue to engage as well with the administrators, who are working through what is a very complex issue, largely because of a failure by the previous owners, GFG, to invest. That is just a fact. That is just a fact. Economy 60 14:32 Mr ABDO 316915 Calwell My question is to the Treasurer. What is the Albanese Labor government doing to get the budget in better shape and deliver for Australians? How does this compare to other countries and other approaches? 14:32 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin Thanks to the member for Calwell for his really important question and the wonderful work that he does in his local community. On Monday, the government will be releasing the Intergenerational report, which is a really important snapshot of the serious economic challenges but also substantial economic opportunities that we will face as a country over the course of the next four decades. It's a good way to help us plan, to make sure that our people are beneficiaries of all of this change that is accelerating in our society and economy rather than victims of that change. Whether it's the efforts that we're undertaking to make the housing market fairer for young people or whether it's our efforts to strengthen superannuation—this is all because we take our intergenerational obligations very seriously. You can see that in our economic plan and you can see that as well when it comes to the progress that we've made in the budget. Monday's Intergenerational report will show that the bottom line in this IGR is stronger than it was in the last one, and that shows that our responsible economic management is making a meaningful difference. I want to quote from Monday's release. It says this: 'Australia's fiscal outlook for the next 40 years has improved noticeably since the '23 Intergenerational report, but fiscal pressures remain. Compared to the '23 IGR, the UCB—the cash balance—is projected to improve by 1.2 percentage points of GDP. Gross debt is projected to decline over the coming decades, from 33.1 per cent of GDP to 22.2 per cent of GDP. Compared to the '23 IGR, gross debt is 7.2 percentage points of GDP lower in 2062-63.' So what this shows is that, since the last Intergenerational report, the budget position has gotten stronger, and that's not by accident. It's because we've been paying down the debt we inherited from those opposite, finding savings, restraining spending and addressing some of the structural pressures in the budget as well. The SPEAKER 53517 The Treasurer will pause. I've absolutely had enough of the members for Casey, Maranoa and Forrest. Not another word. This nonstop chirping is completely disrespectful to the people around you, to me and to the Treasurer. Not another word for the remainder of question time, or all three of you will go. Dr CHALMERS 37998 Our responsible economic management is why Australia is one of only nine countries in the world that have a stable AAA credit rating from all three major agencies, and that was recently reaffirmed by S&P and Moody's. By getting the budget in much better nick than it was under those opposite, we've made room for more of the things that Australians need and deserve: more investment in Medicare, aged care, housing and tax cuts. While we've made a lot of progress in the budget, we know that there's more work to do. We know the global economy is uncertain. We know that the pressures on our people, on our economy here and on the budget are intensifying rather than easing. That's why our efforts to make the housing market fairer, to strengthen superannuation and to improve the budget over time are so important when it comes to the intergenerational obligations that we take seriously even if those opposite do not. Veterans 61 14:36 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina My question is to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs and Defence Personnel. The minister has been forced into many backflips: our medallic recognition of Defence Force personnel bravery, funding for the Invictus Games, travel support for the parents of Victoria Cross recipient the late Corporal Cameron Baird VC MG and now scrapping the cap on veterans allied health services. Will the minister apologise to veterans and their families after putting them through months of mental anguish and stress caused by his plan for cruel cuts, or will he just resign? 14:36 Mr RAE 300122 Hawke I thank the member for his question. We take our solemn obligation as a government to look after those who currently serve and those who have served our nation in our nation's uniform in our defence force and their families incredibly seriously. That's why we have been so committed to implementing the recommendations of the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide. As part of trying to improve access to allied health care and remove the burden on veterans, we brought forward a package of measures to improve access to allied health, improving the fees paid to allied health practitioners so that they would provide better service to our veteran community where they were withdrawing service and also remove a cycle and replacing that with a threshold. As part of that, we also committed and engaged with the ex-service organisations, with veterans and with families. I undertook that. The Department of Veterans' Affairs undertook that. My colleagues here also engaged with their veterans community. We committed to listen, and we did. We heard, and we have responded. As part of that, we are not proceeding with the threshold but we are also ensuring that we are increasing that access to allied health cover by maintaining that increase in fees so that allied health professionals will continue to service our veteran community, which is so vitally important here. In doing that, we've also taken a considered approach, engaging and listening and making sure that we can deliver on those royal commission recommendations. That's what we have been able to secure in the Senate today with the passage of important legislation to implement and support 40 recommendations of the royal commission. Avian Influenza 61 14:39 Ms PAYNE 144732 Canberra My question is to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. How is the Albanese Labor government coordinating a swift response to H5 bird flu, including the rollout of vaccines to protect our native species? 14:39 Ms COLLINS HWM Franklin I want to thank our fabulous member for Canberra. I know that she's a very strong supporter of our native wildlife and improving their habitats and has been a strong supporter for a long time, which is why it was so terrific to be with her this morning at the National Zoo and Aquarium, where we saw some fabulous little penguins and heard about how the zoo is going to start vaccinating the birds there from next week. They're going to be vaccinating not just the little penguins but also some superb parrots and other native birds—backed, of course, by our $2 million investment when it comes to vaccines. While there remains no H5 detections in the ACT, we do know that vaccinations are an important part of our response and help protect some of our most valuable native wildlife. Our investment is now supporting the vaccination of almost 10,000 native birds across 162 species. These priority birds have been identified by the states and territories through an agreed national framework established by our government for this vaccine. They do include the little penguins in Victoria, the orange-bellied parrots in Tasmania and South Australia, the Carnaby's black cockatoos and the forest red-tailed black cockatoos in Western Australia, little penguins and regent honeyeaters in New South Wales. I'm pleased to advise the member for Canberra that to date we've vaccinated more than 1,800 native birds with their first dose of the H5 vaccine. This rollout is understood to be the largest of its kind globally, and Australians should be very proud that we are world-leading when it comes to the H5 vaccines for our native birds. This is the result of years of trials by our CSIRO experts and leading scientists, backed by our governments investments. We recognise the importance of investing in this unique wildlife and we have been planning for the spread of the H5 arriving in Australia, backed by our $270 million investment. As I've said repeatedly, biosecurity remains our strongest and first line of defence, but we've now had 572 H5 events nationally, and the public has made more than 45,000 calls to our national bird flu hotline. I also need to update the House in relation to the CSIRO lab result, which has now confirmed that the sealion found in South Australia last weekend has been confirmed as having the H5 bird flu. This was concerning but not unexpected, and we have repeatedly told the Australian public that, sadly, we do expect to see more H5 detections in our wildlife. At this point there remain no detections in our poultry or agriculture system, and the risk to human health remains low. I thank Australians for their reporting of sick or dead birds. I ask them to please not touch them—avoid them, report them and go to birdflu.gov.au. Low-Carbon Liquid Fuels 62 14:42 Mr JOYCE e5d New England My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. How much have we spent thus far on green hydrogen projects? 14:42 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon If I heard the honourable member correctly, he asked how much has been spent on green hydrogen. I just wanted to make sure. There are a number of government programs which are relevant, some of which were announced by the previous government and some of which have been announced by us. Some of the hydrogen hubs that were announced by the previous government have not proceeded. I'm happy to get the honourable member further details on that. Importantly, the government's policy for a green hydrogen production tax credit and the Hydrogen Headstart policy are paid only on production. That was an important part of the design of the policy. If green hydrogen is not being produced, there's no money being paid for it. The other expenditure that the honourable member might be referring to is the support for Fortescue's green hydrogen manufacturing plant in Gladstone, which was run under the industry department and was initiated under the previous government, in which the honourable member was Deputy Prime Minister. Given the honourable member asked me about green hydrogen, it is relevant to say that I still have the view that green hydrogen has a role to play in industrial decarbonisation in the future. It's taken longer than was predicted just a few years ago. The opposition criticised me for saying that it could provide $50 billion in additional GDP by 2050. The member for Wannon has criticised me for that. I do want to give credit where it's due, though. I stand on the shoulders of giants, because my predecessor as minister for energy, the member for Hume said on one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight occasions that hydrogen would be responsible for $50 billion of additional GDP by 2050— The SPEAKER 53517 The minister will just take a break for a sec, and then I will hear from the member for New England, who is entitled to raise his point of order on relevance. Mr Joyce e5d It very much is. I don't think I could make the question any tighter. 'How much has been spent on green hydrogen thus far,' full stop. The SPEAKER 53517 Yes, I listened carefully. The minister did say that he would come back to you with some further details regarding that figure, and I can appreciate the member would like a figure or a point, but, as he knows, I don't have the ability to do that. But, if the Minister's got additional information regarding the question he was asked, I'll just make sure he's being directly relevant about the policy and the costings he was asked about. Mr BOWEN DZS Indeed, as I've indicated, the two main government policies are Hydrogen Headstart and the production tax credit, which is only paid on production. No payments have been made, because none has been produced. I will get the honourable member more information about the hydrogen hubs because some are proceeding and some have not proceeded. I will provide the member with that update. On green hydrogen: it has been the case that governments have invested in green hydrogen—for example, my predecessor, as Minister for Energy, said of green hydrogen, which is made from renewables: … we expect to be getting down to the $2 mark in the 2030s. So we're investing heavily in this. The member for Hume said that when he had my job. So green hydrogen has received support from both governments. That is the case. I table the eight occasions in which the member for Hume said that hydrogen could boost GDP by 2050, which is exactly what I said, which is what the opposition has criticised me for. Digital Media Content 62 14:46 Ms KARA COOK 316537 Bonner My question is to the Minister for Communications. What is the Albanese Labor government doing to protect Australians, particularly children, from being exposed to harm online? How important will the digital duty of care be to achieving this? 14:46 Ms WELLS 264121 Lilley I thank the member for Bonner for her question and for her ongoing advocacy on behalf of all women experience abuse and harm online. Today is Alannah & Madeline Day, a day that marks both an unfathomable tragedy in the loss of two beautiful young lives in Port Arthur. It also celebrates their legacy. The Alannah & Madeline Foundation 30 years later continues to fight for the right of children to be free from violence, trauma and abuse. The Prime Minister is the patron of the Alannah & Madeline Foundation, and I recently had the pleasure of joining class 5 MM at Everton Park State School to try out some of the new modules of the Alannah & Madeline Foundation's eSmart program, which these students helped to develop. This program teaches schoolchildren how to be safe and how to treat others well online. The Albanese government is proud to support this program with $6 million worth of funding, because the world has changed. Bullying has moved online and into group chats and online games and Snapchat and text messages. And it can be relentless, following children home and into their bedrooms on the weekend. More than half of Australian children have now experienced cyberbullying, and the rates are higher among First Nations children, children who are gender or sexually diverse or children with disability. That means for most Australian families, at least one child has now experienced cyberbullying, whether that's through hurtful words, viral lies, humiliating or fake photos or being told online to hurt or kill themselves. Online harms have real world consequences, and the Albanese government understands this. The Alannah & Madeline Foundation CEO Sara Davies, who joined us last week to announce our new draft Digital Duty of Care, knows this. Mia Bannister, Emma Mason and Wayne Holdsworth, whose children were lost because of what they experienced online. They know this. At the heart of the Albanese government's digital duty of care is the right for children to live their lives free from abuse, harm, trauma and violence online. Digital platforms will have to satisfy the eSafety Commissioner that the tools and features that our kids are using are safe. They will have to apply basic safety standards just as we have for kids' toys, for cars, for food. This means detecting cyber bullying and abuse. This means stopping it before it happens. The digital duty of care has three goals: (1) protecting kids online, (2) getting illegal content off platforms and (3) giving Australians more choice over what they see online. I urge the opposition to tell us what it would take to support this bill and act with the urgency our children deserve. (Time expired) Members of Parliament: Staff 63 14:50 Ms BELL 282981 Moncrieff My question is to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister was asked twice whether he provided a reference for his foul mouthed friend Rhys Muldoon. The Prime Minister refused to answer the question. Has the Prime Minister ever provided Rhys Muldoon with a reference? 14:50 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for her question. Mr Muldoon's comments were completely unacceptable, as I've said. I'm advised that Mr Muldoon has been an Australia Day ambassador since 2014. It's clearly not appropriate for that to occur. And, as I've said, I wasn't aware of his comments until they were raised in the media, and neither was Senator Dowling. Senator Dowling took immediate action, and that is appropriate. Cybersafety 63 14:51 Mr HOLZBERGER 88411 Forde My question is to the Minister for Education. What action is the Albanese Labor government taking to address bullying in schools and to protect children from harmful content online? What has been the response? 14:51 Mr CLARE HWL Blaxland I thank my friend the fantastically talented member for Forde for his question. Bullying isn't what it was like when we were kids. It's not just a bit of push and shove in the playground. It's a lot more insidious than that today. Because of the internet, bullying can follow you all the way home. You see it online day and night. You can feel like you can never escape from it. And, in the worst of cases, it can lead young people to take their own life. The awful truth here is that it's getting worse, not better. That's why we've got every state and territory to agree to major antibullying reforms, which kick off from the start of school next year. From the start of school next year, every school—public, Catholic and independent—will have an obligation to take initial action on bullying complaints within two school days. That involves action to stop the harm: talking to the children involved, contacting both sets of parents—the parents of the child that's being bullied and the child that's doing the bullying—and, in some very serious and extreme situations, contacting the police as well. Those are the sorts of things that we need to do inside the school gate. But, of course, we've got to act outside school as well. I've talked at question time over the last few weeks about the impact that algorithms are having on our kids, the way they're affecting our kids: teaching boys to hate girls, teaching kids of one religion to hate kids from another. This is just another example: this is the story of Robb Evans. Robb is a dad. Robb's daughter, Liv, took her own life a couple of years ago, when she was 15, after battling anorexia. He tells the story about how this all started at school with bullying and with body shaming and how Liv started restricting her eating. But Robb says that it was social media that supercharged all of this, and algorithms meant that Liv kept seeing the same thing online all the time, day and night. He told the ABC last week 'the trouble with these algorithms is that they prey on people's vulnerabilities'. If you're not feeling particularly mentally strong, it just makes it worse and worse. And, unfortunately, that's what happened to Liv. That's why Robb's backing the digital duty of care—because he knows personally the way that those algorithms affected his daughter. I think we all know the way these algorithms work. They're poisoning our kids. They're making boys hate girls. They're making people of one religion hate people of another. They're making kids hate themselves. They're literally poisoning our kids. And we've all got a duty here to work together, to come together and to do something about it. Honours and Awards 64 14:54 Mr GEE 261393 Calare Prime Minister, on 14 November 2022, Eugowra and much of central western New South Wales were hit by devastating storms and floods. In Eugowra, two people tragically lost their lives, and it was the scene of the biggest helicopter rescue in Australia's history. For four long years, our community heroes have been locked out of receiving the National Emergency Medal, and the fight for recognition has gone all the way to King Charles. Prime Minister, when can these extraordinary Australians start applying for their medals? 14:55 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for Calare for his question and for his engagement. I visited the areas of Eugowra and that part of the world. I also, at the same time, was in places like Forbes with the member for Riverina. They were devastating floods. At the worst of times, we do always see the best of the Australian character, and we did see it on that occasion. Can I say that, with the way that those medals work, we needed to get advice from His Majesty King Charles III for approval, and I'm pleased to advise that that has now been done. Nominations can be submitted now via application through the Australian Honours and Awards portal on the Government House website or through emergency services organisations, and I encourage the heroes of the Central West to make sure that they do respond there. While I'm dealing with flood issues as well, yesterday I was contacted respectfully, one on one, by the member for Lyne about Wingham pool, asking for federal financial support for it and asking for a meeting. I met with the member for Lyne earlier today. As I've said, my door's always open to members across this parliament. I can advise the member for Lyne and the constituents there that funding has now been approved of $15 million, which will be shared by the Commonwealth and by the New South Wales government. This is important. I visited the electorate of Lyne during what was also a very dark period. The bridge there into that town was devastated. It is a town which does not have a lot of wealth. It has people who need that public pool. I thank the member for the representations, and I'm pleased to report that that has been delivered. I look forward to the medal presentations occurring. I have discussed this as well with Her Excellency, the Governor-General of Australia, and she is very keen to participate in the processes of awarding these medals. Rural, Regional and Remote Australia: Infrastructure 64 14:58 Mrs PHILLIPS 147140 Gilmore My question is to the Minister for Regional Development, Local Government and Territories. How is the Albanese Labor government delivering real change for people in regional communities? How does this compare to other approaches? 14:58 Ms McBAIN 281988 Eden-Monaro I want to thank the member for Gilmore for her staunch advocacy for her regional communities. She's a stellar performer in this House. As a member of a regional electorate, I'm incredibly proud to be part of a government delivering real change for our regions. Our government has progressed practical investments that support people living and working in rural and remote communities as well. We're boosting housing supply with $361 million provided under the first two streams of the Housing Support Program to enable housing growth. We've committed an additional $2 billion in the Local Infrastructure Fund in our last budget as well. That's in addition to supporting 84,000 regional homebuyers to get into their first homes using our five per cent deposit scheme, because we know how incredibly important housing is. But we're also investing in the services and the infrastructure our regional communities need to grow. Through the last budget, there's an additional $750 million for future rounds of Growing Regions and Thriving Suburbs. There's much-needed community investment, like the Cannonvale Community Hub in Queensland, and construction has started there thanks to $15 million from a Growing Regions grant—a major investment to help that regional community reach its potential. Our regional Precincts and Partnerships Program is backing important projects like the Langhorne Creek Discovery Trail in South Australia, which broke ground this month, thanks to a $7 million Australian government investment. I'm asked about alternative approaches. What are the risks of those alternative approaches? Those opposite would be a real risk to regional investment, because I don't know how remote or regional the North Sydney pool is, but those opposite used a grant designed to upgrade pools in regional and remote communities to fix it up. That was a closed grant—invitation only—meant for regional and rural communities. On this side of the House we've just announced we're backing Wingham pool. They announced they were going to support the North Sydney pool. So all of those regional and rural members over there sat at the cabinet table and said, 'You know what? North Sydney sounds remote enough. Surely, North Sydney sounds remote enough.' Seriously? They dudded regional Australia while they were in government, and they'd do it again because they don't respect our regions at all. I remember when the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party, Senator Hume in the other place, said she'd have to 'speak a lot slower' if she had to represent people in regional Australia. Let me make this crystal clear. We respect regional Australia and we are committed to investing in projects that deliver real change. And, as the local member for Eden-Monaro, I'm incredibly proud to represent Goulburn. Members of Parliament: Staff 65 15:01 Mr PASIN 240756 Barker My question is to the Prime Minister. Did the Prime Minister provide Rhys Muldoon with a reference for his Australia Day ambassadorial role? 15:02 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler No. Small Business 65 15:02 Dr GARLAND 295588 Chisholm My question is to the Minister for Small Business. How is the Albanese Labor government delivering real change for Australia's small businesses, and what puts this at risk? 15:02 Dr ALY 13050 Cowan I thank the member for Chisholm for her question. She's a real champion for small businesses in her electorate, as are all of my colleagues here behind me for their electorates. Despite difficult global and domestic conditions, average monthly new company registrations are higher under this government than any other government on record. Our government is the only government to record more than 40,000 businesses being registered in a single month, and that's actually happened twice this year. ASIC data shows that, since the Albanese Labor government came to office, more than 1.4 million new companies have been registered, averaging more than 27,490 every single month. This is almost 35 per cent higher than the average under the former government, and more than 2½ times what was recorded under the Howard government. An average of 900 companies have been created each day of this Labor government. Now, that's not to say and that doesn't take away from the fact that small businesses are doing it tough. We know they are. Costs are higher. Margins are thinner. But it does tell a story. It tells a story of ambition and confidence, the kind of ambition and confidence we want to see more of and we want to back. When I talk to small-business owners, they tell me they want the confidence to be able to plan ahead and they want the confidence to be able to invest. They want to be able to find and keep the right people in their businesses. They want less time tied up in unnecessary and burdensome red tape. Above all, they want a government to make it easier for them to do their job, and that's exactly what we're doing. We've made the $20,000 instant asset write-off permanent so that businesses can invest in the tools that they need without having to wait each year to see if it'll be extended. We've introduced the two-year loss carry-back to help businesses manage those difficult periods and get back on track. We're delivering $10.2 billion a year in regulatory burden reduction through our reform agenda. The government's job is to help businesses to start, to survive, to grow and to employ more Australians and to create more opportunities in communities right across Australia. But I'm asked what the risk to this is, and that risk is lack of certainty, it's chaos, and it's lack of policy. They don't need politicians pretending they care while simultaneously talking down the skilled migrants that help them as they race to the bottom in an irresponsible game of who can dog whistle louder. They need a government that listens. (Time expired) Artificial Intelligence 65 15:05 Ms CHANEY 300006 Curtin Prime Minister, this week the leaders of the major AI developers have publicly agreed that AI is developing faster than our ability to control it. The Australian AI Safety Institute is our frontline defence against these risks to test models, support our regulators and work with international partners. We invest only $8 million a year in the institute, half of one per cent of what we invest in biosecurity. In light of growing public concern, will you commit to increasing the funding for the AI Safety Institute? 15:06 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for Curtin for her question and for her interest in what is an absolutely vital issue. We do want more of a stake in where AI is made and how it is made. We want more Australian companies and global companies developing AI here, on our terms, in our interests. That is how we will have influence over these issues. As I said at Sydney university, in the speech I gave there, we want to make sure that the creativity created by our writers and our musicians is actually valued and that they have some control. If we do not participate in this process, we will not have any control. We won't have a say, which is why we have prioritised this as an issue. We created the AI Safety Institute in November 2025, and I table the media release from Dr Andrew Charlton and Tim Ayres, 'Establishment of Australian AI Safety Institute'. That was an important organisation which is working closely with partner institutes in the UK and Canada. It's also working very closely with the Australian Signals Directorate. You would have seen the comments by Abigail from ASD this week as well, who has also warned of some of the risks which are there. This institute will provide our agencies and security experts with up-to-date information and testing to respond to emerging risks. AI safety is a whole-of-government responsibility, but that's also why we will be legislating for Australian standards on AI. All of that will be fed into the process through the committee chaired by the member for Maribyrnong, and I encourage all members to really participate in this. We want to make sure that we follow best practice. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Curtin, on a point of order? Ms Chaney 300006 The question was about increasing funding for the AI Safety Institute. The SPEAKER 53517 The Prime Minister is being directly relevant in the answer. Mr ALBANESE R36 It's just been established. It's just been established less than one year ago. Funding decisions are made through our ERC and budget process. So we think that we want to make sure this follows best practice AI safety and security standards. We want to make sure that it works in ways that ensure Australian creators are in control of and retain ownership of their work and payment. And we want to make sure that data centres used for AI training aren't pushing up energy bills, impacting water resources or being built without meaningful community engagement. International Relations 66 15:09 The SPEAKER 53517 I give the call to the honourable member for Moncrieff. 15:09 Mr MONCRIEFF 316540 Hughes Thank you, Mr Speaker. My question is to the Prime Minister. How is the Albanese Labor government progressing— Opposition members Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! We'll just pause so that I can hear the member for Moncrieff. Opposition members Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 My apology! The call is going to the member for Hughes. My apologies. Mr MONCRIEFF 316540 My question is to the Prime Minister— Opposition members Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Yes, yes—David Moncrieff is the member for Hughes. It's my mistake. I apologise to the member for Moncrieff. The SPEAKER 53517 Order! Resume your seat. No, we don't need acknowledgement; we need you to resume your seat. We'll hear from the member for Hughes. Mr MONCRIEFF 316540 My question is to the Prime Minister. How is the Albanese Labor government progressing Australia's interests overseas? At a time of global uncertainty and conflict, why is this important for Australians here at home? 15:10 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for Hughes for his question. Indeed, global uncertainty and conflict overseas is putting Australians under real pressure, and that's why I'll always show up to shape a better future and for Australia to have a say in these forums. Tomorrow I will travel to the United States. It will be an opportunity to talk our nation up, showing the world everything we have to offer. On Saturday I will have meetings in San Francisco, including with Tim Cook, the head of Apple, and other meetings will take place in the United States with the private sector, as well as my obviously representing Australia at the United Nations General Assembly, along with the Foreign Minister. I'll be working with our partners as well to build on the record which has seen now 20 countries since we announced our social media ban for under-16s engage in action themselves. And of course also, as has been raised a number of times now during this question time, it is important that we have dialogue about governance arrangements with regard to artificial intelligence, making sure that we get the economic and security benefits that can come with AI but doing it in a way that protects Australia's national interests. Now, to do that, we have to be engaged with our friends in the United States, because the two big countries that are engaged, of course, are the United States and China in what is this extraordinary emerging technology that will change the way that society functions over our lifetime. But over the next decade, if we don't get this right in the next few years, it can get away from us, and we need to make sure that doesn't occur. When Australia is overseas, we also represent our region, the Pacific family. And there will be engagement with them about issues including, of course, climate change, which is the number one issue for our Pacific family. It's also talking about the opportunities which are there, given that Australia has the resources, technology and people to drive the world's clean energy transition, including the critical minerals and rare earths that we have. I'll be discussing with our American friends the agreement that was put in place by me and President Trump and how that is progressing. While there, I'll also launch our bid for a seat on the UN Security Council. It is vital that, as a middle power, Australia play its role. We are respected around the world. The biggest challenges that Australia faces are global ones, and that's why us having a say at the UN Security Council table is very much in Australia's national interests. And on that note, Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. QUESTIONS TO THE SPEAKER 67 QUESTIONS TO THE SPEAKER Parliamentary Standards 67 15:13 Ms STEGGALL 175696 Warringah A question during question time included the phrase 'cook the books', which carries an inference of fraud. Will you review the footage and take any appropriate action to raise the standards of language in this place? 15:14 The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Warringah raises an important point, and I certainly will always review it if any question is raised. But I do remind all members that language is important. Perhaps over the break everyone can review and reflect and come back refreshed after the break. I thank the member for Warringah. DOCUMENTS 67 DOCUMENTS Presentation 67 15:14 Mr BUTLER HWK Hindmarsh I table a document headed, 'Member for Hume—six projects', outlining commitments made by the member for Hume in his electorate totalling $18.1 million, including $7.5 million to the Macarthur Bulls Regional Football Facility; $5.8 million to the Leppington Oval precinct; $4.5 million to the Camden sport and recreation package; $200,000 to the 1st Appin Scout Group—a group in which he's announced he holds an honorary membership, which I understand is not on his register of interests; $200,000 to the Wayne Gardner Oval; and $85,000 to the Wollondilly Community Leisure Centre upgrades. I also table a document headed 'Member for Moncrieff—nine projects', announced at the election, including commitments of funding to the Broadbeach Cats facilities; the Mudgeeraba Nerang Cricket Club; the Griffith University Knights Rugby Club; the Surfers Paradise Rugby Union Club—a club of which she is listed on the website as a patron, although I understand that is not declared on her register of interests; and a range of other commitments. I also table a document headed 'Member for Barker—seven projects', totalling $8.9 million—a range of projects including the Mount Gambier and District Saleyards Transformation Project; lighting at Sturt Reserve Murray Bridge; the Murray Bridge Players and Singers redevelopment; the Mount Burr netball courts; the Tailem Bend RSL renovations; the Penola Bowling Club redevelopment; and the Kapunda Soldiers Memorial Gardens rejuvenation. Not to be outdone, I table a document headed 'Member for Wannon—23 projects', totalling $26.3 million—hey, big spender! That includes $7.65 million for his seat to the Warrnambool Surf Life Saving Club; $3.3 million to the Elliminyt Recreation Reserve redevelopment; $2.35 million to the Skipton Community and Recreation Reserve; $1.82 million to the Cavendish Football Netball Club; $1.5 million to the Port Fairy Football Netball Club; $1.45 million to the Cobden Recreation Reserve redevelopment; and so much more. Mr Small 291406 I seek leave to table a document, being a Sydney Morning Herald article, entitled 'Labor MP's dad in homophobic outburst at polling booth', which carries a warning that the story contains strong language of an explicit sexual nature. Mr Burke DYW You do not blame family members in this House. You don't do it, we don't do it and it's been the convention in this place for at least the last 21 years. Leave not granted. BUSINESS 67 BUSINESS Leave of Absence 67 15:18 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I move: That leave of absence be given to every member of the House of Representatives from the determination of this sitting of the House to the date of its next sitting. Question agreed to. DOCUMENTS 68 DOCUMENTS Presentation 68 15:18 Mr BURKE DYW Watson Documents are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable members earlier today. Full details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings. MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 68 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Artificial Intelligence 68 15:19 The SPEAKER 53517 I have received a letter from the honourable member for Curtin proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The need for the Government to act with greater urgency and ambition to address both the promise and peril of artificial intelligence. 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— 15:19 Ms CHANEY 300006 Curtin The people building AI earnestly believe that it could kill us all by the end of the decade. This statement was posted on X last week by Jacob Coxon, a researcher who had just resigned from Anthropic and had previously worked at OpenAI. In the weeks since, the statement has been validated by the leading voices of the AI industry—Dario Amodei, Sam Altman, Elon Musk, Demis Hassabis and others. These industry leaders have all publicly come forward to make the same point: AI is moving too fast and its risks are becoming too great. Dario Amodei wrote that he believed AI could take over the entire internet in the next six to 12 months. Elon Musk wrote that AI is potentially more dangerous than nukes. Now, we've known about the risks of AI for a long time. AI tools can supercharge cyberwarfare. They can help terrorist groups build biological weapons. They can allow foreign regimes to undertake large-scale disinformation campaigns during elections in our country. And they could escape human control, which we've seen a number of times in previous months. But when we have all the CEOs of the leading AI companies reaching a rare consensus—that AI is moving too fast to control—it is time for us to pause and think: What can we do from Australia? How can we prepare ourselves for the risks? And who is protecting the interests of Australia and Australians? Ultimately, most of these sci-fi-sounding risks may not come true, but we should absolutely be preparing for them just in case. Instead of more doom and gloom, I want to offer solutions. The first one is the simplest and the most significant. The Albanese government must increase its funding of the Australian AI Safety Institute. The AI Safety Institute, or AISI for short, is our frontline defence against frontier AI models developed overseas. Its responsibility is to test new AI models and agents for risks, work with our government to develop appropriate responses and collaborate with international AI safety institutes. But the AISI is drastically underfunded. It receives less than $8 million a year, and with that funding it's expected to identify if the latest AI model produced by Anthropic could be used to hack our banks. It's expected to identify if the latest OpenAI agent can escape human control and start replicating; to identify if the latest Google model could help a disgruntled, angry lone wolf to build a biological weapon to be released in a school or a synagogue or a festival; and to prepare Australia for risks that could do billions of dollars of damage and cause untold suffering to countless Australians. I'm calling on the government to increase AISI funding to $100 million a year. Now, this is a rounding error against a federal budget of over $700 billion. It's a rounding error against the damages and harm that it could prevent. It's also a rounding error compared to the productivity benefits that we're relying on AI to deliver that depend on safe uptake. There are very few line items in the budget with such a strong business case. Everyone I've talked to across the AI industry—across business, civil society, experts and community—agrees that the AISI needs more funding to keep up with the incredible pace of AI development. The UK's equivalent institute gets 16 times more funding, and as a result it's widely recognised as the international gold standard for AI safety. The UK doesn't have its own frontier model, but it's a leader in AI safety anyway. This simply must be funded properly. None of us believe that the tech billionaires, Donald Trump or Xi Jinping will ensure that these technologies are safe for us. Beyond more resources, there's so much else that we could be doing. Firstly is access. The AI Safety Institute should be given the power to compel AI developers to provide early access to their models before they're deployed in Australia. Currently, frontier AI developers, like Anthropic and OpenAI, often do provide early access to safety institutes, but this is done on an entirely voluntary basis. What if Anthropic chooses in the future not to provide early access to a revolutionary cyberwarfare tool like Mythos? What if Chinese models start entering Australia en masse without our AI Safety Institute testing them first? Secondly—disclosure. Frontier AI developers should be required to provide essential information to AISI and the Australian government. This means sharing a safety framework describing how the AI developers identify and test for risks. It means mandatory critical incident reports when a serious safety risk emerges after deployment. Earlier this year, OpenAI and Anthropic revealed that a number of their AI models had escaped control and escaped their testing environment. Australians only know about that because of media investigations and because the companies chose to tell us. This has to change. Australia needs clarity about the true risks and capabilities of these models. Thirdly—crisis management. Australia's crisis management framework should be updated to include AI crises both as standalone incidents and as amplifiers of existing hazards like pandemics or natural disasters. Before COVID-19 arrived, Australia had a detailed pandemic plan ready to go, and it meant our early response was among the best in the OECD. We have no equivalent plan for an AI enabled cyberattack on the electricity grid or an AI system deployed in government producing catastrophic outputs. Those risks could unfold within hours, faster than the time it would take to convene a meeting to discuss a response if no plan existed. Our Security of Critical Infrastructure Act needs the same update. It doesn't currently clearly capture data centres hosting AI models and it does nothing to ensure the operators of our energy, water and health infrastructure are actually preparing for AI enabled cyberattacks. Fourthly—cooperation. Australia should be working with countries like Canada, Japan, South Korea, the UK and our partners across the European Union, nations that share our interest in AI being developed safely but individually lack the leverage to set the terms on their own. Together, these middle powers represent a substantial share of the world's AI-using population and a large market for the companies that build these models. A coordinated position among us—on minimum safety expectations, on transparency requirements, on incident reporting, on what a frontier developer must disclose before releasing a new model—carries far more weight than any one of us could achieve alone. The International Network of AI Safety Institutes gives us the start of this architecture. We should be using it and using it quickly. This is not a naive call for a single global treaty that will never happen. It's a practical case for coalition building among the countries that have the most to lose from a race to the bottom and the most to gain from getting this right. Only by working with fellow middle powers to develop consistent rules can we ensure that our AI future is one in which we're excited to live. Lastly—data centres. In the meantime, unlocking the ability for data centres to be built in a manner that's sustainable and beneficial for Australians will also build leverage and sovereignty over this industry. The longer-term economic benefits of data centres may remain ambiguous but the strategic and geopolitical advantages are significant. The government must quickly develop appropriate copyright protections so that creatives have meaningful control over their work and AI developers are able to train and build data centres in Australia if they appropriately compensate those creators. The government must also develop its binding AI standards to ensure that data centres: are powered by 100 per cent additional renewable energy; are highly water efficient; clearly benefit the Australian community; and are transparent with the data being used. Once these guardrails are in place, data centre development can become a significant asset to Australia and Australians. There are many people I talk to who ask why we're building this new technology at all. The truth is that the promise of AI is enormous—supercharged medical research, rising living standards, improved accessibility. But the promise and the peril of AI are not separate stories. They're the same story, told from two different vantage points. A model capable enough to accelerate a cancer diagnosis is a model capable enough to help someone build a weapon. A system trusted enough to run our aged-care packages is a system dangerous enough to repeat the mistakes of robodebt at a far greater scale. We cannot choose to embrace one side of this technology while wishing away the other. They arrive together or not at all. That's why this cannot be treated as a distant hypothetical debate for some future parliament to resolve. The decisions being made in the boardrooms of San Francisco and Beijing this year will shape the world Australian kids will inherit. Waiting for certainty before we act is not caution; it's abdication. We do not have the luxury of waiting for the risks to fully materialise before we respond to them, because by then it will be too late to respond at all. But the only way we can realise the promise of AI is if the government acts urgently to deal with its peril. 15:29 Dr CHARLTON I8M Parramatta I thank the member for Curtin for raising this issue as an MPI, because artificial intelligence is a matter of significant public importance. I also appreciate the member for Curtin framing this MPI in the way that she has, recognising both the promise and the risks of this new technology, because the promise of AI is so great and because the risks are so critical. That is why the Albanese government has been acting with urgency, with a cross-government approach led by the Prime Minister and the Minister for Industry and Innovation, to get Australia's settings right. That began last year when our National AI Plan was released. That plan had three parts. The first part was to make sure that Australia captures the economic opportunity of AI—that we build the compute, data centres and the connections, that we make sure we get foreign investment and have sovereign AI, and that we build an economy in the AI world that will deliver prosperity for our people. That was the first objective: capture the economic opportunity. The second objective that we laid out in that plan was to spread the benefits—to make sure that all Australians are participants in the AI revolution, and that we provide skills for our workers, tools for our small businesses and a fair go for our regions. The third element of the government's AI plan was to make sure that we keep Australians safe—that we are testing models, backing our regulators and protecting our workers, our creators and our consumers. Those are the three goals in the Albanese government's National AI Plan. We have to achieve each of those goals at the same time. There is no point capturing the economic opportunity if we lose control of the risks, as we just won't have the social licence to grab that opportunity. Since the release of that plan, the government has been working at pace on delivery. We announced the Australian AI Safety Institute in November 2025. We launched the AI plan for the Public Service that same month. In December 2025, we started to attract some significant compute investment, consistent with that plan. In that month, we had a $7 billion announcement from NEXTDC for a new data centre in Eastern Creek—critically, a new data centre that runs on renewables and uses no drinking water. In that year, as we rounded out 2025, figures were released showing that Australia was the second-highest destination for compute in the world. Early in 2026, we released our expectations on data centres, because it's one thing to attract this compute and to recognise that that compute is the industrial capacity of the 21st century, but we also want to make sure that that compute doesn't bring harm to our local communities. In those expectations, we laid out very clearly that we want these data centres not to be pushing up power prices for Australians. We don't want these data centres to be restricting Australians' access to water. We said clearly in those expectations: if you build here, you build on our terms, and you deliver benefits, not harms, to Australians. In May and June, we were working with technical bodies and with the states on the implementation of those expectations. I give great credit to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy and the Minister for the Environment and Water, who've been working through the delivery of those expectations to make sure that the introduction of data centres to Australia is done in a way that benefits Australians, not the tech companies. In the budget in May 2026, we backed Australian builders of AI with up to $70 million in AI Accelerator grants and other benefits. This was on top of the investments that the NRF had made to build Australian capability and on top of the excellent work of the National AI Centre. And then, in July 2026, the Prime Minister brought it all together. He announced a world first. Australia was going to be the first country in the world to introduce nationally consistent frameworks that cover large AI data centres. The Prime Minister's AI standards cover energy, water, skills, local communities and safety elements. He also said, in that same speech, that Australia is going to support our creatives. We are going to ensure that, when creatives' work is trained upon, it is only done so with the artist's control, including over the price. These principles that the Prime Minister laid out are again another world first for Australia in AI. That same month, the government released our AI safety priorities. This is a set of priorities that span right across government: the digital duty of care led by the Minister for Communications, updates to our privacy law led by the Attorney-General, safe AI at work led by the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, a framework for automated decision-making led by the Attorney-General and a framework on agentic commerce led by the Assistant Minister for Productivity, Competition, Charities and Treasury. Right across government, we are placing AI safety in every element of our government, making sure that these priorities are at the forefront in the government's agenda. In August 2026, National Cabinet backed the plan—nine governments in Australia, one rule book. Large data centres will have to put as much power into the grid as they take out. They'll have to be efficient in their use of water and fund additional water infrastructure they require. What this means is that we can look Australians in the eye and tell them that, as data centres come into Australia, they will not push up the power prices of Australians and they will not restrict access to drinking water for Australians. Then, this very month, the parliament established the Joint Select Committee on Artificial Intelligence with a report to be delivered in November. I acknowledge the member for Maribyrnong for her leadership of that committee, and I acknowledge the contribution as well of the member for Curtin as a member of that committee. In the same month, we launched our Buy Australian AI program. This is a critically important program to make sure that we support the more than 1,500 AI startups that we have in Australia to get them that first customer by encouraging Australian corporates and Australian procurement officers to look at Australian AI as a solution to their AI needs. That's what we've been doing month in, month out—building out our program as we forecast in the government's national AI plan. What's the result of this? After all that work, what has the government been delivering? On safety, Australia is leading the world. Labor has always been willing. We've always shown our willingness to lead the world on online risks. We were the first country in the world to do a social media ban for young people. Similarly, in AI we are leading the world as the first country to introduce AI standards, we are the first country to introduce a digital duty of care, and we are doing world-leading research into safety through the AI Safety Institute. Safety is only part of it. Of course, we also need our own domestic capability, and again here Australia is leading the world in many areas. We have the National AI Centre promoting adoption across the country, making sure that AI can be used by all Australians. Let me tell you how that is going. Australia ranks No. 1 on the Anthropic index for adoption. We are the highest country in the world for AI use per capita on that index. Australians are using Claude at 6½ times the rate predicted by our country's population. We've also attracted globally significant compute, the industrial capacity of the 21st century. Despite being a relatively small country amongst the G20, we are the No. 2 destination for compute in the world, and we have a thriving ecosystem of researchers and more than 1,500 AI startups. That is the result of getting the settings right in Australia: leading the world on safety and leading the world in many areas of capability. Of course we have more to do. This is a rapidly evolving area. Things are changing not just year by year but month by month. We'll continue to flesh out and lay out our plans as we described in the National AI Plan. It's important that we do this because AI is becoming a critical input into all of our economies. It will determine the competitiveness of nations in the 21st century. We must have our own AI and, to have our own AI, we need to build it safely and maintain the trust of the Australian community. This year Australians got a bit of a shock when the Strait of Hormuz closed and we recognised our significant dependence on foreign oil. It was a difficult thing for this government to manage, albeit we managed it very well. I ask the House to cast forward, to think about a future where every Australian business and organisation has AI embedded in it. If all of that AI and all of those tokens come from abroad, we are introducing a new and dangerous vulnerability into our domestic economy. That's why we have to have domestic AI Australian sovereign capability supported by a framework that delivers trust and social licence. 15:39 Ms WATSON-BROWN 300127 Ryan Thank you very much to the member for Curtin for bringing this very important MPI to this House for debate. This week, experts sounded the alarm: AI poses existential risks to our society, and governments must slow it down. Tech leaders themselves are calling for urgent action, asking governments to regulate artificial intelligence because of its potentially catastrophic risks to humanity. It sounds dramatic, but these are the stakes of a powerful new technology running rampant with no safeguards. This is a lesson we should have learned already from our experience with social media. The government was asleep at the wheel when it became widespread and is playing catch up right now trying to regulate it. We have the opportunity to avoid making the same mistake with AI, and we cannot miss it again. The government has been painfully slow to act on this. Could it be intentional? Cosying up to the tech bros saying Australia is 'open for business'. This is clearly out of touch with ordinary people who are rightly sceptical of these big American tech companies. People know AI is a threat to their jobs, especially for young people looking for entry-level positions. People know AI is imposing data centres on their communities, pushing up power prices and polluting the environment. People know AI is using their data to build sophisticated models on all of us with no transparency and no accountability. People understand the risks of AI, so why is the government so slow out of the blocks and so out of touch? Please wake up, PM, and regulate AI before it's too late. What are the risks of AI? Firstly, there is valid concern about data centres—something that I've discussed in this place before. Data centres—big, ugly warehouses—are pushing up power prices and polluting your community, coming to a neighbourhood near you whether you like it or not. AI data centres are springing up across Australia. They use vast amounts of land and water and emit sound and light that disrupts people and wildlife. And speaking as a former architect, they're pretty monstrous things to impose on our landscapes and neighbourhoods. Ms WATSON-BROWN 300127 Maybe not in Dalby, you reckon? Why is this happening? Tech billionaires are expanding their AI experiment and need new data centres to hold all the valuable, sensitive information they collect on us. Why Australia? Well, our government has rolled out the red carpet and welcomed the tech bros in at the small cost of our energy prices spiking, our waterways being polluted and our wildlife being uprooted. You have to ask: why does the government want so badly to welcome AI? It won't boost our economy. It'll take away jobs, and no-one wants these data centres in the first place. Is it just FOMO? The government has a non-binding set of expectations for data centres, but they might as well be written in pencil on tissue paper. They say they'll produce national standards but not until 2027. It's very unfortunate they've dragged their feet for so long, allowing Australia to become a dumping ground for these data centres. Big tech has seen our lack of regulation as an opportunity to profit, and the government has let them do it. Until proper standards are written into law, the government should place a pause on approving any new data centres. That's what the Australian community rightly expects. The second, more fundamental, concern about AI's rapid development is the existential threat that it poses and the lack of consultation, transparency or accountability. Artificial intelligence has transformed every aspect of our society and our lives. But who is this for and when were Australians consulted? AI's impact on jobs could be disastrous, especially for young people seeking entry level roles or in sectors such as the arts. When Australians are working longer and longer hours for less and less pay, while computers are creating art, our society is making a big mistake. AI could also deeply hurt education. I speak to many young people, including those at the University of Queensland in my electorate. Even students are concerned about AI's role in education. They don't want to spend thousands in HECS fees, and rack up those debts, only for AI to take over the thinking and the learning—not to mention the risks posed by deepfakes to our society, our politics, our national security and to truth itself— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 The member for Maribyrnong has the call. 15:44 Ms BRISKEY 263427 Maribyrnong I remind the member for Ryan that Australia was the first country in the world to tell the biggest tech companies on the planet that our kids and their safety come first. This government is about to lead the world again on artificial intelligence. AI is in our homes. It is on our phones. It's in our workplaces. It's becoming more and more accessible every day, and, every day that we are in this place, this government is working on this vital issue. We are working on it because Australians are asking us the big questions: What does this mean for my job? Is my child safe? Who is making sure it works for us? The member for Curtin rightly mentions the promises and the perils of AI and the need to get both aspects right. I'm confident that not only is our government well placed to do this but also this parliament and our nation are. As the assistant minister said, our National AI Plan, which was released last year, is built on three key pillars: capturing the opportunity, sharing the benefits and keeping Australians safe. The AI Safety Institute that is up and running is already testing the most advanced AI systems out there and working on exactly the risks that the tech bosses have been warning us about this week. It sits within an international network alongside our allies in the UK and Canada. In July this year several government ministers set out our AI safety priorities, including the digital duty of care, which puts the onus back on the tech companies to build safety into their product from the very start. And AI safety at work is now on the table as the government talks across unions and employers because workers deserve a say in how this lands in their workplaces. Like most technological advances in human history, you don't get the promise of AI without dealing with the peril. I don't say this to downplay the peril; rather, we must confront them if we are to get this right. If Australians don't trust AI, we won't share in the benefits. We, on this side of the House, understand that. Although Australians have always been excited, early adopters of technology, we understand people are also rightly nervous about their jobs and about their communities. Parents are worried about their kids, what they're being exposed to and who and what they might be talking to online. We get that. Before I came into this place, I spent years working alongside parents at the Parenthood and with early childhood educators at the United Workers Union. The lesson from both of those was pretty simple: change only works if the people it affects get to have a say in it. The promise of AI is huge. Just this week, a team at the RMIT showed off a tiny chip that can see and remember what it's looking at. They reckon it could sit inside a bionic eye. That is Australian research done in Melbourne; that is exactly what our government is backing. I think about the world first on social media—when this government put a minimum age on it. I was proud to help champion those laws. Parents told us they were exhausted at holding that line on their own, and we listened. We're doing it again. In July, the Prime Minister announced Australian standards for AI. They are the first of its kind by any government in the world. Big data centres will need to bring their own energy and pay their full share of the network, so it doesn't land in our power bills. This is about acting with urgency, so we can seize this opportunity. This is a moment, a window that is open to us now, and we can and we will walk through it together to shape our own AI future, not let it shape us, because this is exactly how we drive safety. This is how we mitigate the risks. Over the coming weeks, I'll be glad to chair the Joint Select Committee on Artificial Intelligence, and I acknowledge the work of the member for Curtin on it. We'll be working together to make sure that we get this right. We all, in this place, have a responsibility to ensure that we are able to capture the benefits whilst also ensuring we keep Australians safe. We have an important role in that, and I'm very glad to be able to contribute to it. 15:49 Mr WILKIE C2T Clark I thank the member for Curtin for bringing this matter of public importance to the House. Let me start by saying that I don't see AI as either inherently good or inherently bad. However, I do believe that with the right governance, frameworks, and regulation in place we can ensure that AI enhances our lives. The problem is, though, that for too long we've buried our heads in the sand and allowed the technology to be driven by those seeking power and profit—although it's now precisely these same people warning us that there is a 'greater than 10 per cent chance' that AI will kill all humans and that a 'swarm' could be capable of taking over the entire internet with a persistent botnet. No wonder many people feel that this technology and the infrastructure that supports it are moving too fast and that too many decisions are being made without community consent. Indeed, I hear constituent concerns about privacy, data security, the environmental footprint of data centres and what these facilities mean for the communities that host them. There are reports of AI systems producing unexpected outcomes and concerns about the use of artists' work, writers' content and personal images to train AI models without consent—and this is before we even confront the darker side of the technology, like frauds and scams, mis- and disinformation and AI-facilitated abuse and violence. Frankly, it's also not lost on some people that the internet has its origin in research by the US military to create a communications network that could survive a nuclear war. To shut it down you'd need to turn off every power source globally and cut every wire, microwave, fibre optic, satellite and radio link, also globally. In other words, the internet is virtually indestructible, even though it's how AI communicates and spreads and is something we might need to be able to control much more effectively if we are to prevent that rogue AI communication and spread. All of this is quite alarming, and we would be foolish to ignore it, despite Donald Trump's unhinged comment that all the warnings are a 'hoax'. However, calls to stop development or shut everything down would seem to be the epitome of shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted. In any case, we need to remember that AI can also enhance our lives. For instance, United Nations reports show that AI is contributing to medical breakthroughs, including speeding up drug discovery and vaccine development. AI has also facilitated early detection of breast cancer, is improving lives by making technology more accessible for people with disability and is broadening opportunities for education and mental health support. Moreover, the boundaries of AI are complex, and it's no longer simply a tool, increasingly working its way into every aspect of our existence. In 2023 an AI-generated picture won the open creative category at the Sony World Photography Awards, and last month an individual won a landmark Fair Work Commission ruling by using an AI agent in lieu of a legal team. Mind you, it's also the case that a survey found that one in five young people had ended a relationship in favour of an AI chatbot! Another aspect of all this is that AI transcends international borders, and the reality is that there are powerful commercial and geopolitical incentives driving this AI arms race. While America and China hold the lion's share of AI computing power, the impacts are global and should be addressed as such. If leading AI scientists are warning that advanced AI could pose risks on the scale of pandemics and nuclear war, surely the answer is to take a precautionary approach, not to race ahead without limits. When the world confronted the threat of nuclear war, nations developed international rules and safeguards to reduce the risk of catastrophe, and that's what's needed now. AI presents a similarly complex transnational challenge, making it clear that robust regulatory frameworks, both nationally and internationally, are needed and that they should be grounded in precautionary principles. The world cannot afford to remain on the sidelines while China and the US compete to develop increasingly powerful AI systems. We need international guardrails governing where and for what purpose AI is deployed, before the technology outpaces our ability to manage its risks. We must demand and invest in safety by design, not simply regulation at deployment. And we must look to global collaboration to safeguard the pace of development. AI's potential is undeniable. Ensuring that it enhances society rather than undermines or destroys it is one of the great political challenges of our time. 15:54 Ms MASCARENHAS 298800 Swan It is predicted that artificial intelligence will transform the economy more than the Industrial Revolution did. This is where I'll agree with those opposite, that there is promise and there is peril as well. But I will point out that the Albanese Labor government is indeed acting. We have already established the new Office for AI inside of PM&C. We have published the expectations of data centres and AI infrastructure developers, and we've also announced mandatory standards for AI. Also, the parliament itself is stepping up to the plate. We have a new bipartisan Joint Select Committee on Artificial Intelligence, which will be chaired by the member for Maribyrnong, and the deputy chair is Senator Duniam. I think that they'll be, actually, a dream team, and I'm looking forward to also being on this committee with the member for Curtin to do a real deep dive into these issues, to make sure that we get the legislation right. This committee is looking at everything, from the opportunities AI presents for our economy and our regions to the risk that it poses to workers, children and our national security. The government and members right across this parliament are actively engaging with policy questions that are generation-defining and making sure that we get investment right. AI is fast becoming a part of the infrastructure of our everyday lives the way that electricity or the internet changed our societies. But the promise of AI being everywhere does not mean that we accept that it's inevitable or on someone else's terms. Industry wants us to move, and the commentary swings between responses and actions of being too slow and being too fast. The Albanese Labor government is moving fast enough to lead and carefully get this right. We have seen what happens when countries rush to win the race without actually doing the work first. In the United States, recent polling found some interesting facts. People are now less willing to have a data centre built in their neighbourhood than a nuclear power plant. That's how quickly public trust can be lost when communities feel left behind by the change. We're going to make sure that that will not be Australia's story. Coming from WA, I know what social licence means in practice. It's something that companies must earn and maintain, and, if you're not careful, it can be lost. Mining companies have learnt this, and—I'm not going to say that they get it right all of the time—this is something they're actively working on. You know what? Building trust in the community is fundamentally about whether you can maintain your social licence. AI companies and governments are entering into the same era. As the Prime Minister put it, this is a world-leading framework, and it's about Australia choosing to shape the future, rather than letting the future of AI shape us. A single national framework means that every part of government is working to the same standard and the same outcome. Rather than trying to fix a rule for every possible scenario, the aim is to build a framework that can evolve as technology evolves and to respond to new problems as they emerge rather than rectify these years later. That adaptability itself is a part of earning trust. It shows people that their governments can stay on top of this technology, not just chase it. AI has moved into our social media faster than almost anywhere else from parts of our economy, and this is where it came with a new disturbing harm—AI generated 'nudify' apps creating sexually explicit deepfake images of real people, including children, in seconds. This is exactly the kind of fast-emerging risk that AI poses. Australia was world leading in its response. This year, the eSafety Commissioner issued formal directions under our age restricted material codes and forced major nudify services out of the Australian market entirely, protecting young Australians, who are the people who need it most. We can also look to examples of best practice that already exist within our communities. For example, in my own electorate of Swan, we have the Pawsey Supercomputing Research Centre. It has solar panels on top and solar panels on the side, it uses underground aquifers, and it's beautiful. So what I'd say is that we're wanting to make sure that we lead and we want to make sure that we do this in a smart way. And that's exactly what this government's doing. 15:59 Mr FARLEY 62329 Farrer AI represents creative destruction at an unprecedented scale and speed. To quote the late Richard Pratt: You don't know what you don't know 'til you know it. Quantifying AI turns a debate that is currently running on speculation, antidote and vibes into one the government can act on. A few reasons this matters specifically draws on what's already surfaced in the AI governance conversation. You can't regulate proportionally without measuring risk and autonomy. The emerging governance consensus is that oversight should scale with an AI systems autonomy and the stakes of its actions and not be applied uniformly. That principle is unworkable without a quantified way to classify systems by risk level, which is exactly what the EU AI Act attempts—unacceptable-, high-, limited-risk tiers, each triggering different obligations. No tiering system, no proportional regulation. You're left with either overregulating everything or underregulating the system that matters the most. The caveat worth naming honestly—quantification has limits. AI's own opacity makes it worse. Emergent behaviour and black-box reasonings mean some of these risks generally resist being reduced to a number in the advance. The goal isn't to pretend AI can be fully measured before it's regulated, but to close the gap between 'we're speculating' and 'we're measuring what we can and building institutions capable of updating that measurement as the technology changes'. That is really the difference between the reactive regulation and the informed, ready-to-act posture the 'urgent and ambitious' argument depends on. AI is not an artificial creator. It's an amplifier of human creativity. AI is creative destruction on steroids. It creates new industries, new opportunities and new productivity gains whilst simultaneously disrupting existing job skills and business models. The promise of AI is in the hands and the security of science and industry. The peril of the nation is in the hands of the naive, the arrogant, the villains and the government. 16:02 Mr BURNELL 300129 Spence This morning I was pleased to be a speaker at the AI showcase in the Great Hall of this very building. It was an opportunity to see firsthand some of the incredible Australian businesses, researchers and innovators already working with artificial intelligence. What stood out to me was not simply the technology itself but the potential behind it—the potential to build new Australian industries, improve productivity, strengthen existing businesses and create opportunities that only a few years ago would have been difficult to imagine. AI could be the single biggest change to our economy since Australia heavily industrialised in the post-World-War-II era. With this comes great opportunity, but we must also approach the future with caution. If we get this right, then we can improve the complexity of our economy, deliver higher levels of productivity and build a more prosperous nation. But I am cautious that, without the right settings, we could leave parts of Australia's workforce behind, particularly workers in lower skilled occupations, like in my electorate of Spence, who may have fewer opportunities to adapt as technology changes their industries. That has to be central to this conversation. Technological progress cannot simply be measured by how sophisticated our AI systems become. It must also be measured by whether Australians are better off because of them. There is no doubt that artificial intelligence presents enormous opportunities, particularly in the realm of sovereign capability. We should not simply be consumers of technologies developed overseas. We should be developing technology here, building businesses here and ensuring Australian ideas can contribute to the next generation of global innovation. That is why the Albanese government's national AI plan is built around three pillars: capturing opportunity, spreading the benefits and keeping Australians safe. Capturing the opportunity means encouraging investment, innovation and Australian capability, spreading the benefits means ensuring productivity gains translate into better opportunities and higher living standards across our community. Keeping Australians safe means establishing the protections and standards necessary for people to have confidence in the technology they are using. Trust must be must be fundamental. Without trust from workers, businesses and the broader community, this transformation will struggle to deliver its full potential. That is why this government has been building the framework Australia needs as AI continues to develop. Over recent months we have released the national AI plan, established national expectations for data centres and AI infrastructure, established the AI Safety Institute and created the Office of AI within the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. We have also announced our intentions to legislate Australian standards for AI. These standards are providing clear and consistent rules while allowing Australia to continue innovating. Perhaps the biggest question remains what this transformation means for Australian workers. We should be upfront about that. Some jobs will change significantly. Some tasks will disappear. New occupations will emerge, while skills that are valuable today may look very different in 10 or 20 years. Government, industry, unions, and the education and training sector all have a role to play in preparing Australians for that transition. We cannot allow a divide to emerge between workers who benefit from AI and those whose jobs are displaced by it. The measure of our success will not simply be whether Australia adopts AI quickly. The real measure of success will be what this technology delivers for Australians. Greater productivity should translate into higher living standards and a stronger economy. More sophisticated industries can create new opportunities, build Australian capability and help our businesses compete on the world stage. Most importantly, the benefits of that growth must be shared with the workers and communities who help make it possible. Embracing AI is not simply about adopting new technology; it's about using that technology to build a stronger, more productive and more prosperous Australia and whether the prosperity created by this technology reaches communities right across our country. AI will continue to change. The opportunities will grow and new risks will undoubtedly emerge. Our job is not to fear that change, nor is it to embrace every development without question. It is to shape it, to give Australia agency and capability over our own future, to capture the opportunity, spread the benefits and keep Australians safe. If we can do that then I believe artificial intelligence can become something much more important, helping to deliver a more productive, prosperous and capable Australia. 16:07 Mr GEE 261393 Calare Make no mistake: artificial intelligence poses a direct threat to the future of humanity. That is why I introduced a groundbreaking bill into parliament recently—the AI Kill Switch and Data Centre Control Bill 2026. I introduced this bill into this place because we must not rush headlong into a technology that we don't even know we can control. This issue is as serious as nuclear proliferation, and it needs to be treated as such. Sadly, yesterday, when I tried to bring this bill on to debate and also a vote, it was really only the crossbench that stood up, and three coalition MPs, including the Nationals member for Wide Bay, who has always been an independent thinker. But there were no government MPs backing it in, no One Nation MPs and only three coalition MPs. It's very disappointing. It's all very well to talk about it; it's another thing to actually vote and get something done. Currently, humanity is standing in the middle of an uncontrolled technological race, and the very people building these systems are begging us to put the brakes on. In just the past week, the public facade of the AI industry has cracked. One Anthropic employee recently publicly stated: … we really do earnestly believe AI could kill all humans! I personally think it is >10% within the next decade. This is someone working on advanced AI. Basically, it's an admission that the industry does not have any plan to control superintelligent AI. Another Anthropic researcher warned that corporate labs 'are racing straight to self-improving superintelligence and gambling with our lives'. Another Anthropic employee recently quit, stating, 'The world is in peril.' Added to that, now Jack Clark, one of the very founders of Anthropic, has publicly stated that we need a mandatory kill switch. That's what my bill brings in—a mandatory kill switch and a shutdown mechanism. These are the people who created this technology. The profits of these tech billionaires and tech corporations must not be put ahead of our communities, our country and the future of humanity itself. The CEO of Anthropic, other leaders at OpenAI and Google DeepMind, and Elon Musk are all urging a slowdown. Why are they scared? Because they know that this technology, as it develops, is moving faster than humans can build guardrails. The claim made by the President of the United States that the threats posed by AI are a hoax is grossly irresponsible. Words and attitudes like that are not leadership; they amount to negligence. The President of the United States should be condemned for those comments. If the United States will not lead on this issue, then Australia and other countries must. We must show the world that this technology can be controlled. This is where my bill comes into play. When AI goes rogue—and it already has—humans must retain the ability and the authority to pull the plug, to hit the kill switch, because the day will come when this technology can hack into critical defence assets. We also need to control the data centres. We need a moratorium on new data centres that builds safeguards and controls them, to protect productive agricultural land and our water resources, to protect households and businesses from higher power and water bills, to protect the environment and public health and to empower local communities by letting them have a say as to whether they want these data centres and their energy sources in their areas. Out in country Australia, we're already struggling with debilitating drought and cycles of it. We need AI oversight, and that's what my bill delivers—and this process must be properly funded. We need to make sure that the oversight protects our privacy, our civil rights and the very future of humanity itself. We need kill switches on the technology and commonsense guardrails around data centres on the ground. I urge all members to back my bill. 16:12 Mr ABDO 316915 Calwell I thank the member for Curtin for bringing this matter of public importance here today. AI is essential policy conversation across the world that demands our full attention. When it comes to AI, we as a government are driven by progress and principles. We agree that this emerging technology represents a generational opportunity for Australia if properly harnessed. It presents immense opportunities just as it carries significant risks, and our focus on progress and principles means that our approach as a government is to engage with both simultaneously with seriousness and urgency. It is relevant to our economy, workforce, national security and online safety as well as research, science, innovation and the productivity of our economy. When it comes to action, this government is taking world-leading action guided by a clear set of principles. The Albanese government's National AI Plan sets out three key pillars which are focused on capturing the opportunity before us, sharing in its benefits and keeping Australians safe. As announced by the Prime Minister, the government will introduce AI laws in Australia's interests—a nationally consistent regulatory framework that will work with the states and territories to set minimum requirements for large data centres. This world-leading framework will ensure Australia can capture the opportunity, share the benefits and keep Australians safe. Over the past nine months alone, the government has released the National AI Plan; released national expectations for data centres and AI infrastructure; established the AI Safety Institute; announced that Australia will legislate AI safety and a world-leading artificial intelligence framework to ensure that the development of AI in Australia is aligned with our interests; established the Office of AI in the Prime Minister's department to deliver the development of the standards; and established a 'buy Australian' initiative for Australian-made AI. The Prime Minister will be at the UN General Assembly next week, where a key focus of his will be technology regulation. The Deputy Prime Minister and Assistant Minister Charlton also recently travelled to the United States to engage on Australia's national AI standards and issues to do with AI safety. It's an all-hands-on-deck effort, engaging every part of the government. I have previously spoken about a proposed large-scale data centre in Campbellfield, on the site of the old Ford plant, in my electorate. I have stressed the need for communities like mine to understand what impact this development may have on our local area, including the potential impact on local energy and water resources and ongoing noise, as well as whether this is the best use of what was a key manufacturing hub for our community. I was devastated when the Liberals drove Ford and local jobs on that site out of our area, and that site means a lot to me and to our community. We all remember the workers who were there, who made things in Australia and who, in doing so, helped make Australia. When it comes to AI, it should be done the Australian way—without undercutting conditions or dividing communities or damaging our environment. Major industrial developments need to contribute to local jobs and local opportunities and must take into account our local environment and the future of our region. As AI demand and reliance on cloud computing grow, data centre investment in our area must happen in ways that deliver positive outcomes for our community. While planning decisions and approvals are not a matter for federal government, I have made it clear that the Albanese Labor government has set out clear expectations for data centres and AI infrastructure to ensure that investments provide tangible benefits, both locally and across Australia. Operators must prioritise Australia's national interests not only by strengthening our security and resilience but also by delivering benefits for our local communities. Any proposal will be required to bring additional renewable energy to power their site, and we're acting to make sure they don't put upward pressure on energy prices with our world-leading rules. They will also be expected to manage water responsibly, create well paid local jobs and skills, and back startups and research innovation and supply chains. Data centre developments must meet these expectations. Our community deserves clear answers, genuine consultation and transparent planning processes aligned with the federal government's clear expectations for data centres and AI infrastructure. I will continue to advocate strongly for our area and for the long-term liveability, sustainability and wellbeing of our growing community, just as the Albanese government is fully engaged on the opportunities and risks presented by AI. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 The time for this discussion has now concluded. COMMITTEES 77 COMMITTEES Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence 77 Membership 77 16:17 The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 The Speaker has received advice from the Hon. the Prime Minister nominating a member to be a member of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence. 16:18 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fenner by leave—I move: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Defence Act 1993, Mr Boyce be appointed a member of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence. Question agreed to. Artificial Intelligence Joint Select Committee 77 Membership 77 BILLS 77 BILLS Defence Legislation Amendment (RCDVS Implementation and Related Measures No. 2) Bill 2026, Knox Class Action (Facilitation) Bill 2026 77

Defence Legislation Amendment (RCDVS Implementation and Related Measures No. 2) Bill 2026

Knox Class Action (Facilitation) Bill 2026

Returned from Senate 77 Defence Force Discipline Amendment (RCDVS Implementation and Related Measures No. 1) Bill 2026 77

Defence Force Discipline Amendment (RCDVS Implementation and Related Measures No. 1) Bill 2026

Consideration of Senate Message 77 16:19 Mr KEOGH 249147 Burt I move: That the amendment be agreed to. I'd like to thank everybody for their contributions to the Defence Force Discipline Amendment (RCDVS Implementation and Related Measures No. 1) Bill 2026. The bill and the related Defence Force Discipline Amendment (RCDVS Implementation and Related Measures No. 1) Bill 2026 continue the Albanese government's work to implement the recommendations of the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide. These bills directly implement 20 recommendations of the royal commission and support the implementation of a further 20 recommendations. Together, they will provide better protections for victims-survivors, especially those subject to sexual and violent offending, enabling information sharing to support the health, wellbeing and safety of members, veterans and their families and establish for the first time an extinguishment scheme for the historic homosexual offences. I would like to thank everybody who continues to support our work to implement the recommendations of the royal commission. I'd like to particularly note the work I've been able to do with Senator Lambie in this regard, as well as all those on the crossbench and the support that we have here today across the chamber from all those in this place who have contributed to this important reform. We will continue to progress our historic reforms to improve the lives of our defence personnel, veterans and their families. 16:21 Mr THOMPSON 281826 Herbert This is a sensible coalition amendment, and I want to thank my colleagues in the other place, especially Senator Collins, who spearheaded this for the coalition. The amendment will ensure, if the minister is to provide directions or guidance to the Director of Military Prosecutions, at a minimum any directions or guidelines issued by the minister should be a legislative instrument. That would ensure transparency, accountability and parliamentary oversight. Decisions that have the potential to influence the operation of the military justice system should not be made behind closed doors. By requiring directions and guidelines to be legislative instruments, parliament can scrutinise their content, ensure they are publicly available and maintain confidence in the independence and integrity of the Director of Military Prosecutions. If such powers are to exist, they should be exercised openly and be subject to the scrutiny of this parliament. This is a sensible coalition amendment. We support this amendment. Question agreed to. Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment (Veterans' Healthcare Without Caps) Bill 2026 78

Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment (Veterans' Healthcare Without Caps) Bill 2026

First Reading 78 16:23 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fenner I move: That the second reading be made an order of the day for the next sitting. The SPEAKER 53517 The question is the second reading be made an order of the day for the next sitting.

The House divided. [16:27]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

85 AYES Abdo, B. J. Albanese, A. N. Aly, A. Ambihaipahar, A. Belyea, J. A. Berry, C. G. Bowen, C. E. Briskey, J. L. Burke, A. S. Burnell, M. P. 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. 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. (Teller) 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. Neumann, S. K. Ng, G. J. O'Neil, C. E. Payne, A. E. Phillips, F. E. 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, M. J. H. Soon, X. Stanley, A. M. (Teller) Teesdale, J. A. Templeman, S. R. Thistlethwaite, M. J. Thwaites, K. L. Urquhart, A. E. Wells, A. S. White, R. P. Witty, S. J. Zappia, A. 40 NOES Aldred, M. R. (Teller) Batt, D. J. Bell, A. M. Birrell, S. J. Boyce, C. E. Buchholz, S. Caldwell, C. M. Chaffey, J. L. Chaney, K. E. Farley, D. Gee, A. R. Hamilton, G. R. Hastie, A. W. Hogan, K. J. Kennedy, S. P. Landry, M. L. (Teller) Leeser, J. Littleproud, D. McCormack, M. F. McIntosh, M. I. McKenzie, Z. A. O'Brien, E. L. Pasin, A. Penfold, A. L. Pike, H. J. Rebello, L. S. Scamps, S. A. Small, B. J. Spender, A. M. Taylor, A. J. Tehan, D. T. Thompson, P. Venning, T. H. Violi, A. A. Wallace, A. B. Watson-Brown, E. Wilkie, A. D. Willcox, A. J. Wilson, R. J. Wilson, T. R. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.
Debate adjourned.

ADJOURNMENT 79 ADJOURNMENT Curtin Electorate: Small Business 79 16:31 Ms CHANEY 300006 Curtin I rise to speak about the pressures facing small businesses in Curtin. WA has almost 258,000 small businesses employing more than 541,000 people. Curtin is often described as an affluent electorate, and people tend to assume the businesses in our suburbs are doing well. The owners I meet describe something quite different. Not long ago I sat down with hospitality owners in Curtin who run some of Perth's best-known venues. They feel caught in the middle. Their costs are rising, including the wages they pay their staff, while their customers have less to spend and push back on higher prices. They told me rent and insurance had risen by 20 per cent in a year. For one venue, wage and super increases would add around $50,000 a year. Changes to card surcharging would add another $25,000 because banks can still charge businesses fees they can no longer pass on to customers. WA's payroll tax threshold hasn't kept pace with rising wages, so businesses are effectively penalised for growing and paying their staff well. Rent, insurance, wages, super, surcharges, payroll tax—each change might be manageable on its own, but no-one seems to look at how they all add up. Their experience is shared across the country. The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry's 2026 Small Business Conditions Survey, released this week, found that 63 per cent of owners see rising costs as their biggest challenge. Owners are absorbing much of that pressure themselves. Nearly four in 10 paid themselves less than $40,000 last year—well below the minimum wage—or nothing at all. For women, it was almost half. A busy cafe at Claremont or Subiaco can look successful from the street, while its owner earns less than staff. It's no surprise that a third of owners considered closing their business in the past year. Even among profitable businesses, nearly one in five are considering closing, because the profit means little if the owner is barely paid for their time, risk and stress. And on this last point, almost half of owners rate their stress at seven or more out of 10, driven mostly by uncertainty and cashflow. One told the survey, 'I'm tired, and I cannot do this anymore.' To stay open, many are cutting back on the things that protect them, reducing their insurance cover and spending less on tools and equipment. The Curtin businesses also told me they no longer trust the government to be on their side. During COVID, they felt the government had their backs. Now, they told me, every year means tightening their belts. When we discussed reforms announced in this year's budget designed to support small business, one owner said that if any of these changes actually benefited him he would eat his shoe. That's what an erosion of trust looks like. One venue's head chef had dreamt of opening her own restaurant. After watching her employers struggle, she's given up on the idea. Owners look at large companies and see a tax system that treats them far more generously. More than a quarter of Australia's large companies paid no income tax in 2023-24, and in mining and energy it was nearly 40 per cent. Late payment by big customers makes things harder still, which was why I seconded the member for Wentworth's bill to link Commonwealth contracts to paying small suppliers on time. Small businesses provide vital local services, offer local jobs and bring life to our streets. If we want to keep them and see them grow, the government should do four things. First, before any new obligation is introduced, assess its combined impact on a business with a handful of staff and consult the people who'll have to comply. Second, keep policy settings stable, because uncertainty weighs so heavily on owners. Third, consider the tax ideas Curtin owners put to me: a lower headline tax rate for small businesses, relief on alcohol tax and stronger taxation of large corporates, such as gas exporters, to even the playing field. Fourth, take a serious look at card surcharging so small businesses aren't left carrying costs they can't pass on. Despite the challenges I've described, ACCI's survey found that four in five owners would still rather run their own business than do any other kind of work. As one Curtin owner told me, they just want it to be a little bit easier to keep doing what they love. Bullwinkel Electorate: Labor Government 80 16:36 Dr TRISH COOK 312871 Bullwinkel When I had the privilege of being elected as the first federal member for Bullwinkel last year, I made a solemn commitment to the community that I would work every day to deliver vital services and local infrastructure for our families, workers, businesses, clubs and community groups, working for services they deserve. I rise this afternoon to update the House on the substantial progress we have made, the election commitments that we have delivered and the exciting milestones still to come. First and foremost, in early childhood education, our government recently announced a brand-new early childhood education centre to be funded by the federal government to the tune of $5 million, built by the state government and delivered by a not-for-profit group. This centre will be co-located at the Greenmount Primary School in Bullwinkel. This is 40 brand-new places at a great facility, and that's 40 new places every year for the children of the local families, giving children the best start in life and also easing the pressure on working parents. We're also backing local sporting clubs in the foothills with the modern facilities that they need. Working with the local government, the City of Kalamunda, at the Hartfield Park sports complex, we've officially opened some newly upgraded facilities enabled by a proud $2.9 million election commitment. This means, for the Forrestfield United Football Club, two brand-new unisex change rooms, a secure storeroom and universally accessible amenities. For the Kalamunda Bulldogs Rugby League Club, it has delivered expanded and modernised clubrooms, new senior change rooms, dedicated umpire facilities, first aid rooms and a much-needed overhaul of the existing pavilion. These upgrades ensure that women, men, seniors and juniors all have access to safe, inclusive and modern community sporting hubs. Just last week, I was also thrilled to join families at the Polish Club Sikorski in Bellevue to open their new $67,000 community playground—another election commitment fulfilled. Seeing the kids dive straight into the play equipment and hearing the laughter of the local families was a wonderful reminder of how targeted local investments bring neighbours together. We are also making generational investments in health and transport, and in late February we delivered the Mundaring Medicare Urgent Care Clinic. For Hills residents, this has been a game changer. This clinic has been transformative. It offers walk-in, fully bulk-billed treatment for urgent and non-life-threatening conditions from early morning to late afternoon, seven days a week. It's already recorded over 5,700 visits since February, and that is taking immense pressure off the local emergency departments and also ensuring families can see a doctor simply by presenting their Medicare card. On our roads, I recently inspected the Tonkin Highway Corridor interchange upgrade program to see firsthand significant works that are just commencing. Tonkin Highway is one of the most critical arterial links east of Perth. The Australian government is partnering with the WA government with our investment of $333 million, boosted recently by a further $40 million in the federal budget. These upgrades will slash congestion, cut travel times, improve road safety and unlock productivity for everyday commuters, business and freight operators across our rapidly growing eastern suburbs. While we celebrate what we have delivered, including 19 social and affordable homes, we're also looking forward to continuing the other commitments that are still in the pipeline. For the $3.9 million upgrade to six of our local volunteer bushfire brigades, I'm pleased to say the state and the federal agreements have now been signed. We are working towards a Medicare mental health centre in Kalamunda, and there is also $1.2 million for upgrades to the backup battery power and mobile phone resiliencies in the Perth Hills for telecommunications resilience. I look forward to continuing this vital work from early learning to urgent health care, stronger bushfire brigades and better roads. This is what delivering real practical outcomes looks like for the people of Bullwinkel. Economy 81 16:41 Mr VIOLI 300147 Casey At a time when the economy is in trouble and productivity is in freefall, the last thing we needed was the Treasurer taking a sledgehammer to the economy with his disastrous budget that has been nothing but pain for the Australian people. And we now know that it's friendless. The only people that support it now are the Prime Minister and the Treasurer—and we're not sure how long it's going to be before the Prime Minister replaces his Treasurer, because even the Labor backbenchers are backgrounding. And one said something interesting— Dr Leigh BU8 Name one! Mr VIOLI 300147 I will name—well, they didn't put their name to it, Minister. But let me read a direct quote from that member of the Labor Party. They are a backbencher who wasn't prepared to put their name on it but were certainly prepared to share their thoughts. They said: People are getting quite worried. Small business is doing it very tough and we aren't doing enough for them. We've done an instant asset write-off but not much more, and we're making enemies with the CGT changes. That's from a member of the Albanese Labor government backbench. It's their words. Even with the instant asset write-off, they didn't increase it. They just made it permanent. It doesn't actually help small businesses today. But when we talk about these changes, trying to fix something that is completely broken will not work. They just need to be scrapped. And to try and fix this disaster of a budget, the government is looking to consult on the innovative business CGT concession. But I've been engaging with industry since this consultation legislation came out last week, and they are seriously concerned about this so-called fix. It will add significant new administrative and compliance frameworks around what is intended to be an investment incentive. Companies will now need to register, satisfy detailed eligibility tests, report annually and, where necessary, seek rulings and reviews. Labor's 30-page explanatory memorandum refers to the industry secretary 77 times. It also contains dozens of references to registration rulings and review, reflecting the extent to which eligibility depends on ongoing interaction with the industry department rather than simply being claimed through the tax system. This draft does not provide complete upfront certainty for tech businesses and startups in our country. Labor's draft explanatory memorandum itself acknowledges that in some circumstances it may be difficult for companies to be certain that they satisfy the innovation requirements. The uncertainty is one of the reasons the legislation gives the industry secretary power to create safe harbours; even registration does not necessarily settle the issue. The draft explanatory memorandum expressly states that registration as an IBCC company is 'not alone determinative' of whether the company actually satisfies the statutory requirements—and, just like Labor likes to do, there are more charges built into the framework. Labor's explanatory memorandum states that private rulings may be subject to a fee and explains that the power exists so that the industry secretary can recover the cost of providing those rulings. Industry has told me that an early-stage company could face up to around $15,000 initially in obtaining advice and documenting whether it satisfies the IBCC the concession requirements. Tax experts have also indicated that there may be ongoing annual compliance costs associated with reviewing activities and maintaining evidence of eligibility, and that a new capital raise could require up to roughly $25,000 of additional tax and legal work to provide investors with confidence that the relevant investment qualifies. As an example, for a three-year-old start-up that seeks advice on the IBCC eligibility and subsequently undertakes one capital raising, it is estimated that the company could incur around $40,000 in costs. That's before allowing for thousands of dollars of ongoing annual reporting costs. The company must report annually. Failure to do so results in automatic suspension of registration and, while suspended, investors' interests can become disqualified assets for purposes of the concession. I guess when the Treasurer and the Assistant Treasurer read Abundance, they clearly didn't pay attention. These changes are adding more red tape and more costs to Australian start-ups and to tech businesses at a time when we need these businesses to drive productivity and to create new products. It shows that this Treasurer has failed. He is completely out of touch with Australian business, he is completely out of touch with Australian start-ups and this Prime Minister needs to sack him. Maribyrnong Electorate: Community Events, Climate Change 82 16:46 Ms BRISKEY 263427 Maribyrnong This week I have been fortunate to have Meredith, a local year 10 student from Kensington, doing some work experience in my electorate office. Unfortunately, as is the nature of this job, I'm here in Canberra and she is in Moonee Ponds, but I did ask her to help me write this speech about the incredible community that we call home. Meredith came back to me with this speech, centred on how community connection is important because it directly supports our mental health as well as our emotional and physical wellbeing—I could not agree more, Meredith. In the last two weeks I've had the opportunity to attend many local community events. One of the most rewarding visits was to St John Bosco's Primary School, in Niddrie, for their grade 6 civics class. It was wonderful to have a chat with those students to share their ideas about democracy and government and their role within their community. I also had the very good privilege of attending Ascot Vale West Primary School with you, Mr Speaker, where we talked about Australian National Flag Day. It was a great opportunity. Thank you, Mr Speaker, for coming along to give that civics class and to turn Ascot Vale West into Australia's parliament for at least an hour. There is also sport—another critical element of bringing people together. I got to visit Essendon Rowing Club for their Saltwater Challenge on the river where our electorate gets its name—the Maribyrnong River. I was able to get a key insight into how the crews in their quad sculls test their endurance on the gruelling 4½-kilometre course. Events like this demonstrate the dedication of volunteers and across sporting clubs, providing people opportunity to participate and stay active. In fantastic news for the club, they have recently been awarded a Stronger Communities grant of $13,000 for a new coxed quad scull for their female rowers. As you know, Mr Speaker, community is also built through our local businesses. They are the backbone of our communities. I had the opportunity recently to visit TerryWhite Chemmart in Glenroy, where I met with Vihung, the pharmacist who owns the pharmacy, who talked me through the benefits that our $25 cap on PBS medicines is having for his clients. I also got to celebrate the very first birthday of the newest Happy Apple grocer in Essendon, where I met Hamish, the owner—who, in fact, opened the very first Happy Apple, back in Ascot Vale, about 20 years ago. As I said, local businesses are more than just places where people work or go to shop; they are places where people meet, build relationships and become familiar faces in their neighbourhood. It was a wonderful chance to speak to many businesses across my community. I enjoy it every time I get the chance. I would like to thank and sincerely congratulate the volunteers, teachers, students, local businesses, sporting clubs and individuals who gave up their time to welcome me to their events and create safe and cohesive community. It is these people who make our community the place that it is, and it's such a privilege to be able to see their contributions firsthand. Earlier this week, I also asked Meredith to help craft a member's statement on an issue that was really important to her. She came back to me with a speech on the devastating floods in Nepal. Last month, a catastrophic flood struck the Himalayan region near Nepal's border with China. More than 1,300 people lost their lives, with thousands still missing. Villages and hundreds of people's homes were destroyed in an instant. In my community, especially in Glenroy, we have a vibrant Nepalese community, and I know that this tragedy is being felt deeply here at home. To every member of our Nepalese community in Maribyrnong who is grieving or is still waiting for news on loved ones, my thoughts are with you. Your community stands with you. The disaster also raised concerns around climate change and the future of the Himalayas, which are warming faster than the global average. Nepal is responsible for less than 0.1 per cent of the global emissions, yet it is highly vulnerable to natural disasters, including floods and landslides. Countries like Nepal have done the least to cause climate change, and they are often the most exposed to its effects. That is why this government has an ambitious plan for climate action. It is part of our broader role as a good global citizen, and we stand with the people of Nepal. Thank you very much, Meredith. I hope you enjoyed your time in my office and your work experience. You've done an amazing job. Whyalla Steelworks, Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara: Services 83 16:51 Mr VENNING 315434 Grey Today in question time I asked the Prime Minister: instead of jetting off to New York, why not come to Whyalla and look the steelworkers in the eye like he did in February and then again in March and say, 'I've got your back. Here is certainty for jobs'? Again, he's lost their trust. He's done a backflip, and currently 800-plus jobs have been lost. It's going to be over a thousand at the end of the day. This is the reality on the ground in Whyalla. This is when reality catches up with ideology. They have been sold so many promises over the last 10 years by both state and federal Labor governments. They've been in administration for 19 months, and all that's been delivered is nearly a thousand job losses. What they need now is certainty. I'm calling on the Prime Minister, Minister Ayres and the state representatives to go to Whyalla, sit down with the buyers and get the deal signed now because without that certainty we're going through this valley of death right now when it comes to the workforce. In the future, when I hope we'll have a new a new blast furnace, a DRI and EAF—those workers will not be there in four years time. The community needs certainty right now, and that certainty can be given through getting a deal signed. I recently visited the APY Lands with shadow minister for Indigenous Australians, Julian Leeser. Many essential services remain fragile, understaffed or unavailable altogether. There is not even any APY-wide health data. No-one in this place can tell you the true picture of the lands, because no-one is measuring it. Across the lands, respected elders are ageing or have passed while too few emerging figures command the same standing in their place. The children we met were bright and curious, but retention is a real concern. At Pukatja, there have been 10 principals in 2025 alone. While 160 children are enrolled in the school, daily attendance has varied drastically. Some days it's 10; some days it's 80. When we were there, it was between 10 and 20. In many of the schools we attended, they might have 50 kids on the electoral roll that they have not seen in years, and they don't want to take them off that roll because hopefully one day they'll show up. That is the reality of life in these remote Indigenous communities. We also met Trish. Trish was the only staff member with longstanding continuity in the lands. Trish has been a teacher on and off since the 1970s. Trish is worth her weight in gold. Every other teacher is fresh out of university. You cannot nurse on the lands without three years experience, yet we're asking graduates to teach in their first year out. And we wonder why they leave—some after two years, some after two months, some even after two minutes. In the APY Lands, water and power cannot be taken for granted. Feral camels, horses and donkeys are wrecking the soaks and waterholes, damaging the very water these communities drink. There is a real issue with invasive species up there, and no-one is doing anything about it. Buffel grass, one invasive species, is choking the country and increasing the fire risk. At this rate, it is one bad fire season away from catastrophe. Power supplies go off and on amid temperatures above 40 degrees. In 40-degree heat, sometimes 45 up there, a power failure is not an inconvenience; it is a danger. The supply chain is slow, deliveries stop and basic household goods sometimes do not arrive. There is also no public transport across the lands. The Bush Bee service stopped when the man running it retired, and nothing replaced it. And we ask why children aren't at school. There are people getting it right. Aileen Shannon and Tony Rodgers from Wiltja Constructions took two apprentices, from Coober Pedy and Quorn, and both have stayed on in the region. Bryce Ingham at Fregon runs practical, show-and-do training at the TAFE. It reaches people the classroom has failed and helps them into work. These are not programs designed in Canberra. These are people on the ground, and some are getting results. Housing 83 16:56 Ms COMER 316551 Petrie Tonight I want to use my time in parliament differently. I want to give the floor, in a sense, to a young person from my community. Their name is Mali. They are 14 years old and shared, through the Raise Your Voice speech competition, what they believe is one of the biggest issues shaping their generation's future. Their words deserve to be heard in this parliament, so tonight I want to read them exactly as they wrote them. Mali said: My name is Mali and I am 14 years of age. The biggest issue shaping my future is housing affordability. Currently, Australians are facing a completely uncertain housing market. Many people are worried that they will be permanently homeless or stuck in unstable rental situations. A home should be a secure place not a financial, lifelong burden. The action I want Parliament to take is to transform our investment structures to prioritise more affordable housing close to public transport. We need the Government to commit to these investments in housing to ensure that no Australian is left without a home. We need to build stronger communities that support adolescents and young adults as they start their careers. I need Parliament to treat this housing crisis as a generational housing emergency and create a better future for all Australians that guarantees safer housing. I could not agree with Mali more. At 14 years old, they have put into words something I hear from young people across our community. They're thinking about their future—the career they might have, where they might live and whether one day they'll be able to afford a home of their own. Young Australians should be able to look forward to a future with hope. They should not grow up believing that secure housing or homeownership will always be beyond their reach. Mali also makes an important point about where we build homes. Housing needs to be connected to public transport, jobs, schools and services. That is why the federal government have put housing at the centre of our agenda. Our Homes for Australia plan brings together more than $47 billion in housing measures focused on building more homes, supporting first home buyers, improving outcomes for renters and growing social and affordable housing. At the heart of that work is a simple reality: Australia needs more homes. Through the National Housing Accord, governments are working towards 1.2 million new, well-located homes over five years. The federal government is also investing $3.5 billion through the Housing Support Program to unlock supply. And, just as Mali called for housing close to the infrastructure people need, we have established a new, $2 billion Local Infrastructure Fund. That investment will help deliver the roads, water, sewerage and electricity needed for new developments, supporting up to 65,000 additional homes over the next decade. We're also investing heavily in social and affordable housing because a secure home should not depend on how much money someone earns, and that investment is reaching my and Mali's community. In Redcliffe, 30 new social homes are being delivered through the Housing Australia Future Fund. Across our broader community, there are also 82 social and affordable homes at Mango Hill and 116 homes planned for Deception Bay. That is on top of our other housing projects already underway, including 60 homes in Margate, 36 homes in Deception Bay, 152 homes in Carseldine and 82 homes that have already been delivered in Redcliffe. These are not just numbers. They are homes where people can build a life, families can raise children, older Australians can feel secure and young people can imagine their future. We're also helping Australians into homeownership through the Australian government's five per cent deposit scheme. There is so much more work to do. No government can pretend that the housing challenge that has built up over decades can be solved overnight. But Mali is absolutely right to expect this parliament to take their generation's future seriously—because, when a 14-year-old is already thinking about whether they and their friends will one day be able to afford a secure place to live, we should listen. Mali, thank you for speaking up, and my commitment is to ensure that you, your friends and your generation and all of Australia have safe, secure housing. House adjourned at 17:01 The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( M r Boyce ) took the chair at 09:42.

Thursday, 17 September 2026

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( M r Boyce ) took the chair at 09:42.

CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS 85 CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS Mental Health 85 09:42 Ms SHARKIE 265980 Mayo With World Suicide Prevention Day a week ago, I want to talk about my recent meeting with Aldinga Beach man Jonathan Hart. Jonathan, who has experienced suicide distress, wanted to assist others in similar situations. An estimated 65,000 Australians make a suicide attempt each year. Tragically, it's the leading cause of premature death for those aged 15 to 49. But the vast majority of those who report suicide ideation or distress do not seek professional or clinical help. In a 2020 report, almost 25 per cent of adult men said they would not seek help, and 80 per cent said they would be unlikely to seek help from a phone line. Recognising this, Jonathan started a community mental health awareness and peer support initiative called Glass Empty. Glass Empty describes how someone in suicide distress feels. Their glass is no longer half full or half empty; it is drained. Glass Empty does not do the work of a crisis counselling or clinical treatment service. It's about helping peers feel more confident to say, 'Are you okay?' and people to feel safer to say, 'I'm not OK.' Jonathan started Glass Empty to help build human connection by making it easier to start that conversation. In participating local venues, posters and coasters publicise the Glass Empty message. Black Dog Institute trained staff and customers to look out for an upturned glass with a Glass Empty coaster on it—a sign that somebody needs to have a conversation. It creates an opportunity for brave conversations. It's brave to let someone know that you need help and to be a mate to help someone in distress. There are 15 venues in regional South Australia, as well as in other regions that are trialling Glass Empty, and I'm keen to see the outcomes of this grassroots initiative. I'd really like to say thank you to Jonathan Hart and to acknowledge his work. To come from that place of being in suicide distress himself, and thinking about others and thinking about how we can do something different and better—you are a great Australian, Jonathan, and it was an absolute privilege and pleasure to meet you. If you'd like to know more, visit glassempty.org. And don't forget, if you are feeling distress, Lifeline 131114, if you need to talk to someone, Hotham Electorate: Sports Clubs, Hotham Electorate: Mid-Autumn Festival 85 09:45 Ms O'NEIL 140590 Hotham I rise to pay tribute to the mighty Oakleigh Krushers and Oakleigh Dragons, two incredible football clubs in my electorate that are doing so much for life and family and community around south-east Melbourne. Not only are these brilliant clubs but they are victorious clubs in this footy season that's just coming to an end. I want to congratulate the Oakleigh Amateur Football Club's under-19 men's development squad, who brought home the cup to the Krusherdome last Sunday. It was an amazing achievement. A premiership is never only about what happens on grand final day, but it's always a sweet victory when we win. I want to congratulate 'Big John' McLaughlin, the coach of this amazing side. They have had a great season and this is such a well-deserved result—and I say that for all the Krushers teams that did so amazingly well. I was really lucky on the weekend to go down to the home ground for the Oakleigh Dragons junior club presentation day. It was amazing to see the way the community wraps around these young people who are starting off their journey in sports. I spoke to so many parents who are doing the hard work of running their kids to and from extracurricular activities. And I can tell you, as a mum of three kids, it's not always easy. You get home from work, and the last thing you feel like doing is getting your kids out the door again to go to footy training. But these parents are doing it for their beautiful kids to make sure they get that activity, they get those skills and they get that support and engagement in a team, and I really want to pay tribute to them. Can I also acknowledge, from the Krushers, Tayla Bethune, Craig Robinson, James Podesta, Chris Grant, Craig Holton and the whole club committee, and, from the Dragons, the amazing and completely inspirational Justine Leopold, Ross Black and Carlie Harrison. I also want to acknowledge the president of the Krushers, Pat Heverin. Pat Heverin is a really old friend of mine. He's a great mate, and he is the heart and soul of this club. He just shows up season after season. Every MP here knows there are these amazing people in our communities that keep these organisations afloat. They keep them on foot, they keep them energised. Pat is absolutely doing that in my community. I can't wait to celebrate with you all next week; I think we've got Krushers presentation night. Up the Krushers! Carn the Dragons! I'm super pumped. I forgot to mention I'm also their No. 1 ticket holder, so you can see where my enthusiasm comes from. Across Hotham, the Mid-Autumn Festival is being celebrated by our Chinese- and Vietnamese-Australian community. This is such a special time of year in my community, and I want to thank president Liming Cao, Jane Wu and the entire committee for having me at the amazing celebration I attended at the Clayton Mandarin club. It was a really joyful celebration of Mandarin culture. I loved the tai chi demonstration, I loved the dancing, I loved the singing, and it was just a really nice reminder for me of what a beautiful multicultural community I get to live in. Women's Health 86 09:48 Dr HAINES 282335 Indi I've spent more than 30 years working in health care. I've been a nurse and a midwife. I've worked with women through some of the most important and some of the most difficult moments of their lives. And one thing I've learned is this: women know their own bodies, but, too often, our health system doesn't listen to them. Women's health is not a niche issue. It's not simply about reproductive health care either. It's about women leading healthy lives and accessing the care they need at every stage of life. Around the world, we're once again seeing women's reproductive health care become a political battleground. This is a reminder that we can never take hard-won progress for granted. Women deserve the freedom to make decisions about their own bodies, their own health and their own futures. But advancing women's health is about more than protecting rights. It's fundamentally about understanding the specific health needs of women and effectively responding to them. Earlier this year, the Australian Longitudinal Study on Women's Health celebrated its 30th anniversary. For three decades, it's followed the lives and health of thousands of Australian women, generating evidence that has shaped improvements in policy, legislation and funding. The value of the study is that it doesn't treat women as simply a collection of body parts or diseases. It explores women's health through a broader social and psychological context. It has helped expose problems that were too often ignored. We know that women with endometriosis wait on average between five and 6½ years for a diagnosis after symptoms first appear. I want to congratulate the government on the really good work that they're doing in this space. We know women are around 75 per cent more likely than men to experience adverse reactions to prescription medicines. We know the symptoms pre-empting heart attack can present differently for women. These are not just statistics; they're reminders of what happens when women's health is under-researched and underfunded and when health care is built on an assumption that what works for men works equally for women. It's simply not the case. Insights from the study have also been central to developing an evidence base about the health of women in regional and rural Australia. While it doesn't take a study to know that access is harder in communities like those I represent, this evidence really helps us move beyond acknowledging the problem and closer to the solutions. If you live in regional Australia, you might have to drive hours to see a specialist, wait months for an appointment or face dangerous delays in an emergency. Good health care, effective women's health care, is not just about having a service somewhere in Australia. It's about being able to access that care where you need it, where you live, it's better research into women's health; and it's reproductive health care without stigma. It's a health system that recognises that women's health needs, from adolescence through pregnancy and motherhood to menopause and beyond, are incredibly important. Women deserve a health system that works for them. Health Care, Dobell Electorate: Education 86 09:51 Ms McBRIDE 248353 Dobell I rise today to speak about something close to my heart and something that is truly the backbone of this country: universal health care. The Albanese Labor government is making it easier for Australians to access the health care they need when they need it, close to home. For me, close to home is the Central Coast of New South Wales, where the member for Shortland and I recently announced an additional $8.4 million to boost the Lake Haven Medicare Urgent Care Clinic. Thanks to this investment, the clinic has been able to bring on four additional doctors and extend its opening hours from 8 am in the morning to 10 pm at night, seven days a week. That means more people on the Central Coast can access free urgent care close to home, without needing to visit the busy Wyong emergency department, for conditions that can be safely treated in the community. The member for Shortland and I made a commitment at the last election to strengthen this service, and it's fantastic to see the commitment being delivered through more doctors, longer opening hours and more local families getting the care they need. We're already hearing stories about the difference this clinic is making. One of those stories is Shannon's. She recently visited the Lake Haven urgent care clinic with her six-week-old baby, Wynter. Shannon told me that, when they arrived, they were offered a private room so Wynter was not surrounded by other sick patients. She said they were seen quickly and that the nurses and doctors were thorough, listened to her concerns and provided reassurance when she needed it most. Her message to me was simple: I will definitely be going back. These are exactly the stories we want to hear—that of a person who needs care now, not later; receives the care with compassion and professionalism; and leaves knowing they got the help they needed. Another pillar of a strong community and a strong country is quality education. Every child deserves access to a quality education that gives them the best possible start in life. They also deserve to learn in schools that are safe, welcoming and equipped with the resources they need to thrive. That is why I'm proud to have delivered on my commitment to support upgrades at local schools across our community. Ten schools across the electorate have now shared in more than $620,000 in funding for important improvements. They are Gorokan Public School, Porters Creek Public School, Hopetown School, The Entrance Public School, TLK Youth College, Toukley Public School, Tuggerah Lakes Secondary College, Wamberal Public School and Wyong Christian Community School. Thanks to this investment, these schools now have new shade sails, upgraded learning spaces, improved technology and even a new pickleball court, helping to create better environments for students to learn, grow and thrive. While these projects may seem modest on their own, together they're making a real difference to the day-to-day lives of students, teachers and families on the Central Coast. These targeted investments are helping to create safer, healthier and more engaging learning environments. Migration 87 09:54 Ms STEGGALL 175696 Warringah As the government announces its migration plan today, we must get the foundations right. I support a well-managed migration program tailored to Australia's needs. We must maintain humanitarian visas for vulnerable and displaced people, giving them a fair opportunity to work and contribute here. Research has put migrants at nearly a third of Australia's labour force. For Warringah's small businesses, migration brings skills, experience and enterprise that help our local economy thrive. Skilled migrants can keep a restaurant's kitchen running, help a building business to take on another project or enable a care provider to meet demand. Every thousand migrants generates around $124 million in economic output annually. Migrants are vital to building the homes and infrastructure Australia needs, and they make up around 35 per cent of the aged-care workforce and 37 per cent of the disability workforce, while around 30 per cent of Australia's doctors were trained overseas. When businesses cannot find Australians to fill essential roles they need to recruit from overseas. Access to those workers helps businesses expand and creates opportunities for local workers. Migrants also establish businesses, investing in our community, employing Australians and adding to the diversity of our shops and services. Small businesses need a system that responds to genuine skill shortages and helps retain experienced workers. That means accessible visa pathways, proportionate fees and timely decisions. Supporting migration and investing in local skills work together. Both help small businesses grow. The government must make migration processes simpler and more predictable for small employers. One-to-one comparisons between migrant arrivals and new homes are misleading and populist. The 2021 census recorded 2.5 people per household. Migration does add to housing demand, but scapegoating migrants for the housing crisis is wrong and will not build the homes we need. Australians bringing their partners and family members home also deserve fairness. Partner visa fees rose by 25 per cent to $11,710 in July, before medical and other costs. Migration practitioners report waits reaching 40 months for the temporary onshore stage alone. These delays impose emotional and financial strain on couples. The government must review fees. It must simplify evidence requirements and deliver timely decisions. The current delays are simply unacceptable. Of course we must maintain the proportionate checks, but businesses and Australians are being put through an absolutely undue process too often. Australians should not have to choose between the person they love and the country they call home. Superannuation 87 09:57 Mr NEUMANN HVO Blair Workers in my electorate of Blair deserve a strong superannuation system and a dignified, secure retirement. The Albanese Labor government is strengthening our superannuation system. The government legislated payday super so that workers receive their super at the same time as their wages, helping ensure that Australians receive every dollar they are owed and benefit from years of additional investment returns. Before this reform, more than 27,000 workers in Blair, or 31 per cent of affected workers, were missing out on an average of $1,767, or $49 million across the electorate. This was the third-highest among the electorates of Queensland when it came to unpaid super. So Labor's landmark reforms are providing more help to low-income workers locally and making our superannuation system fairer from top to bottom. These reforms will boost the super of more than 8,300 low-income workers across Ipswich and the Somerset region, with more than 4,600 women and young workers among the biggest beneficiaries, giving them a more secure retirement. This includes thousands of disability and aged-care workers, retail and hospitality staff, and early childhood educators and nurses. As we strengthen the low income superannuation tax offset, helping low-income workers to built stronger retirement balances, this helps them. Thanks to this, workers in Blair will get an average boost of $395 to their super each year, totalling $3.3 million per year across the electorate. They could be better off by $15,000 or more at retirement. And 56 per cent of these beneficiaries would be women, helping to close the gender super gap. We're also continuing to strengthen consumer protections and lifting standards across the system so Australians can have confidence that their retirement savings are managed in their best interests. For these reasons, the announcement we saw from One Nation last week, based on a reheated LNP policy, to let people raid their super would be very bad for workers in my community. Taking money out of super defeats the whole purpose of retirement savings and means less money and less economic security in retirement for the people in my electorate. Modelling by Super Members Council has shown that a median full-time worker withdrawing three per cent of their contributions for three years would be $25,000 worse off at retirement. For a couple, that's $50,000. It's bad, cynical policy from the three right-wing parties we know have opposed every improvement to superannuation in this place, and they've opposed every real cost-of-living relief at every opportunity in the House and the Senate. On this side of the House, we believe that if workers work hard and contribute through their lives they deserve the opportunity to retire with dignity, security and independence. McPherson Electorate: Community Events 88 10:00 Mr REBELLO 316547 McPherson I rise today to recognise some of the fantastic people and organisations that I've spent time with across the southern Gold Coast in recent weeks. Before heading back to Canberra, I joined Robina City Football Club for its junior presentation day. It was terrific to see so many young players, families, coaches and volunteers come together to celebrate another season. With well over 2,000 people attending, it was a great reminder of how important local sporting clubs are to our community. I thank the club's president, Paul Rushton, for the invitation and congratulate every single player, volunteer, supporter and coach that was recognised on the day. I also joined Kirra Surf Life Saving Club to celebrate an extraordinary achievement by our IRB team. This year, Kirra won both the 2026 Australian under-23s IRB championship and the Australian open IRB championship. They've given me a hat to bring to Canberra as well. Even more remarkably, that makes three consecutive Australian open titles—back-to-back-to-back Australian champions. That is an outstanding achievement for the athletes, coaches, officials and volunteers who've worked so hard behind the scenes. I thank the club's president, Hayden Lewis-Fox, and everyone at Kirra for the invitation and congratulate the team on making club history. A few weeks ago, I spent an evening with Walk With Us at Burleigh Uniting Church, where volunteers provide meals and support to people who are experiencing homelessness and disadvantage. Their work is practical, compassionate and deeply valued by our community. I thank Nikki Luke and the entire Walk With Us team for the welcome and for the time and care that they give to people who are doing it tough. I'd like to congratulate them on receiving $1,849 under the Commonwealth's 2025-26 volunteer grants, which will help them continue their important work. Finally, I joined Reedy Creek Neighbourhood Watch for its Movies in the Park event at Kingsmore Park. Families enjoyed games, face painting and activities. Bonogin rural fire service, Carrara SES and the Gold Coast disaster and emergency management team were also there and engaging with our community. In particular, I'd like to thank the dedication and work of Rob Ormsby and the Reedy Creek Neighbourhood Watch team. They're a fantastic team who bring the community together, and they did so that night along with the local councillor Glenn Tozer and all the volunteers and supporters who made the afternoon possible. The southern Gold Coast is full of people who give their time, energy and skills to making our community and our country a better and stronger place. It is such a privilege to represent them in this community, and I thank all the community organisations that I've had the opportunity to spend some time with in the last couple of weeks. Brand Electorate: Infrastructure, Rockingham Beach Primary School, Rockingham Rams Football Club 88 10:03 Ms MADELEINE KING 102376 Brand The Albanese Labor government is continuing to back community infrastructure in my seat of Brand in Western Australia. Through the Investing in Our Communities Program, the federal government has put in $2.4 million to the redevelopment of the Djandoo Mia pavilion in Medina, in Kwinana. Djandoo Mia is a local Noongar language. It means 'home of the whistling kite', and that's named after the bird of prey that you can see circling Chalk Hill and Thomas Oval in Medina. I was really lucky to have the privilege to go to the opening of this new facility, to get a tour of it and to see the four brand new change rooms, which are accessible for women and men, girls and boys. It's even got two new dedicated umpire change rooms, a new kitchen and a new kiosk, which will be great for those clubs. It will be a facility that has universal access and it's a terrific upgrade from what was there before. It will be enjoyed by all of our amazing local clubs. In particular, I know the Kwinana Seniors Archery Club is going to enjoy the Djandoo Mia, as well as the Kwinana Titans rugby league club. The Kwinana Titans are an important club in our community that are developing rugby league in the southern suburbs. Shontae Baron-Johns, who I met here in parliament as the Brand Youth Parliament representative and who plays for the Kwinana Titans, is a great athlete and leader in her community. She was selected to the NRL WA under-16s schoolgirls squad, and I really want to congratulate her on that. I also want to thank the City of Kwinana, Mayor Peter Feasey and all the councillors for their contribution of $1½ million to the Djandoo Mia facility. It will be great for the future of Medina and Kwinana. Last month, I also got to go to an assembly at Rockingham Beach Primary School. It's always special to be back at your own primary school. It was good fun to see the pre-primary and year 1 students perform The Very Hungry Caterpillar. It's a classic and it keeps on keeping on. It was also an honour to present the Australian flags at the assembly to the year 6 student leaders, who took the time to write to me directly when they noticed that their flags were looking a little worn. It's really terrific to see the importance that younger generations place on our flag, and it's inspiring to see the respect with which they hold it. They know how lucky we are to call this great country home. I want to acknowledge Principal Denise Duffy and Deputy Principals Craig Lewington, Leanne Bruijn and Bev Garnett. I want to thank them for all the fantastic work they do. I did encourage the student leaders to continue with their leadership and to write to the Speaker of the House and urge him to bring an even bigger Aussie flag to the beautiful quadrangle of Rockingham Beach Primary School. I'm sure that the Speaker will get to do that in due course. Finally, I want to give a quick shout-out to the Rockingham Rams AFL reserves and league teams, who are both competing in their grand finals this week. Go Rams. Iranian Australian Community, Middle East 89 10:06 Mr LEESER 109556 Berowra One of the great privileges of being the federal member for Berowra is representing the third-largest Persian community in Australia. Persian Australians are wonderful Australians. They're the doctors and nurses at Hornsby Hospital. They're the lawyers, the engineers and the teachers. They run small businesses in our community. They're the soccer mums and the netball dads. We are so enriched by their presence. But they've come to be in Australia because their homeland, Iran, has been run for nearly 50 years by one of the world's worst criminal terrorist regimes that commits human rights abuses at home, in particular, against women, ethnic and religious minorities, political dissidents and sexual minorities. And, of course, they export terror around the world. They back the Houthis in Yemen, they back Hamas and Hezbollah in Israel and Lebanon and they back the destruction of property and terrorist acts in our own country. On at least two occasions, this dreadful regime has attacked our people. I want to say that it's the coalition who has constantly stood with the Iranian people both in Australia and abroad. We dragged the government, kicking and screaming, to list the IRGC as a terrorist organisation. We called for the listing back in 2022. It took the government two years to do the right thing. Two years before they booted the ambassador, we called for the ambassador to be booted from this country. We should not be having relationships with this terrible regime. This morning I experienced something in my parliamentary career that I will always remember. For months now I have been calling for Reza Pahlavi, who is a figure of unity in the Persian diaspora both here and abroad, to visit our country and to speak in our parliament. This morning, senior coalition shadow ministers and other members, including myself, had the opportunity of having a virtual meeting with Reza Pahlavi. When I was sitting and listening to Reza Pahlavi, I was thinking of the Persian community in my electorate, who for so long have called on me to be a voice to bring Reza Pahlavi to Australia. We look forward to him visiting Australia in the future. Reza Pahlavi reminded us of the brutality of the regime that executed 40,000 of its own people over the Australian summer, that arrested 100,000 people and that murders people every single day in public executions. He offers a vision for an Iran that is prosperous, peaceful, democratic and part of the broader world. That is a vision that I hope for. Persians across the world and in this country have shown extraordinary courage. They continue to believe that Iran can be something better, and so do I. I believe Iran can again be a country where people can speak and worship freely, as they can in Australia. I believe the darkness will lift, and when it lifts the Persian people will remember that I stood with them, that the coalition stood with them and that Australia stood with them. The Persian people deserve democracy, and they deserve to hear the voice of Reza Pahlavi in our country. Tyrell, Mr Bruce AM 90 10:10 Mr REPACHOLI 298840 Hunter The Hunter is the best wine region in the world. We all know it in this building, locals know it and anyone who has ever enjoyed a glass of Hunter semillon or Hunter shiraz knows it as well. It's a region built by hardworking families, strong communities and people who have spent generations perfecting their craft. Our winemakers don't just produce outstanding wine; they carry on a proud tradition, create thousands of local jobs, and put the Hunter on the map across Australia and around the world. Today, I want to recognise one of the legends of our region, Bruce Tyrrell. Bruce has been inducted into the James Halliday Hall of Fame. It's the highest honour awarded by the Halliday Wine Companion, and I can't think of anyone more deserving than Bruce. Bruce is the fourth generation of the Tyrrell family to carry on their winemaking story. He's dedicated his entire life to the Hunter Valley and the Australian wine industry. Through hard work, determination and love for our region, Bruce has helped the Tyrrell name become one of the most respected names in Australian wine. But Bruce's contribution goes well beyond the bottle. He spent decades seeking out and perfecting the Hunter's best vineyard sites. Because of that work, our viticultural heritage has been preserved for future generations. That means the old vines, the soils and the special character of the Hunter wine will continue to be enjoyed for many, many years to come. Bruce has always understood that when the Hunter succeeds, everyone benefits. He's been a fierce advocate for our region and has always put the greater good of the wine community first. His son Chris, the fifth generation of the Tyrrell family, said his dad's body of work was matched by very few and that Bruce has always put others before himself. That says plenty about the man we're honouring today. The team at Halliday described Bruce as one of the greatest and they are dead right. Bruce joins the hall of fame because of a lifetime of service, leadership and achievement. But here in the Hunter, he's already been part of the hall of fame for a very long time. This award isn't just a proud moment for Bruce and the Tyrrell family. It's a proud moment for Pokolbin, and it's a proud moment for our growers, our cellar door workers, our tourism operators and every person who has helped make the Hunter wine industry what it is today. So on behalf of our entire Hunter community, on behalf of the Australian wine industry, congratulations Bruce Tyrrell. Thank you for backing the Hunter. Thank you for preserving its history and helping build its future. You're an absolute legend, Bruce. It's an honour well deserved, and I look forward to having a glass with you soon. Cheers, buddy. Victoria: Roads 90 10:13 Mr TEHAN 210911 Wannon The problem with the Labor Party is that eventually the continuous spin catches up with reality. We've seen this in Victoria with the condition of our roads. We heard spin after spin after spin of the Victorian state Labor government about the amount of money that was going into the roads. Then, all of a sudden, you had the Albanese Labor government come to office and they stopped funding the roads, even though we got more spin and spin from them. What we've seen happen to the roads over the last four years is nothing less than shocking, absolutely nothing less than shocking. There is not a part of the state now which you can't drive in where it doesn't have crater after crater after crater of potholes, and Victorians have had enough. I've got to say, it's why I'm so pleased that Jess Wilson and the Victorian coalition have announced they'll put $5 billion into fixing our roads. Now what I'd like to hear from the Albanese Labor government is for them to come out and say, 'We'll match that. Rather than cutting road funding, we will absolutely match funding into our roads.' You'll remember, when we were in office, Deputy Speaker Sharkie, the coalition, on the major highways through Victoria, was putting in 80c for every 20c the state Labor government put in. Of course, Anthony Albanese got in and he said: 'Oh no, we shouldn't be doing that. We'll cut it back so that we'll only put 50c in for every 50c the state puts in. So what happens? Road funding deteriorates. Road funding goes through the floor and the roads just go to pieces. What we now need to hear from the Albanese Labor government is what they are going to do for our roads. And I say to the infrastructure minister, you can start with the Western Highway, because we had that sad death where that motorcyclist hit a pothole on the Western Highway. That's a road that we used to put 80 per cent of funding into, and it's back to 50 per cent. You need to reverse that, you need to make sure that road is fixed properly and you need to make sure the duplication continues. We need to see the duplication from Beaufort to Ararat completed. It's only half done—finish it. Come out and announce that it will be finished and do it before the Victorian state election, because we need to hear that. Otherwise, sadly, we're going to see more deaths like we saw with that poor motorcyclist last week. Research and Development 91 10:16 Ms PAYNE 144732 Canberra Scientists and researchers are working incredibly hard today to deliver the breakthroughs that will answer tomorrow's problems and change our world in ways that we haven't even imagined yet, and they deserve our support. My electorate of Canberra is home to the CSIRO and five university campuses—more than any other electorate in Australia. There are so many cutting-edge technology businesses based in Canberra, too, and I'm proud to represent so many passionate scientists, researchers and innovators, and to advocate and support their critical work. Many of my constituents have contacted me over the past few months as part of the Academy of Science's campaign calling for increased investment in science and research. This includes many scientists, who have told me about how difficult it is to secure grants these days, and how the work that goes into it used to mean that you had a much higher chance of getting one of these grants than you do today. They say that Australia now invests just 1.69 per cent of GDP in research and development, well below the OECD average of 2.7 per cent, and we now rank 40th out of 44 OECD nations for the proportion of people graduating in science, technology, engineering and maths. These scientists, researchers and innovators are calling for more funding into science and research and less-onerous requirements for securing grants funding. Some of our brightest minds, people who have been working on breakthroughs, solving problems and building a better future for our world, are often facing insecurity in their work because of the tenuous nature of the grants they rely on to fund this work. This insecurity means they are unsure not only of the future of their endeavours but also of their own financial security and livelihoods. I've had discussions with people in my electorate about the incredibly difficult impacts this has had on their personal lives. I recently met with the Minister For Science, Tim Ayres, and the Australian Academy of Science to discuss the future of science and research in Australia and to put the case for increased funding directly to the minister. The Albanese Labor government has invested heavily in science and research. The most recent budget included $2 billion in additional science and research funding, meaning our government is investing more than $39 billion in research and development over the next four years. This includes an additional $387.4 billion in the CSIRO and establishment of the National Resilience and Science Council, which will ensure better coordination and alignment of public innovation investments with Australia's economic objectives. But we can always do more, and I will continue to call for greater investment in science and research, and better grants programs for research and innovation, to restore Australian science to internationally competitive levels. Science solves the problems of tomorrow, and it is in Australia's best interests for us to attract and retain scientists and researchers to continue their critically important work. Homegrown science is vital to our future, driving innovation, creating high-skilled jobs and strengthening our economy. Bowman Electorate: Volunteer Grants Program 91 10:19 Mr PIKE 300120 Bowman I rise today to celebrate all the outstanding organisations in the Redlands who have received funding through the latest round of the volunteer grants program—$66,665 has been allocated to the community groups across the Redlands through this program, supporting the volunteers who give their time, energy and skills to make my community stronger. These grant projects will assist local volunteers in the Redlands to continue this great work. Costs are increasing across the board, and many not-for-profit organisations have told me that the cost of volunteer insurance has put pressure on their ability to continue to operate. That's why I was pleased that local community organisations receiving grant funding, primarily to assist them with the cost of insurance and premiums, include the Redlands spring festival, Karragarra Island Ratepayers & Residents Association, the Capalaba District Meals on Wheels, Coochiemudlo Island Surf Life Saving Club, Amity Point Community Club, Meals on Wheels at Cleveland, Meals on Wheels of Victoria Point and Redland Bay, and the Redland Bay Cyclones Rugby Union Club. Updating technology used by volunteers is another way to support those who give their time. Receiving funding primarily for updating technologies such as iPads, mobile phones and computers are the Donald Simpson Community Centre, the Shoreline Association for Neighbourhood Development, Bayside Community Radio Association, STAR Community Services, Dragons Abreast Australia, Redlands Rugby Union Club—the mighty Mudcrabs—Wellington Point Cricket Club, Vinnies Cleveland, the Cage Youth Foundation, the Little Ship Club, Redland Bay Women's Shed, Macleay Island Progress Association, the Rotary Club of Cleveland, the North Stradbroke Island Rugby League & Allsports Club—the mighty Sharks—the Cancer Council Queensland Redlands Volunteer Branch, Sing Sing Sing—the dementia choir in my electorate—and Capalaba Bulldogs football club. It's fantastic to see so many groups supported through the grants in so many other ways, including the Cleveland Scout Group—who will be receiving funding for camping equipment—RedCity Roar Basketball Association, Cycling Without Age Australia, the Capalaba Piranhas Amateur Swimming Club and Cleveland Thornlands Cricket Club. Redlands Coast Museum are receiving $3,500 for a commercial passthrough dishwasher. The Redlands Netball Association will receive $2,550 for a commercial-grade refrigerator. Tingira Boat Club will receive $3,000 for internet service fees and safety boat training courses, first aid courses and other equipment. United Community Services are receiving $2,500 for volunteer uniforms, and the St Rita conference of the St Vincent de Paul Society will be receiving grant funding for fuel cards for volunteers. Redlands Softball Association will receive $1,500 for coaching resources and equipment. These organisations demonstrate the incredible contribution volunteers make all across the Redlands every day. I congratulate all the recipients and, most importantly, the volunteers behind these organisations. Their work strengthens our community, supports people who need a helping hand and makes the Redlands a much better place to live. Gilmore Electorate: Disability Services 92 10:22 Mrs PHILLIPS 147140 Gilmore Whether it's making coffee, potting plants, baking muffins or sorting clothes for sale, there are so many people living with disabilities and doing really great things across my electorate. Today I want to give a shout-out to all our community and disability workers who do such important work to inspire and support our most vulnerable every day. This month, Interchange Shoalhaven opened the new BridgeHaus cafe, which provides an incredible supported training ground for people with disabilities. Participants gain real-world experience in the cafe, restaurant, bar and kitchen. They gain the skills, accreditation and confidence to help them transition to employment in the hospitality and retail industries. Congratulations to the Interchange Shoalhaven team, the enthusiastic participants and the many local businesses that support inclusive employment opportunities. With the flowers in full bloom, spring was the perfect time to pop into the Yumaro nursery and cafe in Ulladulla. Yumaro supports people with disability to propagate and look after the plants and serve coffee, and now they have a beautiful new activity studio as well. At Sow Good Studio, participants and members of the public can learn all sorts of skills, including sewing and yoga. I'm proud to have delivered federal funding to support the redevelopment of Yumaro's Sanctuary of Support, and I just love popping in when I can to see the team enjoy a coffee—and to buy a few plants, of course. Yumaro also supports participants in Moruya, and I was welcomed with huge smiles and big hugs when I visited their Good Finds second-hand store in Moruya recently. The workers do a great job sorting and displaying the pre-loved clothes, toys and books and making the shop look bright and colourful, all while learning a range of retail and customer service skills. It's just fabulous to see how much the participants love their job and how incredibly proud they are of the work they do. On Sunday, I was pleased to officially launch another confidence-building activity for young people with disabilities. The new Rainbow Club at Vincentia provides inclusive swimming lessons. Living in a coastal region, I know this will have a huge impact for local families enjoying our pools, lakes and beaches. There's a big Rainbow Club carnival coming up in Sydney, and I've heard there are going to be some very keen local swimmers taking part. A huge thanks to the Rainbow Club, the swimming instructors at the Bay and Basin Leisure Centre and all the families that go above and beyond to brighten these kids' lives. Whyalla Steelworks, Working Holiday Maker Program 92 10:25 Mr VENNING 315434 Grey I want to take the time to acknowledge the community of Whyalla and their perspectives. Yesterday, I sought leave from this place to go and meet with the community, the administrators, the council, the taskforce, the transition taskforce and, of course, the steelworkers. Whyalla is not in a happy place right now. They're tired and they feel abandoned. Some told me they feel like they've been treated like mushrooms—kept in the dark and fed the proverbial. These are working men and women, something that is unfamiliar to this place here in Canberra. These are people who have turned up day after day and worked incredibly hard to keep making iron and steel. They have worked through the uncertainty. They have worked through the breakdowns. They have worked through months and months of not knowing what their future would hold. They are constantly told they are a resilient community, a resilient workforce. They are also sick and tired of being told how resilient they are. Today, they feel let down. They were sold the green hydrogen dream. They were sold it from Gupta, Treasurer Koutsantonis, Premier Malinauskas, Minister Chris Bowen and Prime Minister Anthony Albanese. Now Minister Chris Bowen's green dream has become the Whyalla nightmare. But today I stand with the workers facing redundancies. We cannot turn back the clock. We are where we are. The community now needs certainty, certainty and more certainty. It has been 19 months. We have spent over $1 billion, and we've now lost 850 jobs and counting. The Prime Minister, Minister Ayres and the state ministers need to travel to Whyalla, prioritise this community and get a deal signed and then commit to timelines for when we will be pouring iron again. I stand with the families. I stand with the businesses facing uncertainty, and I stand with the entire Whyalla community because this is not just about the steelworks; it is about the people, the families, the livelihoods and the future of an entire community. For every one manufacturing job in this country, there's somewhere between three to seven other jobs impacted. It's called the force multiplier. So, yes, there were 850 jobs announced yesterday, but this is going to have ramifications for small business and for people's partners. It is a really devastating time for that community. Working Holiday Maker backpackers are so important to regional South Australia. Labor cannot continue to make decisions in Canberra without understanding the impact they have on the actual people that produce our food, run our businesses and keep South Australia thriving. Working Holiday Makers drive our chaser bins and help our harvests. Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme 93 10:28 Dr REID 300126 Robertson As a doctor, I know writing a prescription is only the beginning. The treatment only works if the patient can actually access it. That's why the PBS co-payment matters. The reduction of the maximum PBS co-payment to $25 a script means more Australians can access the medicines they have been prescribed without cost becoming another barrier to care. That is practical change at the pharmacy counter. But clinically it represents something much bigger, because affordable medicines are not simply a cost-of-living issue; they are part of preventative health care. They are part of health security, and ultimately they contribute to the resilience of our health system. A prescription sitting unfilled on a kitchen bench does not lower blood pressure. It does not control diabetes, and it doesn't manage cardiovascular disease. Every clinician understands this very simple principle: intervene early, treat effectively and prevent deterioration. Because when people delay treatment, the consequences can move through the entire health system. A manageable condition becomes more complex, a GP presentation becomes a hospital presentation, and, eventually, that pressure arrives in places like the emergency department. That is why reducing barriers to medicines matter. These are not abstract policy settings; they determine what somebody is asked to pay when they stand at their local pharmacy with a prescription in their hand. At a time when households are balancing housing, groceries, electricity and other everyday expenses, health care should not become another pressure that puts people off. Australia has built strong national institutions around that principle. Medicare is one of them; the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme is another. The PBS allows Australians to access medicines that might otherwise be far too expensive, with government meeting much of the cost and patients contributing through the co-payment. Reducing that contribution is about keeping treatment within reach for Australians. It is about prevention, it is about keeping people healthier for longer, and it is about maintaining a health system with the capacity to care for Australians when they need it most. Good medicine is not simply about knowing which treatment to prescribe. Murphy, Senior Sergeant Bradyn 93 10:30 Mr LLEW O'BRIEN 265991 Wide Bay Sixteen years after first helping lead Queensland riders on the Wall to Wall Ride for Remembrance, my mate Senior Sergeant Bradyn Murphy took part in his final ride as a serving Queensland police officer on Saturday before his retirement later this year. The 2026 Wall to Wall Ride for Remembrance was held on 12 September in the lead up to Police Week, with riders from every state and territory travelling from their capitals to the National Police Memorial in Canberra to honour fallen colleagues. More than 1,800 motorcyclists converged on Canberra this year. Senior Sergeant Murphy, officer in charge of the Gold Coast highway patrol, has been a constant presence in the national ride since it began in 2010, helping lead Queensland riders for 16 years. Queensland Police Service Commissioner, Brett Pointing, said the ride demonstrated the enduring bond of the policing family—every kilometre travelled reflects a promise to remember those who've made the ultimate sacrifice and to support the families, friends and colleagues who continue to honour their memory. He said: This year holds particular significance as Senior Sergeant Murphy completes his final Wall to Wall Ride as a serving member of the Queensland Police Service. For 16 years, Senior Sergeant Murphy has shown extraordinary commitment to honouring our fallen colleagues and supporting the families left behind. His dedication reflects the values at the heart of Wall to Wall—respect, mateship, service and remembrance. For Braydn, the ride also carries deep personal significance. He joined the Queensland Police Service in November 1985, completed the police motorcycle course in 1988, and has spent almost four decades as a police motorcycle officer, including seven years as a senior motorcycle instructor at the driver training unit, where he taught me how to ride—or crash—a motorbike. Reflecting on the years since that first ride, Bradyn said the Wall to Wall was about far more than motorcycles: Wall to Wall is about remembering our mates, remembering their families and making sure the sacrifices they have made whilst bettering the lives of so many Queenslanders is never forgotten. He has watched the event grow over the years to one of Australia's largest policing events. This Police Week, I pay my respects to all police officers past and present. I remember those who didn't return home and who died in the line of duty, and I also congratulate my friend Bradyn Murphy on an outstanding career in the Queensland Police Service. Engadine Preschool Kindergarten, Hughes Electorate: Sport 94 10:33 Mr MONCRIEFF 316540 Hughes We've been talking a lot in this place recently about how valuable the hard work that early educators do is. They're the hardworking people who give our young people the best start to life before school that they can possibly get. The people who gave me my start were the hardworking educators at Engadine Preschool Kindergarten, the doors of which I first toddled through in 1999, and where Eve Hawkes has now been the much loved director for 30 years. Eve has been a cornerstone of the Sutherland shire community for generations of kids, giving them the highest quality education and an unquantifiable contribution to inspiring the joy of learning in our kids. In addition to being an excellent director of the preschool kindergarten, Eve has been chair of Community Early Learning Australia, the peak body for Australia's early and middle childhood education sector. Eve has been an outspoken advocate for the social and academic benefits of early education and for families' ability to access that early childhood education. Eve will be retiring at the end of this year. I've had the pleasure of visiting Engadine Preschool Kindergarten several times over the last year, and it's been moving to see how much and how little has changed. There may be new faces and a new generation of Engadine kids enjoying the opportunity to learn, to play and to grow. But Engadine Preschool Kindergarten's commitment to world-class early childhood education under Eve's stewardship has remained. Thank you, Eve Hawkes, for your tireless work that has been of enormous benefit to so many children and, now, many adults throughout our community. Congratulations on a fantastic legacy, and I wish you all the very best in the next phase of your life journey. Five talented teams of the Bosco netball club scored a series of sensational victories in this season's grand finals. Grand finals day was 29 August, with an all-star team of players in under-11s, under-12s, under-13s, senior 1 and senior 2 duking it out on the courts. Entering the finals in fourth, the D3s battled their way to the top, culminating in a legendary two-goal grand final win with my sister playing a critical second-quarter role in the victory. After holding the top spot all season, the D2s came away victorious in their grand final as well. The under-11s, after smashing the minor premiers, likewise walked away with a well-deserved grand final trophy. Congratulations to all the competitors from Bosco netball club. I wish you well in your preparations to take on next season's trophies as well. I was honoured to attend the Menai Hawks Netball Club annual presentation to celebrate an outstanding season this week. In a successful season for the Hawks, their 17 div 4s, 15 div 2s, 15 T1s and 17 T1s all came away with premiership trophies. Presentation day was a chance to celebrate all the Hawks teams who had worked so hard, shooting goals and climbing up the scoreboard throughout the year. Congratulations, Hawks netball teams, for all your success this season. Menai Hawks Football Club also saw great success in the grand finals, with the W21B team coming away victorious with a terrific two to one win against the Caringbah Redbacks. The AWO5, AWO8 and O35A teams also played a series of hard-fought games and were— (Time expired) Private Health Insurance 94 10:36 Mr WALLACE 265967 Fisher Yesterday, Labor forced their $3 billion cut to the private health insurance rebate through the House. They pushed it straight through the third reading. Then they gagged the member for Wannon to shut down any further debate; they just moved on. Vote it through, shut it down and move on—that's what the Labor government does. Earlier this week, Labor gagged their own MPs, stopping them from speaking on the bill. Twice now I've sought leave to table a petition signed by 10,340 Australians opposing this cut. Twice leave has been denied. The 10,340 people who've put their names to this petition are not asking for special treatment. They're asking to be heard in their own parliament. And twice they've had the door shut in their faces. So I ask this government—why are you ignoring Australians? What are you so afraid of hearing? The government's own backbench has been silenced and the opposition's been silenced. In fact, 10,340 people have been silenced—not once but twice. From 1 April next year, this bill rips away the higher rebate for Australians aged 65 and over for their private health insurance. The Parliamentary Budget Office modelling, reported by the ABC, shows close to $1.6 billion of the savings will come directly from age pensioners. Polly, in my electorate, is an age pensioner from Beerburrum. She wrote to me about how she and her husband live right now. Their diet is poor because they can't afford to eat properly. They shower every second day because they can't afford hot water. When their doctor asks them whether they eat a healthy diet, what are they supposed to say? That is who this government is reaching into the pockets of. Labor calls this 'modernising'. I call it what it is. It's a tax on growing old, and it is disgusting. This bill now goes to the Senate. Senators, listen to the people this House has now refused to hear. Scrap the pensioner tax. I seek leave to table this document of 10,340 signatures of people from all over the country opposed to Labor's cuts to older Australians' access to private health insurance. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 144732 Is leave granted? Mr Gosling 245392 It depends on whether it's a genuine petition, in which case it can be sent to the petitions— Mr WALLACE 265967 Is leave granted or not? Mr Gosling 245392 Leave is not granted. Mr WALLACE 265967 This is the third time that the government has refused to leave for me to table this document. It's the third time that this government has wanted to shut Australians' voices down. It's gutless. This government is gutless, and does not want to hear Australians. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 144732 Has the petition been approved by the Petitions Committee? Mr WALLACE 265967 No, it has not, but that doesn't prevent me from tabling it. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 144732 Is leave granted for the document to be presented? No. Mr Gosling 245392 It's a miscellaneous document. Leave is not granted. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 144732 The member's time has expired. 10:40 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney Earlier this month, well over 100 people joined Assistant Treasurer Daniel Mulino and me at the Redfern Town Hall for an anti-scam forum. The message from the day was very simple: scams can happen to anyone. Scams have become extraordinarily sophisticated. What was once an obviously suspicious email, perhaps from a Nigerian prince, can now be a very professional-looking website, a fake video featuring someone you trust or a familiar voice generated using artificial intelligence. Criminals create urgency, build trust and sometimes spend weeks or even months convincing people that an investment or a relationship is genuine. Scams often involve tricking people into authorising a payment. That can make recovering the money very difficult, because the transaction has been approved by the account holder. It's another reason to contact your bank as soon as you suspect something is wrong. People who are scammed often feel embarrassed or ashamed. I've had constituents say this to me. They say this has stopped them asking for help, when acting quickly is critical. But the fault lies entirely with the criminals who've deliberately deceived them. There should never be shame in seeking support. Assistant Treasurer Mulino spoke about the Albanese government's work to prevent and disrupt scams. Scam losses remain too high, but they've fallen from around $3 billion a year when we came to government to just over $2 billion. Australia's response brings together banks, telecommunications companies and digital platforms, because they all have a responsibility to protect Australians from scams carried through their services. The forum also gave local residents direct access to organisations that could help. Financial counsellors, community lawyers, government agencies, businesses and charities offered advice on scams, financial hardship, identity theft, fines and broader cost-of-living pressures. I thank the Financial Rights Legal Centre, Moneycare, the Australian Financial Complaints Authority, Redfern Legal Centre, the Australian Taxation Office, Services Australia, Service NSW and ID Support NSW. I also thank St Vincent de Paul, the Older Women's Network, OzHarvest, Foodbank, Work Skills Australia, the Commonwealth Bank, AGL, Optus and Google for taking part in this fantastic day. The experiences people shared show how convincing scams have become. Careful, capable people can be deceived, and no-one should believe that they're immune. The message is: stop, check, protect. Stop before handing over money or personal information, check that the person or organisation you're dealing with is genuine, and protect yourself by acting quickly if something feels wrong. Contact your bank, report the scam, talk to someone you trust—the sooner you ask for help, the better. I thank the Assistant Treasurer and all the organisations who so generously participated, and all of the local residents who turned up to inform themselves. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 144732 In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members' constituency statements has concluded. BILLS 96 BILLS Carbon Credits and Other Legislation Amendment (Integrity and Transparency) Bill 2026 96

Carbon Credits and Other Legislation Amendment (Integrity and Transparency) Bill 2026

Second Reading 96 10:44 Mr FRENCH 316550 Moore I rise to support the Carbon Credits and Other legislation Amendment (Integrity and Transparency) Bill 2026, and I accept from the outset that the title of this bill is not exactly going to pack out the pub on a Friday night. If you walked into your local and said, 'Who wants to chat about methodology determination, sequestration offset projects and the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Scheme?' I suspect you would suddenly find how quickly Australians can finish a drink. But underneath all the acronyms, all the technical language and all the legislative machinery, this bill is about something very simple: if we are going to put a value on cutting carbon pollution, we have to be confident that the reduction is real. That is what integrity means. We need to know what has been done, we need to know who has done it and we need to know how it has been measured. If someone receives a carbon credit for reducing emissions then that credit needs to actually represent a reduction in emissions. It sounds obvious. But, as anyone who's spent any time around regulation knows, sometimes parliament has to pass quite a lot of pages to achieve something that can genuinely be explained in one sentence. So let us start at the beginning. The Australian carbon credit unit, or the ACCU, generally represents one tonne of carbon dioxide equivalent that has been avoided or removed from the atmosphere. Think of it as a little like a certificate. A farmer might undertake a project that stores more carbon in the landscape. Another project might reduce methane. A landholder might regenerate vegetation. Different projects work in different ways. But if they satisfy an approved method that can demonstrate genuine abatement, they can earn carbon credits. Those credits have value. They can provide income for farmers, First Nations communities, landholders, businesses and other organisations undertaking emissions reduction projects. They can also be used by large industrial facilities under the safeguard mechanism while those facilities reduce their own emissions over time. The scheme does two jobs. It creates an incentive to undertake emissions reduction projects. It gives hard-to-abate industries some flexibility while new technology is being developed or installed. That is why the quality of the credit matters so much, because a carbon credit is ultimately a claim. It says that one tonne of emissions has been avoided or removed. If that claim is reliable, the credit has value. If that claim cannot be trusted then we have a problem. You do not need a degree in climate science to understand that. I was an electrician before I came here. In the electrical industry, if someone signs a certificate saying that work complies with the rules, people rely on it. The customer relies on it, the network relies on it, other trades rely on it and, most importantly, the next electrician who opens a switchboard relies on it. You cannot have a system where everybody just says, 'Near enough; probably complies.' That is frowned upon in electrical work—usually for fairly obvious reasons. The same principle applies here. If Australia is going to have a carbon crediting scheme, the units issued under that scheme have to be credible, and that is what this bill strengthens. The ACCU scheme has now been operating for more than a decade. It has been examined through the independent Chubb review and through several reviews by the Climate Change Authority. Those reviews found a scheme with sound foundations, but they also identified areas where governance, transparency and administration could be strengthened. The government listened. This bill makes those improvements, and one of the most important of them involves First Nations consent. Under these reforms, registered native title claimants will be recognised as eligible interest holders. And for relevant projects on native title or claimed native title land, consent will be required at the beginning of the process, rather than leaving people to discover that a project involving their land has already progressed substantially. There will be a two-stage process: consent to the project being registered, then consent relating to how the project will actually be carried out. This is a pretty straightforward proposition. If somebody intends to establish a carbon project on land over which Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people hold or claim native title rights and interests, those people should have a meaningful say before the project gets under way—not afterwards, not after the contracts have been signed, not after commercial expectations have been created but beforehand. The bill also improves the body responsible for testing the integrity of the carbon crediting method. The Emissions Reduction Assurance Committee will become the Carbon Abatement Integrity Committee. I admit that, once again, Canberra has demonstrated a unique ability to make a rebrand of a committee name sound like an episode of Utopia! But the change behind the name is important. The committee will have stronger governance arrangements, broader expertise, stronger transparency requirements and expanded functions. It will have an important independent role in assessing whether methods used to generate carbon credits meet Australia's integrity standards, because method matters. If I claim to reduce 10 tonnes of emissions, the obvious questions are: How did you work that out? What assumptions did you use? What did you measure? What would have happened without this project? How long will carbon remain stored? These are not side questions. They are the entire basis for determining whether a credit is genuine. And sometimes knowledge changes. Evidence changes. A method that appeared sound at one point may later develop a serious integrity problem. At present, there can be circumstances where an old method continues to be used by existing projects even after significant concerns emerge. This bill introduces what is called a method transmission declaration—again, a magnificent name. The idea is simple: if a method develops such a serious integrity problem that continuing to issue credits under it could threaten confidence in the entire scheme, there needs to be a circuit breaker. Returning to the electrical example, if we discovered tomorrow that a particular testing method could not reliably tell us whether an installation was safe, nobody would seriously suggest, 'Well, we've been using it for a few years, so we might as well just keep issuing the certificates.' You fix the method, and that is what this mechanism allows. Importantly, this is not an arbitrary power. It is designed for exceptional circumstances. There are legislated thresholds. There must be independent advice. There must be public consultation. The minister must consider the impact on existing projects. If the relevant advice and reasons must be published, the explanatory material describes significant safeguards around this power, including advice from the independent committee and public consultation before it can be used, and that balance is important. We need to protect investors from arbitrary rule changes, but investor confidence also depends on the market itself being credible. There is not much comfort in saying your credits were issued under stable rules if nobody trusts the credits. Integrity is not the enemy of investment. Integrity is what makes long-term investment possible. The bill separates two jobs that should sensibly be separated. At present, the Clean Energy Regulator has responsibilities connected with both regulating the scheme and government purchasing of ACCUs. This bill transfers government purchasing responsibility to the secretary of the department—in other words, we separate the buyer from the regulator. That is just sensible governance. You do not generally want the umpire running the TAB at half-time. The bill also changes the purchasing principle from simply seeking least-cost abatement to seeking value for money, and that distinction matters. Cheapest is not always best value. Every household understands that, every small business understands that, and every government procurement officer certainly understands that—usually through a document approximately the size of what we formerly knew as a telephone directory. But value for money allows government to consider not only the price of carbon abatement but potentially other benefits associated with a project, and that might include benefits for biodiversity. It might include regional economic benefits. It might include benefits for First Nations communities. The carbon reduction still has to stack up, but government does not have to pretend that the price is the only thing that exists. The bill also strengthens compliance. The fit-and-proper person test will extend more broadly, including to agents acting for project proponents. The regulator will have improved enforcement tools. There will be infringement notices for lower level breaches, and there will be stronger mechanisms for requiring ACCUs to be relinquished where too many credits have been issued. Again, strip away the jargon and this is easy to understand. If someone was credited 10 tonnes of abatement but updated information establishes that only eight tonnes were actually achieved, we cannot just shrug and leave 10 credits circulating. Two need to come back. Carbon credits are not frequent flyer points, where an administrative error becomes a permanent bonus. If the abatement did not happen, the credit should not remain in the system. At the same time, the bill allows proponents to voluntarily correct genuine mistakes. That is good regulation. There must be consequences for wrongdoing, but a well-designed scheme should also make it easy for people acting honestly to identify an error, correct it and move on. The bill also encourages research and development. That is particularly important because climate technology is moving quickly. We want people experimenting with better ways to reduce emissions. We do not want the rules inadvertently punishing them for doing research necessary to develop a new method, so this bill adjusts the so-called newness requirements to better accommodate legitimate research and development. It also creates more flexibility for projects to combine different kinds of emissions reduction activities. For example, a future project could potentially combine storing carbon through regenerating native forests with reducing methane emissions from livestock. That would mean greater flexibility for landholders and more room for innovation. Then we come to the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Scheme, the NGER. This is Australia's national framework for reporting information about greenhouse gas emissions, energy production and energy use. This bill provides for greater transparency by allowing regulations to require publication of more information submitted through that scheme. That matters because good climate policy depends on good information. You cannot manage what you cannot properly measure. If significant emissions data can appropriately be made public, there is a strong argument that greater transparency improves accountability and confidence. This bill also tidies up some compliance and administrative gaps. Finally, we come to the new vehicle efficiency standard. Now, I know merely mentioning vehicle efficiency in this chamber can occasionally cause some people to behave as though Canberra has arrived at their driveway at midnight to confiscate their ute, so it is still worth being very clear about what this bill does. It does not change the headline emissions limits. It does not change which vehicles are covered. It adjusts some dates. That is it. There is a timing alignment in the legislation affecting when vehicle suppliers calculate and reconcile their obligations. Industry asked for certainty. Industry was consulted. The dates have been fixed so the scheme operates as originally intended. The proposed changes move several reconciliation and unit expiry milestones without altering the underlying standards. Not every measure on climate legislation needs to become a culture war. Sometimes a date is simply a date. This whole package has been extensively consulted on. The exposure draft was released in April. The department received 73 individual submissions and consulted project proponents, carbon service providers, First Nations organisations, governments, industry bodies, NGOs, investors and academics. The changes were made as a result, and that is exactly how legislation should develop. Consult, listen, identify practical problems, amend the proposal, bring the improved version to parliament. There will always be people who approach carbon credits from opposite ideological positions. There are some who hear the words 'carbon market' and reject the word 'carbon'. There will be others who hear the words 'carbon market' and object to the word 'market'. The rest of us have to deal with the system that actually exists, and we have to make sure it works. If carbon credits are going to be issued, they should represent genuine emissions reduction. If companies are going to rely on them, they should be able to trust them. If farmers and landholders are going to invest in projects, they deserve stable and credible rules. If projects affect native title rights and interests, First Nations people should be involved properly and early. If public data can be reasonably made more transparent, it should be. If a rule is discovered to be defective, government must have a careful, transparent and reviewable way of fixing it. That is not radical climate policy; it is competent administration. Australia's carbon market will only ever be as strong as the confidence people place in it. A credit must mean something. The methodology behind it must stand up. The regulator must have the tools to enforce the rules. The public should be able to see enough of the system to have confidence that it is doing what we claim it is doing. That is what integrity and transparency look like in practice. It might not make carbon accounting the hottest conversation at the local pub, but it does make Australia's carbon market stronger, fairer and more credible. For this reason, I commend the bill to the House. 10:58 Mr JOYCE e5d New England I move: That the following words be added after paragraph (3): "(4) the Government must also repeal transitional capital gains tax discounts for foreign investors disposing of large renewable energy infrastructure assets". I want to run through a couple of places. Rushy Lagoon has been taken out of production, supported by the Clean Energy Finance Corporation against the wishes of an Australian buyer, to create a carbon sink. That's thousands of head of cattle production that has been removed from the market. They used to produce food for the food stack. In a world where the population is racing through the roof, we are getting a greater and greater obligation to do our part, our very small part, in feeding those people. I want to give a name of another place, Barry Station. Thousands of heads of cattle have been taken out of production now because they're going to create another carbon sink. That's another lot of food that's gone out of the food stack. Cooplacurripa is another one where thousands of head of cattle have been taken out of production to create carbon units. You can't feed people carbon units. People will starve if you try to feed them carbon units. Yet somehow we have moralised trumping our obligation to the global food stack by a vanity project of thinking that we will change the weather from Canberra. That is an absurdity. What we do here makes no difference whatsoever to the climate because of many things, including the lack of participation by the world—the majority of the economy. We are creating hurt. We are bereft of our higher moral responsibility to be feeding people. When you take food out of the food stack, it's not the people you see that are ultimately hurt. It's those at the very, very bottom in countries you can't see—in Sudan, in central Africa, in Central America, in the Pacific islands. These are the people who go without. We have an ever-increasing number of people in the world now who have been stated by the United Nations as starving. It's growing. What we had that could be fed from the aspects of the green revolution has now been dealt with. Our population—the global population—has gone through that. We have a greater obligation than carbon units, and that obligation is to feed people. Our capacity in this nation—I'm sure the member for Farrer will address this in a way soon—is such that even Australia is heading towards being a net food importer—not immediately but within decades on the trajectory we're on. What a disgrace. What are we going to do then? Unless we evolve into a higher form of termite, there is not much we can do than say, 'What is our part in feeding people?' Yet that is the perverse nature of this parliament. We've somehow moralised that our greater obligation is not present. The previous honourable member said he wanted to see what has been done. I'll tell you what's been done in our nation. We've lost our plastics industry, our urea industry and our glass industry. Our aluminium industry is on its knees. Our steel industry is basically closing. Our concrete industry is on its knees or going. There are record insolvencies in small business. Pensioners are being pushed into poverty at a greater rate than ever before. There's more homelessness. We're taking farming out of farmers' production and reducing our obligation in the global food sector. That is what we're actually achieving. That is the vanity project that we're actually on. That's the damage we're actually doing. We have to decide. This epiphany will come to us, because the other thing that's happening in the background is our economy is really in strife. We are now rolling bills that we had from COVID. There were about half a per cent. Now they're going to roll around five per cent. The Treasurer was speaking about it yesterday. One Nation started speaking about it two or three weeks ago. With that, our debt at the Australian Office of Financial Management as I speak is $1,010 billion—over $1 trillion. As these bills roll and it goes up to five per cent, our interest bill is going to exponentially grow. It is exponentially growing now. It'll go through our defence budget. It'll become one of the highest issues in our budget. We will be taxing people merely to pay interest—no other outcome. That also is a moral deficiency. It's an ethical deficiency in what we are doing. We have got to get on top of that if we want to help pensioners in the future. We've got to get on top of that if we want to provide health services in the future. We've got to get on top of that if we want to provide a defence force in the future. You have to have a fundamental—in fact, dynamic—change in behaviour to start getting on top of your debt, and we are not. It is getting worse and worse and worse at quicker and quicker and quicker rates. If we are challenged in the future with another issue such as COVID, we do not have the headroom to be able to deal with it. It's just not there. You'll start being run not by the Treasurer but by the Department of the Treasury, which will just say: 'The money is not there, so forget it. Stop saying it. You don't have the cash. If you continue on, you will go broke.' I remember being, basically, sacked as the shadow finance minister because I had the temerity to say that our debt would go, on the trajectory we were on, through half a trillion dollars. They lined up the Secretary of the Treasury, the Governor of the Reserve Bank and the Treasurer to say what an outrageous proposition that was. Well, ladies and gentlemen, it's gone through a trillion. So I was wrong—I under underestimated where it was off to. I'm going to give you another one. It's on its way to $2 trillion. It's on its way. I can say that right now because if you add up our actual federal debt and our state debt, we're at about $1.5 trillion already. If you add on private debt—we have one of the highest private debt loads in the world apart from Switzerland, I think—we're on our way to $3 trillion. We're on our way, stuck into the interest market, and we're getting further and further into trouble. So what are we going to do? Dynamic change! We have to get out of the Capacity Investment Scheme first of all. We've got to knock this stuff out of the park. It's got to go. The Capacity Investment Scheme has got to go. You must get out of net zero. You must get out of the Paris Agreement. You must remove the safeguard mechanism, which is actually shutting down your coalmines and the industries such as the steel industry, which you run around saying you're going to try and keep open. You can't keep it open when you've got legislation there to shut it down. That's what it does. Go and talk to them. They'll say: 'That's what you want. We're gone; we're finished.' You can't say you're going to support the aluminium industry when you've got legislation in place to get rid of the aluminium industry. You can't say you support the steel industry when you've got legislation in place to get rid of the steel industry. You can't say you support mining and blue collar workers when you've got legislation in place to get rid of blue collar workers. That's what you're doing. You've got to get rid of carbon credits. One Nation says quite clearly that we are getting rid of the climate change department and climate legislation. There you go. There's a dynamic change—a dynamic change that starts to address the fundamentals of where our economy is at. The other day, they voted for a capital gains tax advantage for foreign intermittent power swindle factories. That's what they are. They are not renewable. There is nothing renewable about them. If foreign intermittent power precincts, swindle factories, are sold to other foreign intermittent power precincts, swindle factories—it went through—they get a 50 per cent capital gains tax exemption at exactly the time we're removing the 50 per cent capital gains tax exemption for Australians. How perverse is that? They snuck it in, in schedule 3. This amendment is about bringing it out and making you vote on it. Do you support the swindle factories getting a capital gains tax advantage? You'll get the chance to vote on it, and then we can explain to the Australian people why swindle factories are more moral than selling your own investment house or more moral than selling shares in Australian companies and that you want to help out these swindle factories from China, Singapore and Europe more than you want to help out Australian people. You'll get to vote on it. That's what the amendment is. This is really important, because if you support the capital gains tax preferential treatment for swindle factories, then you support VNI West. If you support this, then you support the New England renewable energy zones. REZs, swindle factories, intermittent power precincts—you support them. If you support capital gains tax advantage for the intermittent power sector, you support the transmission lines. You support everything—Central-West Orana, the whole lot. We have got to fundamentally change this not just for the people in regional Australia but for the economy of Australia. If you have another alternative to turn the show around, then tell us what it is, because we've heard nothing. All we've seen is the trajectory, and the only thing that's consistent about the trajectory into debt is that you keep on underestimating it. The economy is being driven further and further into debt. There are record insolvencies in small business. It's incredible. It is not just a 'sort of' record but a massive record. Who else are we hurting? Ultimately, there's another thing in this moral. We're taking out of production food. We are reducing our obligation to the world to feed people who are ultimately at the bottom of the food stack, who you never see are starving, but they are starving. You haven't changed the weather, but there are people starving because you're not producing enough food. That actually is happening. But you somehow think a moral quest, a moral vanity project to help overseas billionaires, domestic billionaires, and foreign companies, is more important than feeding people. They are the most amazing lobbyists who've got you to that position. It's amazing that they've managed to connive the actual moral obligation of this nation into something that will actually have efficacy in being able to basically prostitute that into a form as you've created it: this sort of money-go-round, swindle industry carpetbagging for the benefit of those who are the least in need. That is the actual position you've got yourself into. The other people that we're seeing a lot of are homeless people. We've never seen them before; people who can't afford their power bill any more. As I drive to the airport now, I see something I never thought I'd see in Tamworth. There are people living in boxes or tarpaulins over them, people living under bridges and people living in cars—pensioners in cars in Australia. That's what happens when you drive the economy into the ground. That's what you actually do to people. It's actually there. Do you know why you see them in Tamworth? It's a little bit warmer than some of the other areas. They are people we have never seen before. It's also in Bundaberg—in country towns, under bridges. We're doing this to Australians. And it doesn't matter what you do; if you want to support them, you've got to have an economy that pays to support them. They wouldn't be there if they had a job. They wouldn't be there if you hadn't destroyed their cost of living. There would be some, but we have an exponential growth in that. Out of this virtue of wanting to help billionaires and the swindle industry, we are creating homelessness. Yet we moralise that it's the right thing to do because we're going to change the clouds, folks. We're bringing back the frosts. We're going to make the great glaciers grow from Canberra. No you're not. Whatever's happening to the climate, I'm not denying it. But you're not going to change it. That's the issue. You're not changing it; you're just ripping people off and hurting people. This amendment is part of that. I know the Labor Party won't support it because they brought the legislation in. But, my former colleagues in the coalition, you've got to make a stand. You've got to draw a line in the sand. You've got to be ready to fight. You've got to bring about that dynamic change, if you're going to change what's happening to Australia, or you've got to accept responsibility. People will remind you of it in five to 10 years time when they say, 'Do you know why the nation is there in the dirt? It's because you put it there. That's where you took it. That's what you did. Do you know why that person's under that bridge? It's because you put them there. Do you know why that person doesn't have enough to eat—and you can't even see them because you're overseas? It's because you decided that you wanted to create carbon units. You prioritised that. You were quite happy that you hurt that person. You moralised it. You were part of a government that did it. You were part of an opposition that never stood up against it. You've got to wear it.' So I move this amendment. I think you know I've been on this issue and I'll continue on this issue. I do this on behalf of Clarke Creek, Robbins Island, the Orana REZ, VNI West, the New England REZ, all the money wasted on green energy—I'll have to try and find out more about that—the people doing the transmission lines and the solar precincts, all of that, because of this ludicrous position that somehow it's all morally justified because you've got to help out foreign billionaires, foreign companies, domestic billionaires and the total calamity which is the swindle industry. 11:13 The DEPUTY SPEAKER 144732 Is there a seconder of the motion? 11:13 Mr FARLEY 62329 Farrer I second the motion. I'd like to start with a question because I think it cuts through everything else we're about to debate: if you found out that up to 70 per cent—or more—of the Australian Carbon Credit Units under the three dominant methods backing Australia's climate strategy might not represent a single, genuine tonne of avoided carbon, would you fix the paperwork or would you fix the problem? That's exactly what's in front of us today. The amendment chooses the paperwork. They've called it the Carbon Credits and Other Legislation Amendment (Integrity and Transparency) Bill 2026—the integrity transparency bill. I want you to sit with that for a second. It is, frankly, one of the most audacious pieces of branding I believe this parliament has seen. It is a bill named for two things that its own record shows the scheme has never reliably had. Let's be honest about how we got here. This isn't a routine tidy-up of a functioning market. It's damage control. It exists because the man who ran the government's own integrity committee for 6½ years, Professor Andrew Macintosh, turned around and told the country that what we'd been overseeing, in his words, was a fraud on the environment. Macintosh is not a critic on the sidelines; he's the inside man, the whistleblower of the Australian carbon policy, standing up and saying, 'I watched this happen and it isn't real.' What did the evidence show? People were being paid for not clearing forests that were never going to be cleared, landfill operators were collecting credits for running generators they would have run anyway, and the human induced regeneration, the single largest category of credits this scheme has ever issued—42 million hectares, receiving 45 million ACCUs—was investigated by the ANU researchers in 2024. They found that most of the sampled projects didn't even comply with their own basic regulatory requirements and showed negligible real increases in tree cover for all that money and for all those credits. So the entity responsible for issuing the credits investigated itself, commissioned a review and found itself blameless. Meanwhile, new projects were banned in October 2023, but existing projects kept generating credits. This is not a hypothetical risk we're being asked to legislate against; this is what's already happened, and at scale. It has public money and other countries' trust in our national commitment riding on it. So what does this bill do about that record? Let's go through it point by point. The details matter more than the 'integrity and transparency' title. It does not touch a single credit already issued. Every dubious ACCU sitting in the account right now—the ones tied to forests that grow nowhere and the ones tied to generators that run anywhere—remains exactly where it is: fully valid and fully tradable. The bill has no memory. It starts today and forgets everything that came before it. When it finally does catch up with a bad method, it lets it keep running. Under the bill's new integrity risk method declaration, a method the government itself has just found doesn't meet its own integrity stands, and it keeps issuing credits for up to two more years if it's an avoidance project and up to five more years if it's a sequestration project—five years! We will have identified the problem and then licensed it to continue. Even getting to that point is deliberately difficult. The system is so designed that, before the minister can act, they need committee advice, a full public consultation process and proof that the alternative method already exists and is workable. Every one of those steps sounds reasonable in isolation, but, if you stack them together, they're a machine built to produce inaction. This is not a safeguard; it's a mechanism of last resort by the government's own description, which is a polite way of saying it's a lever that never gets pulled. And who checks the checker? The new Carbon Abatement Integrity Committee is advisory only. The minister keeps the final say. There is no clear process for outside groups to take the flawed decision to court. They are the same groups who caught the problem in the first place, and we're being asked to trust the very apparatus whose failures created this crisis, with no independent avenue for anyone to knock on if it fails again. They've given the public three weeks to respond to it—three weeks to scrutinise the first rewrite of a law in over a decade, a law with sweeping consequences for native title holders, for safeguard mechanisms compliance and for every polluting facility in this country using these credits to claim they've hit their targets. This is not a consultation; it is a formality with a deadline attached. Native title protections don't even apply to what's already in the pipeline. Every project already registered or in train continues under the old weak consent rules. The stronger protections only bite on applications lodged after this bill passes, which means the very projects most likely to have proceeded without proper consent are precisely the ones that this bill leaves untouched. Quietly buried in the purchasing provisions, they've swapped least-cost abatement for value for money. That sounds harmless until you realise what it does. It removes the one plain, measurable yardstick the public had for judging whether government carbon spending was efficient and replaces it with a phrase flexible enough to justify almost any purchasing decision on almost any ground, and with far less scrutiny. Colleagues, put all that together and here's what you get: better minutes, better committees and better paperwork. There's not one structural change that answers the actual scientific complaint that has been sitting on the table since 2022: that these credits, in large numbers, may simply not represent real additional emissions reductions. I'll say the quiet part plainly. This bill treats a credibility crisis as an administrative one. It polishes the brass on a ship that critics—including the man who used to captain its integrity committee—say is taking water below the line. Here is why that should frighten every one of us, regardless of which side of this chamber we sit on. The markets don't collapse gradually and then suddenly. They collapse suddenly, full stop, when confidence breaks. Enron didn't lose 10 per cent of its value a year over a decade. It went from a market darling to worthless in a matter of weeks, because, the moment the people stopped believing the numbers were real, there was no floor underneath them. Carbon credits, by their very nature, are priced on a story about what would have happened, and that is a soft number. Soft numbers don't fail quietly. When a court or a regulator, or another peer-reviewed study, puts hard figures on how much of this scheme was never real, we will not get a gentle correction. We'll get a stampede. The buyers will flee, the prices will crater and every company, every facility and every government contract that leaned on these credits to claim compliance will be exposed all at once. This bill—the amendment—does not prevent that day. It just delays the reckoning and dresses it up as a reform. So I say to this chamber: don't vote for the title; vote on what is actually in the text. And what's actually in the text is a bill that protects every credit already issued, gives newly condemned methods years to keep operating and buries its own enforcement power under so many preconditions that it may never be used—and it hands the public three weeks to catch any of that. That's not integrity. That's not transparency. That is a scheme protecting itself from the people it's supposed to answer to. Vote it down, send it back and tell the drafters, 'Fix the science before you touch the paperwork.' I second the amendment as circulated. 11:22 Ms WITTY 316660 Melbourne I rise to support the Carbon Credits and Other Legislation Amendment (Integrity and Transparency) Bill 2026. In Melbourne, the people I represent care deeply about environmental outcomes. They want cleaner air, healthier waterways, more renewable energy, stronger protections for biodiversity and meaningful action on climate change. But they also expect accountability, they expect evidence and they expect transparency. Australians are being asked to support significant change as we transition to a cleaner economy. Communities are investing in renewable energy, businesses are changing the way they operate, households are embracing cleaner technologies and industry is adapting for the future. People have every right to expect that the systems supporting those changes are robust, transparent and worthy of public trust. That is what this bill is about. It's about strengthening the institutions and frameworks that underpin Australia's climate response. It is about ensuring that, when emission reductions are measured, reported or credited, Australians can have confidence in the integrity of the system behind them. The Albanese Labor government has spent the last four years rebuilding Australia's climate architecture after a decade in which far too much time was wasted debating whether action should occur at all. Labor came to government with a clear mandate to get on with the job. One of the first things we did was set a target to cut Australia's emissions by 43 per cent from 2005 levels by 2030, while reaffirming our commitment to reaching net zero by 2050. Those targets provide certainty for investors, businesses and communities about Australia's direction. Since Australia re-elected the Albanese government in 2025, we have continued this ambitious work. Whether it's strengthening the safeguard mechanism, delivering the new vehicle efficiency standard, establishing the nature repair market or supporting the next generation of renewable energy and storage projects through the Capacity Investment Scheme, the common thread is clear: we are moving Australia forward, we are reducing emissions and we are doing it in a way that creates opportunity, jobs and investment. Across my community, people understand that climate action is also an economic opportunity. They see the innovation happening in clean technology. They see the investment flowing into renewable energy. They see new industries emerging, and they know Australia cannot afford to be left behind while the rest of the world moves forward. That is precisely why this legislation is so important, because climate action only succeeds when people trust the framework supporting it. Australia's carbon credit scheme has become an important part of our emissions reduction effort. Carbon credits support projects that reduce emissions. They support projects that remove carbon from the atmosphere, creating opportunities for landholders, supporting regional communities, expanding environmental restoration and partnering with First Nations communities, particularly in projects on country. The Australian Carbon Credit Unit Scheme now underpins a substantial carbon market that plays an important role in Australia's pathway towards net zero. But, as the scheme grows, expectations grow with it. Australians should not simply be expected to accept environmental claims at face value. People want confidence that emissions reductions are real, that credit represents genuine outcomes and that rigorous oversight exists to ensure the integrity of the scheme. That is why I believe the most significant reform in this legislation is the establishment of the independent Carbon Abatement Integrity Committee. This committee will strengthen the independent oversight of carbon credit methods. It replaces the current arrangements with a body that brings greater transparency, broader expertise and stronger integrity safeguards to the scheme. For the people I represent, this sits at the heart of what good environmental policy looks like: strong ambition, strong delivery and strong accountability. Australians deserve confidence that claims are backed by evidence, that assessments are informed by expertise and that governments are willing to put independent scrutiny at the centre of important policy frameworks. That is exactly what these reforms do. People in Melbourne want climate action, but they also want proof that it is working. Because we are asking Australians to support climate action, they deserve confidence that carbon credits are delivering genuine emission reductions and real environmental outcomes. The creation of the committee also says something broader about the Albanese Labor government's approach: we are not afraid of scrutiny, we are not afraid of expert advice and we are not afraid to improve systems when improvements are identified. The independent review conducted by Professor Ian Chubb found the ACCU scheme was fundamentally sound while recommending reforms to strengthen integrity and public confidence. The government listened and acted. When experts identify opportunities for improvement, governments should respond. When institutes can be strengthened, they should be strengthened. That is exactly what is happening here. Of course, the Carbon Abatement Integrity Committee is not the only reform contained in this legislation. This bill recognises public confidence is built through a range of improvements across the system. The legislation strengthens compliance and enforcement powers where incorrect information has been provided. It creates clearer pathways to deal with situations where carbon credits may have been overissued. It introduces mechanisms that can be used in exceptional circumstances where concerns emerge regarding a carbon credit mythology. These are sensible safeguards because good governance requires strong guardrails. The legislation also recognises that Australia's success in reducing emissions will depend on innovation. One thing I hear from clean technology companies, researchers and innovators is that government policy should support the development of new solutions. Australia will not reach net zero using only the technologies we have today. We will also rely on the technologies being developed right now. This legislation removes barriers that may have discouraged participation in research and development, and creates greater flexibility for future carbon credit methods, helping support innovation while maintaining integrity standards. That means new ideas, new investments and new opportunities to reduce emissions. The bill also strengthens the role of First Nations people within the carbon credit scheme. Projects on native title and claimed native title land will require stronger consent processes earlier in the project lifecycle, helping ensure traditional owners can participate in a meaningful way before projects proceed. The legislation also recognises registered native title claimants as eligible interest holders. These are welcome reforms. Traditional owners have cared for country for tens of thousands of years. Environmental policy is stronger when First Nations knowledge informs decision-making. Partnerships are stronger when communities are engaged from the beginning, and good outcomes are more likely when respect is embedded in the system itself. The legislation also improves transparency within Australia's greenhouse gas reporting framework. That may sound technical, but good climate policy depends on good information. If we want accountability, we need transparency. If we want effective policy, we need accurate reporting and, if Australians are going to judge whether governments are delivering, they deserve reliable information on which to make that judgement. The bill also makes targeted changes to the new vehicle efficiency standard to ensure that it operates as originally intended and provides certainty for industry as it works to reduce emissions from new vehicles. Taken together, this legislative changes tell a much bigger story. They show a government that understands climate policy is never set and forget. Good policy evolves, strong institutions evolve, and government should always be prepared to improve systems as expectations grow and circumstances change. The truth is that climate action in Australia has changed significantly over the last decade. The debate is no longer simply whether Australia should act; the conversation is increasingly about how we act effectively, how we build public confidence and how we ensure environmental policies deliver measurable results. This government is stepping up to answer these questions. We are strengthening emission reduction policies, we are backing renewable energy, we are restoring integrity to climate, and we are investing in the industries that will power Australia's future. Through legislation like this, we are ensuring the system supporting those efforts remains credible, transparent and trusted. Reaching net zero will not be achieved through a single announcement, a single project or a single piece of legislation. It requires sustained effort, it requires long-term thinking, and it requires institutions that Australians have confidence in. Labor is rebuilding Australia's climate architecture piece by piece—stronger emission targets, stronger safeguards, cleaner transport, more renewable energy, and, now, stronger oversights of our carbon credit system. This is practical climate action that reduces emissions while building confidence in the systems that support it. The people of Melbourne expect climate action that is ambitious, but they also expect it to be delivered. They want governments that are prepared to make decisions, prepared to build institutions, prepared to strengthen safeguards, and prepared to improve policies when improvements are needed. That is what this legislation does, and it is exactly what the Albanese Labor government has been doing since Australians returned us to government in 2025. Since then, we have continued strengthening Australia's climate framework. We have continued driving investment into renewable energy. We have continued backing cleaner industries. We have continued supporting the transition to a lower-emission economy. And we have continued doing the hard work of rebuilding public confidence in the institutions that underpin climate and environmental policy, because tackling climate change is not achieved through speeches, it is not achieved through slogans and it is not achieved by standing on the sidelines pointing out problems while refusing to engage in the work of fixing them. Real progress comes from building things. It comes from improving laws. It comes from bringing people together and it comes from having the courage to make practical reforms that move the country forward. Australians are tired of the old climate debates, they are tired of delay and they are tired of hearing why something cannot be done. What they want is progress—progress that lowers emissions, progress that protects the environment, progress that creates jobs and investment and progress that leaves Australia stronger for the next generation. That's what Australians voted for. That is what the people of Melbourne expect. And that is what this government is delivering. As the member for Melbourne I am proud to be part of a government that understands that protecting our environment is not separate from building Australia's future. A cleaner economy, more renewable energy, stronger environmental protections, lower emissions, better institutions—those outcomes do not happen by accident; they happen because governments chose to act and they happen because governments remain focused on outcomes rather than endless arguments. Climate change will not wait for another decade of delay. Australians expect progress. This legislation does exactly that. It strengthens Australia's carbon credit framework, it strengthens accountability and it strengthens Australia's ability to continue reducing emissions in the future. I am proud to represent the people of Melbourne in a government that is getting on with the work of delivering real action on climate change. I commend this bill to the House. 11:37 Ms SPENDER 286042 Wentworth I rise to speak on the Carbon Credits and Other Legislation Amendment (Integrity and Transparency) Bill 2026. This bill amends three statutes at the centre of Australia's mitigation effort: the Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Act, the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act and the New Vehicle Efficiency Standard Act. It actions recommendations from the Chubb review and from successive Climate Change Authority reviews. I commend the government for legislating statutory reviews, responding to them and then acting on them. That discipline is rarer than it should be. But, on process, I note that the bill is currently before a Senate committee, which will report on 24 November. It remains a frustration to those of us in this chamber that we debate legislation without the benefit of that proper review. Why does this bill matter? The ACCU scheme underpins a multibillion-dollar market. It supports least-cost abatement. It funds environmental restoration and Indigenous land management. It is not a substitute for decarbonising industry and transport, and we must do that. But it does buy us the carbon budget to solve those problems. A fortnight ago, the UN Environment Programme published Limiting overshoot. It's the first UN report to concede that breaching 1.5 degrees is inevitable. Best case: we peak at 1.8. The only route back down is net negative emissions—removing more than we emit. Global carbon dioxide removal today runs at around 2.2 billion tonnes a year, almost all of it land based. That figure has to grow by an order of magnitude. So I believe in carbon removal, because every pathway to a liveable planet now depends on it. I also believe we must accelerate genuine onsite abatement to shrink the removal task to something we can actually deliver. Those two beliefs are in tension only if you cannot trust the credits, and trust in this scheme is fraying. That is why this bill and the safeguard mechanism review that follows it are so important to get right. The integrity of the ACCU scheme is not merely a feature; it is the entire product. A credit that does not represent a tonne is worse than no credit at all. It does not merely fail to remove emissions; it authorises someone else to keep making them. I do support most of what is in the bill. It renames the Emission Reduction Assurance Committee to the Carbon Abatement Integrity Committee. It tightens who can be appointed, requires expertise the committee has not always had, mandates First Nations representation and bars members from paid work that conflicts with their duties. Those are sound reforms to expertise, independence and transparency. It also removes the option to conditionally register products on native title land before consent is obtained. As written, the current law was inconsistent with free, prior and informed consent, and it undermined the bargaining position of one party. Removing it, again, is right. The bill also amends the newness requirement so that research and development can proceed without destroying additionality, consistent with both Chubb and the authority. I support that. We need far more R&D in this space. But newness is the test that stops us paying for things that were going to happen anyway. Loosen it, and someone has to draw the line between genuine R&D and a project reaching backwards for a justification. The regulator must be able to tell the difference. I would also say this: the most important methods we do not yet have are for engineered and novel removals. That work should be prioritised to unlock R&D. Finally, I support the bill reducing regulatory burden and streamlining administration. We should be doing more of that in every part of the economy. But I do have two main concerns: the method transition declaration and the departure from least-cost procurement. My first concern is with the method transition declaration. At present, if a method is revoked or expires during a project's crediting period, the proponent is grandfathered. They keep earning under the original method unless they choose to move. That gives certainty. It also leaves integrity problems unresolved, which is corrosive to the entire scheme. Under this bill, the minister may declare a transition to all projects under a method where three things hold: (1) that the method fails to offset integrity standards, (2) continued issuance would pose a material risk to the integrity of the scheme and (3) there is another method to move on to. Projects then have between six months and two years, or five years for sequestration, to transition. Many stakeholders oppose this power for different reasons. Project developers say it introduces sovereign risk, strands capital already committed and invents a class of low-integrity credits that will be repriced the moment a method is even investigated. Environmental lawyers are concerned that the threshold is set so high it may never be used, and that material risk is undefined and left to ministerial discretion. Setting the availability of an alternative method as a prerequisite means the worst methods—the ones with nowhere to send the projects—are the ones that escape. Both concerns are pointing at the same hole: nobody outside this building knows what this power is actually for. The government has not said what circumstances it contemplates for a bar set at simultaneously failing the integrity standards and threatening the whole scheme and having somewhere else to go. So we can only speculate. Avoided deforestation and human induced regeneration have well-documented problems, and together they account for the largest share of ACCUs ever issued—HIR alone for roughly a third. Under the HIR rules, projects face a late-stage reconciliation. Around year 15, the project has to demonstrate the forest cover it was modelled to achieve, measured against what is actually on the ground. Where the abatement has not materialised, credits already issued are handed back. That gateway is the one point in the design where the model has to meet with reality. The integrated farm and land management method, the most likely destination for these projects, carries no equivalent requirement. Follow that through. The prospect of a very large relinquishment across a third of the market is, on any reading, a material risk to the integrity of the scheme. That is the trigger for a declaration. What is available under this bill is to move those projects onto a method where the model isn't tested against reality. The test would be extinguished at precisely the moment it became meaningful. I'm not alleging that is the intention. I'm saying that the drafting permits it, and that a power whose stated purpose is to raise integrity should not be capable of laundering a problem instead. A functioning market and a high-integrity market are not alternatives. A market in credits that do not represent tonnes is not functioning; it is just liquid. The method transition declaration is an attempt to hold both at once, and it can, but only if moving a project between the methods can never lower the standard it is held to. As to why an exceptional power is needed at all, the government has not said, and we are unlikely to find out. The Clean Energy Regulator Act binds officials to secrecy on the threat of two years imprisonment, so we are asked to legislate a remedy without being told the disease. My second concern is value for money. An ACCU represents one tonne of abatement. That is a commodity. The government's job is to maximise the carbon abated for a given sum of public money—and that is not my preference; it is the statute. Section 20G(3)(b) requires a purchasing process to 'maximise the amount of abatement the Commonwealth can purchase'. This bill replaces least-cost abatement with value for money and leaves that requirement untouched. Either the government intends to purchase less abatement for the same money or the two provisions do not sit together. It should tell us which. The assistant minister says the change will mean future purchasing can be done in a way that supports strategic priorities as they evolve over time, but which priorities and who sets them remains unspecified. The priority of this bill is to reduce emissions—full stop. The problem with this government is it hangs so many objectives off a single program that the program costs more and delivers less of what it was built for. And where there is discretion, there is risk. Valuing co-benefits is inherently subjective, and subjectivity in procurement is where public money goes missing. The secretary of a department will decide which outcomes are most meritorious—another opportunity to select favoured proponents in favoured electorates for reasons opaque to the public whose money is being spent. Recent grant program controversies in this space make the point better than I can. The government is no longer the main buyer. Real demand now comes from the Safeguard Mechanism and from voluntary action. Government should not be buying up the cost curve and leaving the cheap credits for compliance. I want to see covered facilities procuring credits with genuine co-benefits and paying for them. If the government is to depart from these costs, it should at least state the criteria explicitly and say why, and that departure should be confined to a first-of-a-kind removals project. It should not become an open-ended subsidy for avoidance projects. If projects with high co-benefits are sub commercial, the durable fix is not the Commonwealth paying over the odds; it is a higher carbon price. That is what the evidence points to and it is what does the work. It drives onsite abatement, it rewards R&D and it brings high-cost projects into the money without anyone in Canberra deciding which ones deserve it. The government's role is not to pick up the largest tab. It needs to stop thinking that it is. Its job is the integrity of the whole scheme, not only of the credits it happens to buy. Credits that do not represent real abatement should not be issued in the first place. Last week the Senate spent half an hour and a division deciding whether a methodology determination had integrity. That is what happens when machinery for settling integrity questions is not trusted to settle them. This bill is an opportunity to repair the machinery. It does not do that yet. I encourage the government to support the amendments from the crossbench. 11:47 Mr LAXALE 299174 Bennelong I rise to speak in support of the Carbon Credits and Other Legislation Amendment (Integrity and Transparency) Bill 2026. This is a bill about growing Australia's nature economy and about who in this place actually wants to see it grow. The idea underneath this scheme is the simplest and fairest one in Australian public policy: big industry should pay for its pollution and those who repair it like farmers and traditional owners should get reimbursed for that repair. This policy dictates a simple and logical transfer of funds from those who damage our environment to those who repair it, and that's been working well since 2011. The scheme has delivered 190 million tonnes of abatement from more than 2,600 projects. This Nature Repair Market is now worth more than $4 billion, and every tonne of pollution is paid for by polluters, as it should be. Like most schemes, from time to time, it needs review and reform, and that's what this bill is about. It strengthens the integrity of the scheme so that the trust behind it holds, the consent of native title holders is respected properly, and the whole system keeps growing Australia's nature economy instead of putting it at risk. This bill has practical effects for farmers all over Australia. It's sitting in paddocks from Bourke to Berowra to Goondiwindi. Let me tell the House about some of the people growing Australia's nature economy right now, today, while those opposite, from the far left to the far right, argue about whether they deserve to keep doing it. There are the Rossers at Wanaaring, two hours west of Bourke. Their country was finished by the millennium drought—fences falling down, no reliable water, goats and dorpers eating the scrub down to dirt. They laid 80 kilometres of poly pipe, fenced every water point, trapped the goats out and rotated their paddocks properly for the first time in years after their first abatement contract was signed in 2015. For them, it unlocked millions of dollars and brought their property forward 15 years. When livestock income vanished, carbon paid the bills. It let them destock early. It let them keep their staff on and expand into mixed farming around Forbes. There's Peter Yench at Cobar, who watched drought take his flock from 8,000 sheep down to only 600. He still drew close to a million dollars a year pre tax from carbon. Tom and Antoinette Archer at Rexton, near Goondiwindi, spent 20 years improving their grazing, fencing and water points, and in 2023 they were issued around 66,000 carbon credits for the carbon their soil had built up. There's a whole new income stream for farmers sitting alongside the cattle. Stuart Austin at Wilmot, near Ebor, sold around half a million dollars of soil carbon to Microsoft. His soil organic carbon lifted from 2½ per cent to 4½ per cent—more ground cover, more water held, more beef. Colin Seis at Winona, near Birriwa, holds his grain yields steady while saving more than $100,000 a year in fertiliser and chemicals. Graham and Cathy Finlayson at Bokhara Plains, near Brewarrina, took claypan country nobody wanted and lifted their stocking capacity by almost 80 per cent. Tim Wright at Lana, near Uralla, more than doubled the carrying capacity of his family's property. In Bourke, Sam Maroulis is selling poly pipes, solar pumps and fencing gear to farmers who would have never otherwise bought it. Younger families are moving back to the bush because there is finally work to keep them there—more than 160 million carbon credits issued, $2.8 billion paid directly into the hands of land managers and an estimated $30 billion more over the next 20 years. This is what growing Australia's nature economy looks like. It's actual money in farmers' pockets, keeping families on farms and boosting our region's economy. Let's look at those opposite, who want to strangle this system so that nobody notices until it's too late. Let's start with the Nationals. In 2022 the member for Maranoa, as agriculture minister, wrote concessional tax treatment for carbon credit income into law. He called it a diversified source of on-farm income. Four years later, his party is campaigning to abolish the market that that income comes from. They gave farmers this income. Now they want to steal it back. Their leader says he will scrap net zero and get rid of what he calls Labor's carbon tax. The tax he means is the one writing cheques to Bourke, to Cobar, to Goondiwindi and to Wanaaring. A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 11:53 to 12:04 Mr LAXALE 299174 Ninety-eight per cent of demand for these credits exists because big emitters are compelled to buy them. Destroy that demand and you take the income away from a grazier who borrowed against a contract in good faith. The Nationals have become the party of big emitters, not the party of farmers. The Nationals also like to claim this scheme locks up farmland. The Climate Change Authority's own independent report released this month found no material conversion of high-value agricultural land to carbon projects at the national scale to date. The authority concluded that sequestration and farm production can exist side by side. They do not compete. Brendan Foran, the Convenor of Growing Australia's Nature Economy, wrote in the Financial Review last month that the claim that carbon projects lock up farmland is a myth. He said: … the scheme is on track to issue between 22 million and 26 million credits this year, worth about $900 million at today's prices. None of that money goes to Canberra— Almost all of it— … goes through farm gates. That is growing Australia's nature economy, and those are the words of the people actually building it. I'd invite the Nationals member to name one thing his party has done for farm income this year. Then I would invite him to take a look at Peter Yench's bank statement to see what carbon credits are delivering to farmers. Then, of course, we have the Greens. Earlier this year, they threatened for months to bring down the method that pays governments to leave koala forests standing rather than log them. Then, when the vote finally came, they split three ways. Seven of them backed it. Senators McKim, Bleyer and Steele-John voted to kill it, walking into the same lobby as Matt Canavan. I want the House to sit with that method that actually delivers, because this is not abstract and because of what happened next. On 10 September, the Senate formally endorsed the improved native forest management method under this very ACCU Scheme. That single decision is the step that makes the Great Koala National Park possible. When established, it will be the second-largest park in New South Wales, protecting more than 475,000 hectares of native forests and existing reserve. It will protect more than 100 threatened species, including 12,000 koalas and 36,000 greater gliders. No fossil fuel company will ever be allowed to buy a single credit generated from it. For the first time in New South Wales, the park will employ Aboriginal rangers through Aboriginal community controlled organisations, putting cultural knowledge at the care and the centre of how it is run. This deal was three years in the making, and it was backed by the Nature Conservation Council of NSW, the North East Forest Alliance, the National Parks Association, the World Wildlife Fund, the Australian Climate and Biodiversity Foundation, Greenpeace and the Great Koala National Park Aboriginal Advisory Panel. The New South Wales minister for the environment thanked the New South Wales Greens by name for their support in getting it done. On 10 September, the New South Wales Greens were thanked in a ministerial statement for helping deliver 12,000 koalas a home, but on that same day federal Greens senators announced they would vote against the bill in front of this House today. This bill protects the integrity of the exact scheme that has just delivered the Great Koala National Park. One arm of their party, thankfully, saw reason and stood with Labor to save the koala. The other arm walked into a party room on the same day and decided to vote against the system that made it possible. I don't know which Greens this House is supposed to believe—the ones thanked for building the Great Koala National Park or the ones voting against this bill that keeps the same scheme that built it standing up. Now they want a cap on how many credits big emitters can use. If you cap the credits, you cut the demand. If you cut the demand, you cut the price. If you cut the price, then the funded burning stops in Arnhem Land. If you cut the price, funded goat control stops in the Flinders Ranges. Every outcome I'm about to describe goes backwards. The Greens have never once told this House who pays for nature repair if industry does not. Nature repair in this country needs around $7.3 billion a year. That's more than the entire annual budget of the New South Wales police force. They will not take it from hospitals; nor should they. They will not take it from schools; nor should they. They would rather have a fantasy scheme than one that saves the quoll or protects the koala. Perfect is the enemy of the good, and in their hands it's become the enemy of the quoll, because this is what this scheme also funds. I want the House to hear the animals this money is protecting, not just the balance sheet. The Gouldian finch is endangered. What is killing it is hot wildfires late in the dry season burning out its seed supply and nesting hollows. What saves it is cool early burning. In Arnhem Land, Indigenous rangers carry out that work across more than 80,000 square kilometres, funded by carbon credits alongside ranger jobs, cultural heritage work and on-country schools like the Nawarddeken Academy. The northern quoll is endangered. Feral cats are eating it out of an existence made deadlier by hot fire and heavy grazing stripping away the ground cover the quoll needs to hide in. Fire management, feral herbivore control and restored ground cover are all funded by carbon farming. That's what these credits pay for. The yellow-footed rock-wallaby was headed for extinction in the Flinders and Olary ranges 30 years ago. More than 200,000 feral goats have been removed since. Today, the population and the country it occupies are more than 10 times what they were. A finch, a quoll and a rock wallaby—pulled back from the edge because a big polluter had to pay a land manager to do the work. That is the choice in front of this House. One side wants to abolish this scheme outright; the other side wants to cap it and starve the demand that gives any value to it. Only Labor wants to strengthen it. Between the far left and the far right, they arrive at the same place from opposite ends: a grazier at Wanaaring with no income and a forest with nothing left in it. This government doesn't want to see that happen. The Carbon Market Institute, the National Farmers' Federation and the Productivity Commission all back these reforms. That is farmers, economists and industry standing in the same place while those opposite stand somewhere else entirely. Labor is interested in growing Australia's nature economy properly with the integrity to make it last—real farmers, real money, real animals and real outcome, all of it paid for by carbon credits, not by the taxpayer. We'll defend this system, and we'll improve this system. I commend this bill to the House. 12:12 Mr RICK WILSON 198084 O'Connor I rise today to speak against the Carbon Credits and Other Legislation Amendment (Integrity and Transparency) Bill 2026, because integrity and transparency have no part in this bill, as I read it. The more technical details have been dealt with by my colleagues speaking previously, but in summary it makes three changes. Firstly, the bill would allow a mere native title claim to be treated as native title actually existing. Now, while we all want to see native title dealt with fairly and justly, this creates a new level of uncertainty for proponents who are looking to implement a program in an area which may be under native title claim as opposed to a settled native title. Secondly, the bill would allow the government to purchase carbon credits against a very opaque value-for-money test, replacing the current least-cost consideration. Now, taxpayers always want value for money. They deserve to get value for money. But this new clause would allow the government to buy carbon credits with a whole range of criteria other than value for money, and that can't end well for the taxpayers. Thirdly, and probably the most frighteningly for most Australians, this bill hands Minister Chris Bowen sweeping powers to disrupt carbon abatement projects through a special mechanism that would allow him to unilaterally declare methodologies void. Once again, this creates enormous uncertainty for proponents who are entering into agreements which, in many cases, are up to 100 years long. For those reasons, the coalition will be opposing this bill. I want to take the opportunity today to talk about ACCUs and what they mean for my electorate of O'Connor and the people who live and work there. For many people in this place, Australian carbon credit units are a financial tool which is used for companies, large corporates, who are captured under for the most part the safeguard mechanism to reduce their carbon emissions while actually continuing to emit carbon or in fact increase carbon. What does this mean for the people who live in O'Connor? I'm sure many people watching this speech, people reading this speech at a later date or people in this House will remember when, a month or so ago, the Rushy Lagoon purchase in northern Tasmania made headlines. It made headlines because it was the largest farming property in Tasmania that had been bought by an international fund with borrowed money from the Clean Energy Finance Corporation. Effectively, Australian taxpayer money was lent to a foreign manager to outbid Australian farmers and buy that property. That made the headlines for very good reasons, but across O'Connor that's happened 142 times. We have seen large corporates come in and buy up entire farming properties. They started in the Central Midlands, which is not in my electorate, then they moved to Southern Cross in the Yilgarn shire, which most definitely is in my electorate, and they have been moving progressively into the high-rainfall, high-value agricultural land in the southern part of the electorate, with a property at Greenbushes being purchased several years ago. It has now been planted down to a shotgun mix of native species, which is all well and good. However, the neighbouring farmers had no opportunity to purchase that property. They are now left with a severe fire hazard on their boundary and have vermin coming out of that property onto their property. There's a whole range of issues. It's by very happy coincidence that Luke Bayley is with me in the chamber here today. Luke, welcome. Luke is the CEO of the South Coast Natural Resource Management group. As the name suggests, natural resource management is about managing our natural resources and making the most of those resources while protecting nature and the environment, and they do a fantastic job. The NRMs are here in Canberra this week. It's great to see them here, and I absolutely support their work. Natural resource management is about, as I said, making the most of those natural resources. As a farmer, I'm aware that there are many farming properties which have areas that could be utilised for ACCUs or for producing, for example, biofuels. Sadly, that's not what's happening at the moment. We're not seeing these organisations, these large corporates, entering into agreements with farmers to utilise areas of properties that are of lower value for agriculture, which is the backbone of my communities and the economy across the bulk of my electorate. What we're seeing is these corporates coming in and buying entire properties. To be fair to them—I've named some of them plenty of times, so I don't want to seem like I'm running a jihad against some of our best and biggest Western Australian companies—I recognise that under the safeguard mechanism they have to offset their emissions. If you're a company that pumps gas, then you don't have many options other than to go and buy farmland and plant it back to native bush. But there are other companies who are taking, I think, a much more sensible approach, and that is to enter into agreements with farmers to lease parts of properties on long-term leases to produce, in one case, oil mallees, which can then have the oil extracted, and that can go in a process to produce biofuels. I think that's a wonderful opportunity for the farmer. It's an opportunity for our natural resource management people to get involved in that process and link up those corporates and the farmers who have got that sort of opportunity. That's where I think we need to be heading in terms of ACCUs. I think that the practice of purchasing entire farming properties and taking them out of long-term agricultural production lowers the amount of food that we produce and reduces the number of people that are living in those communities. Many of those communities are in decline because the farms are getting bigger. The technology is improving, and the mechanisation in producing a tonne of grain—the productivity is quite frankly extraordinary, but what it does mean is that there are fewer and fewer people in those communities. Corporates coming in, buying up entire farming properties and taking out the families that operated those farms is exacerbating the decline of those rural communities. Once this gathers pace—we've only just entered the first 18 months of the safeguard mechanism, and there's a review that's coming up later on this year, which no doubt will ramp up the requirements of those companies. They've got very deep pockets. I don't blame the family who sells that property above the odds. They're coming in and knocking on the door. They're not going through the normal channels. They're knocking on people's doors and saying, 'We've got a premium to offer you for your farming property.' The first the neighbouring farmer finds out about it is when he sees the fences being ripped out and the tree planters going in. It is creating some division in those communities, but, as I say, I don't blame the people who are selling up for taking that option. It is their property and it is their right to do so. The government has set up a system whereby large corporate interests with very deep pockets are coming into these communities and offering a premium. Taking out those families, taking out that production, is causing some serious issues for the people that are left behind, by the way, in terms of managing that fire risk and managing the vermin. The weeds that come out of those properties are a big problem for those remaining families. That's what I wanted to talk about today—to put on the record, as I have done previously, my implacable opposition to this notion of corporate Australia being forced to come in and buy up productive farming properties in my electorate, taking people out of my communities and hollowing them out. There are better options. As I mentioned, there's the option of leasing parts of properties or giving every party more security to purchase those properties. The problem there is that the state land departments will not allow existing titles to be subdivided to allow that to happen. There should be a change at state government level in state government land management to allow a farmer who may have a portion of his property that is low productivity, poor quality land—for whatever reason; it might not fit into the cropping system or the livestock system, or it might be an isolated block on his landholding. These properties should be allowed to be subdivided and partially utilised for ACCUs. But, as I say, the taking out of an entire property is detrimental to my community, it's detrimental to the Wheatbelt of Western Australia, and I think in the long term, in terms of our food security, it is detrimental to our country. 12:25 Ms MASCARENHAS 298800 Swan The Carbon Credits and Other Legislation Amendment (Integrity and Transparency) Bill 2026 strengthens a scheme that has already worked. It amends the laws behind the Australian Carbon Credit Unit Scheme. That scheme has delivered a— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 144732 Sorry. We've lost quorum, and we'll need to suspend the Federation Chamber until quorum is resumed. Sitting suspended from 12:25 to 12:56 Ms MASCARENHAS 298800 I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. ADJOURNMENT 110 ADJOURNMENT Fuel 110 12:57 Mr WILKIE C2T Clark Not long ago, I was approached in the street by a constituent who was outraged that Australia's top fuel retailer, Ampol, had recorded a fivefold increase in profits, largely off the back of the Iran war, and Ampol is not alone. Indeed, a Guardian investigation found that eight of the biggest oil companies in the world banked profits of more than $90 billion in the June quarter, the first full quarter since the Iran war began. That's up almost 100 per cent on the same period last year. That's $700,000 a minute in profit while some families are being forced to skip meals due to grocery prices. At the same time, small businesses are struggling with their overheads and with keeping valued staff on, while pensioners are deciding whether they can afford to fill the car or buy their medicines. It's also $700,000 a minute while many people are facing missile and drone attacks, others are trapped on oil tankers and other blockaded ships, and many people continue to be killed. The contrast is as obscene as it is revealing. These companies would tell us that prices are determined by markets, influenced by geopolitical uncertainty, supply risks and global demand. They like to hide behind the language of economics. But let's be clear: there's a profound difference between making a profit from productive activity and making a windfall from war and human misery. Australians understand this instinctively. They know the difference between fair reward and profiteering, and they know that, when a conflict overseas translates into another hit to the family budget while oil giants report record earnings, something is deeply wrong. It's particularly galling when the government made a big song and dance of beefing up the powers of the ACCC to crack down on price gouging. They claimed the ACCC would be a tough cop on the beat on this. But can anyone name any company that's been held to account for what appears to me to be obvious war profiteering? I certainly can't, and the constituent who approached me couldn't either. An added layer of insult to the price gouging and cost-of-living impact is that it's been possible as a direct result of the actions of the United States, supposedly our closest ally. The Trump administration launched its illegal and ill-conceived war on Iran—a moved not opposed by the Australian government initially, I might add—without consulting its allies or considering the impacts on geopolitical stability and global oil prices. At the time the war started, I warned that it was illegal, that the broader impacts would be widespread suffering of innocent civilians and greater geopolitical stability. I suggested that it was not acceptable to say in this or any case that the end justifies the means. Well, in this case, the ends certainly haven't been justified. The Iranian regime has been strengthened. Many innocent people have died. Middle Eastern allies have been attacked. The Strait of Hormuz is unnavigable to most, and the global economy is being crushed while the fossil fuel companies make killer profits. Mission accomplished indeed. It's not just oil companies profiteering here in Australia. The gas companies are making a killing, exporting Australian gas, but the government continues to resist calls for a gas export tax or at least an effective tax. Instead, it allows these multinational gas exporters to ship vast quantities of Australia's publicly owned resources offshore at record prices, making record profits, while returning next to nothing to the Australian people. Sure, we do need to be careful with our bilateral energy agreements—for example, Japan relies on our gas and we rely on their liquid fuels—but that should not mean we never consider a new taxation regime. People are tired of being told that their sacrifice is necessary, while corporate profits soar. They keep having to pay more at the pump or on their electricity bill every time a crisis erupts somewhere in the world. But when the Australian people reasonably suggest that some of the wealthiest companies could pay their fair share too, the government wrings its hands and says it's just not possible. That constituent I referred to at the start of this short contribution, the one who stopped me in the street, had a straightforward point: how can all this be fair, especially when diesel in Canberra as recently as this morning is selling for $2.91.5 per litre? It's a question that millions of Australians are asking, and, until we can provide a convincing answer, the public's outrage is entirely justified. Corangamite Electorate: Ocean Grove Surf Life Saving Club 111 13:02 Ms COKER 263547 Corangamite There are few things more important in my communities than keeping people safe on our beaches. For families across the Surf Coast and Bellarine, the beach is part of everyday life. It is where people swim, surf, walk, spend time with friends and family, and enjoy the coastline we are all so lucky to have on our doorstep. Underpinning this culture are our lifesaving clubs, which do amazing work—volunteering for beach patrols, responding to emergencies, teaching water safety and looking out for the thousands of people who visit our coastline each year. That work takes commitment. It also takes equipment and it takes funding. I recently visited the Ocean Grove Surf Life Saving Club to celebrate its $19,000 Stronger Communities grant from the Albanese government to install a new solar system. The club has installed 62 solar panels and a new inverter, which are expected to generate around 38,000 kilowatt hours of electricity each year. The club has also renegotiated its electricity supply arrangements as part of the project. Together, those changes are expected to save the club around $18,000 a year. For a volunteer-run lifesaving club, that is a significant saving. What matters most is what the club will do with those dollars. The money will go straight back into frontline lifesaving. It will help purchase rescue tubes, inflatable rescue boats, boards and other essential equipment that volunteers rely on to keep people safe. So this is not simply a solar project. It is an investment in the club's future, it's an investment in our volunteers and it is an investment in the safety of everyone who enjoys our beaches. There is also a significant environmental benefit. The new system is expected to reduce the club's emissions by around 46 tonnes of carbon dioxide every year. That is a great outcome for the environment and is also a great example of practical climate action. We often talk about the energy transition in terms of major renewable energy projects, transmission infrastructure and large-scale batteries. Those projects matter, but the transition is also happening in places like Ocean Grove. It's happening when a local organisation looks at its electricity costs and finds a way to reduce them. It's happening when the same investment cuts emissions and frees up money for the work that organisations do in the community. We are seeing this right across the country and across my electorate. The Albanese government's Cheaper Home Batteries Program is helping households and small businesses make better use of solar energy, reduce their energy costs and support a more reliable electricity grid. More than 500,000 batteries have now been installed across the nation through this program, and more than 2,500 batteries have been installed across my electorate of Corangamite. That is thousands of local households and businesses taking part in the transition to cleaner energy. These practical investments to bring down emissions sit alongside the Albanese government's broader work to protect the environment. We have established Australia's first national environmental protection agency and introduced national environmental standards. We've invested in protecting threatened plants and animals, restoring our waterways and looking after our national parks. We have significantly expanded protection of Australia's marine environment, including through new and expanded marine parks around Macquarie Island, Heard Island and McDonald Islands. And we've redesigned the rules around seismic testing. That's what communities like mine care about. We are a coastal community. Our economy, our lifestyle and our identity are closely connected to the ocean. Protecting our marine environment means protecting the places people love, the wildlife that depend on them and the natural assets that future generations should be able to enjoy. The Ocean Grove Surf Life Saving Club brings this back to something simple: good climate and environmental policy should deliver benefits people can see in their own communities. For this club, it means lower electricity bills, lower emissions and more money available for the equipment volunteers need to keep people safe. I want to thank the people of Ocean Grove, the surf lifesaving club and all lifesaving clubs in my electorate for the extraordinary work they do. Sovereign Capability, McPherson Electorate: Roads 111 13:07 Mr REBELLO 316547 McPherson Australians have just had another reminder of how exposed our country can be to events that are half a world away. Conflict in the Middle East has sent fuel prices higher, and families are feeling the pinch. Tradies are paying more to get between jobs. Small businesses face higher freight costs. Farmers, transport operators and industries that are dependent on diesel are feeling the pressure. Families commuting every day are, once again, being forced to find more room in already stretched household budgets. But the lesson's bigger than just the price at the bowser. For too long, Australia has assumed that global markets will always deliver what we need, when we need it and at a price that we can afford. COVID should have shattered that assumption. We saw supply chains break. We saw essential goods become scarce. We saw governments scrambling to secure basic supplies that, only weeks earlier, most Australians had simply assumed would always be there. Yet, too often, once the immediate crisis passed, so did the urgency. Fuel is perhaps the clearest example. Australia's now down to just two oil refineries. We're heavily reliant on imported fuel and on international supply chains that can be disrupted by conflict, by geopolitical tensions or by events that are entirely outside our control. That's not simply an economic vulnerability; it's a national security vulnerability. Fuel keeps our trucks moving, our food supply moving, our businesses operating and our defence forces functioning. Island nations such as Australia cannot afford to be complacent about their ability to access the essentials that keep the country running. The same principle extends beyond fuel. Imagine walking into your local pharmacy and being told that the medicine you need is simply unavailable—not because you cannot afford it and not because there's an alternative sitting on the shelf, but because the international supply chain has broken and there's no domestic capability to fall back on. That is what strategic vulnerability looks like. The answer is not to try and manufacture everything in Australia, nor is it to hand out permanent subsidies or to have government attempt to pick every winner. It is about being clear eyed about what capabilities are critical to our national interest, where we are dangerously dependent on others and where Australia has the skills and the potential to build greater resilience. that means targeted sovereign capability. It means high-value, high-skill manufacturing where Australia can compete. It means cutting red tape, developing our workforce, keeping energy and input costs competitive and building the infrastructure that allows private investment to succeed. It means diversifying. As I said in my first speech in this parliament, Australia should diversify both its imports and its exports so that we're not dangerously dependent on any one country or on any single point of failure. A diversified economy is a more resilient economy. The next crisis—it could be another conflict, it may be a pandemic, it may be a trade disruption or it may be something we have not yet imagined—whatever it is, will not wait for Australia to get ready. We need to do that work now. I'd like to finish on a terrific local outcome for the southern end of the Gold Coast. Anyone who lives around Robina knows the infamous double roundabouts outside the Robina town centre. We've all been there; we've all seen the many queues that build around exit 82. for residents of Robina, of Varsity Lakes, of Mudgeeraba, of Reedy Creek, of Merrimac and surrounds and for everybody from the member for Wright's electorate who comes to shop at the Robina town centre, this is not some abstract transport problem. It is lost time every morning and every afternoon sitting in congestion, and that is why I was delighted to see the Crisafulli LNP state government confirm an upgrade to exit 82 at Robina as part of its Gold Coast transport plan. This is something I've been advocating for since before I was elected to this place, and I'd particularly like to recognise the Crisafulli LNP state government and Division 11 councillor, Dan Duran, who have worked tirelessly to see the issue addressed. Good infrastructure is not complicated; it's about identifying the bottlenecks and addressing them. An upgrade to exit 82 will help improve traffic flow, it will reduce congestion, and it will make daily travel easier for thousands of people across our local community. It's a fantastic outcome for Robina and for the surrounding suburbs, and I look forward to seeing the project delivered. Eden-Monaro Electorate: Volunteers 112 13:12 Ms McBAIN 281988 Eden-Monaro I rise today to recognise and celebrate the extraordinary contribution of volunteers across the mighty Eden-Monaro. This year's Southern Inland Volunteer of the Year Awards were held earlier this week, and, as always, they showcase the very best of our region. From the Snowy Mountains to Queanbeyan and from Cooma to Goulburn, volunteers are among the people who make our communities stronger, often with little fanfare and on shoestring budgets. So much of what we love about living in regional Australia is held up by the work of volunteers. They are the lifeblood of our sporting clubs, our ag shows, our charities, our community groups, our museums, our historical societies and our emergency services. They are often the reason that local events can be held, community facilities can be maintained and vulnerable people can access support when they need it. Every day, volunteers step forward not because they have to, but because they deeply care about the communities they call home. This is why the New South Wales Volunteer of the Year Awards are so incredibly important. They provide an opportunity to acknowledge the extraordinary people who contribute—often behind the scenes and without expectation of recognition. I'd like to congratulate Jacki Waugh, who was named 2026 southern inland volunteer of the year and adult volunteer of the year. Through her work with the Goulburn Show Society, Jacki has demonstrated an unwavering commitment to her community. Her leadership, dedication and countless hours of service have strengthened one of the region's most important community institutions. If organising the Goulburn show wasn't enough, Jacki also volunteers with the Goulburn Lilac City Festival, the Towrang Rural Fire Brigade, the Goulburn Pony Club, Mulwaree Arts and the Goulburn Rodeo committee. Congratulations and thank you so much, Jacki. I also want to congratulate Steven Pow, who was recognised as Senior Volunteer of the Year. Steven's outstanding contribution through the New South Wales Rural Fire Service Ridgeway brigade and BlazeAid has made a lasting impact on our community in the aftermath of the Black Summer bushfires. As a BlazeAid volunteer, Steven worked alongside Victorian farmers to rebuild kilometres of damaged fencing. He served with the RFS for over 50 years and is currently the Ridgeway brigade's deputy captain and treasurer. I also want to acknowledge Andrew Heaney, who was recognised as Emergency Volunteer of the Year. Andrew has been an RFS volunteer for more than 30 years across the Queanbeyan and Ridgeway brigades. His contribution to major incidents in our region spans decades, from leading and supporting RFS brigades in the 1997 Thredbo disaster all the way through to the New South Wales floods in 2022-23. On behalf of our community, I want to thank Andrew for his commitment and his courage. Congratulations also to We Love Goulburn Gardening Group, who were recognised as Volunteer Team of the Year. For more than 20 years they have maintained Goulburn's parks and public spaces to ensure the region retains its reputation as a beautiful regional town. Their work demonstrates how volunteering can bring people together, build pride of place and strengthen community connections. I also want to take the opportunity to acknowledge the thousands of volunteers across Eden-Monaro who dedicate their time to improving the lives of others, and I look forward to the South Coast Volunteer Awards coming up next month. As the federal member for Eden-Monaro, I have the privilege of meeting volunteers in every corner of our electorate. I meet with surf lifesavers on our coasts, SES volunteers in our towns, RFS members preparing for summer, Landcare volunteers restoring local environments, committee members who are keeping local sporting clubs running and community groups working every day to support other people. Time and time again I am absolutely inspired by their commitment, and, quite simply, our communities would not be the same without them. So to every volunteer, whether your contribution is large or small, whether it's visible or it's behind the scenes: thank you so much. Our communities are stronger because of you, and that's what makes regional Australia great. Government Grants 113 13:17 Mr SMALL 291406 Forrest It seems that this Labor government just can't help itself, whether it was the Major and Local Community Infrastructure Program, which the chair of the Centre for Public Integrity recently described with the words, 'Prima facie, it looks like the misuse of public money or serious pork-barrelling, as it's sometimes called,' or the Stronger Communities Program, which saw 93 per cent of funding for CCTV projects directed into Labor's own seats. In the words of the Black Eyed Peas, perhaps this mob 'just can't get enough' of pork-barrelling. Fresh figures, though, have revealed yet another one of Labor's dodgy grants programs: the Supporting Multicultural Communities program, a program which has distributed millions of dollars to mosques, temples, churches and cultural centres across Australia. You would have thought that, with the 105 related projects that the Labor government has released under this program, you'd see an equitable spread. Instead, 98 of the 105 are in the government's own seats. That is more than $168 million of taxpayer money, or 95 per cent of funding for multicultural projects, into the government's own seats, because apparently, under Labor, whatever need you see for funding in mosques, temples, churches and cultural centres disappears the moment you cross into a seat that's not held by the government. It is ridiculous. Of the 105 projects, only seven are in seats the government doesn't hold. Australians are being played for fools. Take the seat of Parramatta alone, in which Labor gave six projects more than $17 million of funding. That is 10 per cent of a national program worth of funding into one Labor held seat. Why is it that projects in the seat of Parramatta are so much more important than worthy projects anywhere else across the country? Perhaps the fact the seat was on a 3.7 per cent margin prior to the last election would have something to do with it. It's shameless behaviour from this government, but perhaps all the more extraordinary because it is utter hypocrisy when we compare it against the standard that Labor set in opposition. The minister who spent years screaming about pork-barrelling from the opposition benches, infrastructure minister Catherine King—or the queen of pork-barrelling, as I like to refer to her—is more than happy to set another standard for her own side now that they're on the government benches. On the Urban Congestion Fund, the minister said at the time: This was rorting on a nuclear scale. On the Infrastructure Australia projects, in December of 2023, when she was in fact a government minister, the minister said: This week the Parliament passed legislation to restore Infrastructure Australia as the Commonwealth's premier adviser on infrastructure investment. So far, so good, but the quote continues that there would be 'no more colour coded spreadsheets and no more pork barrelling'. Well, the minister stayed true to her word on that one, because the spreadsheets are now all just red. On the Building Better Regions Fund, in 2021 the now minister said: The Deputy Prime Minister is shameless. Around 90% of Building Better Regions funding went to Coalition held or target seats. It wasn't about developing regional Australia, it was about pork barrelling Nationals seats. Well, Minister, if you call that pork barrelling, we need to understand why it is that the government's Stronger Communities Programme, which has seen even higher amounts of funding, goes into the government's own seats. Indeed under the Supporting Multicultural Communities Program, 95 per cent of funding has gone into your own seats. These are substantially above the bar that you proclaimed for yourself in opposition. It seems to me that, like everything Labor does, we don't need to listen to what they say; we need to look at what they do. The Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese, has developed a habit, it seems, of dumping money into electorates that suit their political purposes at election time. I would contend that now they are being exposed as frauds. No amount of pork barrelling will save this Prime Minister from the judgement of Australians when they next front the ballot box. Community Services, Indigenous Australians: Racism 114 13:21 Ms COFFEY 312323 Griffith Good food belongs on someone's plate, yet across Australia we throw away food while families go hungry. This morning, I had the pleasure of hosting OzHarvest and Circular Australia for the launch of their new report, A circular economy for food. Food waste costs Australia's economy $36.6 billion every single year. For households, wasted food can cost around $50 a week. That is money that could pay for a child's school excursion or help cover an electricity bill. At a time when many families are carefully counting every dollar, helping them make their food go further can ease that pressure. The environmental cost is substantial, too. When we waste food, we also waste the water and energy used to produce it and the work of those who grew it. Across Australia we use around 2.6 trillion litres of water each year to produce food that nobody eats. I established a kindness cupboard in my community of Griffith, where anyone who wants to can access every day food and some basic necessities. Since my election, my electorate office has distributed more than 2.2 tonnes of fresh produce, thanks to the incredible help from Foodbank in my electorate. That means fresh food on local tables and some relief from the worry of affording the next meal. I'm lucky to have several food rescue charities in my community. We have got Foodbank, SecondBite, FareShare and OzHarvest, and their dedicated volunteers help our community rescue food and get it the people who need it. I recently went on a trip with OzHarvest, out on one of their trucks. We went to the local Woolworths and collected rescued food from there that was otherwise going to be thrown out. I was delighted and surprised when we then, in the exact same truck, pulled up at the Romero Centre, who support refugees and asylum seekers in our community. As we were unloading the food at the Romero Centre, we had people turning up who were looking for food there. So it was amazing to see that food rescue in action in our community. Their generosity deserves our gratitude. Their work also needs national leadership and practical support. We need to prevent food waste from the farm through to the supermarket and, yes, in our own homes. We need to help households waste less and get more surplus food to the people who need it. Everyone deserves access to safe, nutritious food, wherever they live and whatever they earn. We grow enough food to do better. We owe it to every family who is struggling to afford dinner that we act. The Albanese Labor government is developing Feeding Australia: A National Food Security Strategy, to strengthen our food system. We have released Australia's Circular Economy Framework and committed to doubling Australia's circularity by 2035. That means keeping resources in use for longer and wasting less. We have set a national direction, and we're developing the strategy to strengthen food security. There is more to do. I will keep working for a community where everyone can afford to eat well and food waste is a thing of the past. Comments that One Nation's leader made on a podcast last year have recently resurfaced. I want to address the hurt that has been caused by Senator Hanson's comments. On that podcast, Senator Hanson said: What the hell have they done in this country for, you know, supposedly 60,000 years? … … … There was nothing there. What are we actually holding up? A few, you know, rock paintings … they're the most primitive race on Earth … I thought about ignoring these statements, and, believe me, I did try. I was fearful of giving them more air time and exposure. But I just can't ignore them. I want to be really clear. Those words are racist. They are cruel and they are plainly inaccurate. They are unacceptable from anyone, especially a member of this parliament. Long before British settlement, First Nations people cared for this continent through knowledge developed and shared over tens of thousands of years. They used fire to care for country and managed food sources through a deep understanding of the seasons. They built fish traps and complex water systems. They established trade networks that connected communities across vast distances. They studied the stars and understood the uses of plants for food and for medicine. Generations passed on this knowledge alongside languages, laws and responsibilities to land and water. The oldest continuing cultures on the planet deserve our respect. Their achievements deserve celebration and their history deserves to be taught with pride. Racism causes harm far beyond the moment someone speaks. It can follow a child into a classroom or leave someone feeling unsafe in their own neighbourhood. It humiliates people and it tells them that they don't belong. Language like Senator Hanson's stokes the flames of racism. It gives prejudice a public platform and encourages others to treat their neighbours as lesser people. We know Hanson has form with this. It's absolutely unacceptable, and I will continue to stand against that kind of abhorrent rhetoric in our community. Question agreed to. Federation Chamber adjourned at 13:26